HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPR - JUNE 1972Bakersfield, California, April 3, 1972
171.
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 3, 1972.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Richard
Webb of the First Baptist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Minutes of the regular meeting of March 27, 1972 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Jill Haddad, Chairman of the Citizens Committee to
reinstate Don Lake, a discharged City Firefighter, read a prepared
statement requesting that Mr. Lake be given his job back immediately
with full pay from the date of his suspension to the date of his
reinstatement. Mrs. Haddad stated that this was the last time she
planned to appear before the City Council on this issue. Upon a
motion by Councilman Heisey, the statement was received and referred
to the City Attorney for evaluation and report back to the Council.
Mr. Don Hoffman, Executive Secretary of the Kern County
Firefighters' Union, read a prepared statement requesting the
reinstatement of Don Lake, discharged City Firefighter. He also
stressed the fact that there are inequities and inconsistencies
existing in the City Charter which should be corrected.
Mrs. Dorothy Loving addressed the Council, stating that
she is speaking as a member of the California School Employees
Association, as a member of the First Southern Baptist Church, as
a member of four different PTA's, and as a member of the Professional
and Business Womens Club. She stated that all of these people and
organizations will stand behind her, if necessary.
Mrs. Loving displayed two posters and a jacket patch to
the Council, stating that this objectionable material is being
viewed by and sold to minors at a business known as the Melting
Bakersfield, California, April 3, 1972 - Page 2
Pot Imports at 2022 Chester Avenue. She asked the Council what
can be done to have this type of business stopped.
Councilman Heisey stated he was as shocked as Mrs. Loving.
He is appaled that signs of this nature can be displayed and sold
to minors. He asked Mr. Hoagland what action he or the Chief of
Police can take on this matter.
Mr. Hoagland stated the District Attorney has a task
force to police this type of activity, however, he would assume
the Supreme Court would consider it freedom of expression under
the First Amendment. Councilman Heisey asked if this type of
business could not be regulated through the Business License or
by increasing the Business License fees, and Mr. Hoagland replied
that it is a possibility, but the Business License fee could not
be so discriminating that it is only a disguise to close the business
down. He suggested that District Attorney Leddy be contacted, he
is not prepared to say he can do anything, but he has been working
on matters of this kind.
Councilman Whittemore commented thai he is aware there
are many other cities as frustrated as this City because of the
inability to eliminate smut peddlers under the law. He asked the
City Attorney if there wasn't something that the Council can do at
this time.
Mr. Hoagland pointed out that the State Legislature has
been wrestling with this problem for a long time, and every time
they pass another piece of legislation, it is struck down by the
courts. It has been frustrating to all cities, it is not unique
to Bakersfield.
After additional discussion, Mr. Hoagland stated he would
arrange an appointment for Mrs. Loving to meet with the District
Attorney and disucss her complaint regarding the offensive material
which is being sold to minors.
Mr. Jack Williams, owner of the business known as the
Melting Pot, addressed the Council, and displayed several nude
pictures which he stated he had purchased at a gift store in Valley
Plaza. Mr. Williams stated thai this kind of thing is all over the
country, but he will be very glad to return to his establishment
and remove any offensive drawings or posters, as he is very anxious
173
Bakersfield, California, April 3, 1972 - Page 3
been submitted to
Councilman Thomas,
file.
to retain the approval of the PTA members, and he does not wish
his store to be compared to businesses on 19th Street of the City.
Reports.
In response to a request from the Council at the last
meeting, City Manager Bergen reported on the subject of Call Back
for the Imperial Hotel Fire. He stated that it was his understanding
the response was fairly poor, but he has discussed this specifically
with the Fire Chief and he considers the response good. Memorandum
from Fire Chief Haggard and a summary of the call back record has
each member of the Council. Upon a motion by
the report was received and ordered placed on
Councilman Rees, Chairman of the Budget Review and Finance
Committee, reported on the Downtown Redevelopment Project and
Development of the Bank of America Site.
The Bank of America for some time has been desirous of
developing a main office on a site owned by them in the block
located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Chester and
Truxtun Avenues. Some months ago, they accepted proposals from
four developers relative to the development of a bank, an office
tower and limited retail facilities. The bank and the potential
developers have stated unequivocally that such a development is
not economically feasible unless the City or the Redevelopment
Agency can assist financially and otherwise, by purchasing a portion
of the site and providing parking on such portion and adjacent land,
with the developer and the Bank of America paying a price for the
parking economically feasible for the developer and the bank.
The bank chose as the developer, Arcon, Inc. of San
Francisco, to construct a building for the bank and to construct
the office tower and retail facilities for Arcoh's own account.
Schematic plans have been prepared and submitted to the Agency and
the City, which would provide Bakersfield with a substantial and
significant new development in the center of downtown.
Bakersfield, California, April 3, 1972 - Page 4
Eugene B. Jacobs, Special Counsel for the Redevelopment
Agency, has proposed and recommended that the City and the Agency
adopt a plan for two redevelopment projects encompassing this and
adjacent areas, including a public parking garage built with funds
borrowed by the Redevelopment Agency through the issuance of bonds
supported either by lease-purchase arrangement between the Agency
and the City in which the City guarantees the lease payments and
is reimbursed from parking revenues and redevelopment tax increments,
or supported solely by the parking revenues and redevelopment fax
increments which would accrue from the increase in assessed valua-
tions provided by the new development and other developments in
the project area. Following Mr. Jacobs' recommendation, the
Redevelopment Agency has:
Authorized the Community Development Director
of the Agency to enter into an Agreement to
Neogtiate exclusively for a Participation
Agreement to proceed with the development
with Arcon, Inc. Such negotiations are esti-
mated to require less than 60 days.
Authorized the Community Development Director
to prepare and negotiate an agreement for
Arcon, Inc. to design and prepare the plans
for the parking facility in conjunction with
the other private plans if a local Architect
is associated. Such an agreement must be
returned to the Redevelopment Agency for
approval.
3. Adopted Resolution RA1-72 recommending that,
(a) Empire Square Project be repealed and
cancelled.
(b) The Redevelopment Survey Area be expanded.
(c) A new redevelopment project be commenced.
In order to proceed with a proposed time schedule leading
to the adoption of a redevelopment plan, certain resolutions need
to be adopted. It is the recommendation of this Committee that
the City Council
the City Manager,
Mr. Jacobs.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees,
proceed as recommended by the Redevelopment Agency,
the City Attorney, the City Planning Director and[
the report was adopted.
Bakersfield, California, April 3, 1972 - Page 5
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 17-72
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the designation
of Downtown Redevelopment Survey Area, was adopted by the followins;
vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 18-72
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield directing the Planning
Commission to repeal and cancel the Empire Square Redevelopment
Project; to repeal and cancel the Preliminary Plan for the Empire
Square Redevelopment Project; to select a new Redevelopment Project
Area within the Downtown Redevelopment Survey Area as amended, and
to formulate a Preliminary Plan for the Redevelopment of the New
Project Area, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes:
Absent:
None
Councilman Bleecker
Councilman Medders, member of the Legislative Committee,
reported on AB 232 which allows time off from the job during working
hours to prepare for representation and to represent employees of
public agencies within the scope of the employees' organizations
and representation of local safety employees. Upon a motion by
Councilman Medders, the City Attorney was instructed to prepare the
necessary communications to the members of the Assembly Committee
on Employment and Public Employees, expressing the Council's
opposition to AB 232.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Medders,
the Council went on record as supporting ACA 31 which proposes a
Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the Legislature from enacting
any statute which requires any City or County to administer any
program, unless the Legislature provides for subventions to such
County and City in an amount equal to the cost of such program.
The City Attorney was requested to direct the appropriate communica-
tion to the Assembly Committee on Local Government and to the City's
Assemblymen, expressing the Council's support of ACA 31.
176
Bakersfield, California, April 3, 1972 - Page 6
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a)
(b)
Allowance of Claims Nos. 3063 to 3132,
inclusive, in amount of $43,416.69.
Change Order No. i for Contract No. 13-72
for Phase One Relocation of Sewer Mains
for State Route 58 Freeway.
(c)
Plans and Specifications for Improving
New Stine Road between Ming Avenue and
Wilson Road.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b) and
(c) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following roll
call vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Adoption of Resolution No. 19-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field adopting the H.~using Element
of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan.
At this time the Council further considered the adoption
of the Housing Element of the Bakersfield Area General Plan.
Councilman Rucker stated that Mr. Cicero Goddard wished to be heard
before the Housing Element was adopted.
Mr. Goddard stated there are many things which have led
him to believe there is some insincerity in the planning for the
development of adequate housing for the poor in certain areas
around the City. He cited the following:
The County offered the City $10,000 for a
lot to build a Library in the southeast
Bakersfield area. This has probably been
tied up in Committee, as no one seems to
know anything about it; it causes him to
wonder what the problems are.
The City of Bakersfield qualified itself
two years ago to correct substandard
dwellings in the Sunset-Mayflower area
under a Workable Program and to date no
one seems to know what has happened there,
or what happened to the Workable Program.
Under HUD regulations, a Target Area Com-
mittee made up of residents of the Target
area is to be established for each urban
renewal program in which residential re-
habilitation activities are considered.
These committees shall be made up of a
fair cross section of the urban renewal
area. He finds that nobody in the area
knows anything about this, no one has been
asked or appointed to work along with the
City.
177
Bakersfield, California, April 3, 1972 - Page 7
He would like some answers in order to pass the information
along to the residents of the poorer neighborhoods who have been
questioning him regarding HUD programs in the City.
Councilman Whittemore commented that the City does not
buy libraries, the County allocates funds for this purpose. Mr.
Goddard stated he was asking about the acre of land which the City
had agreed to sell the County for a library building.
Mr. Bergen stated that the County staff had contacted
the City administration with regard to purchasing an acre of the
parcel which the City has acquired for future development of a
Corporation Yard on Brundage Lane. The City Council has not
received any official offer from the County Board of Supervisors,
nor has it told the County it would sell an acre for $10,000. The
County Right-Of-Way Department contacted the Director of Public
Works and asked if an acre would be available for purchase by the
County to be used for a library building. The Public Works Depart-.
ment is presently evaluating this request. The land has not been
committed to the County for $10,000, the matter has not been
brought before the Council or referred to a Council Committee for
study.
Mr. Bergen commented that the other matters referred to
by Mr. Goddard are somewhat out of context. The staff is aware
that getting involved in a HUD project in a particular area requires
the establishment of a Target Area Committee. At one time when it
was thought that the City would be starting a project, the matter
was discussed with KCEOC and specific members of the community,
but they never got far enough down the road to receive HUD's
approval on a project, so they did not feel it would accomplish
anything to involve the people in the area by appointing a committee.
Some of Mr. Goddard's other comments refer to the Concen-
trated Code Enforcement Section of the Workable Program. Some
years ago the staff was very enthusiastic that several of these
areas would qualify and specific applications were made which HUD
indicated would not qualify. In the City's application for a
Workable Program two years ago, HUD led the City to believe that a
Bakersfield, California, April 3, 1972 - Page 8
Concentrated Code Enforcement Program would qualify. To date no
project under the Workable Program has received HUD assistance.
Councilman Rees commented that he has read the City's
proposed Workable Program and he has read the evaluation of it,
as he was somewhat concerned as to whether the City was doing
everything possible to improve conditions for the poor, to carry
out the directives of the Federal Government, and he has listened
with interest to Mr. Goddard's comments on the Workable Program.
The City has made an effort, however limited, to improve housing
standards and to tear down old dilapidated houses that were unsafe
for children, has attempted to require landlords to improve housing
when the tenants change and the property is sold; these are some of
the things that the City is trying to do in a small way. He
recognizes that the Federal Government's criticism and evaluation
was valid in some cases. Mr. Goddard has read over the same para-
graphs and then says that "nobody seems to know anything about it."
Councilman Rees went on to say that he is very sensitive
to a responsible approach to problems of the minority and the poor
people, and he does not think Mr. Goddard's approach is responsible.
He realizes that the City hasn't done everything it should and it
has more things to do. That doesn't mean that the City intends to
shuck off its responsibility, but if there is Federal money to be
spent, it should be provided in the center of the greatest problem,
and that, unfortunately, is outside the limits of the City of
Bakersfield.
Mr. Bergen stated that he had talked to Mr. Goddard
today, and he would be glad to go over the Workable Program with
him and indicate page by page, what the City has done and has not
been able to do. There has not been one program that the Federal
Government has made available to the City of Bakersfield because
it has a Workable Program. The City has continued with its own
program of removing substandard dilapidated homes, primarily rentals.
The City was doing this before the Workable Program and they plan
to continue it in the future, as the staff feels that a good job
has been done along these lines.
Bakersfield, California, April 3, 1972 - Page 9
Councilman Rucker stated that the citizens themselves
have been improving the dilapidated structures in the Mayflower
area, they have made considerable effort to improve the appearance
of their homes over the years. He does not think future renewal
efforts should be too hard on the people who have built homes for
themselves piece by piece, and that funds should be made available
to renovate existing structures.
Councilman Heisey complimented Mr. Rucker on his state-
ment, saying that it is timely and very accurate, as the residents
have built up the Mayflower area through their own hard work and
it is a real credit to the community.
After some additional discussion, upon a motion by
Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No. 19-72 of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield adopting the Housing Element of the Bakersfield[
Metropolitan Area General Plan, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Action deferred for two weeks on adoption
of an Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield adding Section
11.04.797 to the Municipal Code (Speed
Limit on White Lane east from South "H"
Street to the easterly City Limits).
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore
proposed Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adding
Section 11.04.797 to the Municipal Code (Speed Limit on White Lane
east from South "H" Street to the easterly City Limits) was deferred
for two weeks. Councilman Whittemore stated he respects the Traffic
Authority's recommendation to increase the speed limit to 35 miles
per hour, but he is meeting with the PTA at the school and would
like to discuss this matter with this organization before any
action is taken.
Bakersfield, California, April 3, 1972 - Page lO
Approval of Plans and Specifications
for the Street Improvement and Traffic
Signal Modification on Columbus Street
at Union Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Plans and Specifica-
tions for the Street Improvement and Traffic Signal Modification
on Columbus Street at Union Avenue, were approved, and the Finance
Director was authorized to advertise for bids.
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3532-A
and Mayor authorized to execute the
Contract and Specifications for
improvements therein.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, it is ordered that
the Map of Tract No. 3532, Unit "A", be and the same is hereby
approved, that the continuing easement and right of way over Lot
61 be, and the same is hereby accepted. And it is further ordered
that Belle Terrace shown upon said Map and therein offered for
dedication be and the same is hereby accepted for public use.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11587 of the Business and
Professions Code, the City Council hereby waives the requirement
of signatures of the following:
NAME NATURE OF INTEREST
Tenneco West Inc. as successor Mineral Rights below 500 feet
in Interest to
Kern County Land Company
The Clerk of this Council is directed to endorse upon the
face of said Map a copy of this order authenticated by the Seal of
the City Council of the City of Bakersfield and the Mayor is
authorized to execute the contract and specifications for improve-
ments in said Tract.
Adoption of Resolution No. 20-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field authorizing and directing the
Mayor to execute on behalf of City
an Agreement relating to preparation
of Population Estimate by State
Department of Finance for City.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 20-72
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield authorizing and directing
the Mayor to execute on behalf of City an Agreement relating to
Bakersfield, California, April 3, 1972
Page 11
preparation of Population Estimate
for City
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
transfer of funds in amount of $440.00 to cover the fee
service by the State Department of Finance.
Councilman Whittemore stated that he had been
regarding the scheduling of adult league baseball teams,
by State Department of Finance
by the following vote:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
None
Councilman Bleecker
The Finance Director was authorized to make the necessary
for this
contacted
that some
of them were unable to sign-up today for the summer program. He
asked if this program can be expanded to include all the teams who
desire to sign-up for the program.
Mr. Graviss, Auditorium-Recreation Manager, stated that
the sign-ups were opened this morning at eight o'clock A.M. and
by 9:15 A.M., the 78 teams scheduled for the program had been
signed up, with 22 additional teams on the waiting list by noon.
Mr. Graviss pointed out that there are a limited number of lighted
diamonds available and that funds have not been budgeted to pay
referees and umpires for more than the scheduled number of teams.
Councilman Whittemore moved that the matter be referred
to the Auditorium-Recreation Committee for study and recommendation
back to the Council. This motion carried unanimously.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the meeting was adjourned at
9:30 P.M.
Calif.
ATTEST:
' ~% ' ~ of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, April 10~ 1972
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 10~ 1972.
In the absence of Mayor Hart, Vice-Mayor Whittemore called
the meeting to order~ followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and
Invocation by Councilman Walter Heisey.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: Mayor Hart
Minutes of the regular meeting of April 3, 1972 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Dollie Teters, 4218 Columbus Avenue, addressed the
Council, stating thai the National Women's Political Caucus of
Kern County is currently in the process of auditing and surveying
the appointive Boards and Commissions of the City of Bakersfield
and the County of Kern. In order to do this it is necessary that
the members be permitted to inspect certain records of the City
Clerk. The City Clerk has refused to allow them to do so. They
are requesting that the City Council of Bakersfield instruct the
City Clerk of Bakersfield regarding the law and that they be given
access to any public information in her office, as prescribed by
the law of the State of California.
Councilman Rees asked the City Attorney for his comments..
Mr. Hoagland stated that many people ask the City Clerk to prepare
documents and she has the right to charge them for this service.
It is true that the public may have access to public records, but
it is not the duty of the City Clerk to prepare any documents and
that applies to other departments as well.
Councilman Rees stated that he would think that reasonable
courtesy would be granted, if it does not involve labor and expense.
City Clerk Irvin explained that the lists requested by
this organization were not available, had not been compiled and
she had told Mrs. Teters that a charge of $5.00 an hour was the
Bakersfield, California, April 10, 1972 - Page 2
customary fee for searching the Minute Books under the supervision
of a member of her staff.
Councilman Whirremote commented that the official records
of the City of Bakersfield cannot be turned over to anyone for
research, they must be supervised by a member of the City Clerk's
staff, and the charge of $5.00 an hour is to cover the employee's
time while performing this service.
Councilman Bleecker stated that in the years he has been
on the City Council he has found that the City Clerk has been most
cooperative in granting requests which are reasonable and sound.
In his opinion, this organization will have to comply with the
policy of the City of Bakersfield in order to inspect the records.
Mrs. Teters stated that what the National Women's Political
Caucus of Kern County would like to do is audit at City level,
Boards, Commission and Committees as to membership and how long the
members had served, from the time the Committees were first estab-
lished.
City Manager Bergen stated that a running account is not
kept, it is contained in the Minute Books, so it would be necessary
to research these books page by page to obtain this type of infor-
mation.
Mrs. Irvin stated that it has been the policy of her
office to make a charge to cover the Clerk's time who would super-
vise the researching of her records, she did not feel that she was
being unreasonable to request that this organization conform to the
established procedures of the office.
Councilman Rees stated he would like to register an
individual Councilman's opinion that within reason these records
be provided as long as they are not abused or removed from the City
Hall, and that whatever assistance necessary should be made avail-
able without any charge whatsoever.
Councilman Meisey agreed that the City Clerk's program
is a reasonable one, the Council is familiar with the cramped
quarters of the City Clerk's office and it is obvious to him that
these records would have to be extensively researched in some other
Bakersfield, California, April 10, 1972 - Page 3
be made available
a fee, that perhaps carbon copies of records could be made at
charge to the public.
Councilman Rees stated that he would have to oppose
area besides the City Clerk's office, and will require supervision.
The $5.00 fee has been in existence for some time and he cannot see
any reason why it should be waived.
Councilman Whittemore stated he remembered when he first
came on the Council that the $5.00 an hour fee was established by
the Council because so many demands were being made on the City
Clerk's office for copies of records and transcripts of Council
meetings.
Mr. Bergen pointed out that citizens come into the Clerk's
office every day and request records of a certain date; there is no
charge for this type of service. However, an exhaustive survey of
the records could require several week's time~ the membership of
every board and commission could not be determined in a few days.
Councilman Medders stated that he does not wish to keep
the records from anyone, but he would move that the City Clerk
follow the normal procedure, with staff supervision, at the customary
fee.
Councilman Rucker remarked that he feels the records should
to the citizens to peruse without the payment of
no
the
motion as it would appear to him that a citizen could be trusted
to examine the minutes or records of the City in a room adjoining
the Clerk's office without supervision. Assuming that they are
pursuing a responsible course of action as citizens, they need not
be subjected to a charge for searching the records.
Councilman Bleecker commented that what Councilman Rees
has said may be true in most cases; however, it is not a Council-
man's responsibility to safeguard the records of the City of Bakers-
field. It is the responsibility of the City Clerk to see that these
records are properly protected when they are turned over to the
public. He would therefore support Councilman Medders' motion.
Councilman Heisey stated that it might be a good idea to
give some thought to microfilming these records in the future and
file them in the Hall of Records so that the public would have
access to them.
Bakersfield~ California, April 10, 1972 - Page 4
Mr. Bergen advised that he has duplicate copies of the
Minutes filed in his office for possibly the last ten years, and
he would make them available to this group.
Councilman Thomas asked if copies of the Roster of Council-
men and Commissions were kept, but this has not been done.
Mrs. Betty Mason, Alternate Chairman of the Audit Committee,
for the National Women's Political Caucus of Kern County, stated
they have just finished a survey with a great deal of research at
the County level and it has been presented to the public library.
This organization is merely asking to inspect the record, they wil~[
do the research, all the work, they are professional people and
can be trusted with the records.
After additional discussion, Councilman Rees offered a
substitute motion that the City Manager, City Attorney and City
Clerk review the matter with the idea of arriving at a solution,
and report back to the Council at the next meeting.
Councilman Bleecker stated he wanted to speak against
the substitute motion. He does not think the Council should change
its normal procedures at the'request of every group, the fee which
the City Clerk is charging for supervision is reasonable and sound.
It could cost the City a great deal of money over a period of years,
just doing research for other people and he would strongly urge the
Council not to change the policy at this time.
Roll call vote taken on the substitute motion carried as
follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders
None
Mr. Joe Green, citizen of Kern County, stated he was here
tonight to talk on the subject of the offer that the County had
made to the City to purchase a one acre site on Brundage Lane for a
library in the southeast area.
Bakersfield, California, April 10, 1972 - Page 5
This matter was brought up at the last Council meeting
and at that time either the City Manager or the Director of Public
Works stated that the County had never made an offer to the City
of Bakersfield for the purchase of that property. He then read a
letter addressed to the Director of Public Works Jing, dated
January 24, 1972, from the Kern County Property Management Depart-
ment, which stated that the County of Kern anticipates establishinlg
a County library in southeast Bakersfield and has determined that
the most desirable site falls on a one acre parcel owned by the
City on Brundage Lane. Subject to final acceptance of Grant Deed
by the County Board of Supervisors, the County offers to purchase
from the City this one acre parcel for the full sum of $9,000.
Early consideration and response to this offer is urgently requested.
Mr. Green stated that there had been no response from the
City Council, so the County of Kern wrote another letter to the
City of Bakersfield on March 9th asking the current progress of
the County's offer to purchase this one acre parcel. Mr. Green is
concerned with this because if the County does not have a lot avail-
able for this library, the funds will be used for another project,
possibly a Fire Station in Lamont. He fees that the City should
indicate whether or not it will accept the County's offer.
City Manager Bergen commented that Mr. Green was present
last week when he specifically stated that the staff was discussing:
this matter, but it had not been submitted to the City Council. Mr.
Bergen read a letter addressed to the County Property Management
Officer, dated April 7, 1972, and signed by Mr. Dale Hawley, Deputy
Director of Public Works on behalf of Mr. Jing, in which he acknow-
ledged receipt of previous correspondence from the County offering
to purchase one acre of land on Brundage Lane, and stated that the
City is presently evaluating the request and, hopefully, will be
able to make a recommendation within two weeks.
Councilman Heisey stated that it is not surplus property,
it was acquired by the City for a specific purpose. Until the staff
comes up with its recommendation, he is sure there will not be any
consideration given to the County's offer by the Council.
187
Bakersfield~ California, April 10, 1972 - Page 6
Commenting that Mr. Bergen has clarified the matter for
him, Councilman Rucker read Mr. Bergen's comments to the Council
~rom the Minutes of the Council's meeting of April 3, 1972.
Mr. Green stated that the Chairman of the Board of Super.-
visors felt that it would not be proper for the County to make a
direct offer to the City Council. However, it is working in reverse,
as departments are contacting each other, instead of the Board of
Supervisors and the City Council negotiating for this purchase.
Councilman Bleecker stated that it has been his experience
that a firm offer makes a lot of difference. He feels that the
Board of Supervisors should make a firm offer to the City Council
which might help the staff make a decision as to whether they want
to bring the matter to the Council. He advised Mr. Green not to
wait around too long, as there are other parcels which could be
used for this same purpose, and might be sold in the interim period.
Councilman Heisey pointed out that the strength of the
City lies in the fact that the Council has a fine administrative
officer and department heads; the Council sits only as a policy
making board, working through its staff which insures efficient
operation of the City. It would be most inappropriate for the
Board to make a direct offer to the Council, the proper channel is
through the staff, and they have done this in the right manner.
Councilman Whittemore stated that when the City purchased
that property they analyzed the need to acquire it for Corporation
Yard purposes, and i~ one acre were sold, perhaps the balance would
not be adequate for the City's needs. This is the reason the staff
is taking sufficient time to evaluate the matter.
Mr. Bergen stated that this was true. If the County was
able to acquire an acre adjacent to the property on Brundage Lane
that could be put together with the City's four acre parcel, the
City would be very willing to recommend that they just trade property
with the County. On March 9th it became apparent that the County
would not be able to acquire this one acre parcel. This discussion
was held at the staff level, not the Council level.
Bakersfield, California, April 10, 1972 - Page 7
Mr. Green stated that perhaps
the City of the time element involved, that
diverted for another purpose, if the County
for the library when the funds are received.
the County had not informed
these funds will be
has not acquired property
Councilman Whittemore pointed out that the City Manager
had indicated a report would be forthcoming within two weeks which
would certainly be within the 'time limit for using the funds for
the library program.
Mr. Floyd Hall, addressed the Council regarding the
community owned Cunningham Gallery which is operated under the
management of the Bakersfield Art Association. He outlined the
many activities of the Gallery, the fund raising projects, the
sidewalk displays, and extended an invitation to the Council to
visit the gallery and view the exhibits and attend the many shows
held by artists from all over the country.
Councilman Heisey extended his thanks to Mr. Hall and
everyone in the Bakersfield Art Association for the tremendous
job they have done, stating that he is aware how much students
enjoy visiting the Cunningham Memorial Art Gallery.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, communication from
Mr. Wesley G. Bruer, State Geologist, Division of Mines and Geology,
acknowledging receipt of Resolution which completes the required
conditions for the City of Bakersfield under Section 2708, Public
Resources Code, and certifying that the City of Bakersfield is
exempt from the fee collection provisions of Section 2705, was
received and ordered placed on file.
Council Statements.
Councilman Rees stated that last weekend an eight year
old girl fell from the bluffs on Panorama Drive and received
multiple injuries. It was called to his attention, he has no sub-
stantiation and it is hearsay, from a boy who witnessed the accident,
Bakersfield, California, April 10, 1972 - Page 8
that the ambulance drivers were discussing whether the accident
occurred in the City or the County, which had jurisdiction. Also,
that the injured girl was subjected to interrogation by someone at
the scene of the accident. He has no reason to doubt the veracity
of the boy's statements, and he wondered why and how these embarassing
situations occur and if there is any possible way of escaping them.
After some discussion, Mr. Bergen stated that he would
endeavor to ascertain what transpired and report back to the Council.
Councilman Heisey made a motion to authorize the Citizens
Advisory Committee for the Metropolitan Transit District to write
the argument in favor of the Transit District to be included on
the June ballot. This motion carried unanimously.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Heisey, Mr. Burr Baldwin was re-appointed as a member of the
Planning Commission for a four year term expiring April 17, 1976.
Reports.
Councilman Rees, Chairman of the Budget Review and Finance
Committee, reported that on January 31, 1972, the City Council
adopted the City's application for 1972-74 Workable Program Re-
Certification. The application was then submitted to the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for review. The
Planning Director has met with HUD officials who indicated that
they felt certain sections of the application needed modification.
This Committee and staff have met several times to reveiw
the application and the specific areas of question by HUD officials.
As a result of these meetings, the Committee recommends that the
City's Application for 1972-74 Workable Program Re-Certification
be modified as follows:
1. Amend the section on Code and Code Enforce-
ment to reflect the City's adoption of the
1970 Housing, Building and Plumbing Codes.
2. Amend the section on Planning and Programming
to reflect the City's adoption of the Housing
Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan
General Plan.
190
Bakersfield, California, April 10, 1972 - Page 9
Amend the section on Citizens' involvement
to designate the present City's Citizens
Advisory Committee to the Kern County Council
of Governments to act as the communitywide
committee participating in HUD assisted
renewal and housing programs. Change the
composition of said Committee to include
voting members (one each) from the Kern
County Health Department, Kern County
Housing Authority, Kern County Economic
Opportunity Corporation, Elementary School
District, and High School District. Change
the members from the Planning Commission
and the Redevelopment Agency from ex-officio
to voting members. (Present ex-officio City
Department Heads would continue to be non-
voting members of the Committee).
Make additional minor changes throughout
the text of City's application to include
these recommendations.
In conclusion, the Committee recommends that the City
Council receive this report, adopt the modifications to City's
application for 1972-74 Workable Program Re-Certification as
previously outlined, and direct the staff to formally submit same
to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for approval.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, the report was adopted
and the recommendations contained therein are to be implemented.
Councilman Rucker, Chairman of the Auditorium-Recreation
Committee, reported on an Agreement with the Kern Community College
District for the use of the college pool for summer recreational
swimming.
The terms of the agreement were that the college would
furnish the pool, locker room attendants, a cashier, and take care
of the maintenance. The City in turn was to furnish the pool
manager and lifeguards. All revenue received from admission to
the pool was to go to the college. The revenue offset the costs
to the college district. The City's costs were nominal in that
it did not have to build a swimming pool for City residents in
the college area.
This agreement with the college district has worked out
relatively well, however, the Recreation Division has not had the
control that they feel is necessary to maintain an efficient
operation.
Bakersfield, California, April 10, 1972 - Page lO
Recently, the Council's Auditorium-Recreation Committee
met with members of the City staff and representatives of the Kern
Community College District and discussed a plan whereby the City
would take over the complete operation of the college pool for
summer recreational swimming. In order to do this, it will be
necessary for the City to hire an additional cashier, two part-time
locker room attendants and two part-time cleanup men. These employees
will be hired through the college student Work-Study Program, the
college will pay 60% of the salaries and the City the remaining
40~, with the City retaining all revenues which will result in more
income to the City and complete control of the operation of the
pool.
This Committee recommends that the Council enter into a
contract with the Kern Community College District for operation of
the college pool for summer recreation swimming, and also enter
into a contract with the District for student participation under
the Work-Study Program. Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, the
report was adopted.
City Attorney read the following memorandum addressed to
the Mayor and City Council on the subject of Mrs. Jill Haddad's
presentation to the Council:
Mrs. Jill Haddad has filed with the City Council
a document wherein, among other;things, she
alleges the trial board of the Fire Department
is illegally constituted.
It is true that in addition to the three lay
members on the Board, the Charter provides that
the City Manager and Fire Chief serve on the
trial board. However, it must be recognized
that the Fire Chief, with the concurrence of
the City Manager, files the charges against an
employee asking for his dismissal. It is the
opinion of this office that where the Fire Chief
and City Manager have decided an employee should
be discharged, it would be a violation of due
process to sit as a judge on the merits of that
discharge. These two officers have in effect
determined the guilt of the employee before the
trial, and certainly would be expected to main-
tain a consistent opinion of that guilt during
the trial period. Therefore, the Charter pro-
vision cited by Mrs. Haddad can be considered
modified to the extent of having a three-man
trial board which is what is used. Since the
verdict in this case was unanimous, it is
difficult to understand Mrs. Haddad's complaint
in respect to the trial board. Presumably, the
decision would have been five votes to discharge
the employee rather than 'three.
Bakersfield, California, April 10, 1972 - Page
The question was also raised that Mr. Lake was
subjected to double jeopardy. This has been
misinterpreted and misunderstood. Double jeopardy
or former jeopardy, relates to criminal trials
and not civil service hearings. A civil service
commission is a local administrative tribunal
exercising quasijudicial powers. The commission
can not punish an employee by sending him to
jail as can a criminal court. On the other hand,
the criminal court could not order the dismissal
of the employee from the service of the City.
The two tribunals have different powers, exercise
different functions, have different degrees of
proof, have different rules on admissibility of
evidence and the decision in one tribunal is not
a bar to proceedings in the other. The cases in
California so hold.
To illustrate the incongruity of the position
taken by Mrs. Haddad, suppose the civil service
board held a hearing on the discharge of an
employee who is also charged with a crime.
Suppose the civil service board found him not
guilty. Can anyone seriously think this would
be a bar to prosecution in the criminal court.
At any rate, the law cases in California clearly
recognize the distinction between the two entities
and the rule of double jeopardy is not applicable.
The next issue raised by Mrs. Haddad is that of
moonlighting. The prohibition of moonlighting
by Firemen is contained both in the Charter and
Rules and Regulations of the Fire Department.
Until the provisions are removed by the electorate,
or the courts determine that it is an unreasonable
requirement, all Firemen are subject to discipli-
nary action upon conviction for violation of the
rules. Don Lake was not singled out for moon-
lighting. He was found guilty of conduct pre-
judicial to the good reputation of the Fire De-
partment and moonlighting, either charge which
could sus'~n discharge. The courts will not
re-evaluate the evidence as long as there is
evidence to sustain the decision. Five witnesses
testified Don Lake admitted taking the property
of another from the Woody's Toy Store. Don Lake,
a person who had most at stake, testified contrary
to the five witnesses. The discretion of the
board to weigh the evidence and decide the
credibility of the witnesses in complete, and
in the opinion of this office will not be disturbed
on appeal to the courts.
One final area should be touched upon, Mrs.
Haddad has asked the Council to reinstate Lake.
The Council does not a~at prerogative. As
a matter of fact, the Charter, Section 17, pro-
hibits the Council from taking any part in the
appointment, promotion or dismissal of any
officers or employees of the City, other than
officers of the Council. Mrs. Haddad's appeal,
if any she has, is to the courts.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the report was
received and ordered placed on file.
Mrs. Jill Haddad, Chairman of the Citizens Committee to
Reinstate Don Lake, stated that she is a qualified mortgage loan
Bakersfield, California, April 10, 1972 - Page 12
officer, not an attorney, and proceeded to direct a series of
questions to the Council regarding the City Attorney's report to
the Council.
In his memorandum, Mr. Hoagland reported that Don Lake
was not singled out for moonlighting. She informed the Council
that at the Civil Service hearing the Manager of Woody's Toy Circus
submitted a payroll record of ten City Firemen who had worked for
this business for the past three years, and she asked how Mr.
Hoagland could disregard the other seven men on the payroll who
apparently were moonlighting.
Mr. Hoagland commented that from the context of Mrs.
Haddad's remarks, she expected him to file charges against these
Firemen. If this is to be pursued, it should be done by the Chief
of the Fire Department.
Councilman Heisey stated that he felt the Council was
out of order to even listen to Mrs. Haddad's comments, as the City
Attorney stated in his report the Council is prohibited by the
Charter from taking any pamt in the dismissal of any officers or
employees of the City. It is out of the Council's jurisdiction,
and if Mrs. Haddad wishes to appeal this matter, she should go to
the courts.
Mrs. Haddad replied that it is not the court's problem
when Section 200 (18) of the City Charter is violated, that is the
problem of the Council. Councilman Heisey stated he was not aware
that any charges had been filed, until a complaint is filed, no
hearing can be held. Mrs. Haddad said there are City officials
who have violated the Charger and she is filing charges at this
time.
Councilman Whittemore told Mrs. Haddad that she has heard
the City Attorney's opinion, and should be aware that the Council
cannot change the decision of the Fire Department Civil Service
Board. If she has anything additional to add, the Council will
hear her out.
Mrs. Haddad went on. to say that she has appeared before
the Council with a prepared statement for two weeks in a row. She
has been as kind and as patient as she can possibly be, and she
has had no cooperation from the Council, she, personally, will
194
Bakersfield, California, April 10, 1972 - Page 13
seek recourse through the Grand Jury, she has no other alternative
than to turn over all of the evidence that she has for review by
the Grand Jury.
Councilman Heisey stated that he feels Mrs. Haddad has
made a good suggestion to either turn her evidence over to the
Grand Jury or file an action in Court.
Mrs. Haddad asked why should she, or the Firefighters'
Union, be forced to spend more money to take this matter to court,
when they have shown the Council that the City has violated its
own Charter, as the Charter provides that the City Manager and
Fire Chief, in addition to the members of the Fire Department
Civil Service Board, shall serve on the trial board.
Councilman Whittemore pointed out that once the City
Council appoints the members of the Fire Department Civil Service
Board, it has no control over this Commission whatsoever. The
Council is bound by the City Attorney's opinion, and it cannot
intercede in the actions of any Commission or Board, because they
are autonomous once they are appointed.
Mrs. Haddad asked where she could seek recourse if the
Charter has been violated by City offices, and named the City
Attorney, the City Manager and the Chief of the Fire Department
as the officers who have not complied with the Charter provisions.
Mr. Hoagland stated charges against the City Manager and
City Attorney would be filed with the City Council; charges against
the Fire Chief should be filed with the City Manager, as he is the
appointing authority.
Don Hoffman, Executive Secretary of the Firefighters'
Union repeated Mrs. Haddad's arguments regarding the City Attorney's
opinion, stating that the Union's Attorneys are preparing to go to
Superior Court to reinstate Mr. Lake.
Mr. Hoffman asked what will happen when he comes before
the Council with a verified list of 120 names of Firefighters who
are working on their days off. He is considering filing complaints
against each man with the Fire Chief. He stated that the archaic
Bakersfield, California, April 10, 1972 - Page 14
195
Charter is discriminating against only one segment of the employees
of the City and that is the Firefighters. The Council can asked
that this section of the Charter be repealed by the voters, which
will save them the effort of acquiring sufficient signatures to
place it on the ballot. He does not.consider City Policemen in
this category as they have enough work to do within their own
profession. The Council,has a duty
this section from the City Charter.
it can be declared unconstitutional.
Councilman Thomas informed Mr.
to the Firefighters to remove
It is unfair and he believes
Hoffman that a motion had been
made
at an earlier meeting to refer the matter of moonlighting to the
Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee for study and recom-
mendation relative to placing a Charter amendment on the ballot in
November.
Mr. Hoffman stated he is not asking that this section be
repealed without the City retaining some jurisdiction over its
employees, that is very necessary and important.
and
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
the Consent Calendar:
Allowance of Claims Nos. 3133 to 3181,
inclusive, in amount of $68,114.12.
Grant Deed for Sump from Kern-Cal Corp.
and Turn-Around Easement from Kern-Cal
Corp. and CALSC Co. for Tract No, 3413.
Street Right of Way Easement for Ming
Avenue between New Stine Road and Ashe
Road.
Acceptance of Work and Notice of Com-
pletion for Contract No. 7-72 for
Resurfacing portions of University
Avenue, Oswell Street, Fremont Street
and Custer Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c)
(d) of the
Consent Calendar, were adopted by the following vote;:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
Rees, Rucker,
Bakersfield, California, April 10, 1972 - Page 15
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of Visal
Pipeline Construction for Sanitary Sewer Construction in Madison
Street Extension between Planz Road and Watts Drive, was accepted,
all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the contract.
Adoption of Resolution No. 21-72 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 "Ming
No. 5", proposed to be annexed to the
City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution No. 21-72
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield fixing May 8, 1972 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 "Ming No. 5", proposed to be annexed to the City of
Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Request from Peter V. Harrington, for
annexation to the City of property at
the southeast corner of Harris and
Stine Roads and for connection to City
sewer referred to the Planning Com-
mission for study and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, request from Peter
V. Harrington, General Partner of Coco Palms Mobile Home Park, for
annexation to the City of property at the southeast corner of
Harris and Stine Roads and to use the sewer which parallels Stine
Road adjacent to this property, was referred to the Planning Com-
mission for study and recommendation.
Request from Mr. and Mrs. Frank Zabaleta
to connect property at 900 East Planz
Road to sewer line between Watts Drive
and Planz Road referred to the Planning
Commission for study and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, request from Mr.
and Mrs. Frank Zabaleta to connect property at 900 East Planz Road
Bakersfield, California, April 10, 1972 - Page 16
197
to sewer line between Watts Drive and Planz Road, was referred to
the Planning Commission for study and recommendation.
Approval of Supplemental Agreement
between the Atchison, Topeka and Santa
Fe Railway Company and the City of
Bakersfield for lease of property
between "S" and "T" Streets.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Supplemental Agree-
ment between the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company and
the City of Bakersfield for lease of the Railway's property between
"S" and "T" Streets for a material storage yard, was approved and
the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Approval of Agreement between the City
of Bakersfield and Santa Fe Railway
Company for crossing protection at "L"
Street crossing of the Santa Fe Rail-
road.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Agreement between
the City of Bakersfield and Santa Fe Railway Company' for crossing
protection at "L" Street crossing of the Santa Fe Railroad was
approved, and lhe Mayor was authorized to execute the Agreement.
Adoption of Resolution of Intent No.
22-?2 to expend funds allocated to
the City of Bakersfield for a TOPICS
Program.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Resolution of Intent
No. 22-72 to expend funds allocated to the City of Bakersfield for
a TOPICS Program, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the meeting was adjourned at
MAYOR ~f..th~'City of Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
Ex-~3ffic~o Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
198
Bakersfield, California, April 17, 1972
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 17, 1972.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Harold
Bither of the First Assembly of God Church.
Present:
Absent:
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Mayor Hart. Councilmen Heisey,
Thomas,
Councilman Bleecker
Minutes' of the regular meeting of
Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Whirremote
approved as
April 10~ 1972 were
presented.
Presentation to retiring Director
of Public Works William Jing.
Mr. Dean Gay, Chairman of the Planning Commission, read
a Resolution, signed by himself as Chairman, whereby the Planning
Commission went on record as. commending William Jing for his
nearly twenty-six years of service, knowledge and judgment as an
ex-officio member of the Planning Commission.
Vice-Mayor Robert Whittemore presented Mr. Jing with a
plaque in recognition of 25 years service with the Public Works
Department, and thanked him for his dedicated service to the City
of Bakersfield over this period of years.
Mayor Hart presented Mr. Jing with a key to the City
from the Council and the Mayor in gratitude and appreciation for
his services to the City of Bakersfield. Mayor stated that when-
ever Mr. Jing looks at this key he hopes he will know that it stands
for a great deal of affection and good wishes from the City of
Bakersfield.
Correspondence.
The City Clerk read a request from Mrs. Dolly G. Teters,
member of the National Women's Political Caucus/Kern County, to be
appointed to serve on the City Planning Commission to fill vacancy
occurring on April 17, 1972.
199
Bakersfield, California, April 17, 1972 - Page 2
Councilman Heisey commented that it is a pleasure to
have a volunteer to serve on City commissions or boards, but there
is no opening at this time. He moved that the letter be received
and placed on file for consideration at such time as a vacancy
occurs. This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Rees stated that he, too, was pleased to have
a volunteer let it be known that she is available to serve, which
is quite proper and indicates good citizenship. Mr. Burr Baldwin,
whose term expired today, was re-appointed to the last meeting for
a four year term on the Planning Commission. No one etse's name
was suggested at the time the re-appointment was made.
Mayor Hart commented that Mrs. Teter's resume indicates
she is qualified in a great many fields. At the present time a
vacancy exists for Council representation on the Board of Directors
of the Kern County Economic Opportunity Corporation. There will
be vacancies on City commissions in the future and this candidate
can be considered for appointment at that time.
Reports.
The City Manager reported on the discussion last meeting
in connection with the City Clerk's records being made available
to the National Women's Political Caucus for a survey of all City
appointments to City Boards and Commissions.
The City Clerk, City Attorney and the City Manager held
a meeting to discuss policy in connection with use of public records
without supervision. He would consider the City Clerk derelict in
her duties if she made the original records available to the public
without the proper supervision. The City Attorney has researched
the records, and the City Manager read one paragraph of a Supreme
Court decision into the record in defense of City policies.
200
Bakersfield, California, April 17, 1972 - Page 3
We therefore hold thai the rights created by
section 1892 of the Code of Civil Procedure
and section 1227 of the Government Code, are,
by their very nature, not absolute, but are
subject to an implied rule of reason. Further-
more, this inherent reasonableness limitation
should enable the custodian of public records
to formulate regulations necessary to protect
the safety of the records against theft, muti-
lation or accidental damage, to prevent
inspection from interfering with the orderly
function of his office and its employees, and
generally to avoid chaos in the record archives.
Mr. Bergen stated that the $5.00 fee for supervision of
researching the records is considered a reasonable one by the staff.
There are a number of records which are not official, such as copies
of Minutes, Rosters, etc., which can be made available upon request,
and hopefully, that will take care of the problem.
Mr. Bergen read a recommendation from the Public Works
Department regarding the 4.3 acres of land purchased by the City
several years ago for future expansion of the Corporation Yard,
as follows:
We have investigated the possibility of expand-
ing the corporation site on Brundage Lane by
acquiring the additional 1.5 acres from the City
School District. The District has indicated
they would prefer not to sell to the City but
would lease the land on a year to year basis.
(In fact they stated they could not sell to the
City).
We have also investigated the possibility of
acquiring land on the east side of the City
property, however, this land is improved with
homes and would require relocation of the
occupants.
Since the acquisition of this property, the City
has annexed over six square miles, mostly in the
southwest area. Due to the accelerated growth
in the southwest, it is felt that a larger site
is needed close to this projected growth.
Mr. Bergen stated that therefore, it is recommended the
City offer for sale the one acre site as requested by the County
for $10,000.
Councilman Heisey stated he appreciated the staff's
recommendation. This matter has never been reviewed by the Budget
Review and Finance Committee, the property has never been declared
surplus. He moved to refer this matter to the Budget Review and
Finance Committee for consideration and report back, possibly by
next week, as he understands there is a time element involved.
Bakersfield, California, April 17, 1972 - Page 4
Councilman Rees asked if a week's delay would have any
bearing on this transaction. Mr. Bergen stated he wasn't sure,
but one problem is holding a committee meeting on the matter,
Councilmen are not always available.
Councilman Rucker asked why it was necessary to refer
this matter to the Council Committee and questioned Mr. Bergen
whether he felt the price asked for the property is a fair one.
Mr. Bergen replied that the staff feels it is a good price. They
would prefer to sell the entire parcel, but he has been informed
that if it were a condition of the offer to take the entire parcel,
the County would not be in a position to accept it. The staff
feels that the construction of a library would be beneficial to
the residents and a worthwhile improvement of the area.
Councilman Heisey pointed out that policy matters are
decided by the Council and this is a policy decision. He doesn't
think the staff intends to usurp the prerogative of the Council
to determine policy, it is just making a recommendation, and he
feels it is most appropriate to refer the recommendation to the
proper committee for evaluation.
Councilman Rucker stated that since the Council is in
session tonight, he would suggest action be taken at this meeting
rather than referring it to a committee, unless there is something
that hasn't been brought out by the staff.
Councilman Whirremote commented that he believes there
is a time limit of possibly another week or ten days for the
County to either use its funds for a library, or they will be
allocated to another project. If the Council wishes to determine
that this parcel of land is not the location for the future
corporation yard, then it can vote on the sale tonight, contingent
upon a ruling of the City Attorney that it may be necessary to
advertise the parcel for sale subject to public bid. He is the
only Councilman who voted against it.when the original purchase
was made, as he thought then it was a poor location with the growth
of the City being.made to the southwest. He is willing to vote now
to abandon any thought of locating the corporation yard on this
Bakersfield~ California, April l?, 1972 - Page 5
property and is willing to offer it for sale, contingent upon the
Attorney's ruling.
Councilman Rucker stated he would hate to delay the matter
to the point that the County would lose the funds lo purchase the
site for a library~ and he is in favor of taking action on it at
this meeting. He then offered a substitute motion that the City
Manager's report be received, and the Council proceed with making
an offer to the County.
Councilman Rees stated he would like to speak on behalf
of the substitute motion, he is Chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee which would consider this matter, provided the
Committee was able to get together for a meeting. Since time is
of the essence, and he can trust the recommendation of the staff
relative to the value of the property and the value of a proposed
library to the community as a whole, he would support Councilman
Rucker's motion to permit the property to be offered to the County
for a library, without taking it to the Committee.
Councilman Heisey then offered a substitute motion to
declare this parcel of property on Brundage Lane surplus.
The City Attorney commented that he can research the
matter as to whether this property can be offered to another
governmental entity within an hour, and will do so immediately on
Tuesday.
Mr. Bergen pointed out that the staff's recommendation
was to offer the property to the County, not a final sale. He
added it is perfectly proper to declare the property surplus and
then offer it to the County.
Councilman Medders asked if anyone with authority from
the County had offered to buy this property from the City.
Bergen stated they had received a letter from the Land Management
Department and he would assume they had the authority to do so.
He is quite sure that they would not be discussing and negotiating
for the property if they did not have the funds to purchase it.
Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's substitute motion to
declare the property surplus carried unanimously.
Vote taken on Councilman Rucker's substitute motion to
offer the one acre parcel to the County carried unanimously.
Bakersfield, California, April 17, 1972 - Page 6
Councilman Heisey stated that he wanted one point clari-
fied, that in requesting the property be declared surplus, he is
assuming it is the entire parcel on Brundage Lane, so it behooves
the staff to find buyers for the balance of the property.
Consent Calendar.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Item (a) of the
Consent Calendar - Allowance of Claims Nos. 3182 to 3275, inclusive,
in amount of $51,443.74 - was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, low bid of Griffith
Company for the improvement of Wible Road between Ming Avenue and
Wilson Road was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the
Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Deferred Business.
Stating that he has talked to the people in the area and
they have no objection to the speed limit being increased to 35
miles per hour, Councilman Whirremote moved adoption of Ordinance
No. 2005 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
adding Section 11.04.797 to the Municipal Code (Speed Limit on
White Lane east from South "H" Street to the Easterly City Limits).
This motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Approval of Agreement and Lease with
the County of Kern for the Operation
and Maintenance of the City Dog Pound.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Medders,
Agreement and Lease with the County of Kern for the Maintenance
and Operation of the City Dog Pound was approved, and the Mayor
was authorized to execute the contract.
Bakersfield, California, April 17, 1972 - Page ?
Mr. Bergen emphasized that no capital improvements will
be made at the present pound and pointed out that last summer the
City employed an additional pound man and expanded the holding
pens at the present site.
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3393.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, it is ordered that
the Map of Tract No. 3393 be, and the same is hereby approved.
That the continuing easement and right of way over Lot 21 be, and
the same is hereby accepted.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11587 of the
Business and Professions Code, the City Council hereby waives the
requirement of signatures
NAME
Tenneco West, Inc.
of the following:
NATURE OF EASEMENT
Mineral Rights below 500
feet
The Clerk of this Council is directed to endorse upon
the face of said Map a copy of this order authenticated by the
Seal of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield.
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3525
and Mayor authorized to execute
Contract and Specifications for
improvements therein.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, it is ordered that
the Map of Tract No. 3525 be, and the same is hereby, approved.
That all the easements, roads, lanes and drives shown upon said
Map, therein offered for dedication be, and the same are hereby
accepted for the purpose for which the same are offered for dedi-
cation.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11587 of the
Business and Professions Code, the Council of the City of Bakers-
field
hereby waives the requirement of signatures of the following:
Bakersfield, California, April 17, 1972 - Page 8
205
NAME
NATURE OF INTEREST
Tenneco West, Inc.
(Formerly Kern County Land Co.)
Mineral Rights below a depth of
500 feet with no right of sur-
face entry.
City of Bakersfield
Holder of Storm Drain Easement
recorded Book 4527, Page 14 O.R.
City of Bakersfield
Holder of Sewer Easement
recorded Book 3139, Page 993,
O.R.
Tenneco West, Inc.
(Formerly Kern County Land
Co.)
The right to pass over and
across said land for ingress to
and egress from any lands of
Kern County Land Company, which
are not accessible from any
public road, highway, or over
other lands of said company as
excepted and reserved in that
deed recorded May 27, 1960 in
Book 3271 at Page 26, O.
County of Kern
Kern Island Water Co.
(Formerly Ashe Water Co.)
Holder of Water Line Easement
recorded Book 3937, Page 266,
O. R.
The Clerk of this Council is directed to endorse upon
the face of said Map a copy of this order authenticated by the
Seal of the Council of the City of Bakersfield and the Mayor is
authorized to execute the Contract and Specifications for the
improvements therein.
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3569
and Mayor authorized to execute
Contract and Specifications for
improvements therein.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, it is ordered that
the Map of Tract No. 3569 be, and the same is hereby approved.
That all the easements, drives, courts and avenue shown upon said
Map, therein offered for dedication be, and the same are hereby
accepted for the purpose for which the same are offered for dedi-
cation.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11587 of the
Business and Professions Code, the Council of the City of Bakers-
field hereby waives the requirement of signatures of the following:
Bakersfield, California, April 17, 1972 - Page 9
NAME
NATURE OF INTEREST
Tenneco West, Inc.
(Formerly Kern County Land Co.)
Mineral Rights below a depth of
500 feet with no right of sur-
face entry.
Tenneco West, Inc.
(Formerly Kern County Land Co.)
The right to pass over and
across said land for ingress to
and egress from any lands of
Kern County Land Company, which
are not accessible from any
public road, highway or over
other lands of said company as
excepted and reserved in that
deed recorded Dec. 29, 1967, in
Book 4116 at Page 612, O. R.,
County of Kern.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Easement Holder per deed
recorded Dec. 24, 1970, in Book
4470, Page 618 of Official
Records.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Easement Holder per deed
recorded June 25, 1971 in Book
4541, Page 624 of Official
Records.
The Clerk of this Council is directed to endorse upon the
face of said Map a copy of this order authenticated by the Seal of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield and the Mayor is authorized
to execute the Contract and Specifications for improvements therein.
Completion date extended to February
4, 1972, Work accepted effective
April 3, 1972, on Contract 77-71;
contractor required to pay $50.00 a
day penalty, and Mayor authorized to
execute the Notice of Completion of
construction of Vernal Place Storm
Drain and Pump Station.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, the completion date
on Contract No. 77-71 was extended to February 4, 1972, the Work
was accepted effective April 3, 1972, and the Contractor, Hemisphere
Contractors, Inc., was required to pay a $50.00 per day penalty
for each day from February 4, 1972 to April 3, 1972, for the con-
struction of the Vernal Place Storm Drain and Pump Station. The
Mayor was authorized to execute the Notice of Completion for
recordation.
Councilman Thomas commented that the residents in the
area were complaining about the dust, and he feels that water trucks
could be used by the Contractor to control this nuisance. Holes
are being left in the pavement which are also causing a dust problem.
He asked the Public Works Department to take the matter up with the
contractor in an effort to alleviate this problem.
Bakersfield, California, April 17, 1972 - Page 10 307
Request from Ellis Equipment Company
to connect property at 2508 East
Brundage Lane to the City Sewer
System referred to the Planning Com-
mission for study and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, request from Ellis
Equipment Company to connect property at 2508 East Brundage Lane
to the City Sewer System, was referred to the Planning Commission
for study and recommendation.
Request for annexation of a portion
of Tentative Tract No. 3617 approved
and referred to the City Engineer and
City Attorney for referral to LAFC.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, request for
annexation to the City of Bakersfield of a portion of Tentative
Tract No. 3617 was approved, and referred to the City Engineer
and City Attorney for referral to LAFC.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on an appeal by the Park Stockdale Civic Association, Inc.
to the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment granting the
application of Tenneco West, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit of
an "A" (Agricultural) Zone to permit the construction, operation
and maintenance of a private heliport on that certain property
located approximately 620 feet east of California Avenue and 1000
feet north of Stockdale Highway.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent as required by law.
This proposed helicopter pad is to be an interim use of
the land until the area develops. Tenneco proposed to store the
helicopter at Meadows Field Airport and use the pad to pick up and
deliver passengers to the Tenneco office complex at New Stine Road
and Stockdale Highway. Tenneco has assured the Board of Zoning
Adjustment and the Planning Staff there will be no night flights
or flights over the neighboring developed residential areas or over'
the Wayne Van Horn Elementary School.
Bakersfield, California, April 17, 1972 - Page ll
The Board of Zoning Adjustment recommended approval of
the Conditional Use Permit with the condition that a paved parking
and turn-around area is provided on the proposed service road
adjacent to the helicopter pad.
Nayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation, and asked if there were persons who wished to speak in
opposition to the granting of the Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Darrel Helms, President of the Park Stockdale Civic
Association, read a short statement, asking that the City Council
reconsider the granting of a Conditional Use Permit to Tenneco,
Inc. for a heliport in the residential communities of Park Stock-
dale and Westpark, north of Stockdale Highway and east of California
Avenue. The residents of Park Stockdale protest the heliport for
the following reasons:
1. Wayne Van Horn School is 1500 feet west of
the proposed site, thus presenting a potential
safety hazard.
2. Use of the heliport will inject an additional
and unnecessary noise factor into environment
of the area.
Accidents are never planned, but the winter
fog conditions are sometimes unpredictable.
If this were a geographical situation with a two to three
hour drive to an airport involved, this could be a significant time
savings, however, when there is an established airport at Meadows
Field fifteen minutes by car from Tenneco's office, the time factor'
becomes inconsequential, and does not warrant any increase in
hazards to the community or to the environment.
Mr. Alfred Marques, representing the Occidental Petroleum
Corporation, stated for the record, that this company will not
protest the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to Tenneco West,
Inc. for a private helicopter site, as long as Occidental is
assured by Tenneco that its helicopter flights will not pass over
Occidental's office building, and furthermore, that the noise level
and dust in the area will be held to a minimum.
Bakersfield, California, April 17, 1972 - Page 12
Mr. Chuck Tolfree, representing Tenneco West, Inc., dis-
played a map, giving the location of the proposed heliport. The
pilot estimates that it will be used on an average of one to two
flights a day. The heliport is really what is called a helistop,
as it will not be based at the pad, there will be no gasoline, or
anything of that nature stored at the pad. The flight operations
will only be during daylight hours and only when the ground is
clearly visible. Tenneco plans to construct and pave a service
road to California Avenue and will fence the site with a three foot
high chain link fence. Later Mr. Tolltee stated the company
possibly would agree to increase the height to five feet to keep
out children and animals. The nearest residential area is 620
feet to the east, and the Wayne Van Horn Elementary School is
approximately ½ mile away. The approaches to the helicopter pad
will be from the north, except in conditions of high winds, when
the approach will be from the south. The helicopter pad is located
in a isolated area, one that is free from obstructions but reason-
ably close to Tenneco's office.
They have sent a letter to the parents club of Wayne Van
Horn School stating that they will not fly over the school. They
will pave the landing pad with AC and the perimeter will be treated
with dust binder which will preclude dust.
They have assured Occidental Petroleum that they will not
fly over their buildings. If the Council approves this permit,
they must secure approval from the State and FAA.
Councilman Medders asked if there was anyone present in
the audience from Westpark who wished to state an opinion. Mr.
Jake Justensen of 905 Montclair, expressed his opposition to this
helicopter pad, stating that he had experience with this sort of
traffic over his house in Los Angeles and it is difficult to sleep
when they are in the air. Mrs. Nancy Ryan addressed several
questions to Mr. Tolltee, and expressed strong opposition to the
noise from the helicopter flying over the area.
210
Bakersfield, California, April 17, 1972 - Page 13
Mr. David West and Mr. Chuck Canttell of Park Stockdale,
both expressed opposition to the heliport.
Mayor Hart closed the hearing for Council deliberation
and action. Councilman Medders asked Mr. Tolltee if Tenneco did
not have an alternate site on the north, which would remove the
aggravation to the people living in the area. Mr. Tolfree stated
that in his opinion any site selected would receive opposition from
someone.
Councilman Rees commented that Tenneco has done great
things for this community and the City is grateful. But the role
is still a dual one, Tenneco is a potential and actual benefactor,
but it is also a mighty corporation which would wish to steam-
roller something through the Council to accomplish what it wants
from the community. He is weighing the concern of the peoplQ in
the area about an aircraft that might or might not fly over their
homes at a decibel level that the Council is not sure about,
involving safety, which is questionable. He would be greatly
interested in this project if this company were evacuating injured
people, if they were saving valuable hours for anyone. He cannot
help but wonder if this is not a "fancy fillip" for the high
executives of a mighty corporation so that they can travel in ten
minutes instead of fifteen minutes
do. He hopes he is being fair, as
fine things for this community and
like the ordinary citizen must
this corporation has done many
he wouldn't want to interfere
with the fine programs which they have in progress.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Zoning Resolution
No. 236 denying Conditional Use Permit for the construction,
operation and maintenance of a private heliport on that certain
property located approximately 620 feet east of California Avenue
Bakersfield, California, April 17, 1972
Page 14
and 1000 feet north of Stockdale Highway, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
the meeting
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore,
was adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
MAY~akersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
C~'.~a~n ~o Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
'219
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972
Minutes of
of Bakersfield, California, held
City Hall at eight o'clock P.
The meeting was called
a regular meeting of the Council of
in the Council Chambers
April 24, 1972.
to order by Mayor Hart,
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
Gilbert of the University Baptist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker,
Rucker, Thomas,
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of April 17,
approved as presented.
Presentation of Awards for Civilian
Acts of Courage.
the City
of the
followed
by the Reverend Gordon
follows:
Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Whittemore
1972 were
Charles M. Fendrick, President, Bobby Twist, Director,
and Max Anderson, Vice-President, of the Kern County Fire Fighters
Union, presented the Phil C. Pifer Award to Gary Rader, student at
South High School, and Bob Henslee, 2304 Verdugo Street, and
presented Awards of Merit to Mark White and Mark Swaim, students
at South High School, Harold Swaim, Insurance Agent, and Brad
Bainbridge, student at Bakersfield College, for outstanding acts
of courage in saving the lives of persons who would have otherwise
burned to death.
Presentation of Service Certificates.
Mayor Hart presented Certificates to Councilman Walter
Heisey and Councilman Raymond Rees for five years of dedicated and
conscientious service to the City of Bakersfield.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Leonard Schroder, Architect for the California Avenue
Park Neighborhood Facility, stated he has been asked to make a
report on the progress of this project. The design structure was
submitted to HUD approximately two years ago and for some unknown
reason, has been held up approximately fifteen months. In January,
1972, the drawings were again submitted for final approval. He has
been in contact with HUD since that time, and last Friday, HUD
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 2
indicated that they expected to have the plans completely checked
and approved some time this week.
further delays, a date can be set
for bids for this facility.
Mrs. Lawrence Casselman,
Hopefully, if there are no
by the first part of May to call
President of the Bakersfield
Council PTA, addressed the Council, stating that they are greatly
concerned aboul dogs running loose in the streets. Many children
walking to school have been mauled and bitten, and the PTA wishes
the Council to seriously consider changing the law, or at leasl
enforcing the dog leash law. She displayed pictures of small
children who have been bitten by dogs, stating that it will be
necessary for them to undergo plastic surgery.
Councilman Rees moved that this matter be referred to
the staff for report on the updating of the ordinance which seems
to contain ambiguous wording.
Councilman Rucker staled that stray dogs were a great
problem in the Mayflower area in his Ward, and he hopes that the
staff can arrive at some solution to the problem.
Councilman Bleecker stated he would like to have included
in the staff's report the number of times a dog can be picked up
and returned to its owner before the animal is done away with.
Vote taken on Councilman Rees' motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Nancy Berrigan told the Council that she and the
Other mothers in her neighborhood have been told by the Animal
Warden that if a dog bites their child, they must catch the animal
and hold it until the Animal Warden arrives. She also informed
the Council that the Animal Warden was not issuing citations to
the owners of loose dogs, and she feels that if this were done,
the dogs would either be penned up or disappear from the neighbor-
hood. She asked that this be considered in any report made by the
slaff to the Council.
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 Page 3
City Manager Bergen asked to make a report to the Council
at this time and stated that the Council is aware there has been
considerable concern expressed by the public relative to the Refuse
Collection billing statements which were recently mailed out by the
Finance Department, He proceeded to give a brief background that
led up to the Council's determination to establish a refuse col-
lection charge.
During last year's budget deliberations in June, 1971,
the Council was faced with some hard, difficult, self-searching
decisions, in order to be able to balance the present budget.
There are three areas in which the Council had some latitude in
adopting a budget:
1. Cut existing services.
2. Raise property tax rate.
3. Establish a charge for some present service.
Any one, or combination of these items, can balance a
budget.
It should be remembered that the budget has already been
and reduced by the City Manager before being submitted
evaluated
to the Council for consideration. So it is difficult to make
significant cuts without reducing or eliminating some present
services. This would involve cutting personnel because 70% of the
City Budget is for employee expense.
Regarding the property tax, the Council and administration
feels that the tax rate at the present time is high, due primarily
to the lack of user-pay charges, as most of the service which the
City provides are included in the tax rate and no separate charge
is made. Refuse collection is the largest single cost item in the
budget, and in most communities, a separate charge is made for this
service. It is also the most glaring inequity which exists in the
entire range of City services.
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 4
215
After many meetings, both by Council committees and the
full Council, it was determined that the most appropriate way to
balance the budget was to establish a refuse collection charge.
Refuse collection can be divided into four major cate-
gories:
1. Industrial
2. Commercial - with a subheading of business
and multiple dwellings
3. Tax Exempt properties
4. Residential properties
In the first case of Industrial Colllection - the past
history in the City had been very arbitrary. The policy has been
no pickup for industrial properties which did not add to the cost,
but did require the major City taxpayers to subsidize City opera-
tion in addition to paying for their own refuse collection. Even
in this case, the policy was inconsistent because of overlapping
of industrial and commercial refuse.
In the second case of the Commercial area - business
and multiple dwellings - generally the City picked up commercial
refuse Free of Charge. This in itself resulted in inefficient
operations because no attempt was made to include cost of pickup
in the operation and this resulted in no labor saving approaches,
in fact the City met with resistance any time consideration was
given for making improvements in this operation. The problem in
this area is that the service varies from "No Service", to the
other extreme, where there are some businesses that have large
quantities of refuse picked up by hand six times a week.
In the third area - Tax Exempt there is a large volume
there which has increased substantially since the "No Burning"
requirements.
It is important to remember that the assessed valuation
has no relationship to the amount of refuse generated or service
that is required. Furthermore, the user-pay concept for refuse
collection is universally accepted.
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 5
Based on these facts, a Refuse Collection charge was
established by Ordinance No. 1984 New Series, which is effective
April 1, 1972· The major provisions of this ordinance are:
Refuse collection is a public health matter.
It is necessary for the service to be avail-
able to everyone, and therefore a minimum
charge is established.
2. Fee schedule outlined in this ordinance is
based on approximately a 25% subsidy.
Commercial charge varies directly according
to the use. Encourages the use of bins,
stationary compactors and other time saving
methods.
A minimum monthly charge has been established
of $2.00 per unit for business up to two - 32
gallon cans, with twice a week pickup.
Multiple dwellings are $1.50 per unit with
unlimited number of cans of residential
refuse, with twice a week pickup.
Residential area - flat $2.00 per month with
twice a week pickup of unlimited number for
residential refuse.
Ordinance provides for quarterly billings
every three months which allows staggering
of the bills for more efficient utilization
of manpower in billing and collection.
Approximately 1500 telephone calls were received from
citizens last week representing 7% of the 22,000 persons billed.
30% asked for more information and had no complaints.
25% asked for name and address changes and other
corrections in the billing·
15% had complaints about the efficiency of the refuse
collection service.
14% objected to the minimum charge even through they
are not using the service.
10% believed they were paying for the service twice,
once by tax rate, once by charge.
5% believed the refuse collection costs should have
remained a part of the tax structure.
1% opposed paying three months in advance.
Mr. Bergen stated the
that they were receiving verbal
the refuse charges. He pointed
refuse collectors have complained
abuse when making pickups regarding
out that the refuse collectors are
not responsible for fixing the charges and he hoped that people
would understand that. He also stated that there is no quantity
limit on the amount of residential refuse to be picked up on
residential service. Also, there is no limit for the multiple
dwelling pickup. Service may be temporarily discontinued for
periods in excess of 30 days. The 1972-73 tax rate will be reduced
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 6
50~ for $100 assessed valuation to reflect these charges. One of
the major areas of calls was regarding address changes or correction
of billings. Recent property ownership changes are not listed in
the most recent published assessor's records. Also, many property
owners who were billed have since requested that the bill be sent
to their tenants. The City has felt they will cooperate in this
regard and will bill tenants when requested to do so. Optional
service cannot be permitted because it is a public safety matter
and the City must maintain control of the collection and disposal
to insure the health of its residents.
If the Council had not adopted Ordinance No. 1984 and
decided to apply a refuse collection charge, the tax rate would
have been increased approximately 12 to 13~, so that the present
tax statement received by the property owners this last year would
have been $3.00 per $100 assessed valuation, instead of $2.87. If
this were added to the 50~ proposed reduction, it would amount to
approximately 62 to 65~ cut this year.
If the payment of three months in advance is a hardship,
the City will accept monthly payments or permit other arrangements
to be made.
Mr. Gus Tykis addressed the Council, stating he wanted
to protest about the garbage issue. He stated he was paid up until
June and he has been billed in April. He would like to see the
City Council run the business of the City as though it were a
business; if he ran his bosses' business the way the City Council
runs the City, his job would last only about three months. If the
City can't handle the garbage situation, it should be given to free
enterprise by the sealed bid method. He doesn't want the City to
pick up his garbage, he doesn't want to be double-taxed, he will
take it out to the dump himself and not be charged. He asked what
would be next, a sewer tax? Mr. Tykis then proceeded to tear up
his refuse collection billing, stating he "aint gonna pay, come
get him."
Bakersfield~ California, April 24, 1972 - Page 7
Mr. Charles Reed, 4409 Axminister, stated he is quite
upset about what the Council is doing regarding first a Utility
Tax and now a Garbage Tax. He addressed his first remarks to
Councilmen Rucker, Rees, Thomas and Whittemore~ stating "you men
voted to give a pay raise to the refuse collectors of the City of
Bakersfield when you had no money in the budget to do it, and then
you go to the bottomless pit~ the taxpayer for more money, instead
of resigning quietly and filing bankruptcy, like any other inefficient
poorly-run business." He asked that the confiscatory ordinance,
which borders on being unconstitutional~ be rescinded.
He addressed a remark to Councilmen Bleecker~ Heisey and
Medders, stating "that in your suicidal heroism to drag these bank-
rupt chestnuts out of the burning fire, you have now joined the
deficit spenders who spend the people's money that they haven't
extracted from them yet under legalized stealing procedures -
taxation."
Mrs. Jackie Iribarren of 1104 Oregon Street~ stated that
when her husband received the refuse bill~ he was very upset. He
is a gardner and has a City Business License which permits him to
dump refuse in the City dump for $10.00 a year. For the last four
years they have dumped their own trash; also, for the last three
years they have dumped the trash of a local doctor on Niles Street,
Dr. Anderson, who stated he is not up to paying this new refuse
charge. She said her husband was not going to pay the bill.
Councilman Whirremote stated he appreciates the comments
of everyone who has spoken here tonight~ however~ not necessarily
everything Mr. Reed stated. He said that this ordinance regarding
refuse collection charges has been considered by the Council many
times. There are many cities which operate strictly on a user-pay
concept~ and there are many cities which do have a charge for sewer
service. The heavy users are the commercial and multiple units and
when this was brought out to the Council, the staff and the Director
of Public Works ran a cost projection as to what the charges to the
commercial users would be. However~ the proposed charges to these
users were unreasonable. It was brought back on the Council floor
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 19?2 - Page 8
and he attempted to refer it back to committee for further review,
but Mr. Bleecker proposed at that time that a refuse charge of
$2.00 be imposed on each residential property and that the business
firms be charged according to their volume of refuse. This proposal
passed by a 4 to 3 vote, as Councilman Rucker, Thomas and he voted
against this.
As it stands at this point, there is not too much that
can be done about it until budget sessions, but he assured the people
present that he will bring it up at that time and will propose that
the Council eliminate the unjust and unfair charge. If this is
unsuccessful, he will propose that it be submitted to the voters
in November.
It is possibly true that the property tax rate will be
reduced 50~ on $100 assessed valuation, which will make the home
owner just about break even, except it cannot be written off his
income tax. 50~ per $100 assessed valuation from the tax bill of
a large commercial structure will reduce that property owner's tax
considerably, and the residential property owners will pick up the
tab for the balance. His interpretation is that there is a possi-
bility this refuse charge may be illegal due to the fact that a
referendum was submitted to the people of this City in March of
1943, and he is going to ask the City Attorney to research it. If
it is true, he would say it should be included in the tax rate and
not as a separate refuse charge.
Councilman Heisey stated he appreciates the comments made
by the staff and by the people in the audience, they have made some
real good points. It is time that the City finances are put into
perspective. Unfortunately, the good people out in the audience
tonight weren't here to help a minority group of the Council hold
the line during budget hearings last summer. Unfortunate, because
Mr. Medders, Mr. Bleecker and he desperately needed support to help
them adopt a reasonable and rational budget that would be fair to
City employees, the community and the taxpayers. They fought
valiantly but in vain to adopt a balanced budget. In spite of their
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 9
arguments for fiscal responsibility, four Councilmen, under the
leadership of Mr. Whittemore, forced through an unbalanced budget
by a 4 to 3 vote.
Last fall, Mr. Whirremote and company, tried by way of
a refuse charge to force the business community to pay for their
indiscretion at budget time. This was patently wrong and blatantly
discriminatory. This move was vigorously protested by himself and
by the public and it was successfully overturned. In an effort to
operate under the Charter of the City of Bakersfield which requires
that the City have a balanced budget, this Council adopted the
present ordinance providing for all users of fhe refuse service to
pay. Taxes are certainly distasteful to everyone, however, when
big spenders are elected, it is necessary to be ready to cover
their excesses, which this year amounted to over $200,000.
All seven Councilmen have publicly given their word that
a minimum of 50~ will be cut from the tax rate this year, and he
personally is very confident that each one will keep his commit-
ment. He urged those people present tonight to attend with equal
enthusiasm, the City's budget hearings this June, as their presence
can go a long way towards preventing a repeat of last year's give-
away.
Councilman Heisey then made a motion that the comments
and the letters received f~m Mrs. Peggy Potter, Mrs. Dora Hoskins
and Mr. Nurl Renfro relative to the garbage collection fees, be
received and referred to the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
Committee, the City Manager and the Finance Director for study and
recommendation. This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Whittemore stated Councilman Heisey's comments:
are not completely unexpected, that he has been given credit for
leading the proposals, but he feels there are no men on this Council
who are easily led. A balanced budget sounds fine, and he assured
the audience that the Council's last budget was a bare-bones budget.
However, the Council found itself in a situation which could have
been corrected, this was not done, and it is still the homeowner
who is paying.
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 10
Councilman Rucker took exception to Mr. Reed's remarks
wherein he stated that he and other members of the Council had
voted for a pay raise for refuse collections and did not have the
funds to pay for it. He pointed out that the cost of living is
increasing all over the country, not only in Bakersfield, and it is
true the employees attended the budget hearings at night in an
attempt to receive a cost of living raise for themselves. Most
everyone is doing the same thing, attempting to get more money to
keep up with the inflated cost of living, he feels it is fair. It
is unfortunate that many people are living on a fixed income, but
they are living in Bakersfield and some of these problems fall on
them, too. He went on to say that he makes his own decisions as
a member of the City Council, and the decisions that he makes are
what he feels are beneficial to all the citizens of Bakersfield.
Councilman Bleecker stated he would like the record to
show that neither Councilman Medders or Councilman Thomas was a
member of this Council when the Utility Tax was imposed. Also,
let the record show that Councilman Bleecker opposed the Utility
Tax and voted "no" on its adoption. He thinks that what the people
in the audience have to do, is to decide whether or not they want
the City to continue the same level of service that it is now pro-
viding in all areas, or whether or not they want some cuts made.
Each Councilman is very cognizant of requests that are
made to him over the telephone, or in writing, or in person,
whether he knows them or not, he wants to do what the people in
his ward, what the people in the City of Bakersfield, want him to
do. Costs are going up and up, and if savings are to be made, it
is going to have to be through efficiency. He mentioned that by
imposing this refuse fee, there are a large number of concerns who
are going to be paying that have never paid before; primarily, non-.
profit organizations, such as the Federal Government, the County
of Kern, etc.
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 11
they will
the taxes
If citizens will take their tax bill and analyze it,
find that somewhere in the neighborhood of about 20% of
they pay goes for City services. The other 80% goes for
welfare, for schools, County taxes, etc. As he understands it,
the County tax base has gone up about 200% in the last few years,
but the City of Bakersfield has not raised its taxes since he has
been on the Council, which is almost four years, in fact, as he
understands it, City taxes have not been raised in almost eight
years. So when people really look at the whole tax statement, if
they determine how much of that tax goes to pay for City services,
they will find it is a very small percentage of the total, and the
services received are well done, well staffed, and he doesn't know
of any other city in the State of California which provides as many
services as Bakersfield does for the cost involved.
Councilman Rees commended Mr. Bleecker on his statement,
as he thinks it was very well done. He recognizes that there are
legitimate areas where the Council may have a different philosophy,
but there are also some areas which are not legitimate in his
estimation, and that is the area of an irresponsible statement
which was made tonight that "if he spent money like the City Council
spends money, his job wouldn't last long." He invited anyone who
feels that way to sit in on the Budget Review and Finance Committee's
sessions; on the City Manager's sessions when he is reducing the
City budget on the department head's requests, he might decide
which expenditures to make and which ones to defer, which restroom
in which park that is 19 years old could go one more year without
replacement, etc. He submitted that there are six Councilmen who
will support him when he says that the City staff and the City
Council are riscally responsible,
Another statement which Councilman Rees did not regard
as a legitimate disagreement in philosophy or otherwise, is an
inaccurate statement, such as the "Council granted a raise to the
refuse workers without having the money to pay it." He pointed
out that (1) The Council granted a raise almost identically across
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 12
the board to all City employees at its last budget sessions without
any particular preference to refuse workers. (2) This budgeting
was in a normal, standard, responsible fiscal manner of municipal
governments all over the United States. First', the budget was set,
after thai the tax rate was set, and he defied a responsible person
to find anything incorrect in the order of the City's financial
actions.
Councilman Medders quoted from the Minutes of the meeting
of December 6, 1971, and of.previous meetings when there was a group
of people present at the meeting who were opposing a charge on
collection of refuse from commercial businesses and apartments and
then it was changed. "He can remember the budget hearings, the
first night the Council Chamber was practically filled. Mostly
the audience was made up of City employees. One question comes to
mind. Where were the concerned citizens? On the second night the
chamber was practically empty. Where were the concerned citizens?
The concerned citizens were sitting on the back side of their laps
watching television, or otherwise being too busy to come down and
see what was happening."
He commented on the budget being out of balance. His
solution was to "take a look at the budget items which had not yet
been spent. To look at any money that is earmarked for future
projects and where it is at all possible, apply these funds to
balance the current budget. Let's initiate an austerity program
in every department that will cut out the excess fat. He would not
propose to eliminate any employees, but if the budget canot be
balanced, it would then become logical to rescind that percentage
of the salary increase that would balance the budget."
He stated that is where he stood at that time, and out
of necessity, to keep from putting a tax on businesses and apart-
ments, he voted for the ordinance to charge residential property.
Mr. Tykis asked if it would have done any good for him
to be present at the budget hearings, or would the Council already
have its mind made up.
Bakersfield~ California, April 24~ 1972 - Page 13
Mayor Hart' assured Mr. Tykis that he is offered every
opportunity to participate in the budget sessions. Also, he will
be permitted to speak, as he has tonight, because he is a citizen
and a taxpayer, as he has reminded the Council so many times to-
night. Mayor Hart went on to say that when the Council establishes
a budget which makes it
to support the City and
all the people, perhaps
necessary to make demands on the taxpayers
its functions, the Council is representing
not to the degree which Mr. Tykis thinks
that it should, but by the same token, the Council is doing the
best that it can under the circumstances.
Councilman Bleecker explained to Mr. Tykis that customarily
if a citizen wants to be on the agenda~ there is an ordinance that
they must put it in writing, call their Councilman or the Mayor,
but this rule is very often overlooked, and there have been many
occasions when constituents have appeared in the audience, recog-
nized by their Councilman and permitted to speak without consulting
anyone beforehand, or having been placed on the agenda.
Councilman Thomas commented that he has crossed swords
with every one of the Councilmen at one time or another, and he
can assure Mr. Tykis that everyone of them has an open mind on any
issue. The people voted him into office to do a job for them and
that is what he is trying to do. He appreciates phone calls from
his constituents, so that he is apprised of all the problems and
is aware of what is going on. However, it is sometimes necessary
to represent his constituents without consulting them, as that is
why the members of the Council were elected.
Considerable discussion ensued between the members of
the Council and the Council and persons in the audience. The
following persons addressed the Council:
Nurl Renfro stated he is completely in agreement with
the user-pay concept. Most of the people here tonight know that
the issue is not refuse, but a deficit budget and all know how it
came about. What the Councilmen fail to do is to realize that this
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 14
tax has been imposed on properties which are not generating the
revenue. He has a few rentals and four vacancies right now. These
people may not have been present at budget hearings, but they are
here tonight and they are saying they don't want this charge, in
fact they don't want any more taxes, and they want this charge
repealed tonight. If the Council has to cut refuse service down
to a once a week pickup, now is the time to do it. However, this
is not the issue, the issue here tonight is that this Council is
ignoring the people in the audience.
Cecil Skaggs stated that his mother does not own property
and resides in a home located at the rear of his lot for which he
does not charge her rent. He has received a statement for refuse
collection charges for his own home and his mother has also received
a bill. He asked for an explanation. Mr. Bergen stated that this
would be considered a multiple dwelling under the ordinance and
every unit on the property is billed accordingly.
Bill Armour stated he received two bills, one for $5.00
and one for $4.00, and he has been hauling off his own trash. He
stated that every time a tax is passed, it is the small man, the
working man and the home owner who is taxed to death. He asked if
there weren't any other ways to find tax money, and suggested that
new business be brought into the City. Business has been going to
all the other towns, but not coming into Bakersfield. He can't
stand any more taxes and he knows that most of the peoDle present
feel the same way.
Mrs. Helen Lee Etated that this government was not built
on businessmen but on free ~enterprise. Every elected governmental
body is bowing these days to the wants of t.he people. Government
was instituted to provide for the needs of the people, those needs
that they could not provide for themselves. If it has gotten to
the point wherein providing for the wants of the people, the Council
can no longer provide for the needs of the people, then please turn
it back to free enterprise.
F~ed Acrey, 304 Chester Avenue, stated that he has'caught
five burglars at one time in places up and down Chester Avenue. A
lot of times he has caught one, two and three. He has had all his
windows and doors knocked out, and he has had to fix them himself.
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 15
If they are not going to receive any more protection for their
property than they are receiving now, how can the Council expect
people to pay any more taxes.
Dale Stolte stated he was opposed to this refuse tax
charge the last time he appeared before the Council and he is still
opposed, both in a business and a personal way. What people are
saying is that they are being pushed up against the wall with taxes.
His tax bill has just about doubled with this refuse charge. He
knows that it is a service that the people need, but they are
getting to the point where they can't afford any tax raise. There
has been a utility tax, there will be a new 2~ gas tax, but if
business is to survive and the people are to survive, the service
must be cut somewhere. The people are here tonight asking for
help, he is asking for help, $600.00 worth.
Councilman Heisey commented it was summed up very well,
the people are all asking for help, and he is certain that the
Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee is going to come
back With a recommendation to come up with the money without having
a refuse ordinance. The burden is on the GEPC, it is the Committee
which initiated this action, and he is confident thai this Committee
will give this issue the very best effort it possibly can. However,
the Council doesn't want to take some hasty action tonight which it
will regret, because it isn't proper to adopt spur of the moment
ordinances. However,' he certainly concurs with the sentiment that
has been expressed.
Councilman Whirremote asked Mr. Stolte if he had a refuse
bill of $600.00 per quarter, and he stated he has a catering busi-
ness and his residence. Councilman Whittemore asked the City
Manager and the Director of Public Works to make a re-evaluation
of Mr. Stolte's premises, as this is one of the things which it
was agreed was ridiculous when he attempted to refer the matter
back to the Committee for review, but was unsuccessful, something
of this nature is entirely out of line. Mr. Bergen stated they
would investigate it and report back to the Committee.
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 16
227
Councilman Whittemore stated that when an issue is
referred to a Council Committee, it only recommends to ,the entire
Council, and it takes four votes to rescind any previous action.
But he will t,ell the people present tonight, that there are three
Councilmen who would love to vote on the matter right now and
rescind it. However, there is a State law relative to this type
of action late,in the fiscal year, which requires tha~t~certain
services be continued. It will take a close analysis of the budget
situation before a motion can be made to rescind the ordinance.
Mr. R. D. Grimes stated that he is the owner of several
pieces of property and he has received about ten statements for
the refuse charges, one for each piece of property that he owns.
He asked why the property owner is required to pay the fees for
his tenants. He stated that in the area where his property is
located, he cannot raise the rents and must assume this burden
himself. He is tired of being taxed.
Gerald Franklin, a home owner and a small businessman,
asked the Council if it did not recently purchase the American
Legion building, so that the Bank of America can build a large
building and have parking facilities. He was told this was true,
He also asked if the Council was not contemplating spending $10,000
for an acre lot on Brundage Lane to build a library. The Council
stated this was not true.
He said that one of the reasons the Council doesn't have
a balanced budget is that it enters into agreements of this nature.,
He asked what the purpose was for buying the American Legion
building.
Councilman Whirremote
purchased and would be paid for
explained that this building was
by tax increment bonds paid off
by the businessmen in the redevelopment area. The City of Bakers-
field will be reimbursed and it will not cost the taxpayers a cent.
Bank of America is planning on building a nine s-tory office building,
with a parking facility guaranteed by the City, and will assist in
revitalizing the downtown business area, which is certainly very
necessary to increase the tax structure and decrease taxes for the
residential property owner.
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 17
Mrs.
not pay the refuse collection bill and
refuse to the City dump free of charge.
she is subject to the same liabilities
Cheryl Etheridge asked what will happen if she does
they use their truck to take
Mr. Hoagland stated that
incurred on any other debt
to any other entity.
signed to pay for any other debt she incurred,
sign for this one and she feels she is paying
lection of her rubbish.
Hy Amundson commented that he had read that the State
Constitution provides a person cannot be imprisoned for not paying
a tax. So any penalty the
asked why it is imperative
he remembers reading in his
care of
police,
want is to have an election,
Mrs. Etheridge stated that she has always
but she did not
twice for the col-
a chance to take care of their own garbage. He would also suggest
that in the coming week the Council Committee consider giving the
garbage collection to private enterprise and those who want their
refuse picked up, let them pay for it. Those who feel they can
take care of it themselves cheaper, let them determine what they
want to do. He asked why it was considered a health hazard, what
health authority is being quoted.
Mayor Hart commented that there are laws of society set
up for sanitation purposes, for pollution to a degree, which
warrant the City having control of the pickup of the refuse. He
concurs with Mr. Amundson in his suggestion that the Council permit
the people to determine how this action is to be taken. He also
concurs that the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee,
after studying all the statements made by the people present, should
come back next Monday night with a recommendation for solution of
this problem.
City may enact is unconstitutional. He
for the City to dispose of the garbage,
history books that people used to take
their own garbage, they took care of their own problems,
education, you name it, they took care of it.
He would say that the best way to decide what the people
decide by the ballot. Give the people
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 18
Councilman Thomas stated that he does not like the garbage
ordinance; however, he feels that the people should use the service
as long as it is available. He does not feel that they should be
given the option to take it or leave it, to dump garbage in some
other person's vacant lot. Councilman Rucker agreed, stating that
he has a number of people in his area who dump trash in vacant lots,
and it is a public health hazard.
James Prehoda, small businessman, stated that when he
comes to make up a budget for his business, the first thing he does
is determine how much he has to spend. It seems to him that the
government should budget how much it has to spend instead of how
much everyone wants to spend. This results in additional taxes,
and he feels City services should be offered to City residents
within their ability to pay. If this necessitates cutting out
some frills, then he is in favor of cutting out the frills. He
is also opposed to cities making comparison with other cities to
pay the employees' salaries, because these raises could go on for-
ever. If City employees' salaries are based on what the City is
able to. pay, perhaps the City can live within its income and provide
services which it can afford and not be required to increase the
tax rate.
Councilman Heisey remarked that this was his philosophy
too, and he hopes Mr. Prehoda is present at budget time to see that
the Council subscribes to it.
Mayor Hart closed the public presentation in the interest
of time, stating he feels that most everything has been said to
indicate the public's lack of enthusiasm for this particular tax.
Councilman Heisey has moved to refer this matter to the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, and he will be delighted to have
those people who want to participate, back next Monday night.
A ten minutes recess was called at this time.
Mrs. Dolly Teters addressed the Council, stating that in
response to a report of a special committee made up of the City
Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk, research made by her group
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 19
reveals that Section 1892 to 1894 of the Code of Civil Procedure
is repealed by Statute 1968, Chapter 1478, Sections 25 through 27.
This is recorded on Page 2 of the 1972 Pocket Supplement, Deerings
Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. She asked if
it is not true that a Statute repealed is no longer effective.
She stated that the $5.00 charge will have the effect of denying
people access to public information records. She asked the Council
to reconsider its decision and delete the $5.00 charge, stating
that she is basing this request on Kramer rs. Superior Court 1968,
265, CA 2nd, 216-71 California Reporter 0193.
Mayor Hart asked Mr. Bergen to comment.
Mr. Bergen stated that there was no intention to infer
that an individual cannot inspect the public records on file in
the City Clerk's office for a normal type of inquiry. There is no
charge for examination of the official records. However, when the
examination involves extensive research, which would take consider--
able time, the City Clerk has an obligation to supervise these
original City records and cannot allow them out of her control.
There is a $5.00 charge an hour for this special type of service
which represents out of pocket cost and is reasonable. He has
pointed out previously that duplicate copies of minutes dating
back to 1943 can be made available for inspection without any
supervision; also copies of the Rosters of Councilmen, Committees
and Boards dating back to 1957 can be examined without charge.
At this time, Mayor Hart appointed Mrs. Teters as the
Council representative to serve on the Board of Directors of the
Kern County Economic Opportunity Corporation, as a vacancy exists
at the present time. Mrs. Teters thanked the Council, accepted
the appointment, and stated she would serve to the best of her
ability.
Council Statements.
Councilman Rees stated that it should be noted that last
Friday, 250 representatives of the Southern San Joaquin Division
of the League of California Cities elected Vice-Mayor Bob Whittemore
to serve as Director of the State Board of California Cities, a
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 20
position which was formerly held by Mayor Clifford Loader of Delano
for many years. Councilman Whittemore will be representing all of
the cities in the Counties of Kern, King, Tulare, Fresno and Madera.
Reports.
Councilman Rucker, Chairman of the Auditorium-Recreation
Committee, reported that there are an additional 26 teams who have
signed a "waiting list" for the Adult Softball League operated by
the Bakersfield Recreation Division.
This committee'has met with the members of the City staff
to discuss several proposals suggested by the Recreation Division
to help solve the problem, and recommends that the additional 26
teams be accepted into the Adult Softball League with the stipulation
that they will play a 2-round rather than the normal 3-round schednle.
Also, in order to accomodate this increase in teams, the
committee further recommends that $700 be transferred from the
Council Contingency Fund into the Temporary Salary Account of the
Recreation Budget for 1971-72.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, this report was
adopted.
Councilman Whittemore stated that he had received a
written question this evening inquiring when a report can be
expected from the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee
relative to the moonlighting clause in the Charter regarding Fire-
fighters. There is no general election coming up in the immediate
future which would require that this be given priority at the
present time. It is not being ignored but will be considered and
evaluated in ample time to make a recommendation as to whether or
not it should be placed on the November ballot.
Consent Calendar.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Item (a) of the
Consent Calendar, Allowance of Claims Nos. 3276 to 3411, inclusive,
in amount of $96,186.85, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 21
Approval of Transfer of Funds to Expand
Adult Softball Program.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Transfer of Funds
in amount of $700 from Fund 11-510-6100 to Fund 11-710-0200, to
expand the Adult Softball Program from 78 teams to 104 teams, was
approved.
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Chapter 6.50 of the Municipal
Code by changing the name of the
District and altering the Business
License Tax Structure within the
District.
First reading was considered given to an Ordinance of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 6.50 of
the Municipal Code by changing the name of the District and
altering the Business License Tax Structure within the District.
Date of May 22, 1972 was set for hearing on this matter before
the Council, at which time the ordinance may be adopted.
Mr. Bergen informed the Council that this public hearing
will be noticed; every individual paying a Business License Tax
in this particular area, or subject to the fee, will be notified
of the hearing on May 22, 1972. In addition, the news media will
probably give the hearing publicity.
Councilman Rees asked if he were correct in assuming
that the Downtown Business Association has made every effort or
are ready to involve every person subject to this License Tax.
Mr. Bergen stated he has been informed that they have held several
meetings, everyone in the area was invited, in fact he attended a
breakfast meeting himself. A list of the persons involved will be
made available to the Council before the hearing. He does know
that the Business and Parking Committee has made every effort to
be sure that the Downtown Business Association is disseminating
information to people within the District, so that they can get
some type of feedback from these people.
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 22 ~33
Approval of Contract with David Ralph
Garcia for operation of a Concession
Stand in Planz Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, contract with
David Ralph Garcia for operation of a Concession Stand in Planz
Park for a three month period, was approved, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute same.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 11.04.390
of Chapter 11.04 of Title 11 of the
Municipal Code, concerning period of
time trains may block traffic on City
streets referred to the Business
Development and Parking Committee for
study and recommendation.
It was moved by Councilman Bleecker that proposed Ordi-
nance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section
11.04.390 of Chapter 11.04 of Title 11 of the Municipal Code, con-
cerning period of time trains may block traffic on City streets,
be referred to the Business Development and Parking Committee for
study and recommendation. Due to the fact that the PUC has
authorized longer trainst this ordinance would change the time
limit from five to ten minutes for trains to clear crossings in
the City.
Councilman Whittemore stated he agreed that this ordinance
should be referred to the Council Committee, as he has traveled
over the City daily and can verify that these trains are tying up
traffic for an excessive period of time.
individual, and it is costly to business
employees must wait at crossings for the
that the PUC is in error when it permitted
feels it is an imposition on the public to
town.
Bleecker's motion
After some further discussion,
carried unanimously.
It is expensive to the
houses whose trucks and
trains to clear. He feels
longer trains, as he
tie up traffic all over
vote taken on Councilman
Adoption of Resolution No. 23-72 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield making
finding concerningproposed subdivision:
Tract No. 3621, SE corner of Oswell Street
and Glenbrook Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 23-72
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making finding concerning
234
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 23
proposed subdivision:
and Glenbrook Avenue,
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
this is
Tract No. 3621, SE corner of Oswell Street
was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Thomas
None
City Attorney Hoagland pointed out to the Council that
a new requirement that the Council find a tentative Sub-
division Map does conform with the General Plan, and it would not
be discretionary on the part of the Council to find that it doesn't.
If a tentative tract map is submitted that does meet the require-
ments of the General Plan and the Council for some reason or another
denies it, the City will find itself in a law suit overnight. The
Planning Commission has already approved the tentative tract map
and the new Subdivision Map Act provides approval of Subdivision
Maps unless the City Council finds that it is consistent with the
General Plan and applicable to specific plans of the City.
Approval of request of Whitney Biggar
to connect property to the City Sewer
System.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, request of Whitney
Biggar to connect property located at 3311 Chester Lane to the City
Sewer System was approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit plan for review and approval.
2. Work to City specifications.
3. Sign the required sewer rental agreement.
Councilman Whittemore voted in the negative on this
motion.
Approval of request from Peter V.
Harrington to connect Mobile Home
Park at southeast corner of Harris
and Stine Road to City Sewer.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote request from
Peter V. Harrington to connect Mobile Home Park at southeast corner
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 24
of Harris and
the following
Stine Roads to City Sewer was approved, subject to
conditions:
Enter into a Suburban Sewer Rental Agree-
ment or annex the property to the City
prior to making a connection to the City
Sewer. Annexation of the property to the
City has been requested by owner.
2. Work to be constructed to City specifications.
3. Plans to be submitted for City's review and
approval·
Councilman Whittemore stated that he would not oppose
this request
the City.
as application has been made to annex the property to
Approval of request from Frank Zabaleta
to connect property at 900 East Planz
Road to City Sewer.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Rucker,
request from Frank Zabaleta to connect property at 900 East Planz
Road to City Sewer, was approved subject to the following conditions:
motion.
Councilman Whirremote
Work to be constructed to City specifications.
Plans to be submitted for City's review and
approval.
Enter into a Suburban Sewer Rental Agreement.
voted in the negative on this
Approval of request of Leon Raphael,
Motor Coach Operator, for 90 days Leave
of Absence Without Pay.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, request from Leon
Raphael, Motor Coach Operator, for 90 days Leave of Absence Without
Pay, was approved·
Appointment of Director of Public Works
Calvin Bidwell as Member of the Board
of Zoning Adjustment.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Public Works Director
Calvin Bidwell was appointed as a member of the Board of Zoning
Adjustment for a three year term expiring December 1, 1974.
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 25
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the City
Council on application by Midland Financial Corporation to amend
the zoning boundaries from an R-2-MH-D (Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling - Mobile Home Park - Architectural Design) Zone; from an
R-2-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design)
Zone; and from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an MH
(Mobile Home Park) or more restrictive, Zone, affecting those
certain properties located south of Pacheco Road and west of South
Union Avenue.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent as prescribed by law. The applicants proposed to
develop subject property inlo a ~obile home subdivision. The
request MH Zone would be more restrictive as to density as the MH
Zone is restricted to seven units per acre as opposed to nine units
per acre under the present zone. The present R-2-MH Zone would
also permit an apartment complex with a density of seventeen units
per acre.
It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the
proposed zoning of subject property (MH) is not in conflict with
the general arrangement of land uses as depicted on the Metropolitan
Bakersfield Area General Plan and, accordingly, recommends approval
of the MH zoning as requested.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No one spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. The
Engineer for the Midland Financial Corporation stated he was present
to answer any questions from the Council.
Mayor Hart closed the public hearing for Council delibera.-
tion and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance
No. 2006 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code
changing the Land Use Zoning affecting those certain properties
located south of Pacheco Road and west of South Union Avenue, was
adopted
Ayes:
Noes:
by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
Rees, Rucker,
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, April 24, 1972 - Page 26
Mr. Bergen commented that he had one statement he would
like to make before adjournment and while some of the gentlemen
who spoke earlier were still here. The City administration has
taken a lot of verbal abuse and he would like to make it clear that
they realize having the refuse charge in the budget would make
things a lot simpler. However, it is incumbent upon the staff to
point out to the Council the gross inequities that existed when
the refuse collection costs were included in the tax rate. Further-
more, when the refuse collection costs are included in the tax rate,
the users are not interested in efficiency. It gets back to the
one statement that a gentleman made "we want businesses in this
area, so we have jobs." Mr. Bergen assured the Council that
industry does look at the tax rate. If the City is going to be
fair to its taxpayers and encourage growth, it seems necessary to
lower the tax rate. The City's tax rate is one of the higher ones
in the State of California because the cost of many services is
included in this tax rate and not apportioned to those who use the
service. One major taxpayer in the City, who has a considerable
payroll, does not receive one bit of refuse collection service
because it is industrial refuse and yet he is required to pay the
seventy or eighty cents included in the City's tax rate to provide
for refuse collection. There are many examples such as this.
However, whatever the Council finally determines, the staff will
attempt to carry out as efficiently as possible.
Councilman Heisey asked if there was any urgency about
holding a meeting next week, as he had planned to be somewhere else.
Councilman Thomas pointed out that the Council had more or less gone
on record that it will be here next Monday night. Mayor Hart stated
that the people want an answer and the Council is going to have to
give it to them.
Adjournment.
There being no further business t/com~ore the
Council, upon a motion by Counc~il. man Heise/, ~meeting was
adjourned at 11:15 P.M. / / "' ]~
O~ ~'C'ity of Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
n - erk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, May l~ 1972
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 l, 1972.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Kenneth
Cragg of the Northminster Presbyferian 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 24, 1972 were
approved as presented.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, communication from
Mrs. Johnston, Mrs. Edna D. Buster and Dale R. Stolte relative to
the refuse collection charge were received and placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, communication from
Mrs. Ruth Gelman, President of the National Women's Political
Caucus/Kern County advising that this organization is a California
Corporation with its name formally registered with the Secretary
of State, and the "President or any Director designated by her as
an alternate is the only spokeswomen, particularly with respect to
releases, presentations, appearances to or before the news media,
governments, organizations and the public" was received and ordered[
placed on file.
Council Statements.
Councilman Medders made the following statement:
I feel at this point that I have an adequate
sampling of opinions from the 5th Ward to con-
clude that Ordinance No. 1984 New Series is
absolutely unpopular. No other issue seems to
bring forth an emotional response quite like
the Refuse Collection.
I would like to enumerate several facts and then
give you a position statement:
Regardless of the "Pros" and "Cons" the
people use, the assessed value of a property
does not necessarily have to do with the
amount of refuse the property generates.
According to the Finance Director, it takes
about $2.75 per month to pick up refuse for
each collection point. This would omit the
downtown area where they have the different
type of containers.
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 2
Based on 72~ per $100 assessed valuation,
a property must have a market value of
over $19,000 to pay its own way.
Those of us who are assessed at a value
less than 25% of the figure mentioned in
Item 3, are being subsidized by those who
have higher priced properties, and I happen
to be one of those who is being subsidized,
and I very well know how much somebody is
paying for me.
The County Assessor is doing re-assessments
now and some people tell me that new assess-
ments are almost doubled, which means a 50~
tax reduction is worth a dollar.
Should the Watson Amendment pass, refuse
collection will in all probability become
strictly user-pay.
Sound Economics tell us that City services
cost money and that the money they cost is
reflected in the tax rate. When businesses
come to have a look at the City to see
whether or not they want to locate, or re-
locate here, then naturally they look at
the tax rate, and if it is too high, they
go elsewhere.
I have given you what I consider to be facts. In the
face of these facts, if the people want to rescind this Ordinance
No. 1984 New Series, I'll help you.
Reports.
Councilman Rucker, Chairman of the Auditorium-Recreation
Committee, reported that the Council's Auditorium-Recreation Com-
mittee recently met and reviewed the proposed Recreation Division
budget for the Fiscal Year 1972-73. Attached to this report is
the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 1972-73 for the Council's
inspection and consideration·
This Committee is requesting that the Council give
approval only to the operational section of this budget, which is
requesting $219,483, as compared to the adjusted operational budget
of $215,184 for Fiscal Year 1971-72, resulting in a total increase
over last year of $4,299. This increase is due to approval of an
additional $2,200 for the adult softball league because of the large
increase in the number of teams signing up to participate in this
program. Also, there was a $1,000 increase for step increases in
salaries for the permanent employees with the Recreation Division.
The other increase was due to the City taking over the complete
Bakersfield, California, May l, 1972 - Page 3
control of the college swimming pool for recreational swimming
during the summer months.
Total anticipated revenue will increase $5,500, which
will offset the increase in the operation budget. The capital
outlay portion of the budget will be reviewed during the regular
budget sessions.
The Council's Auditorium-Recreation Committee is satis-
£ied with the recreation program and the operational budget as
presented and recommends its approval and adoption.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, the report was
adopted.
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported that during the past
year, this Committee has met on many occasions to review the City's
refuse collection operation in the downtown area.
Prior to the preparation of the 1970-?1 budget, the
staff gave consideration to initiating changes in the refuse
collection operations for this area, the primary objections of
which were to effect economies in collection and provide a cleaner
and more attractive downtown area. Related benefits would be the
elimination of hand handling o£ refuse and injuries coincident with
this type of operation.
The majority of downtown businesses are serviced from
alley locations where space is very limited. Much of this refuse
is cardboard and other heavy commercial rubbish, which causes more
than normal equipment damage and depreciation to conventional rear
end loading trucks. Because of their design, bins for rear end
loading trucks do not lend themselves to use in areas of restricted
space. As it was determined that the design of front end bins
would permit their use in alley sidewalks better than any other
type bin, two front end loading trucks and 100 front loading bins
were purchased for servicing the two downtown commercial routes.
This operation has required more supervision than is
justified, and has not been as satisfactory as expected, partly
because of costly property and equipment damages.
Bakersfield, California, 11ay 1, 1972 - Page 4
If the two downtown routes are removed from the City's
operation, five positions would be eliminated in the Sanitation
Division and the Sanitation Supervisor currently working the night
shift could be transferred to the day shift where his services would
be more fully utilized· In addition, the City's entire operation
would utilize rear loading equipment. Sentiments have been ex-
pressed from all sectors within the City reflecting a desire to
replace some portion or all of the refuse collection operation to
free enterprise· Some businesses have made requests to buy City-
owned refuse bins.
With this in mind~
recommendations:
1.
The
the Committee is making the following
The two nighttime downtown commercial routes
be contracted to private haulers.
The two front end loading refuse trucks be
included in the contract with private vendors.
Downtown businesses be given the opportunity
to purchase the City bins; afterwards, the
remaining front loading bins can be disposed
of.
That an ordinance be enacted to establish
reasonable standards for all refuse bins.
implementation of these recommendations would imme-
diately reduce five full-time positions and eliminate the City's
operation involving front end loading trucks. To expedite recom-
mendations Nos. 1 and 2, authorization should be granted to prepare
a notice inviting bids as soon as possible.
Councilman Whirremote then moved adoption of the report,
which motion carried unanimously.
sensible
he is an
Councilman Heisey commented that he thinks it is a very
recommendation; however, he would like to point out that
officer of a company that sells and rents refuse bins,
but they do not have any of the front end loading type indicated
in this report.
Councilman Rucker expressed his concern regarding the
proposed elimination of five positions in the Refuse Department.
He asked if consideration had been given to eliminating positions
in other departments.
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 5
Councilman Whittemore stated that this is in connection
with the Refuse Department only. He will have a statement to make
after he reads the second report from the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee, which will possibly answer Councilman
Rucker's question.
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Commitlee, reported that this committee
has met twice during this past week concerning refuse collection
matters. After considering the problems thai have materialized
fo dafe~ this Committee recommends the following action be taken
by this Council immediately:
1. In hardship cases, the City accept monthly
payments for quarterly billings.
2. If a single family residence is vacant for
30 days or more, service may be temporarily
discontinued.
3. Any person responsible for payment of refuse
charges may receive a 10% discounf upon pay-
ment in advance of a full year's charges.
4. That an employee be assigned full time rather
than part time in the Finance Deparment to
handle the billing problems.
5. Authorize the Public Works Department to
provide services for all types of collection
providing fhey are in an approved receptacle.
Recommendations 1 and 2 can be taken care of at the
present time by the existing ordinance. Attached are amendments
to the ordinance which will implement recommendations 3 and 5, and
which should be considered given first reading. Also, attached is
a transfer of funds to implement recommendation 4.
Along wifh these recommendations, the Committee would
like to remind the public that continuous evaluations will be made
of the refuse collection service.
Councilman Whittemore then moved adoption of the report.
Councilman Heisey made a motion that those persons making
payment of refuse charges a year in advance be granted a 5% dis-
count, instead of the 10% proposed in the report, as he feels it
would be more realistic. Those who take the discount are normally
Bakersfield, California, May l, 1972 - Page 6
business firms who can and do pay on an annual basis. There would
be too great a discrepancy between what an individual would save
and what a business firm could save on a 10% basis.
Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's motion failed to carry
by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilman Heisey
Noes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Absent: None
Vote taken on Councilman Whittemore's motion to adopt
the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Report relative to the
proposed modifications to Ordinance No. 1984 New Series, carried
by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Whittemore made the following statement:
The recommendations proposed will not solve the
problem or the burden of this inequity. We have
observed in these Council Chambers last week and
again this week, what I consider to be over-
whelming evidence of citizen dissatisfaction
with this ordinance as it now stands. Last week
a good deal of vocal opposition was presented
against this measure and in the past week my
constituents have voiced their objections to
this unfair garbage pickup charge.
The well is dry and people have been bled on
all levels of government to the point they can
take no more. I am therefore calling for a
third motion. I would like to move at this time
that the Council rescind the Refuse Ordinance to
become effective June 30th.
The reason for the June 30th date being the
budget has already been set for the past year
and consequently by State law, the Council
cannot unbalance the budget. I believe this
problem can be solved without causing the
people of Bakersfield any additional financial
burdens. One of the solutions I would recom-
mend is examination of department consolidation
or combination within the City. This avenue
and others should be explored fully in an effort
to eliminate this problem.
244
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 7
Councilman Heisey read the following statement:
Last week, for you who attended the Council
meeting, I made a statement in regards to the
refuse ordinance in an attempt to put in per-
spective the cause rather than just the effect
of the City's financial problems.
I pointed out how this Council at budget time
last year caved in to certain pressure groups
and adopted a budget which was some $200,000
in excess of our City revenues. These expendi-
tures were approved by a 4 to 3 vote; Mr. Medders,
Mr. Bleecker and I voting against this budget.
In a final effort to get the Council to adopt
a balanced budget, I moved that all pay raises
be effective last September 1st rather than
last July 1st. This would have balanced the
budget for this year. The motion failed by the
same 4 to 3 vote.
You will recall last winter an attempt was made
to saddle the business community with the total
cost of these fiscal indiscretions. This was
so patently wrong and blatantly discriminatory,
that it was successfully overturned.
In an effort to be responsive to our obligations
under the Charter to have a balanced budget, we
Councilmen who were strongly in opposition to
the deficit budget, reluctantly went along with
a refuse program that incorporated the honest
principle that the user of. the service pay a
reasonable price for such service. By going
to this principle, the City could collect for
service previously given such entities as Federal,
State and County governmental agencies, schools,
churches and all other tax-exempt properties.
Further, the Council unanimously approved a
property tax reduction in the minimum sum of
50~ per $100 assessed valuation to help equalize
the burden on the hard pressed property owner.
It is evidenl to me that the public that is
gathered here, and I certainly don't know if
this group represents the entire 44,000 adults
that are receiving tax bills, but by your ad-
mission, you folks on the whole seem to be very
much in opposition, not only to the refuse
ordinance, but to increased spending in general.
I think all of the taxpayers are opposed to
increased spending.
The public seems to be telling us that they
don't want to raise, and that they also do not
want to pay separately, for refuse service.
The public is saying that this Council acted
unwisely and were improvident when they made
commitments to spend in excess of projected
revenues. I believe they are telling us thai
City salaries should be in line with other
salaries in the local market and that producti-
vity should be commensurate with that of private
enterprise. The public, as I see it, is frankly
telling us to spend less.
245
Bakersfield~ California, May l, 1972 - Page 8
There is an alternative to raising more revenue
and that is to cut spending immediately. This
could be accomplished in a couple of ways. One,
by laying off roughly up to 30 employees in the
City. Another method would be to put all City
employees on a four day week and get by with
less employee help and less City services.
I am not convinced that this is what the public
wants. I am not satisfied that the public wants
us to curtail services this drastically. It has
been pointed out that the primary election will
be held June 6, 1972. We will also about that
same time be considering next year's budget.
It hasn't been mentioned on the Council floor
to my knowledge, but on June 6 we will be voting
on the Watson Amendment. If that amendment
passes, it will be mandatory for all cities~
and specifically for the City of Bakersfield,
to reduce its property tax rate by this same
50~ that we have confemplated and promised to
give this year.
There is a very good chance the Watson Amendment
will be passed, with the general feeling in
opposition to taxation throughout the State.
We are going to be forced to go to revenue type
charges for a lot of different services in order
to not only run the City, but the County govern-
ment.
I think that in being a responsible Councilman
who is trying to act wisely in behalf of you
people who.are the taxpayers, that I would like
to offer a substitute motion to table any action
on this until the primary election of June 6, 1972.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Bergen if the refuse
collection ordinance is rescinded tonight, would the City have a
deficit of $200,000.
Mr. Bergen replied that it was his understanding the
ordinance was to be rescinded at the end of the fiscal year, June
30th.
Councilman Bleecker asked if the City expects the refuse
collection bills that have been sent out to homeowners and businesses
to be paid. Mr. Bergen stated that is correct, however, there
would be some adjustment made by the City, as some of the bills
overlap into the next fiscal year. If the refuse charges are
sustained until the end of this fiscal year, the budget would be
in balance for this fiscal year.
Councilman Bleecker asked if the Council should vote on
Councilman Whittemore's motion tonight, then the City would not
know at this point in time, what deficit would be incurred because
of overlapping of the refuse bills.
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 9
motion
budget
it will be necessary to made an
Mr. Bergen stated the administration would expect this
budget to be balanced, because it was Councilman Whittemore's
to rescind the ordinance effective June 30, 1972. If at
time, the Council decides that the charges will be eliminated,
adjustment.
Councilman Bleecker stated he wanted to offer a substitute
motion to both motions. Mayor Hart reminded him that a motion to
table precludes any further consideration of a particular subject
at this time.
Councilman Bleecker stated as follows:
I would move that the Refuse Collection Ordinance
be rescinded and that this Council in the same
motion go on record as favoring divesting itself
entirely of the refuse collection procedure.
I say this, Mr. Mayor, because in the brief
period I have been on this Council, almost three
years, I have seen the problems that have arisen,
particularly in this department. I don't like
them, I have never liked them. The members of
this Council have heard me speak against certain
procedures, both publicly and privately, parti-
cularly in the Governmental Efficiency and
Personnel Committee, of which I have been
privileged to be a member for the last year or
SO.
So my motion is, Mr. Mayor, that I can support
the ordinance if along with it, this Council
would go on record favoring getting out of the
refuse collection business. And I would so move.
Councilman Thomas asked if the Council would be comitted
to divest itself of the refuse collection operation by Councilman
Bleecker's motion. Mayor Hart replied that apparently Councilman
Bleecker would like the City to get out of the refuse business.
Councilman Thomas stated that he has heard a great many
comments from people in the City and many of them are in favor of
the City collecting the refuse. The people present apparently are
not, but as Councilman Heisey stated previously, they do not re-
present the entire City of Bakersfield.
Bakersfield, California, May l, 1972 - Page 10
,0.,47
Councilman Rucker remarked that the refuse collection
operation had been a tremendous problem in the City long before
he came on the Council. He feels it is an incentive for the City
to operate its own refuse collection system. It is an incentive
to an individual who does not live in the City to join the City to
obtain the refuse service. Everything has been directed towards
the Refuse Department, and he doesn't think that the whole problem
lies in this department, there are other departments which are
costing the Cify money to operate. He doesn't think the Refuse
Department should be pinned down and he feels the City should
continue to operate this department and the charge should be included
in the tax rate.
Councilman Whirremote commented that last summer when
the City Council was considering franchising out the entire refuse
collection operation, the news was kind enough to publish in the
paper that he requested people to contact him to indicate their
choice in this matter. He received approximately 97 contacts, and
90 were in favor of the City remaining in the refuse business and
the balance were in favor or contracting it out.
Councilman Whittemore explained that
lection operation is contracted out to private
taxpayers are not going to save any money, due
if the refuse col-
enterprise, the
to the fact that
the private collection will need to levy a charge to buy equipment,
pay his employees and make a profit. Therefore, he feels it would
be wise to proceed slowly on that particular move.
mined this is the direction to go, he will support
gone through it on two separate occasions, he would
to permit the City to make a survey to determine whether it would
save any money for the taxpayers.
Councilman Bleecker commented on Councilman Heisey's
earlier statements regarding the passage of the Watson Amendment.
If the State of California pTohibits a municipality from charging
more than a certain maximum tax rate, this City is going to have
to cut something. If it doesn't, the City will have to place the
refuse charge right back on the taxpayers, on a user-pay basis.
If it is deter-
it, but having
urge the public
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 11
It is extremely easy for government to vote for frills,
for things which it feels the people want, sometimes the people
demand these services, but when it comes time to pay the tax, they
scream and they scream loud. If you support the idea of rescinding
the Refuse Ordinance and the Watson Amendment passes, which it
probably will, the public will be right back down here in a few
months because the Council will have to adopt a user-pay type of
ordinance in order to provide for the refuse collection charge.
It has been indicated to him the past week that to
furnish the multi-purpose building in California Avenue Park would
cost around $90,000. This money is not set out in any pre-conceived
agreement with the Federal Government, which will pay for permanent
fixtures and the structure, but will not pay for furniture and
equipment. Another item is the Workmen's Compensation to the
State of California premium will be increased approximately $85,000
because of the increase in the number of accidents and injuries to
City personnel. These two items alone amount to $175,000.
Councilman Bleecker stated it is his intention not to
vote to raise taxes, he never has since he has been on the Council,
and he was the only Councilman who voted against the 5% Utility
Tax.
He pointed out that every annexed area to the City within
the last few years has its refuse picked up by private collectors,
because the California State law requires this. He doesn't know
of any case where the City has discontinued this relationship, he
has never heard any of the staff state that he wishes to discontinue
this relationship with private collectors.
He, therefore, strongly urged the members of the Council
to consider his amendment to the Vice-Mayor's motion, as this is
the only way he can support the ordinance.
Mayor Hart stated the Council has to vote on the motion
to table which has priority over all discussions, and the motion
to table is never debatable. However, he is going to depart from
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 12
the regular procedure and listen to the people in the audience who
have requested to be heard. Prior to that, he will consider further
statements from the members of the Council.
Councilman Whittemore stated he agreed with Councilmen
Bleecker and Heisey when they mentioned the Watson Amendment,
because if it passes, the City will have a real problem, not only
the City of Bakersfield, but the County of Kern and every City in
California. He can support Councilman Bleecker's substitute motion
with one exception and he would offer an amendment that the con-
side~ation of franchising out the entire refuse collection system
of the City of. Bakersfield be deferred and then investigated after
the June 6th election.
Councilman Rees stated he would like, personally, to see
the City's budget in balance, not only now but also on July 1st.
He would like to. see the City's excellent credit record preserved
and not placed in the slightest jeopardy. He is personally in
favor of a responsible, rather than an emotional, approach to this
and any other City program, and he would hope that the Council does;
nothing on Monday that it would regret it had done on Wednesday.
The City has an ordinance on the books which wasn't
arrived at in haste, the City has a system in effect for financing
the refuse collection under the principle of user-pay. He would
like to proceed on the basis already established by the Council,
and in that connection he would approve Councilman Bleecker's very
excellent analysis of things as they stand.
He would nevertheless propose to vote "no" to get out of
the refuse collection business because he doesn't think the City
is in a position to make that judgment tonight. He would vote "no"
on Councilman Heisey's motion to table. He would vote "no" on
Councilman Whittemore's motion to rescind the ordinance effective
June 30, 1972. He hopes he is not wrong in taking this position.
When asked for a clarification of his statement, Council-
man Rees stated first of all he is praying that Councilman Heisey,
250
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 13
Councilman Whirremote and Mayor Hart will all be elected. His
previous statements should indicate that he is in favor of main-
taining the status quo.
Councilman Heisey commented that he had asked for
clarification of Councilman Rees' statements as what he had to
say is exactly the purpose of his motion to table Councilman
Whittemore's motion. It maintains the status quo, and he had asked
to table any further action on this issue until after the primary
election of June 6th, which would give the Council the time to sit
down and rationally, with the results of the election in hand,
determine which is the best approach to the problem.
Councilman Bleecker pointed out that if the refuse charge
is included in the tax base and the assessed valuation of property
is doubled, the property owner's tax is immediately doubled for
his refuse collection and for other City services.
Mayor Hart stated he wished to exercise the prerogative
of the chair to hear those persons who have requested permission
to speak before the Council this evening.
Mr. Tom Folsom representing the Kern County Taxpayers'
Association, stated it is important to understand that under the
Articles of Incorporation of this Association, they are essentially
a citizens agency intent upon securing the highest obtainable
degree of efficiency and economy in the transaction of public
business in Kern County. On fhis bas'is, this organization filed
with the Council last December on its final adoption of the parti-
cular ordinance under discussion tonight, a letter of commendation
regarding the funding of the service which the Council is providing
under its direction, in essence the refuse collection service,
funds from which are co-mingled in the general fund for operating
the other services provided in the general fund. He read the
following letter:
Bakersfield, California, May l, 1972 - Page 14
Your expressed intention to reduce the tax rate
for the next fiscal year by not less than fifty
cents is an expression which is heartily endorsed
by this Association. It is recognized that your
intent is essentially a shift in the source of
revenue as your general policy more nearly
approaches a "user-pay" philosophy of financing
public services a philosophy which this Associ-
ation has always supported.
In view of this anticipated assessed valuation,
it appears that this reduction in tax rate will
be equivalent to $800,000. Please be assured
that this Association is ready in any way possible
to assist you in fulfilling your expressed intent
of balancing your budget. Should you find it
practicable to form a citizens advisory committee
to review phases of your pending budget, as once
suggested by your Honorable Vice-Nayor, this
office is available to participate constructively
in any manner that you may request.
He stated he would like to make one other comment which
he felt was relevant to the discussion here tonight concerning City
expenditures and the method of financing City services. This
prompts him to note that two-thirds of the cost in this City is
for salaries of City employees. Just a 1% increase, t'ogether with
related fringe benefits, would increase the City's costs in amount
of $100,000, equivalent to 6~ on the tax rate.
It must be recognized that the salary increases for
County employees establishes the level usually set by the City.
In 1972-73 the County Civil Service Commission is recommending
salary increases in excess of 5.6%,which related to the fringe
benefits which are correlative to the salary increases, approaches
a figure of $3,000,000 on the County budge~. As a practical matter,
he would suggest that the people here tonight would do well to
express themselves on the subject of salaries and fringe benefits
paid by the County to its employees at the review of its budget
during the middle of June.
Mr. Max Amstutz, President of the Downtown Business
Association, stated that his Board of Directors has requested him
to appear here tonight to support the action taken by the Council
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 15
in the adoption of the ordinance concerning refuse col'lection in
August, 1971. The Board agrees with the user-pay concept and
thinks that the Council has acted in a fair and just manner and in
the best interests of all concerned. They support the action
because they recognized the need to generate additional funds in
order to balance the budget, and that this ordinance was adopted
in 1971 to serve that purpose. If at that time the Council had
taken the path of least resistance, it would have raised the general
tax rate and all this furore would have been avoided.
Instead the Council had obligated itself to reduce the
tax rate for the coming fiscal year by 50~. They are also aware
that Bakersfield is one of the last cities in the State to include
refuse in its tax rate. Most cities have adopted the user-pay
concept many years ago and found it to be a workable and fair plan
for refuse collection. This board is in favor of the user-pay
concept with everyone paying their fair share and that includes
the downtown businessmen.
Mr. Art Boehning, speaking for himself as a resident and
representing the College Center Business Association, stated that
he has seen both sides of the rubbish collection, from being a
homeowner and also from being in business. At one time he lived
in the County and paid $3.75 a month without grass clippings, and
if he had grass clippings, he was charged $5.00 for garbage col-
lection, so that the $2.00 charged by the City in his opinion is a
bargain. If he had to drive to the City dump periodically, he
couldn't possibly match the price, which is a very reasonable one.
With the 50~ proposed reduction in his taxes, he will be
coming out close to even. The big problem seems to be that the
word "garbage" is repugnant to everyone. If it were called some-
thing else, people would have paid it without complaint, realizing
that this type of service is needed and wanted. In the cases
where there have been inequities, when the City personnel has been
553
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 16
contacted and those inequities pointed out, he is sure they have
been eorrectedo He had some disagreement with the City regarding
the number of bins he would need to haul away his commercial rubbish,
but the situation was resolved to his satisfaction. He felt he
needed six pickups a week when it was free, but now that he has to
pay, finds he can get along with half that amount.
He stated that if people would .take a reasonable attitude
and not demand any more services from the City then is actually
needed, there will not be exorbitant costs that will raise the cost
of City services. Be feels that the user-pay concept is the most
equitable way to raise funds to support the City. For everyone to
share the burden, is an honest and fair shake for everyone, and he
heartily endorses this theory and will support it 100%.
Mr. George Barton, General Manager of the Greater Bakers.-
field Chamber of Commerce, stated he would like to add a word of
support to Councilman Rees' plea for decisions to be made with
responsibility and without a display of emotions. The Chamber of
Commerce believes that the Council has been doing an excellent job
of representing the interests of the citizens, even though they do
not always agree with the way it is done. The Chamber does not
like increased costs through the garbage collection fees or in-
creased taxes, but it recognizes that no business and no government,
for that matter, can operate in todays climate of inflation for
very long without raising employees' salaries. Criticizing the
City for doing this is unrealistic and sometimes borders on the
hypocritical.
The Chamber is in the business of trying to promote this
community and is in competition with other cities which do not
include garbage collection in their tax rate. As a result, this
City's tax rate reflects unfavorably with almost every other major
City in the State. The City's decision to take the garbage cost
out of the tax rate and charge on a user-pay basis to save a tax
increase and cut next year's taxes, is believed by the Chamber of
Commerce to be responsible government and it would like to commend
the City for it.
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 17
It is obvious that there is a large difference of opinion
represented here tonight, some of it generated by the messages
which have been going out on the telephone answering service
seeking to organize a taxpayer's revolt against garbage. The
statemen~which have been made on that answering service pitch are
basically false. They are extremely misleading and can be refuted
in almost every instance. However, there is no doubt that they
are affecting the citizenry and are being made under the proposition
that "if you say it loud enough, long enough, and often enough"
people will believe it. And it seems that some people are believing
it.
The Council has started this year by taking an action
which the Chamber believes is responsible government. The Chamber
would beg the Council not to be stampeded into changing its mind
for something which is worse without very, very serious considera-
tion, responsible consideration, rather than emotional consideration.
Mr. A. G. Swafford of 830 "M" Street, stated that he is
here tonight to make a complaint about a little building which
his wife owns for which she received a refuse collection bill in
the amount of $22.50. He stated his hat would hold the garbage
from this one little unit. He went down and tried to talk with
the City department about it and received no consideration, was
told that he would have to pay it. He received two bills for
garbage and does not own any property in the City of Bakersfield,
so he tore up the bills and handed them to his wife to dispose of,
as he is not paying any garbage charge.
Bob Hawkins stated that he represents the concerned citizens
of southeast Bakersfield. He has heard quite a bit of rhetoric
from various organizations and the only thing as poor people that
they have to say is "No, Now" on the Garbage Collection, "No Later",
255
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 18
and "No, F~rever"~ as they cannot afford to pay this type of tax.
Mr. Walter Sanders stated he was only representing him-
self~ but he has a lot of friends, people who have talked to him
about the refuse collection charge. He has .been pushed around a
lot and has never come before the Council to make a complaint
before. But he has received a bill for the four properties that
he has for $148.00 for three months and he is coming to the Council
to complain. He has rented a bin from the City and is sharing it
with his neighbor, which costs him $8.00 a month. He doesn't have
it half full, is just doing it to help his neighbor. He wants his
rights, and he wants other poor people to have the same thing~ that
is all he is asking.
Councilman Rees remarked that he has heard expressions
from the City staff that. it is willing to make adjustments. It
would appear to him that a little householder who is billed $148.00
should have some investigation made, and if this bill is incorrect:.
the City should hasten to make a correction. If this bill is
accurate, then it is fair that he pay his share just like the rest
of the people.
Mr. Bergen stated they are making a note of this and
will check into Mr. Sanders' complaint, as well as the one presented
by Mr. Swafford.
Mr. George H. Webster of 1915 - 20th Street, stated that
he is what you would call a "Tax Consultant." He thanked the many
persons in the community who have given support to the Garbage Tax
Revolt Committee and he assured everyone present that this battle
shall be won and it shall be won by their vigilance and the vigilance
of the community.
The principle of the Garbage Tax Revolt Committee is that
an informed public is best capable of judging the activities of the
Bakersfield City Government. .It is very clear to them that this
Couneil has been acting on impulse for some time. It is nothing
but a big seven man "Do-it-yourself" kit---
At this point, Mayor Hart told Mr. Webster that this kind
of commentary is uncalled for. Until Mr. Webster sits through some
Bakersfield, California, May l, 1972 - Page 19
of the budget sessions that involve raising the funds and applying
them to operate this community, he has no right to make such a
statement. Mayor Hart told Mr. Webster that he didn't know on
what authority he speaks and until he conducts himself in the
proper manner, he will not be permitted to continue.
Mr. Webster stated he would plead the first amendment.
Mayor Hart stated he could plead the first amendment if
he wished, but he was acting as the presiding officer in this
chamber and he was telling him to cease and desist in making any
further statements of this nature.
Mr. Webster stated this is fine for entertainment but
ineffectual for the huge job of governing the City. He mentioned
a principle a moment ago, he would like to inform the people pre-
sent of one which would have kept the Council out of the' kind of
trouble that it is presently in. Simply stated, the principle is
this - government should provide only those services for people
which they cannot possibly provide for themselves. This would
never have happened if the Council had stuck to that principle.
The Council has been acting on administration-guided impulse,
rather than principle. This error was made last Juno. The first
step of the solution seems to be taking place this evening.
What is the Garbage Committee for? It is for a City
Government that does not spend $300,000 on a bus syst,em which
nobody wants to ride. It is for a City Government that does not
spend $50,000 in computer costs and personnel for oppressive costs
and billing of refuse collection charges which nobody is going to
pay. It is for a City Government that has the backbone to refuse
to take matching funds because this City Government just can't
afford to match them. It is for a City Council that has the
intestinal fortitude to admit it has made a mistake and has the
wisdom and the courage to back down. The moment of truth is upon
us. The people of Bakersfield deserve to know who is for them and
who is against them. He asked every person in the room who is
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 20
opposed to this garbage ordinance and would like to see it rescinded
tonight to stand up.
He stated that with his own roll call, he would find out
who is for them and who is against them. He attempted to poll the
Council.
Mayor Hart stated as follows:
Mr. Webster, you are completely out of order. You are
not presiding at this particular meeting, you have no right to call
a roll in this chamber. I will call the roll when the time comes
for it and you will then know who is for you and who is against
yOU o
Incidentally, the 7,000 plus people who have paid their
refuse collection bill and the 50% of this audience who did not
stand up when you made your emotional plea, Mr. Webster, may be
some of the answers that you are seeking. Now I ask you to please
proceed with what you have to offer without the dramatics and let's
get this thing behind ~s.
Mr. Webster stated that he thought the point is pretty
plain and he will leave it at that.
Mr. Don Hoffman, Executive Secretary of the Kern County
Fire Fighters Union, Inc., stated that his presentation will not
be an emotional matter. He then read the following letter:
It is with a great deal of reluctance that I
appear before this Council this evening. Our
union feels that your Honorable Council has
more important work to do than to be besieged
by a constant barrage of criticism, that in
most instances is unfounded, unfactual.and
quite often irresponsible. But, when state-
ments are made inferring that Fire Fighters
and other public employees should subsidize
the City budget by foregoing any wage increase,
this cannot be ignored.
Gentlemen, our Working Conditions and Salary
Briefs which you have in your possession have
been researched and compiled from the most
recent and reliable information available. It
is presently in the Governmental Efficiency
Practices Committee for consideration and recom-
mendation to this Council. It is our educated
opinion that we will receive a fair evaluation
of that brief by the G.E.P. Committee and that
you will receive a recommendation based upon
fact and a reasonable criteria of like pay for
like work that is prevalent in other similar
size cities in California.
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 21
some 400
ciation.
It is also our opinion that the vast majority
of the citizens of Bakersfield, understand the
financial problems that have been brought about
by the inflationary conditions that now exist
and fully realize that taxes and other City
costs must go up if we are to maintain the
level of services necessary for the protection
of life and property in our City.
You may be assured, Gentlemen, that our union
has and always will, act in a responsible manner
in our requests. In addition, we offer to you
our support and any help we may render in
improving the fire protection service at the
least possible cost for Bakersfield.
If our City is to grow and maintain its com-
petitive position in the State of California,
all citizens, unions, and other responsible
organizations must learn to work together for
the common good of all, or chaos will prevail
to the detriment of all.
Mr. Howard Dallimore, stated he was here representing
to 500 employees of the Bakersfield City Employees Asso-
He read the following statement:
The taxpayers were promised a 509 tax rate
reduction for 1972-73 Fiscal Year in connection
with a refuse collection charge beginning April
1, 1972. This is worth about $25.00 per year
tax savings to the owner of a home with the
average market value of $19,200. If the refuse
collection charge had not started this fiscal
year, the taxpayer would have had a 12½9 tax
increase for the 1972-73 Fiscal Year.
This collection charge only covers about 70%
of the real cost to the City. The City still
subsidizes the remaining 30% cost of refuse
collection. The City tax rate has been reduced
or held without any increase for ten years. It
was lowered five years in a row and held for the
past five years. There isn't any business in
this community or any other governmental agency
that has that record.
About 80% of the total taxes that citizens pay
goes to the Federal and State Governments. Only
20% goes to local government, including County,
schools and State. Despite this fact, about
80% of the governmental services that taxpayers
receive, are rendered by local government
employees.
Mr. Folsom referred to the budget stating that
two thirds of the budget goes for salaries. I
think we must always remember a public agency
is a service organization, it does not manu-
facture products, it gives services to the
community. Two-thirds of the budget for salaries
is not unreasonable and is the proper proportion
that it should be.
If the people in this community think going to
private haulers is going to save money, I would
recommend they go out to the City of Taft, the
City of Ridgecrest or some of these other cities
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 22
and find out what they are paying for their
garbage collection and I am sure they will
come back screaming "Give it back to us."
The 5% salary increase for City employees last
year was necessary to offset the actual 5%
increase in the cost of living. The latest
survey made of local industry indicates that
salaries last year in the Kern County sector
averaged 5.6%. So the 5% increase granted by
this City Council was not unreasonable and was
a very thorough act on your part.
In closing, I remind your Honorable Council and
I have to do this all the time, that City
employees are not only taxpayers, but property
owners, and should not be made the scapegoats
to save money.
Councilman Whittemore stated that when Mr. Folsom, Mr.
Amstutz, Mr. Boehning and George Barton endorsed the user-pay con-
cept, he thinks everyone realizes why, because they are representing
big business. They are not representing the people in the neighbor-
hoods who are not getting a reduction in their garbage with a 50¢
reduction on the tax rate.
Councilman Heisey pointed out that while the Chamber of
Commerce and the Taxpayers Association have spoken tonight, the
Labor Unions have also spoken on the same side of the fence. He
feels that the rational thing to do is table this matter until
budget time, which is only a short distance away, and at that time
take another look at it. The Council has to be responsible and
meet the commitments Ior which it is already obligated and is not
in a position to throw out an ordinance and adopt a new ordinance
on the spur of the moment. These things need to be done rationally-
without pressure. He then called for the question.
Councilman Medders commented that in the beginning of
the meeting he had stated he would be willing to help overturn the
garbage collection ordinance, but he feels now that to do anything
before June 6th would be a mistake. After June 6th, it can well
be rescinded without any problem. If the Watson Amendment passes,
it will be necessary for the Council to assess a user-pay amendment
on the public anyway.
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 23
Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's motion to
the June 6, 1972 election, carried as foilova:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees
table until
Councilmen Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
None
A brief recess was declared at this time.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(b), (c),
the
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 3412 to 3467,
inclusive, in amount of $30,918.01.
(b)
Plans and Specifications for Construction
of Utility Building and Electric Service
at Patriots Park.
(c)
Street Right of Way Easement from Stock-
dale Development Corporation for a portion
of Wilson Road between Stine Road and New
Stine Road.
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
(d) Application for Encroachment Permit from
Clyde N. Griffin, 3417 Bucknell Street.
(e) Application for Encroachment Permit from
Joseph Blanco, 620 E1Prado Drive.
(f) Application for Encroachment Permit from
Leocadio B. Hernandez, 329 Beale Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a),
(d), (e) and (f) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by
following vote:
Ayes:
Action on Bids.
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees,
low bid of McCarthy
Steel for the Construction of Shop Building at Waste Water Treat-
ment Plant No. 2 was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and
the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Bakersfield, California, May 1, 1972 - Page 24
Approval of Contract with Sam Polios
for the operation of a Concession
Stand in Beale Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, contract with Sam
Polios for the operation of a Concession Stand in Beale Park was
approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of Contract with Panama
School District for Recreational
Services.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote,
contract with Panama School District for Recreational Services was
approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of Contract Change Order No.
4, to Hemisphere Constructors, for
Contract No. 108-70, Water Pollution
Control Facility for Southwest Bakers-
field.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Construction Change
Order No. 4, in amount of $2,936.07, to Hemisphere Constructors,
for Contract No. 108-70, Water Pollution Control Facility for South-
west Bakersfield was approved and the Mayor was authorized to
execute same.
Acceptance of Work and Notice of Com-
pletion for Contract No. 108-70 for
Construction of the Water Pollution
Control Facility for Southwest Bakers-
field.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Thomas,
the Work was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the
Notice of Completion for Contract No. 108-70, Hemisphere Constructors,
for construction of the Water Pollution Control Facility for South-.
west Bakersfield. Completion date for this contract was extended
for 65 working days to March 10, 1972, due to strikes, weather and
equipment delivery, which were delays beyond the contractor's
control.
Bakersfield, California, May l, 1972 - Page 25
Approval of Joint Exercise of Power
Agreement between the City of Bakers-
field and County of Kern for installa-
tion of Crossing Protection at Stine
Road Crossing of the Southern Pacific
Railroad, Buttonwillow Branch.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Joint Exercise
of Power Agreement between the City of Bakersfield and County of
Kern for Installation of Crossing Protection at Stine Road Crossing
of the Southern Pacific Railroad, Buttonwillow Branch was approved,
and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the meeting was
adjourned ad 10:00 P.M.
Calif.
ATTEST:
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, May 8, 1972
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 8, 1972.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Charles
Wilkerson of the Chester Avenue Baptist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
Absent: None
Minutes of
as presented.
the regular meeting of May l, 1972 were approved
Mr. Tod Madigan, Chairman, and Miss Lois Raney, Co-Chairman,
introduced the high school students in the Boys' and Girls' State
Program sponsored by the Bakersfield American Legion Post No. 26,
in the functions of the City Government at this
who participated
meeting.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Timothy M. Beckwith, of the Indoor Sports Club, addressed
the Council, stating that Assembly Bills 2763, 2764 and 2238 make
it a requirement that buildings such as the City Hall, the Civic
Auditorium and other public buildings, be made accessible to, and
useable by the physically handicapped. He extended an invitation
to the Council to participate in a "Wheelchair Tour" of the Civic
Center on Saturday, May 13th, to last approximately three hours,
during which time the Mayor and Council will not be permitted to
leave the wheelchairs.
Councilman Heisey asked for a progress report on the
construction of a ramp near the rear entrance o£ City Hall, and
also asked if the date for this tour could not be changed from a
Saturday to a Monday, as he, and most of the Councilmen, usually
have their Saturdays tied up.
Director of Public Works Bidwell reported that the
preliminary plans have been prepared and an estimate of approxi-
mately $4,500 was made, for consideration at this year's budget
session, to construct a single ramp and automatic doors at the
City Hall entrance.
Bakersfield, California, May 8, 1972 - Page 2
Councilman Thomas stated he would accept the invitation
to make the tour. Councilman Whittemore stated he did not have a
Saturday open but could participate on most any other date. Other
members of the Council agreed to participate, if possible. Mr.
Beckwith stated their plans can be changed to any date convenient
to the Council.
Councilman Rees stated these dramatic things, such as a
Wheelchair tour, are very effective, but he would think that what
Mr. Beckwith and his group want is to have something done. He
was a member of the Kern County Society for Crippled Children and
suggested that Mr. Beckwith contact Mr. Francis Parsons, Architect,
who is a professional in designing facilities for handicapped
persons.
Councilman Bleecker remarked that he would not care to
participate in a wheelchair tour, and asked Mr. Beckwith what
additional facilities besides the proposed ramp he would like
constructed in the City Hall. Mr. Beckwith proposed that the
restrooms be equipped with guard rails, the stalls widened to
accomodate wheelchairs, towel dispensers lowered, directional
plaques in braille placed near doorways so that the blind can
know where they are and where they are going. He also requested
that space for wheelchairs be provided at the Civic Auditorium.
After discussion, Councilman Heisey moved that the
recommendations made by Mr. Beckwith be put in writing and referred
to the Public Works Department for study and recommendation at the
budget sessions. This motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Hart told Mr. Beckwith he would be on hand to
participate in the wheelchair tour on Saturday, May 13.
Marge Hobbi, Publicity Agent for the Ice Capades, addressed
the Council, stating that if Mr. Beckwith and his group tour the
Civic Auditorium during a performance of the Ice Capades, arrange-
ments will be made for them to attend the show. She extended an
invitation to Mayor Hart and members of the Council to attend the
opening performance of the Ice Capades on May 10, 1972.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, communication from Mrs.
Agnes M. Kibodeaux, regarding refuse collection charges and Council
meeting of May 1, 1972, was ordered received and placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore~ communication
from Elmer Fox & Company submitting a proposal for the audit of
the City's records for the year ended June 30, 1972, was received,
placed on file and referred to the Budget Review and Finance Com-
mittee for study and recommendation.
Council Statements.
Councilman Bleecker stated his mind was made up to make
this statement only after hearing President Nixon's nationally
televised address this evening, in which the President has stated
he will take measures to end the war in Indochina by ordering the
blockading and mining of all North Vietnamese seaports and ordering
attacks against all railroad and other transportation routes which
are used to send civilian and military goods to the Viet Cong.
This move will be taken by the President to protect 17,000,000
civilians in South Vietnam and cover the withdrawal of 60~000
Americans still remaining in this country. Councilman Bleecker
stated he believes this move is long overdue~ and without entering
into politics, the people of this country and the people of the
City of Bakersfield should support this action.
He went on to say that while he has been on this Council
he has been at odds, one time or another, with almost every member
of the Council. But he would like to see the Council support his
motion to endorse the President of the United States in his action
to bring the war in Vietnam to a quick end.
Councilman Thomas commented that if this Council votes
to support Councilman Bleecker's motion, it is saying that the
City of Bakersfield approves it~ and he does not think the whole
City does; therefore~ he cannot support the motion. However, after
he heard the President's broadcast tonight~ he sent him a telegram
of support.
Bakersfield, California, May 8, 1972 - Page 4
Councilman Heisey stated he would be most happy
the motion and second it, the least thing the Council can
support the President and the nation at a time of crisis.
Councilman Rees stated he is going to abstain from voting
on this motion, but will make up his own mind and take his own
action.
Councilman Whittemore stated he doesn't know whether a
motion of this kind is proper for the Council floor or not, however,
he feels that Councilman Bleecker's action is excellent, and he
would support the motion on an individual basis.
Councilman Rucker stated he feels that this is not a
matter to be considered by the City Council, as an individual he
would not object, but he will abstain from voting on the motion.
Mayor Hart commented that under the circumstances he can
understand the feeling of this Council elected by the people of
this community to act on their behalf in matters pertaining to the
City of Bakersfield and he accepts the desire of some of the Council
to abstain from voting on this motion. He asked that the motion
be rephrased, as he can support any action of the President of the
United States to end this war, as an individual, but he does not
think this is the proper business for the City Council.
Councilman Bleecker stated he would amend his motion to
read that as individuals, not necessarily as elected officials, by
roll call vote, this Council support the action that has been taken
by the President of the United States to end the war in Southeast
Asia. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstaining: Councilman Rees
Councilman Rees stated he is not familiar with the
specific actions which were called for by the President and until
such time he will abstain from voting on the motion.
to support
do is
Bakersf±eld, California~ May 8~ 1972 - Page 5
Mayor Hart
in support of the motion,
members of this Council.
commented to let the record show that he votes
and this is an individual action by the
Reports.
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported on the subject of an
amendment to the Public Employees' Retirement System Contract.
During the past months, this committee and the staff have
discussed a proposed amendment to the City's contract with the
California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to include
Firemen. Employees of the Fire Department are presently covered
under a private retirement plan which was established by the
electorate in 1938.
Since that time, the City has entered into a contract
with PERS for retirements plans for Police and Miscellaneous Depart-
ment employees. The present retirement plan for employees of the
Police Department provides for one-half of final compensation for
those who retire with 20 years of service at age 55 or over, with
additional benefits for service after normal retirement.
Although the private retirement plan for employees of
the Fire Department provides for the same percentage of final
compensation, years of credited service, and age at retirement,
the benefits are not the same as provided for the safety employees
of the Police Department who are members of PERS.
For retirement purposes, final compensation for members
of PERS is the average monthly earnings by an employee during his
highest 36 consecutive months - three years. Final compensation
for employees of the Fire Department covered under the private plan,
is the highest average monthly salary for sixty consecutive months -
five years. The retirement law also provides for an automatic
annual adjustment of allowances of retired persons or certain bene-
ficiaries to reflect increases. in the cost of living not to exceed
2 percent. The private pension plan for employees of the Fire
Department does not have such provisions. .In addition,.benefits
Bakersfield, California, May 8, 1972 - Page 6
paid by the City's industrial injury insurance carrier are offset
against retirement benefits for employees of the Fire Department
under the existing private retirement plan. These offset provisio:ns
do not exist in the safety retirement plan of PERS.
After considerable discussion among the employees and at
the request of the Fire Chief, on March 13, 1972 the City Council
adopted a Resolution of Intention to amend the contract with PERS
in order that further actuarial calculations could be carried out
to determine the cost to the City for including Firemen under the
same retirement plan with Poiicemen. The results of this actuarial
study indicates that this would not only increase benefits for
safety members of the Fire Department, but would slightly reduce
costs to the City and members, due to the accumulated transferable
assets of the private retirement plan.
The City would retain the private retirement plan and
approximately three-fifths of the accumulated assets for the retired
employees of the Fire Department, the remainder would be transferred
to PERS. These transferred assets would be sufficient to reduce
the City's cost below what is now being paid for both safety retire-
ment systems.
Therefore, this committee recommends that the Council
receive the report, consider the attached ordinance authorizing
an amendment to the City's contract with the California Public
Employees' Retirement System to include the City's Firemen under tile
sameretirement plan as the Policemen, as given first reading, and
establish the earliest possible effective date of the amendment as
June 26, 1972.
City Manager Bergen stated he had a brief statement
regarding this action to include the City's Firemen under the
PERS retirement plan.
There has been much discussion on the so-called parity
between the Police and Fire Departments. It is difficult, if not
impossible, to relate duties and responsibilities between Policemen
and Firemen with regards to salaries. However, in the case of
Bakersfield, California, May 8, 1972 - Page 7
retirement systems, it is easier to relate, because both are public
safety departments, and Mr. Bergen believes it is justified to have
equivalent retirement plans.
This change will make the Police and Fire Departments
retirement ben,efits the same with n~o additional cost at this time.
The Council is, and should be aware, that there'is constant pressure
to upgrade all retirement plans, especially in the safety sector,
which can, and may increase costs to the City in the future.
Nevertheless, this change is overdue and should promote
harmony in the Fire Department and deserves thesupport of the City
Council.
Councilman Heisey asked Mr. Bergen if he was inferring
that there would be an increased cost to the City for this change
in the Police and Fire Departments retirement benefits in the
future.
Mr. Bergen replied he had made the statement, to bring
it to the Council's attention, that there is constant movement to
upgrade all retirement plans which could result in a future in-
crease. There is no increase in this particular proposal at this
time.
Councilman Whittemore moved adoption of the report and
that this be considered first reading of the ordinance. This motion
carried unanimously.
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read a report on the approval
of Medical Examination Instructions and Standards.
During the past year the staff has spent considerable
time in developing medical standards for all City employees.
Attached is a copy of the proposed Medical Examination Instructions;
and Standards. The Police, Fire and Miscellaneous Civil Service
Commissions have discussed this program and each commission is
recommending they be adopted by the City Council. Each of the
employee's unions and associations have also given their approval
to this program.
The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee has
met and discussed this proposal several times and is recommending
that the Council approve these standards as submitted, and also
27O
Bakersfield, California, May 8, 1972 - Page 8
approve the Niles Surgical and Medical Group head by Dr. Marion
Barnard as the City's physicians.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the report was
adopted.
Councilman Whirremote, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read a report on the approval
of Speci£ications.
Last week the City Council approved the creation of a
new position in the Finance Department of an Auditor's Investigator.
Attached is a proposed copy of the job specifications for such a
postion.
Also attached are job specifications for the Assistant
Sanitation Superintendent, Sanitation Supervisor, Sanitation Route
Inspector, Sanitation Route Foreman, Sanitation Crewman II and
Sanitation Crewman I. It was recently brought to our attention
that these job specifications required a Class 3 Drivers License.
With the size of trucks that these employees are driving, the State
law calls for a Class 2 license. In order to update these job
specifications, the Special Necessary Qualifications will now
state: "Possession of a valid California Driver's license as
required by law for equipment used in performance of duties."
These are the only changes.
The Governmental
recommends the approval of
cartons and the changes in
Efficiency and Personnel Committee
the Auditor's Investigator job specifi-
the Refuse Division Specifications.
adopted.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the report was
Councilman Rees, Chairman of the Legislative Committee,
reported on the Veterans Bond Act of 1971, Proposition No. l, to
be voted upon at the Primary Election of June 6, 1972. This Act
provides for a bond issue of two hundred fifty million dollars to
provide farm and home aid for California Veterans and will continue
the Cal-Vet Program, which is entirely self-supporting, at no cost
to the taxpayers.
Bakersfield, California, May 8, 1972 - Page 9
An organization is supporting this and has asked the
Council for an endorsement. Councilman Rees then moved that the
City Attorney be instructed to prepare an appropriate resolution
signifying endorsement by the City Council of Proposition No.
on the June 6, 1972 ballot.
After discussion,
carried unanimously.
(c)
vote taken
Consent Calendar.
on Councilman Rees' motion
The following items were listed on the Consent
(a)
(b)
(c)
Allowance of Claims Nos. 3468 to 3521,
inclusive, in amount of $147,415.01.
Application for Encroachment Permit from
Jack M. Wunderlich, 3801 Crescent Drive.
Notice of Completion of Work on South
Chester Avenue between Kern Island Canal
and Ming Avenue.
Calendar:
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b) and
of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Upon a motion
and Jacobs Construction
Action on Bids.
by Councilman Heisey, low bid of Francis
for improvement of New Stine Road between
Ming Avenue and Wilson Road was accepted, all other bids were
rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, low bid of Francis
and Jacobs Construction for street improvement and traffic signal
modification on Columbus Street at Union Avenue was accepted, all
other bids were rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the contract.
Bakersfield, California, May 8, 1972 - Page 10
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2007 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Paragraph 4 of
and adding Paragraph 5 to Section
8.48.030 and amending Subsection (b)
of Section 8.48.090 of Chapter 8.48
of the Municipal Code concerning
Refuse Collection.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
2007 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Paragraph 4 of and adding Paragraph 5 to Section 8.48.030 and
amending Subsection (b) of Section 8.48.090 of Chapter 8.48 of the
Municipal Code concerning Refuse Collection, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: Councilman Rucker
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 873 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its intention
to order the vacation of a portion of
"L" Street between 38th Steeet and
40th Street, in the City of Bakers-
field.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution of Inten-
tion No. 873 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring
its intention to order the vacation of a portion of "L" Street
between 38th Street and 40th Street, in the City of Bakersfield,
and setting date of May 22, 1972, for hearing on the matter before
the Council, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Action deferred for one week on Resolu-
tions of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield making finding that Tenta-
tive Tracts Nos. 3624, 3622, 3623 and 3617,
together with provisions of their design
and improvement, are consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
At this time, Councilman Whittemore moved adoption of a
Resolution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making finding
that Tentative Tract No. 3622, together with provisions for its
Bakersfield, California, May 8, 1972 - Page 11
273
design and improvement, is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans. Councilman Thomas stated that he does not agree
with a law that requires the Council to rubber stamp the Planning
Commission's actions, and asked Planning Director Sceales i£ this
tract is consistent with the general plan of the City. Mr. Sceales
stated that it is, the property is zoned R-1 and the subdivision is
an R-1 subdivision.
Councilman Bleecker stated that at the pre-meeting it was
quite obvious he was upset at being expected to vote in an ipso
facto manner without any knowledge of these tentative tract maps.
The explanation was given that it is a State law which requires
the Council to approve ~11 Tentative Maps submitted. To him a
tentative approval is tantamount to formal approval at a later
date. He doesn't agree with the Council rubber stamping the
Planning Commission recommendations even in a tentative way, and
until it is
doing so, he will
other Resolutions
3617.
demonstrated to him that there
abstain in voting on this
approving Tentative Tract
these
is some good reason for
Resolution and on the
Maps 3622, 3623, 3624 and
Councilman Heisey then offered a substitute motion that
four resolutions on the agenda be deferred for another week
to give all members of the Council the opportunity to become informed
on the location of the tracts, etc.
Councilman Whittemore pointed out that a delay of this
nature could be extremely expensive to the developer, however, he
wouldn't think that one week's delay would cause any financial
problem. The Planning Commission goes to great lengths to review
these issues and he does not think approving a tentative subdivision
map would be injurious to the City, inasmuch as the State law does
require the Council's approval.
After additional discussion, vote taken on the motion to
defer for one week carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Noes:
Absent:
Whittemore
Councilman Thomas
None
274
Bakersfield, California, May 8, 1972 - Page 12
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
for hearing protests by persons owning real property within terri-
tory designated as "Ming No. 5" proposed to be annexed to the City
of Bakersfield.
This hearing has been duly published and notices mailed
to all property owners affected. No protests or objections were
filed in the City Clerk's office up to the time the Agenda was
printed. Six letters expressing opposition to the rezoning and a
petition containing the names of 33 persons expressing objections
to the rezoning of all the parcels in the proposed Ming No. 5
annexation excepting those fronting on Ming Avenue were received in
the City Clerk's office on Monday afternoon and copies were made
for each member of the Council.
Mayor Hart declared the meeting open for public partici-
pation and requested those persons who wished to speak in approval
of this annexation to address the Council at this time. Mr. David
Fanucchi, speaking for Mr. Frank Munis, owner of property within
this territory proposed to be annexed, and Mr. A1Whelan, repre-
senting Ming Center Investment Company, owners of property on the
north side of Ming Avenue within this proposed annexation, stated
they are in favor of the annexation.
City Attorney Hoagland stated he wanted to make it clear
to those persons present in the audience who had filed protests to
the annexation, that only those persons owning real property within
this territory proposed to be annexed, are permitted to register
protests to the annexation.
There being no protests or objections from persons owning
real property within this territory designated as "Ming No. 5", the
public hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 24-72
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring that a majority
protest has not been made to the annexation of territory designated
as Ming No. 5, proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield,
Bakersfield, California~ May 8, 1972 - Page 13
was
was
Ayes:
as Ming No. 5, proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield,
adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes:
Absent:
Rees, Rucker,
None
None
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Ordinance No. 2008
New Series approving annexation of a parcel of uninhabited terri-
tory to the City o£ Bakersfield designated as Ming No. 5 and
providing for the taxation of said territory to pay the bonded
indebtedness of said City, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
This is the time set for public hearing on the initiated
action by the Planning Commission to Zone upon Annexation to an
R-2-P (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Automobile Parking) or
more restrictive, Zone; to R-2-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling -
Architectural Design).or more restrictive, Zone; to a C-1-D (Limited
Commercial - Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone; and
to a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural Design) or more restrictive,.
Zone; affecting that certain property in the County of Kern located
north and south. of Ming Avenue and between Akers Road on the west
and the existing City Limits on the east and a parcel west of U.S.
Highway 99 and southerly of Ming Avenue, known as Ming No. 5 Annexa-
tion.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent as required by law. No protests or objections have
been filed in the City Clerk's office up until the time the Agenda
was printed. Several letters and a petition were filed on Monday,
May 8, 1972.
Subject annexation contains two parcels. Both of these
parcels are adjacent to Ming Avenue, a major highway, serving
Bakersfield, California, May 8, 1972 - Page 14
southwest Bakersfield, Valley Plaza and interchanging with 99
Freeway. All other properties in this vicinity onto Ming Avenue
are zoned C-2 and are within the City Limits of Bakersfield.
The requested zoning upon annexation for Parcel "A" is
C-1-D and R-1. This parcel is presently zoned C-O-D in the County.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of this zoning as
requested.
The requested zoning upon annexation for Parcel "B" is
R-2-P, R-2-D, C-2-D and R-1. The zoning surrounding this parcel
to the west and north is C-2 and R-1 single family homes to the
south. Parcel "B" is presently zoned R-1 in the County.
A petition was received containing 37 signatures from
property owners within the area of Parcel "B" of the annexation
objecting to the rezoning other than the properties fronting on
Ming Avenue. The Commission recommended that Parcel "B" be approved
for C-2-D and R-2-P zoning for the frontage on Ming Avenue and thai;
the remaining lots be zoned R-1.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. Mr. David Fanucchi representing Mr. Frank Munis, stated
that the recommendation of the Planning Commission was to leave
R-1 zoning on the property fronting on Azuza Place which is one
block north of Sorrano Avenue, and the Commission recommended that
the C-2-D be approved for only the frontage on Ming Avenue. The
applicant has agreed to this change and he asked the Council to
approve the Planning Commission's recommendation.
No one else speaking in favor of the rezoning upon
annexation and no one expressing any objections to
rezoning, the public meeting was closed for Council
and action.
the proposed
deliberation
Bakersfield, California, May 8, 1972 - Page 15 ~7
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas,
New Series amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter 17.12
Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield,
by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Ordinance No. 2009
(Zoning
was adopted
Council,
adjourned at
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Thomas, Whittemore
Rucker,
None
None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the meeting was
9:30 P.M.
Calif.
ATTEST:
of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, May 15, 1972
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 15, 1972.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend William
East of the Southern Baptist Association.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the
approved as presented.
Councilman Rees stated he considered
this time for the information of the audience,
regular meeting of May 8, 1972 were
it appropriate at
to read certain
portions of the Municipal Code providing the order of Business
and Procedure for conducting Meetings of the City Council of the
City of Bakersfield, which was adopted on January 3, 1966. He
advised that he had not read the whole ordinance, but copies can be
obtained from the City Clerk's office.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Charles Bonas, 2600 Diamond Court, stated that she
is one of the persons who has not paid the refuse collection bill,
she has now received a second statement and a letter from the
Finance Department, and she asked for an explanation regarding the
action of the Council in tabling the matter. She also asked what
was meant by the reference to the property tax rate being lowered
by 12½~, why it was necessary to bill the property owners for home
pickup when it was already included in the property tax rate, and
why an unbalanced budget was adopted to increase City salaries.
She stated that she felt the Council should take the time to sit
down and explain these things to the public.
Bakersfield, California, May 15, 1972 - Page 2 ~? ~
City Manager Bergen stated that the City has a real prob-
len in providing and maintaining the high level of services to its
residents, due to constantly increasing labor costs, as 70% of the
budget is related to payroll. One of the major cost items is in
the area of refuse collection. Being aware that the property tax
is high, the City decided to transfer this service to a user-pay
concept. The rates are based on approximately 70% of the cost of
the refuse collection operation and are considerably lower than
those charged by private collectors. Also, in newly annexed areas
the refuse is being picked up by private collectors.
Mrs. Bonas commented that she had heard a rumor the City
is planning on levying an income tax on City residents. Mr. Bergen
replied that to his knowledge no consideration is being given to a
City income tax.
Mrs. Bonas asked what the consequences would be if the
refuse bill was not paid. She has been
provides for a $500 fine and six months
not paid.
informed that the ordinance
imprisonment if it were
Councilman Rees stated that speaking as a member of the
Council he can say that this statement is not true. Mr. Hoagland
said that Mr. Rees is entirely correct, there are penalties in
connection with health and safety as far as refuse is concerned
which call for fines and arrests, but unpaid City refuse bills
will be collected as in the same manner as any other debt owing
to the City, and not a penal matter.
Councilman Whittemore asked Mrs. Bonas where she has
heard that the City intended to levy an income tax. She said she
had heard it from friends and on a radio talk show.
Councilman Whittemore explained that three members of
the Council had voted against the adoption of a refuse collection
ordinance and attempted to rescind the ordinance by June 30th,
which is the first possible legal time that it can be done, but
it was tabled by a 4 to 3 vote for consideration during budget
sessions.
Bakersfield, California, May 15, 1972 - Page 3
Councilman Heisey pointed
Council had voted not
which the City didn't
first place.
out that three members of the
to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars
have, and which caused the deficit in the
Mrs. Bonas commented that in managing her household
expenses, if she didn't budget carefully, she was in trouble.
Councilman Rees stated he did not believe it would be accurate to
say that the City spent money it didn't have, nor to make disparaging
comparisons with household budgets. The City has conducted its
budgetary affairs completely in an orderly fashion.
Councilman Thomas asked Mrs. Bonas if she was aware that
City Councilmen did not receive the large salary paid to members of
the Board of Supervisors, and she stated she knew what the Council's
salary was.
Councilman Bleecker commented that he had never seen any--
one denied the right to speak to the Council whether they had
requested to be placed on the agenda of a meeting or not. Any
Councilman will grant permission to speak and he is sure that the
Council will continue to function in this manner.
After additional Council comments, Mayor Hart thanked
Mrs. Bonas for coming to the meeting.
Mr. Cicero Goddard, 224 T Street, stated he was speaking
for the concerned citizens of the City of Bakersfield and asked
the Council to take another vote tonight and rescind the garbage
charge, as it is unfair, unconstitutional and it is levied against
the people who cannot afford to pay.
Mr. Cecil Skaggs, 1509 Pacific Street, stated he wanted
to complain about the garbage pickup, that he was overlooked last
week and it was necessary to make a special trip to pick up his
garbage which certainly did not save the City any money. He asked
that the ordinance be rescinded tonight.
Mrs. Ann Monroe, 236 N. Stine Road, read a prepared
statement~ saying thai she and her husband operate a small business
Bakersfield, California, May 15, 1972 - Page 4
in the City and two years ago the taxes were practically doubled.
They are being charged $500.00 a year and a bin charge by the City
for picking up their commercial refuse~ and as far as service is
concerned they are receiving nothing additional. They have not
paid the refuse bill and they do not intend to, the City will have
to come and get it. She thinks the matter should be taken off the
table and a decision made this evening to rescind the garbage charge.
All of the people in the neighborhood feel the same way.
Mr. Dale Stolte, 315 Lake Street, who operates a small
business, stated he wanted to bring out a point about increased
taxation. As a local businessman, he realizes that it is necessary
to have increased revenue to maintain a certain level of service,
but he wants to know just how much can the taxpayer stand. On May
1st Councilman Whittemore stated the Council should look into
combining departments and cutting down on personnel. He is in
favor of this and suggested that the City look into ways of econo-
mizing, to cut out some of the frills of City Government if necessary.
The public cannot stand any more tax raises of this magnitude if it
is to survive, he, himself, has reached the point where he cannot
pay additional taxes. He quoted from a bulletin issued by the
Finance Director in which it states that the City tax rate on the
tax bill paid for 1971-72 was lower by 12~ per $100.00 of assessed
valuation because of that portion of the
applies to the period April 1 to June 30,
owner did not pay the April, May or June
refuse billing which
1972; that the property
refuse service when the
property tax was paid for the year 1971-72, and he asked for an
explanation.
Mr. Bergen explained that at the beginning of the budget
deliberations last year the Council was faced with a 20~ tax in-
crease. Some areas of service were cut which lowered the budget
deficit to approximately 12~. The budget was approved as balanced,
however~ two aspects of the budget must be considered, expenditures
and revenues. In the area of revenues, the Council adopted a refuse
collection ordinance effective January 1, 1972, which would have
accrued enough money to the City to balance the budget. On that
Bakersfield, California, May 15, 1972 - Page 5
bas is ~
last year.
adopted the
to increase
the Council was not required to raise the property taxes
If the Council had maintained the level of services~
budget as it was considered, it would have been necessary
the taxes 12½~, in lieu of the businessmen paying for
six months garbage service, or as it was finally decided~ for
everyone paying for three months garbage collection.
Councilman Rucker commented that he had understood the
City Manager to say if the garbage charge was collected for April,
May and June~ the budget would be balanced £or this fiscal year
and the garbage ordinance could be rescinded as of June 30th.
Mr. Bergen stated the budget was balanced last year with
the refuse collection charge for businessmen only from January 1~
1972, or all City residents paying the collection charge for April:,
May and June. If the Council repeals the refuse collection ordi-
nance effective June 30th, this year's budget will be balanced.
What happens next year is going to be determined at the budget
hearings; whether the Council wants to continue the present refuse
charge for a full year and make the corresponding 50~ cut in
property taxes, or whether the Council wants to go back to including
the refuse charge in the tax rate.
Councilman Whittemore stated he has had a number of calls~
regarding the increase in assessed valuation on property~ and
looking on the face of it, it is enough to scare everyone. If it
is understood~ it isn't as bad as it appears to be. It is a State
mandated requirement that County Assessors without exception assess
property at 25% of the fair market value~ so that the entire County
of Kern has been re-assessed. If the increase in the assessed
valuation is 50% and the City maintains a constant budget~ the
Council should be able to reduce the tax rate~ and so should the
County of Kern.
Councilman Medders commented that he had made a statement
a couple of weeks ago that he was one of the property owners who
Bakersfield, California, May 15, 1972 - Page 6
was being subsidized, but he wished to say that he is no longer
among those being subsidized, his taxes figure out 80% higher than
they were the past year. He has told an audience here a couple of
weeks ago that he would be willing to help rescind the Garbage
Ordinance, he still will do thai, but he must look for the best
way to go before he does something irresponsibly to make up for
another irresponsible act.
A five minute recess was declared at this time.
Councilman Bleecker asked that Mr. Charles Reed be given
permission to address the Council.
Mr. Charles Reed, 4409 Axminister, suggested that the
Council consider rescinding the Garbage Ordinance and substitute
private enterprise on a sealed bid basis to pick up refuse. He
took exception to some remarks made earlier by the Councilmen
regarding a radio talk show for which he acts as moderator. He
stated that he had never at any time, on any program, stated that
there would be a City sponsored income tax. He did say that several
Mayors in the Bay area have proposed to the legislature of the State
of California that they look into the area of faxing the income of
those people who live in the City. Nothing at all was said about
the City Council in Bakersfield enacting any sort of City income
tax. He asked what day the budget hearings will start so that he
can be present, and if the motion made to table the matter of refuse
collection could not be taken off the table tonighf and the ordinance
rescinded.
After discussion between members of the Council and Mr.
Reed, the Council proceeded with its regular business.
Correspondence.
A notice was received that the next regular meeting of
the South San Joaquin Division of the League of California Cities
will be held in Bakersfield at the Bakersfield Inn on Friday, May
26, 1972.
Council Statements.
Councilman Thomas stated that he and the Mayor and
Councilman Medders had accepted Mr. Timothy Beckwith's invitation
Bakersfield, California, May 15, 1972 - Page 7
to participate in a wheelchair tour of the Civic Auditorium and
the City Hall on Saturday, May ]3th, and experienced the problems
and difficulties encountered by handicapped persons. Architect
Frank Ghezzi accompanied them on the tour and intends to make
certain recommendations to the A. I. A. on handicapped persons'
needs. A list will be submitted to the Public Works Department
by Mr. Beckwith so that a cost estimate can be made for converting
certain areas in City buildings for handicapped persons.
Councilman Thomas moved that a Citizens Committee of
handicapped persons be appointed to act as a liaison between the
handicapped people in the City of Bakersfield and the Public Works
Director so that facilities in the City can be made acceptable to
handicapped people.
Councilman Medders asked Mr. Graviss, Auditorium-Recrea-
tion Manager, if there is an area in the Civic Auditorium provided
and designed for wheel chair patrons. Mr. Graviss advised thaf
there is a ramp on the east side of the building and ten seats were
taken out in the last row of a certain section to accomodate wheel-.
chair patrons, however, they do not necessarily like to sit in
that area, they would prefer to be closer to the center.
Councilman Heisey asked Mr. Thomas to withdraw his motion
until next week, at which time he would suggest that the Mayor
appoint three or four persons to this Committee. Councilman Thomas:
withdrew his motion.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a)Allowance of Claims Nos. 3522 to 3599,
inclusive, in amount of $176,111.25.
(b) Application for Encroachment Permit
from Mr. Phil Bingham, 114 Oleander Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a) and (b)
of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following roll call
vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Rees, Rucker,
Bakersfield, California, May 15, 1972 - Page 8
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2010 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield authorizing amendment to
include Firemen to the Contract be-
tween City of Bakersfield and Cali-
fornia Public Employees' Retirement
System and directing the Mayor to
execute on behalf of the City.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Ordinance No. 2010 New
Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield authorizing amend-.
ment to include Firemen to the Contract between City of Bakersfield[
and California Public Employees' Retirement System and directing
the Mayor to execute the Contract on behalf of the City, was adopted
by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 25-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field making finding that tentative
Tract No. 3617, together with pro-
visions for its design and improve-
ment, is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans.
Councilman Bleecker commented that after studying the
intent of the pre-approval of tentative tract maps, and having
been convinced that it is necessary according to the law and that
the Council will have, at a future date, the opportunity to approve
or reject the final map itself, he would move that in the future
resolutions of this type having to do with the tentative approval
of Tract Maps be included on the Consent Calendar. After discussion,
he stated he would make this motion after all the resolutions on
the agenda have been approved individually.
Councilman Thomas stated that he still wanted to be on
record as opposing the law which requires the approval, and he
asked Planning Director Sceales if all of these tentative tracts
were consistent with applicable general and specific plans and met
all of the Planning Commission's requirements. Mr. Sceales stated
that they did.
Bakersfield, California, May 15, 1972 Page 9
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No.
25-72 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making finding
that tentative Tract No. 3617, together with provisions for its
design and improvement is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 26-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field making finding that tentative
Tract No. 3622, together with pro-
visions for its design and improve-
ment, is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 26-72
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making finding that
Tentative Tract No. 3622, together with provisions for its design
and improvement, is consistent with applicable general and specific
plans, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absenf: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 27-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field making finding that tentative
Tract No. 3623, together with pro-
visions for its design and improve-
ment, is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 27-72
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making finding thaf
tentative Tract No. 3623, together with provisions for its design
and improvement, is consistent with applicable general and specific
plans, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 28-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field making finding that tentative
Tract No. 3624, together with pro-
visions of its design and improve-
ment, is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 28-72
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making finding that tenta-
tive Tract No. 3624, is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Resolutions of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield making finding
that Tentative Tracts, together with
provisions of design and improvement,
is consistent with applicable general
and specific plans, to be placed on
Consent Calendar.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, future Resolutions
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making finding that
Tentative Tracts are consistent with applicable general and specific
plans, are to be included on the Consent Calendar.
Approval of Contract with the Musicians'
Union Local 263 for Band Concerts in
Beale Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Contract with the
Musicians' Union Local 263, for seven Band Concerts to be held in
Beale Park commencing June 11, 1972 and extending through July 23,
1972 on seven consecutive Sundays, was approved, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute the Contract.
Claim for damages from E. B. Smith
229 South Chester Avenue, referred
to the City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, claim for damages
from E. B. Smith, 229 South Chester Avenue, was referred to the
City Attorney.
Bakers£ield, California, May 15, 1972 - Page 11
Hearings.
Pursuant to request of Mr. Bennett Siemon, Attorney,
scheduled public hearing before the Council on an appeal by Drs.
Siemon and Witt to the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment
denying their application for a modification of a C-O Zone to
permit the construction of an addition to an existing medical
building with reduction of the off-street parking on that certain
property commonly known as 2020 Truxtun Avenue, was continued until[
June 5, 1972.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:45 P. N.
Calif.
ATTEST:
CI~ ~ ~ the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, May 22, 1972
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 22, 1972.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and
Terrell
Present:
Absent:
of the Wesley Methodist
The City Clerk called
Mayor Hart.
Invocation by the Reverend Olan
Church.
the roll as follows:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
None
Minutes of the regular meeting of May
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Betty Mazzie, 3604 Harmony Drive,
15, 1972 were
representing the
Bakersfield Adult School, requested that the Council authorize
installation of traffic light warning signals at "G" and "F" Streets
on California Avenue, as an extremely hazardous condition exists
for pedestrians due to heavy and high speed traffic. She stated
that she had taken the matter up with Captain Price of the Police
Department who had made a preliminary survey and reported to her
that the speed was not excessive in this area. Mrs. Mazzie did
not agree with this conclusion.
Councilman Heisey moved that the matter be referred to
the Traffic Authority for evaluation and recommendation back to
the Council immediately, so that action to alleviate the problem
can be taken before school is out.
Mr. Bergen suggested that the matter be referred to the
Administrative Staff as well as the Traffic Authority, so that a
pedestrian and traffic count can be made by the Public Works Depart-
ment, in addition to checking the speed of vehicles traversing the
street. In response to a comment by Mayor Hart that perhaps the
Traffic Authority should be instructed to install temporary mobile
flashers in the area until the traffic study has been determined,
Mr. Bergen stated he would be reluctant to do this as temporary
signals would be concealed from view by the divider island on this
street.
Bakersfield, California, May 22, 1972 - Page 2
Councilman Rucker remarked that a similar situation
exists near California Avenue Park where students find it difficult
to cross the street at the intersection of Beale Avenue due to the
high speed traffic, and requested that the motion include a request
to the Traffic Authority to include this intersection in its study.
Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's motion carried
unanimously.
Appointment of delegate and alternate
delegate to proposed Cross-Valley
Canal Advisory Committee.
A communication was received from the Kern County Water
Agency requesting the Council to nominate a delegate and alternate
delegate to a proposed Cross-Valley Canal Advisory Committee for
the purpose of advising the Agency Board of Directors on matters
relating to the construction and operation of the Cross-Valley
Canal and Extension. Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote,
Councilman Walter F. Heisey, Chairman of the Water and City Growth
Committee, was designated as the delegate, and City Manager Bergen
and City Attorney Hoagland were designated as alternate delegates,
to serve on this Committee.
Reports.
Councilman Robert Whittemore, Chairman of the Govern-
mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read the following
report on Ballot Measure A:
The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee
wishes to bring to the attention of the City Council the importance
of Ballot Measure A on the June 6, primary election. This measure
asks the voters to decide whether or not they want a Greater
Bakersfield Metropolitan Transit District to be formed.
Since 1957, the City has been subsidizing an operating
loss for a transit system providing service to a substantial number
of noncity residents. For the last two years, the annual operating
loss has exceeded $100,000. This financial burden is difficult to
justify to the City taxpayer.
Bakersfield, California, May 22, 1972 - Page 3
Therefore, this Committee recommends that the City Council
go on record as supporting the decision of the voters within the
proposed district boundaries on whether or not they wish a public
transportation system for the Bakersfield urban area. A majority
vote in favor of the formation of the transit district will assure
the community of a continued public transportation system in Bakers;-
field, while a majority no vote will indicate that the community
does not wish to have a public transportation system in Bakersfield.
Councilman Whittemore moved adoption of the report.
Councilman Rucker commented that regardless of the out-
come of the election, he feels that it is important to have some
type of public transportation system for the citizens of Bakers-
field.
Councilman Whittemore pointed out that for the past two
years the transit system has been operating at a loss exceeding
$100,000, which comes out of the taxpayers' pocket, and it is
conceivable that in the coming year, the loss would amount to as
much as $165,000. Many of the buses operating at the present time
have in excess of 1,000,000 miles on them and he personally feels
they have reached the point where they are unsafe to transport
citizens. He would be the first to say that eliminating the public
transportation system would be regression in the City of Bakersfield,
and he would hate to see a City of this size without a bus system.
However, he does not think the people within the corporate limits
of the City should continue to finance this bus system.
Councilman Rees stated he can understand Councilman
Rucker's concern with the need for a public transportation system,
but sooner or later it will be necessary to arrive at a moment of
decision for the community at large. If the community at large
does not want a bus system, it won't have one, and if it does wish
to have a bus system, it will be financed through the formation of
a metropolitan transit district.
Councilman Medders commented that if Ballot Measure A
fails, he would consider it poor judgment on the part of the City
Bakersfield, California, May 22, 1972 - Page 4
to continue in the bus business.
it would cost the City taxpayer
in first class shape.
He asked the City Manager what
to put the Municipal Transit System
and (d)
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Mr. Bergen replied that the application for a grant that
the City has pending with HUD at the present time is in the neighbor-
hood of $350,000, which would replace 11 of the City's 21 buses.
After discussion, vote taken on Councilman Whittemore's
motion to adopt the report carried unanimously.
Councilman Heisey commended the Citizens Advisory Com-
mittee which worked so hard to get the measure on the ballot for
the formation of the Transit District. He moved that the City
Council go on record as supporting Ballot Measure A - Formation
of a Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan Transit District. This
motion carried unanimously.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 3600 to 3737,
inclusive, in amount of $86,939.36.
(b) Request from Ellis Equipment Company,
2508 E. Brundage Lane, to connect to
City Sewer.
(c) Plans and Specifications for Improve-
ment of Ming Avenue between New Stine
Road and Ashe Road and Ashe Road between
Ming Avenue and the north City Limits.
The following item was added to the Consent Calendar:
(d) Transfer of Funds from Fund No. 11-510-6100
to Fund No. 11-525-4100, in amount of
$5,000 to provide funds for Ralph Helm,
Consulting Attorney on Water Problems
and Eugene Jacobs, Consulting Attorney
on Redevelopment, for the last two months
of the fiscal year.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c)
of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
Bakersfield, California, May 22, 1972 - Page 5
Adoption of Resolution No. 29-72
fixing the time of Meetings of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
during the Months of June, July and
August of 1972.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No.
29-72 fixing the time of Meetings of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield during the Months of June, July and August of 1972,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of Contract with Patricia
L. Thoman for the Operation of a
Concession Stand in Jastro Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Contract with
Proposed Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield adding Chapter
10.58 (Gambling) to the Municipal Code
of the City of Bakersfield referred to
the City-County Cooperation Committee
for review and recommendation back to
the Council.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
adding Chapter 10.58 (Gambling) to the Municipal Code of the City
of Bakersfield was submitted to the Council for first reading.
Councilman Bleecker read the ordinance and stated he wished to
oppose it in its present form. He pointed out that there are no
exclusions in the ordinance whereby fraternal organizations or
private clubs can hold raffles, get together and play cards, or
conduct promotional and give-away'programs. This ordinance would
prevent a citizen from playing poker with his friends in his home.
Therefore, he cannot support the present ordinance, as it is too
all inclusive and represents an invasion of privacy.
Councilman Bleecker then moved that the ordinance be
referred to a committee of the Council for study and for further
recommendation by the City Attorney.
same.
Patricia L. Thoman for the Operation of a Concession Stand in
Jastro Park was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute
Bakersfield, California, May 22, 1972 - Page 6
City Attorney Hoagland commented that it is entirely
possible this ordinance is broader than it need be, it was requested
by the Police Department to curb dice games in the City. He has
no objection to the ordinance being studied by a committee of the
Council.
Councilman Rucker agreed that an ordinance should be
passed to eliminate shooting dic'e in the middle of the sidewalks
in certain areas of the City. Councilman Bleecker remarked that
if the State law isn't clear enough, the Council should amend the
Municipal Code to prohibit the shooting of dice on the streets in
the City of Bakersfield and not go into all of these other things
where a person can be arrested for playing gin rummy in his own
home.
Councilman Rees stated that he felt it would be appropriate
to refer this matter to the City-County Cooperation Committee.
After discussion, vote taken on Councilman Bleecker's motion
carried, and the ordinance was referred to the City-County Co-
operation Committee for study and recommendation back to the
Council.
Acceptance of proposal of Elmer Fox
& Company to audit City's records for
year ended June 30, 1972.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Heisey,
records for the year ended June 30, 1972,
for this service increased to $9,400, was
was
proposal of Elmer Fox & Company for the audit of the City's
with the maximum charge
accepted and the Mayor
authorized to execute the contract.
First reading of Ordinance amending
Section 17.25.026 (Uses Permitted
Subject to Conditional Use Permit)
of Chapter 17.25 (C-1 Zones) of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakers-
field.
First reading was considered given Ordinance amending
Section 17.25.026 (Uses Permitted Subject to Conditional Use
Permit) of Chapter 17.25 (C-1 Zones) of the Municipal Code of the
City of Bakersfield.
Bakersfield, California, May 22, 1972 - Page 7
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3540
and Mayor authorized to execute
Contract and Specifications for
improvements therein.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, it is ordered that
the Map of Tract No. 3540 be, and the same is hereby approved:
That all the easements, courts, drives and ways shown upon said
Map, therein offered for dedication be, and the same are hereby
accepted for the purpose for which the same are offered for dedi-
cation. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11587 of the Business
and Professions Code~ the Council of the City of Bakersfield hereby
waives the requirement of signatures of the following:
NAME NATURE OF INTEREST
Tenneco West, Inc. Mineral Rights below a depth of
(Formerly Kern County Land Co.) 500 feet with no right of sur-
face entry.
Tenneco West, Inc. The right to pass over and
(Formerly Kern County Land Co.) across said land for ingress
to and egress from any lands
of Kern County Land Company,
which are not accessible from
any other lands of said Company
as excepted and reserved in that;
Deed recorded May 27, 1960, in
. Book 327} at Page 26, O. R.,
County of Kern
City of Bakersfield Sewer Easement recorded in Book
4415, Page 388, Official Records;,
County of Kern
City of Bakersfield Street Right-of-Way Easement
recorded in Book 4549, Pages
264, 263 and 265, Official
Records, County of Kern
The Clerk of this Council is directed to endorse upon
the face of said Map a copy of this order authenticated by the
Seal of the Council of the City of Bakersfield and the Mayor is
authorized to execute the Contract and Specifications for Improve-
ments in said Tract No. 3540.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council when all persons interested in Report and Assessment List
for demolishing and removing dangerous buildings and having any
objections thereto, may appear and be heard. This hearing has
been duly advertised and notices sent to all persons interested.
Bakersfield, California, May 22, 1972 - Page 8
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received, the public
hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a
motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No. 30-72 confirming
the Assessment of certain property located in the City of Bakers-
field upon which Dangerous Buildings have been demolished and
removed, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
This is
the time set for public hearing on Resolution
of Intention No. 873 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
declaring its intention to order the vacation of a portion of "L"
Street between 38th and 40th Street, in the City of Bakersfield.
This hearing has been duly posted and no objections have been filed
in the City Clerk's office.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections were received. Mr. Chuck
Tolltee, representing Stockdale Development Corporation, pointed
out that the street is already abandoned north of 40th Street,
and this vacation will complete the program. Mayor Hart closed
the public hearing for Council deliberation and action. Upon a
motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 31-72 ordering the
vacation of a portion of "L" Street between 38th Street and West
Columbus Street, in the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees~ Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council to change the rate of additional tax for a Business
License for all businesses conducting their activities in the
Business Improvement District as established pursuant to Chapter
6.50 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield.
Noes:
Absent:
Bakers£ield~ California, May 22, 1972 - Page 9
2. 7
to all
from Rose Yardage, expressing opposition
promotional improvement tax.
This ordinance was given first
April 24, 1972.
This hearing has been duly published and notices sent
businesses with the District. One communication was received
to any increase in the
reading at meeting of
Mayor Hart declared the meeting open £or public partici-
pation and asked if there were persons in the audience who wished
to speak in opposition to the adoption of the ordinance. Mr.
Nathan Krevitz, Regional Vice-President of International Securities
Corporation, asked why it was necessary for him to pay for some-
thing he did not use. He has been fighting the Downtown Promotion
Tax ever since he became aware of it, as the Federal regulations
under which he operates, do not permit him to participate legally
in any promotion whatsoever, without the approval of the National
Association of Securities Dealers. He stands to lose his license
to operate and engage in the business of securities if he partici-
pates in anyone of the downtown promotions. He pointed out that
banks and insurance companies, regardless of where they are located,
do not pay City taxes and do not participate in this promotional
district, and he does not think that he should be taxed for this
promotion district from which he does not receive any benefit and
in which he cannot participate.
Councilman Thomas asked Mr. Krevitz if he can participate
in the Improvement District. Mr. Krevitz stated that the Federal
and State laws under which he operates preclude him from partici-
pating in anything of a promotional nature. However, if he should
care to participate, he would like to have the opportunity to make
his own decision.
Mr. A1 Pierce expressed his opposition to the Promotional.
District. He listed a number of things which he felt added to the
deterioration of downtown Bakersfield. He stated the town is con-
trolled by the Downtown Business Association, unless a businessman
is operating on Chester Avenue, he cannot be successful in the City'
of Bakersfield. He expressed opposition to City buses being parked
on C~ester Avenue and utilizing all the parking spaces.
Bakersfield, California, May 22, 1972 - Page 10
Mr. Max Amstutz, President of the Downtown Business
Association, stated that the Board of Directors of this organization
recommend two changes in the ordinance. One is to change the name
to the "Downtown Improvement District", as the present name implies
that all money is to be spent for retail promotion especially to
those in the district that are not in retail business. It does
not correctly state that the full purpose of the district is to
provide a means by which cities can promote, decorate and advertise
business areas in order to stimulate an interest by the public in
businesses within the City.
The second recommended change would increase the total
revenue to the district as the present rate does not provide the
needed funds as projected when the district was formed in 1968.
The tax was based on the Business License fees which were reduced
by the Council in 1969. When this was done, the promotion district
funds were also reduced. The present proposal provides about
$36,000 for the district. The amount originally approved by the
City Council when the district was formed was close to $40,000.
The present budget of $2?,500 does not allow the district to budgel
for promotion which is one of the benefits of the district. He
explained the various classes of businesses as set out in the
proposed ordinance. He stated that Watch Repair - No Sales, which
had been designated as a Class III Business has been transferred
to Class II Businesses, and recommended that this change be made
in the City's ordinance.
Mr. Amstutz stated that all businesses in the district
were extended invitations to attend discussion meetings and as a
result of the poor attendance, he can only assume that very few,
if any, have objections to this proposal. He pointed out that the
district has a sidewalk sweeping service, especially for those areas
around vacant buildings, the Christmas decorations are purchased
and refurbished to enhance downtown and the promotion district also
sponsors and supports the Annual Christmas Parade.
Bakersfield, California, May 22~ 1972 - Page ll
Both Mr. Krevitz and Mr. Pierce were given the opportunity
to again express their opposition to, and displeasure with the pro.-
posals, of the Downtown Business Association.
Mayor Hart declared the public hearing closed for Council
deliberation and action.
Councilman Thomas expressed concern that the Downtown
Business Association has not followed the Council's suggestion of
a year ago to place nonmembers on its Board of Directors to assist
in administrating the district. Councilman Bleecker stated that
the Business Development and Parking Committee had recommended a
year ago that the Downtown Business Association make an effort to
include nonmembers on its Board of Directors in order to clear up
the antagonism which seems to exist between the DBA members and the
nonmembers.
Councilman Bleecker went on to say that it would appear
to him the retailers in this district are receiving the best bene-
fit and service~ but they are also paying substantially more for
the promotion. He stated that he believes in some point in time,
possibly before a year is out~ this Council or a Committee of the
Council, should review what has been done by the District. Since
the Council is empowered to vote this tax~ or not vote it, the
Council should have some control over how the funds are spent and
whether or not the promotion of the District is being served. He
is not talking about just a cursory examination of how many side-
walk sales were held~ he is talking about an indepth study of
whether or not business in the area was increased by the levying
of this tax. He thinks this promotion district can serve a good
purpose~ but he would strongly urge the Board of Directors of the
DBA to make an effort to include on its Board, those people in the
District who are not members. He feels that if there is some
liaison with the Board of Directors of the Promotion District, a
lot of misunderstandings will be cleared up.
Councilman Heisey commented that to his knowledge the
Business Development and Parking Committee has never recommended
300
Bakersfield, California, May 22, 1972 - Page 12
for or against this District. Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of
this Committee, stated that the absence of a recommendation is
obvious.
Councilman Thomas asked Mr. Hoagland if the Council
passes on the Improvement District, could the Downtown Business
Association be delegated to vote in officers from the DBA and also
officers from nonmembers of the DBA.
Mr. Hoagland explained that the ordinance permits the
Council to establish its own advisory commission on this whatever
it might be. At the time the District was first established, the
DBA did all the work on it and presented it to the Council for
approval.
Councilman Thomas commented that possibly the Council
should study this in Committee. Mr. Hoagland pointed out that
Business Licenses generally fall due the first of July~ and £or
the purposes for which the DBA wishes to raise funds, it is important
that this ordinance be adopted and in effect by that time.
Councilman Thomas stated that if the ordinance is adopted,
he would go ahead with the DBA administration at this time, and
then possibly at a later date, evaluate it and make recommendations
to the Council, but not at this time.
Councilman Rucker commented that he feels the people who
are not satisfied with the District will speak out for themselves
and since no one has appeared to offer protests at this meeting,
it would seem to him that the proposed ordinance is acceptable to
the businesses in the District.
Councilman Whittemore stated he does not have the facts
to make an intelligent decision on the question. He knows the
Council has done everything it can to offer assistance to the DBA
to improve the downtown area. He has talked to a number of the
people in the promotion area who are not merchants and who cannot
see the justification for being included and forced to pay addi-
tional taxes to help promote retail business. He would have to
support these people, and stated that he does not have enough
information to vote either "yes" or "no" on this ordinance.
Bakersfield, California, May 22, 1972 - Page 13
301_
Councilman Whittemore asked Mr. Hoagland if the Council
decides to adopt the ordinance, is it possible to place a limit of
perhaps a two year trial period on it, in order to see how it is
received by other businesses in the area.
Mr. Hoagland stated he would assume this ordinance would
come under periodic review and the Council can place any period of
time on it that it wants.
Councilman Bleecker stated thai with the suggestion made
earlier by Councilman Thomas to periodically review the activities
of the District and because a great need is there for the improve-
ment district, he would move to adopt Ordinance of the Council of
lhe City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 6.50 of the Municipal Code
by changing the name of the District and altering the Business
License Tax structure within the District.
Roll call vote on the motion carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstaining: Councilman Whittemore
A£ter discussion, Councilman Thomas moved that the Business
Development and Parking Committee conduct a continuous evalualion of
the activities of the Business Improvement District and that the
Council specifically instruct the DBA to consider the possibility
of delegating a new agency to administer the district. This motion
carried unanimously.
There being no
Adjournment.
further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the meeting was adjourned
10:10 P.M.
MAY~t2o~'~f leid, Calif.
ATTEST:
' "') ' of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, June 5, 1972
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 5, 1972.
In the absence of Mayor Hart, the meeting was called to
order by Vice-Mayor Robert Whittemore, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman Walter Heisey.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey~ Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomasp Whittemore
Mayor Hart (Came into meeting at 9:20 P.M.)
1972 were
Absent:
Minutes of the regular meeting of May 22,
approved as presented.
Presenfation of Retirement Plaque.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore presented Mr. Carl Chitwood,
Superintendent of the Transit System, with a Retirement Plaque on
behalf of the Council of the City of Bakersfield. Mr. Chitwood,
who has completed thirty years of service to the residents of the
City of Bakersfield, both as a Police Officer and as Superinten-
dent of the City's Bus System, retired on May 31~ 1972.
Finance Director's Report on Revenues
for Budget of 1972-73.
Finance Director Haynes reported to the Council on
revenues and explained the basic method for financing the City
Manager's recommended budget for 1972-73. He pointed out that
the Council at this time must rely only upon financial estimates
for guide lines during its 1972-73 budget reviews. The budget
must be financed from three sources which are estimated as follows::
1. Monies left over from prior year $ 680,000
2. Revenues from other than property taxes $10,480,300
3. Property Taxes - Remainder
Money left over from the old year is estimated to be
smaller by $623,000 than it was one year ago. However, this is
offset to a large degree by an estimated 13% increase in assessed
valuation of property within the City Limits.
303
Bakersfield, California, June 5, 1972 - Page 2
The largest source for financing next year's budget will
be City revenues from other than property taxes. Sizeable increases
are estimated from this source. Retail sales and the related City
sales tax are estimated to increase 8% during the coming year.
Interest rates and interest income are expected to increase only
slightly. The utility taxes, cigarette taxes and motor vehicle
licenses taxes are all expected to increase. Traffic fines, transit
revenues, gasoline taxes, business license, hotel room taxes,
alcoholic beverage licenses and Civic Auditorium revenues are
expected to remain constant. Building starts would be reduced by
8% except for the new Bank of America Building, which should com-
pletely offset the reduction. The largest single revenue increase
next year will be the refuse collection charge which will, however,
be offset by a corresponding decrease in property tax revenue and
a lower property tax rate.
Councilman Heisey asked Mr. Haynes for a copy of this
report, and Councilman Rees commended Mr. Haynes for his very
excellent report. Mr. Bergen pointed out that the preliminary
budget is in the process of being bound and will be delivered to
the Council on Wednesday of this week.
Mr. Bergen read the following budget message to the
Mayor and Members of the City Council, presenting the Preliminary
Budget for the Fiscal Year 1972-73:
The Preliminary Budget is essentially projected expendi-
tures balanced with projected revenues and represents the financial
plan of the City. When adopted, it is translated into services
and capital improvements for the citizens of the City of Bakersfie]Ld.
The expenditure side of the City budget can be divided
into two broad categories: (1) Services provided and
Improvements. When the Preliminary Budget for 1972-72,
is divided into the above two broad categories, we find
1. Services Provided is $12,727,085. This
represents 84% of the total budget.
2. Capital Improvements is $2,400,056. This
represents 16% of the total budget.
You can readily see that it is most important in evalua-
ting the budget that the Council concern themselves with level of
service, since it directly controls 84% of the budget.
(2) Capital
of $15,127,141,
that:
304
Bakersfield, California, June 5, 1972 - Page 3
With the importance of the City's service level so
apparent, we have made some modifications in the format of our
Preliminary Budget. Namely, we have added a description of
activity for each budget with a description of level of service
presently provided, followed by level of service proposed. Also,
we have added an organization chart showing distribution of
personnel.
The service level category can be further divided into
two major accounts: (a) Employee costs - $10,069,360, or approxi-
mately 79~ of our Service Budget; (b) Maintenance and Operation
Costs - $2,657,725, or approximately 21% of our Service Budget.
When you consider the fact that level of service is almost always
directly related to number of employees, these figures graphically
show that our payroll, i.e., number of employees is the single
major cost factor. These figures further reinforce our contention
that evaluating our level of service is the single most important
responsibility in our budget deliberations.
The budget summaries outline the estimated revenues and
expenditures. You will note that in some we are recommending less
than the departmental request. This does not reflect extravagance
in department requests, but rather the necessity to set priorities
and accomplish certain overall objectives of the City.
This Preliminary Budget only provides funds for a very
minimum increase in employee costs. This matter is presently being
evaluated by the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee
in meet and confer sessions with the various employee organizations.
The Committee will make a recommendation to the entire Council
before budget deliberations.
Mr. Bergen stated he would like to digress from the
budget message to say that the recommendations the City Manager
will make to the GEPC this week are a bare minimum, and are based
on the assumption that salary increases for other governmental
entities in this community will reflect the difficult economic
conditions that exist in some sectors
holding the line.
The administration believes
of our economy by generally
that this Preliminary Budget
provides a service level for effective Municipal Government during
Bakersfield, California, June 5, 1972 - Page 4
305
the coming year and improves our reserves above the danger level.
Equally important, we believe it is minimum to allow for the main-
tenance of service presently expected by the citizens of Bakers-
£ield. The City has in the past absorbed significant cost increases,
caused by rising cost and City growth, by more efficient utilization
of manpower, automation, reduction of reserves, contracting for
maintenance, etc. Consequently, we are of the opinion that further
reduction of cost cannot be accomplished without a corresponding
reduction in service or maintenance levels. Moreover, during
budget deliberations, the administration will provide data and
analysis on our suggested service and maintenance levels. On the
other hand, we are prepared to evaluate any suggestions relative
to service levels with the clear understanding that the final
decision on level of service rests with the City Council.
We are pleased to report that the Preliminary Budget as
submitted, is balanced and reflects a 57~ per $100 assessed
valuation reduction in our property tax rate for 1972-73 Fiscal
Year. This will reduce our present tax rate of $2.87 to $2.30.
This reduction exceeds the amount contemplated last year and is
made possible by the refuse collection charge. The establishment
of this charge has already resulted in more efficient operation of
our Refuse Collection Program and we feel the continuation of this
charge will promote even more efficiencies.
Let me express my gratitude to the Department Heads who
have throughout the year sought to provide the highest level of
service consistent with economy, and finally, I would like to
express my appreciation to the Mayor and City Council for all of
the consideration and courtesies extended to me.
Bakersfield, California, June 5~ 1972 - Page 5
Councilman Heisey commended Mr. Haynes and Mr. Bergen
on two splendid reports. He is particularly delighted that the
Council will be able to accomplish the 50~ reduction in property
taxes that it has promised the voters; actually, it is a 57~
expected reduction. It is admirable and it reduces the rate to
$2.30 which puts it more in line with other cities in the State
of California. For too long Bakers£ield has had one of the highest
rates in the State and this will make the City more competitive
in seeking and encouraging industry to settle in this community.
Councilman Whittemore commented that the Committees will
be meeting the balance of this week and next week~ up into budget
sessions, when they will make their recommendations to the Council.
It will be decided at budget sessions whether or not the garbage
charge is to be retained.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Jill Haddad as Chairman of the Citizens Committee
for the reinstatement of Don Lake, read a prepared statement to
the Council regarding the Fire Department Civil Service Trial
Board. She asked the Council to request the Trial Board to vote
on Mr. Lake's reinstatement as a member of the Fire Department~
with five men sitting on the Board as stipulated by the City
Charter~ including the Chief
Manager. She suggested that
ballot to amend Section 200
of the Fire Department and the City
the Council place the issue on the
(18) of the City Charter by replacing
the Fire Chief and City Manager on the Trial Board with businessmen.
Councilman Thomas asked the City Attorney if the Council
had any jurisdiction over the Fire Department Civil Service Trial
Board and requested clarification of the section in the Charter
requiring the City Manager and Chief of the Fire Department to sit
on the Trial Board at hearings.
Mr. Hoagland replied that
jurisdiction over the determinations
mission for the Fire Department; it
board permitted to establish its own
conduct of trials within
improper for the Council
the Board by the Charter.
the Council does not have
of the Civil Service Com-
is a completely autonomous
rules and regulations for the
the confines of law~ and it would be
to interfere with the jurisdiction given
307
Bakersfield, California, June 5, 1972 - Page 6
trial
Board, as
partment.
the Chief
It is true that the Charter provides for a five man
board consisting of the three members of the Civil Service
well as the City Manager and the Chief of the Fire De-
It has been his opinion, and not only his, that when
of the Fire Department prefers charges against any Fire-
man, with the approval of the City Manager, they are disqualified
from sitting on the trial board, as it would be violatire of due
process, since fair play does not generally allow the accuser to
also be the trial judge. He agrees with Mrs. Haddad that if a
five member trial board is considered important, the Charter should
be changed to allow the Board to be composed of five members. It
is just a matter of whether a three man board is better than a five
man board.; however, if a five man board is decided upon, it should
not include any person who is charged with filing charges against
Firemen.
Councilman Thomas asked if the trial board can reverse
its decision on Mr. Lake. Mr. Hoagland stated that in his opinion
it cannot, the Charter itself reads that the verdict and judgment
of the trial board shall be final. In legal technology, this
means that after the Board has rendered a decision which if final,
it has thereafter lost jurisdiction to change it.
Mr. Hoagland went on to say that if the Council feels
it wants a five man board as called for in the Charter, he is
prepared to draw a Charter amendment. There are other sections
of the Charter which are obsolete and should be removed, such as
the one calling for Council Wards to be redistricted on the number
of qualified electors rather than population. He cited other
sections which should be changed.
After discussion, Councilman Thomas moved that the
Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee be requested to
evaluate the matter of creating a trial board for the purpose of
hearing charges against members of the Fire Department and report
back to the Council. Also to study the matter of placing this
amendment and possibly other amendments to the Charter on the
November ballot.
Vote taken on Councilman Thomas' motion carried unani-
mously.
Bakersfield, California, June 5, 1972 - Page 7
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey commented that it has always been a
problem to have the signs of candidates removed after an election,
and asked the Planning Commission to evaluate the matter and make
a recommendation back to the Council. Mr. Hoagland stated that
the Planning Commission has been reviewing and attempting to
arrive at an agreeable type of Sign Ordinance and included in it
will be provisions for removal of' political signs after an election.
Councilman Thomas commended the Bakersfield Californian
for publishing the City Council agenda in its entirety as a Sunday
feature. Councilman Rees commended the News Bulletin for pioneering
the idea.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore stated that on behalf of Mayor
Hart, he wished to appoint the following persons to serve on the
Citizens Committee of Handicapped persons in an advisory capacity
regarding problems of the handicapped, particularly as they relate
to facilities in the City's public buildings:
Mrs. Leora Wyeth
1802½ Forrest Street
Mr. Waddie Johnson
605 "F" Street
Mr. Ralph Knight
3712 Christmas Tree Lane
Mr. Tim Beckwith
2204 "E" Street
Reports.
Councilman Ray Rees, Chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, read the following report of that Committee:
During the past several weeks, this Committee and staff
have discussed the exclusion of temporary disability payments from
the City's policy with the State Compensation Insurance Fund. After
several meetings with the staff, the State Compensation Insurance
Fund has proposed a means whereby the City can obtain a substantial[
reduction in its future premiums. This plan would require that the
City of Bakersfield assume the payment of all temporary disability
payments to injured City employees. This proposal is ideally
suited to the City's situation, as the City now has, by Ordinance,
the policy of paying full salary up to one year to all injuPed
employees receiving temporary disability payments, which are now
returned to the City.
309
Bakersfield~ California, June 5, 1972 - Page 8
If the City excludes temporary disability payments from
its policy with the State Compensation Insurance Fund, it would
realize a reduction of approximately $50,000 in the premium for
the 1972-72 Fiscal Year and would not alter the benefits that
injured employees are now eligible to receive.
This Committee recommends adoption of this proposal to
become effective July 1, 1972, and adoption of the ordinance which
is required for this change.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey,
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey,
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 3.22.030 (a) (1) of the Municipal Code relative to Dis-
ability payments for Employees of the City was adopted by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders~ Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Robert Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, submitted the following report:
Due to the occasional confusion and inconvenience of the
present format of the Ordinance describing the City's salary
schedule, this Committee has requested the staff to substitute the
salary range numbers with the actual amounts
pay steps assigned to each class or position
Such change will also assist the staff in an
the report was adopted.
Ordinance No. 2012
salaries of other private and public employees. In addition, this
change eliminates the present requirement of having to grant a
salary change at 2½% increments as with the present salary schedule.
This change does not alter the present salary allocated to each
class or position; therefore, this Committee recommends adoption
of the attached ordinance.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the report was
adopted.
2013 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Sections 3.18.020, 3.18.050, 3.18.060, and 3.18.090 of the Municipal
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
of salary for all five
of the salary schedule.
easier comparison of
310
Bakersfield, California, June 5, 1972 - Page 9
Code and repealing Sections 3.18.051, 3.18.052, 3.18.054, 3.18.055
and 3.18.056, all relating to salary schedules, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Consent Calendar.
The following items are listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 3738 to 3838,
inclusive, in amount of $151,596.29.
(b)
Acceptance of Work and Notice of Com-
pletion for Contract No. 31-72 for
Paving and Improving Wilson Road from
Stine Road to 1470 feet westerly.
(c)
Requests from Mr. Jim Weaver, 2200
Roland Street, and from Mr. Alfonso
Alderere, 2100 Madison Street, to
connect properties to City Sewer -
refer to the Planning Commission.
(d)
Request from E. J. and Mary V. Pair
for annexation to the City of Bakers-
field of a parcel of land in the SW¼
of Section 18, T29S, R28E, M.D.M.,
consisting of 2.42 acres - refer to
the Planning Commission.
(e)
Request from Stockdale Development
Corporation for annexation to the
City of Bakersfield of a portion of
Section 34, T29S, R27E., M.D.M. refer
to the Planning Commission.
The following items were added to the Consent Calendar:
(f)
Transfer of Funds in amount of $1,000
from Fund No. 11-510-6100 to Fund No.
11-510-1700, to provide funds for the
City's Service Award Program for the
remainder of the fiscal year and for
purchase of crests to be kept in stock.
(g)
Transfer of Funds in amount of $27,500
from Fund No. 11-510-6100 to Fund No.
11-705-9100, for payment of the remaining
half of the purchase price of three
parcels of property and Transonic
Building located adjacent to Civic
Auditorium between "P" and "Q" Streets.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c),.
(d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, June 5, 1972 - Page l0
Deferred Business.
At this time the Council considered an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 17.25.026
(Uses Permitted Subject to Conditional Use Permit) of Chapter 17.25
(C-1 Zones) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, which
was given first reading at meeting of May 22, 1972.
A communication received from the Second Church of Christ
Scientist Executive Board pointed out that in the public hearing
held before the Planning Commission on May 17, 1972, no reason or
need was given by the Planning Staff or the public, and requested
that the Council, before adding to or changing the ordinance, first
determine there was a valid need for the addition or change. If
this change were made, it would not only apply to one piece of
property or one applicant, but would have
cation.
Councilman Rees stated that the
community-wide appli-
letter indicates to him
the proposed ordinance will not only grant a Conditional Use Permit
to anyone but will make a change in a basic ordinance. As it is
in his Ward and his neighborhood, he made a motion to defer action
on the proposed ordinance until next meeting for further investi-
gation by the Council. Councilman Heisey seconded the motion.
In response to a request from Councilman Medders that
the proposed ordinance be clarified, Planning Director Sceales
stated that it proposes to allow a person to request a Conditional
Use Permit from the Board of Zoning Adjustment to serve beer and
wine in restaurants, incidental to the serving of food, in a C-1
Zone, excluding a cocktail lounge and dancing. If the application
were appealed, the Council would have final jurisdiction.
Mrs. Mary Addington addressed the Council and stated she
had just opened up a restaurant on the corner of Truxtun and Oak
Street and she had applied for a beer and wine license without
knowledge that she was in a C-1 Zone. She urged the Council to
consider adopting this ordinance as she would like to obtain a
Conditional Use Permit for her restaurant.
Bakersfield~ California~ June 5, 1972 - Page 11
Councilman Thomas asked Mr. Sceales if this area could
not be zoned C-2, and Mr. Sceales replied that to zone this one
business would be spot zoning. Also, there are uses in a C-2
zone which are not compatible with residential areas.
Mr. Doug Minner of Minner Realty~ representing the
applicants Mr. and Mrs. MacMillan, stated that they are proposing
to open a family-type restaurant in an existing building previously
occupied by a Kentucky Beef franchise at 2402 Columbus Avenue.
They wish to serve beer and wine with meals~ no bar or cocktail
lounge is contemplated.
After additional discussion, vote taken on Councilman
Rees' motion to defer action for one week for further review by
the Council, carried unanimously.
Mayor Hart acted as presiding officer at this time.
Approval of Contract with the Bakers-
field City School District for trans-
potration to Camp Okihi.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore~ contract with
the Bakersf.ield City School District for transportation to Camp
Okihi was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of Agreement amending Agree-
ment No. 34-72 with David Ralph Garcia
for Operation of Concession Stand at
Planz Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas~ Agreement amending
Agreement No. 34-72 dated April 25, 1972, with Mr. David Ralph
Garcia for operation of Concession Stand in Planz Park was approved,
and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. This agreement is
necessary to make the prices at Planz Park Concession uniform with
other park concessions and
Exhibit "A" without formal
Approval of
to permit future changes to be made in
contract procedure.
Contract between the City
of Bakersfield Municipal Transit
System and St. Francis Parish.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, contract between the
City of Bakersfield Municipal Transit System and St. Francis Parish
was approved~ and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. This
contract terminates if the City goes out of the bus business.
Bakersfield, California, June 5, 1972 - Page 12
Councilman Bleecker commented that this gives him an
opportunity to say something about Proposition "A" on the June 6,
1972 ballot. He has seen a recommendation from a prominent women's
group in the City of Bakersfield, recommending a "NO" vote on
Proposition "A". The reason being that they felt if the measure
failed the Council would be forced to consider selling or turning
over the Transit System to private enterprise. Private enterprise
would certainly not be interested in taking over a bus system which
is costing government $150,000 a year. Hopefully, this Council
made it clear at its last meeting, that it would be unwise for
this Council to continue to operate a Municipal Transit System
without any help from the people who are using the buses but are
not providing any tax money to keep them operating. He urged those
people who go to the polls tomorrow to support Measure "A", where
everyone will pay his fair share to retain a Municipal Transit
System for Greater Bakersfield.
Adoption of Resolution No. 32-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field, California, authorizing filing
of Application with the Department of
Housing and Urban Development for Grant
to aid in development of open-space
land, Pacheco Green Belt and Grissom-
White Lane Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No.
32-72 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California,
authorizing filing of application with the Department of Housing
and Urban Development for Grant to aid in development of open-
space land, Pacheco Green Belt and Grissom-White Lane Park, was
adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Bucker,
Whirremote
Councilman Bleecker
None
Thomas,
3t4
Bakersfield, California, June 5, 1972 - Page 13
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3607 and
Mayor authorized to execute Contract
and Specifications for Improvements
therein.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, it is ordered that
the Map of Tract No. 3607 be, and the same is hereby approved.
That all the avenues, streets and easements shown upon said Map
and therein offered for dedication be, and the same are hereby
accepted for the purpose or the purposes, for which the same are
offered for dedication. Pursuant to the provisions of Section
11587 of the Business and Professions Code, the Council of the
City of Bakersfield hereby waives
of the following:
NAME
George Ludvik and Ollie
Frances Ludvik
the requirement of signatures
NATURE OF INTEREST
As owners of all mineral rights
with no right of surface entry
above a depth of 500 feet
The Clerk of this Council is directed to endorse upon
the face of said Map a copy of this order authenticated by the
Seal of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield and the Mayor
is authorized to execute the Contract and Specifications for
improvements in said Tract.
Approval of Amendment to Agreement
with Trustee of the California State
College.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, amendment to Agree-
ment with Trustees of the California State College was approved,
and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. This amends Agree-
ment No. 71-67 and extends the
in which the City shall design,
the vicinity of the college if
Bakersfield.
time from five years to eight years
construct and maintain roads in
the roads are within the City of
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on application by Kern-Cal Corporation to amend the zoning
boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-2
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone; to
an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) or more restrictive,
Zone; and to a C-2 (Commercial) or more resfrictive, Zone, affecting
those certain properties described as a 25-foot strip of land
Bakersfield, California, June 5, 1972 - Page 14
adjacent to the Stine Canal located at 1900-1924 Hasti Acres Drive
and a 454-foot portion that lies northerly of Tract 3413.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent as prescribed by law. The applicant has purchased a
25 by 814 foot strip of land located between his property and the
Stine Canal to provide deeper lots within his subdivision and to
utilize property not needed as right-of-way for canal purposes.
The requested zoning of this strip would match that of the abutting
property.
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the zoning
of said parcel to R-2, R-3 and C-2-D.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
No protests or objections being received, and no one
in favor of the rezoning, the public hearing was closed
patton.
speaking
for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman
Thomas, Ordinance No. 2014 New Series amending Title Seventeen of
the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land
Use Zoning of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield
described as a 25-foot strip of land adjacent to the Stine Canal
located at 1900-1924 Hasti Acres Drive and a 454 foot portion that
lies northerly of Tract 3413, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on application by Stockdale Development Corporation to amend the
zoning boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an
R-2-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design)
or more restrictive, Zone, of that certain property located between
"0" and "Q" Streets approximately 300 feet northerly of 36th Street.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent as prescribed by law. The zoning proposed conforms
to the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan which depicts
this area as low-density residential.
Bakersfield, California, June 5, 1972 - Page 15
The Planning Commission is of the opinion that this
zoning (R-2-D) v~uld be compatible with the existing zoning in
the area and would recommend approval.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. A communication was received from Mr. C. R. Brown, 3616
Jewerr Avenue, requesting that the zoning remain as R-1. No one
in the audience spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Chuck
Tolltee, representing the Stockdale Development Corporation, was
present, and pointed out that this is an island of R-1 zoning and
is adjacent to a developed sump.
The Mayor closed the public
tion and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance
No. 2015 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code
of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use Zoning of that
certain property in the City of Bakersfield located between "O"
and "Q" Streets, approximately 300' northerly of 36th Street, was
adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on application by M. Frank St. Clair to amend the zoning
boundaries from an R-2-MH (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling -
Mobile Home Park) Zone to an MH (Mobile Home) or more restrictive,
Zone, affecting that certain property located on the southeast
corner of South "H" Street and Calcutta Drive.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent as prescribed by law. A Mobile Home Subdivision is
proposed on this 9-acre R-2-MH-D zoned property; the old MH Overlay
Zone does not allow Mobile Home Subdivisions.
The zoning proposed conforms to the Bakersfield Metro-
politan Area General Plan which depicts this area as low-density
residential, and accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the zone change as submitted.
hearing for Council delibera-
Bakersfield, California, June 5, 1972 - Page 16
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No one present expressed any opposition and no one spoke
in favor, of the zone change. Neither Mr. Frank St. Clair the
applicant, nor his representative, was present to answer questions
posed by members of the Council. Mr. Sceales advised there was no
opposition to the rezoning at the Planning Commission level.
Councilman Whittemore commented that both the City and
County Planning Commissions require the applicant, or his repre-
sentative, to appear at hearings, and moved that lhe hearing be
continued for a week and the applicant be notified of the Council's
action. This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Whittemore made a motion that the Council
adopt a Minute Order setting the policy of requiring the applicant
or his representative to appear during the Council's public hearings
on a requested rezoning. This motion carried unanimously.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on an appeal by Richard Abercrombie to the decision of the Board
of Zoning Adjustment granting his application for a Modification
of an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to permit the construction
of a six-foot high masonry wall adjacent to the sidewalk in the
front and sideyard setback with the condition thai the wall be
located 20 feet behind the curb line on both Cherry Street and
Oleander Avenue, affecting that certain property commonly known
as 706 Oleander Avenue.
This hearing has been duly advertised and notices sent
as prescribed by law. The Traffic Authority has reviewed the
proposed wall and found it would be a traffic hazard; a similar
wall located on the northeast corner of Oleander Avenue and Dracena
Street has proved this to be the case. The Traffic Authority is
of lhe opinion that a modification would be reasonable if the walls
were located 20 feet
and Oleander Avenue.
Mayor Hart
participation.
behind the curb line on both Cherry Street
declared the public hearing open for public
No one expressed any objection to the proposal.
Bakersfield~ California~ June 5, 1972 - Page l?
Mr. Richard Abercrombie, the applicant who had appealed
the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, addressed the
Council, stating that when he returned to his home after the Board
of Zoning Adjustment hearing, he discovered that lhe requirement
to construct the wall 20 feet from the curb would literally bisect
the available property in front of his house. He offered an
alternate proposal and submitted a revised plan for construction
of a fence which would not wall in all of his property but would
come up to his driveway and eliminate the wall on his neighbor's
side~ and would also eliminate the problem of visability of pedes-
trains.
Mayor Hart closed the public hearing at this time for
Council deliberation and action. After discussion, upon a motion
by Councilman Medders, Zoning Resolution No. 237 granting Modifi-
cation of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance of the City of Bakersfield
to permit the construction of a six foot high wall adjacent to the
sidewalk in the front and side yard setback on that certain property
commonly known as ?06 Oleander Avenue, as such modification is
necessary to secure an appropriate improvement on the property
subject to the plot plan submitted, including an additional eight
foot diagonal cut at the intersection of Cherry and Oleander Street~
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker~ Heisey~ Medders~ Rees~ Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
This is the time set for continued public hearing before
the Council on an appeal by Drs. Siemon and Witt to the decision
of the Board of Zoning Adjustment denying their application for a
Modification of a C-0 (Professional Office) Zone to permit the
construction of an addition to an existing Medical Building with
reduction of the off-street parking on that certain property
commonly known as 2020 Truxtun Avenue.
Bakersfield, California, June 5, 1972 - Page 18
This hearing has
as prescribed by law. The
for this Medical Building,
been duly advertised and notices sent
total number of parking spaces required
including the proposed addition, would
be 21 spaces. Six parking spaces will be provided by the appli-
cants on their property; they proposed to rent 15 parking spaces
from Dr. Charles Stewart. The applicants cannot guarantee that
the rental spaces will be available in the
have requested a modification of 15 spaces
requirement.
The Board of Zoning Adjustment
each new medical office should provide a
future; therefore, they
to meet the ordinance
is of the opinion that
reasonable amount of
parking for its own individual use to prevent a shortage of parking
facilities in the future. It is felt that the applicants have not
shown justification for the modification and, accordingly, recom-
mends denial of the application.
This hearing was continued from meeting of May 15, 1972
at request of Mr. Bennett Siemon, Attorney.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections were received. Mr. Bennett
Siemon, Attorney representing Drs. Siemon and Witt, stated they
desire to enlarge their building in order to bring another
Ophthalmologist into Bakersfield. At the time of the hearing
before the Board of Zoning Adjustment, the doctors had an oral
arrangement with Dr. Leslie Riechel, who owns the parking lot
directly behind their building, for rental of additional spaces
in that lot. They have rented additional spaces in the lot for
the last couple of years without any obligation to do so, but
merely to carry out the need for parking for this business and to
show their concern and good faith. Since the hearing they have
entered into a written lease with Dr. Riechel for leasing 15 addi-
tional spaces on this parking lot. While this lease has no
specified expiration date, it is subject to cancellation upon six
months written notice. There is no expectation that Dr. Riechel
will terminate the lease, but if this does happen, they will rent
Bakersfield, California, June 5, 1972 - Page 19
or buy other spaces. They are not trying to evade the ordinance
but are trying to comply with it. He pointed out the shortage of
Ophthalmologists in the City of Bakersfield and that the addition
to the building will provide quarters for one more well-qualified
doctor which will help the situation in the City. He stated that
the parking situation in this area is not critical and there is a
public parking lot a block and a half away.
Mayor Hart declared the public hearing closed for Council
deliberation and action. After some discussion, upon a motion by
Councilman Bleecker, Zoning Resolution No. 238 granting Modifica-
tion of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance of the City of Bakersfield
to permit the construction of an addition to an existing medical
building with reduction of the off-street parking on that certain
property commonly known as 2020 Truxtun Avenue, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey,
adjourned at 10:10 P.M.
to come before the
the meeting was
MAYb~R of the City of Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1972
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 12, 1972.
In the absence of Mayor Hart, Vice-Mayor Whittemore
called the meeting to order, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Absent: Mayor Hart
Minutes of the regular meeting of June 5, 1972 were
approved as presented.
Council Statements.
Councilman Thomas called the attention of the Council
to an act of heroism performed by Fire Engineer Clyde E. Reynolds
and Firefighter Gordon Brooks, during torrential flood of June 7,
1972, by rescuing a young woman and her child from a submerged
station wagon at the intersection of University Avenue and River
Boulevard. Councilman Thomas asked that the City Council present
an award to these two Firemen who risked their lives far and
beyond the call of duty to save two persons from drowning.
Reports.
City Manager Bergen stated that as the formation of a
Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan Transit District was approved at
the Primary Election of June 6, 1972, it is necessary to establish
this District as soon as possible. He asked the Council to give
serious consideration to the appointment of two members to the
Board of Directors of this District, and also authorize the Mayor
to send a letter urging the Board of Supervisors to give considera-.
tion to appointing two members of the Transit District Board as
soon as possible. The fifth member of the Board is appointed by
the other four. As enabling legislation requires the first
appointment to be made within 30 days, these appointments should
be made by July 6.
and Invocation by Councilman Walter Heisey.
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1972 - Page 2
The first order of business of the Board of Directors
would be to contract for the continued operation of the Transit
System by the City of Bakersfield and the second order of business
would be the hiring of a Superintendent or Director. As the City's
Transit Superintendent retired on June 1, 1972, a recommendation
will be made to the Council at the next meeting to eliminate the
position.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore commented that he is sure the
Council will be ready to submit two names within the next couple
of weeks for appointment to the Board of Directors of this District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Mayor Hart was authori-
zed to direct a letter to the Board of Supervisors calling their
attention to the urgency of appointing two members to the Board of
Directors of the Transit System.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a)Allowance of Claims Nos. 3839 to 3899,
inclusive, in amount of $67,831.35.
(b) Contract Change Order No. 1 to Contract
No. 15-72 for improvement of New Stine
Road between Sundale Avenue and Ming
Avenue and improvement of Ming Avenue
between New Stine Road and Stine Road.
(c)
Resolution No. 33-72 of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield making finding
that Tentative Tract 3625, together
with provisions for its design and im-
provement, is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b) and
(c) 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, bid of Benjamin D.
to purchase real property at South "H" and Terrace Way, was
authorized to execute Quit Claim Deed
Phipps
accepted, and the Mayor was
for the buyer.
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1972 - Page 3
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, low bid of Brown
Beyis Equipment Company for annual contract Street Sweeper Brooms
was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, low bid of Griffith
Co. for resurfacing a portion of Truxtun Avenue from "L" Street to
"V" Street was accepted, all other bids were
Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey,
rejected, and the
low bid of W. B.
Harrison for construction of Utility Building and Electric Service
at Patriots Park was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and
the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Deferred Business.
This was the time set to further consider an Ordinance
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 17.25.026
(Uses Permitted Subject to Conditional Use Permit) of Chapter 17.25
(C-1 Zones) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield which
had been given first reading at meeting of May 22, 1972 and was
deferred from last meeting for further review by the Council.
Councilman Rees commented that he had asked the ordinance
be deferred for further consideration because superficially, it
appeared that it would apply to only one particular establishment,
however, it does propose a basic change in the Zoning Ordinance
affecting the Conditional Use Permit for a C-1 Zone. The staff
recommended and fhe Planning Commission concurred, that it would
be reasonable to allow a restaurant to sell beer and wine and to
grant this type of restaurant a Conditional Use Permit in a C-1
Zone,
Councilman Rees then moved adoption of Ordinance No.
2016 New Series amending Section 17.25.026 (Uses Permitted Subject
to Conditional Use Permit) of Chapter 17.25 (C-1 Zones) of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, stating that adopting
this ordinance does not permit any specific establishment to do
anything at all, it only sets out the guide lines relative to
granting Conditional Use Permits.
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1972 - Page 4
During discussion, Councilman Bleecker stated it is his
understanding that if this ordinance is adopted, it would allow
the sale of beer and wine incidental to the sale of food in a
restaurant in a C-1 Zone, and that this approval must come from
the Board of Zoning Adjustment subject to the Council making the
final determination if the Board's decision is appealed. He would
think that plenty of safeguards are provided and he would support
the measure.
Mrs. Mary Addington, proprietor of a restaurant at
Truxtun Avenue and Oak Street, stated she wished to apply for a
Conditional Use Permit to sell beer and wine at this location which.
is in a C-1 Zone, and passage of this ordinance would permit her
to do so.
Councilman Medders commented it would appear to him that
if the ordinance is adopted, it would be incumbent upon the Board
of Zoning Adjustment to grant all requests for a Conditional Use
Permit in a C-1 Zone, depending upon the situation. He would not
be in favor of doing this.
Councilman Heisey stated he feels the existing ordinance
is a good one, fairly restrictive, and the zoning is proper as it
exists. If this ordinance is adopted, the Board of Zoning Adjust-
ment will be deluged with applications for beer and wine permits,
and he is going to vote against the motion.
Mr. Bob Crabtree, member of the Executive Board of the
Second Church of Christ Scientists at Mr. Vernon and Noble Avenue,
stated that the church does not object to Mr. and Mrs. MacMillan
receiving a Conditional Use Permit to operate an Italian restaurant
at 2402 Columbus Avenue, as he is sure this restaurant will be an
asset to the community. However, they are objecting to the danger
of changing the character of the C-1 (Limited Commercial) Zone.
As they pointed out in the public hearing before the Planning
Commission, the C-1 Zone is written in a much tighter fashion than
the C-2 Zone and the proposed use is singled out and excluded from
the C-1 Zone. The only requirement from the applicant is that it
be a sit-down type of restaurant and it is assumed the Board of
Zoning Adjustment will require the operator to be of good character.
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1972 - Page 5
305
Therefore, the Board will be in a position where it cannot say "no"
to anyone who is of good character and meets the basic requirements.
The C-1 Zone would be diluted with a C-2 use which is prohibited in
the C-1 Zone and the character of the C-1 Zone would be changed.
Mr. Doug Minner, representing Mr. and Mrs. MacMillan,
stated that there are C-2 properties all over Bakersfield and he
does not see a deluge of people rushing to put in bars, etc. The
Board of Zoning Adjustment, as well as the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board, have very strict rules regulating this type of use.
Roll call vote taken on the ordinance carried as follows:
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Rees,
Councilmen Heisey, Medders
None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Adoption of Resolution No. 34-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field, California, declaring the
occurrence of a local emergency in
the City of Bakersfield due to
natural disaster.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No.
34-72 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, declar-
ing the occurrence of a local emergency in the City of Bakersfield
due to natural disaster, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 35-72 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field fixing a time and place for
hearing protests by persons owning
real property within territory desig-
nated as "Kern River No. 1," proposed
to be annexed to the City of Bakers-
field.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 35-72
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield fixing eight o'clock
P.M., July 24, 1972, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall,
as the time and place for hearing protests by persons owning real
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1972 - Page 6
Ayes:
Noes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
property within territory designated as "Kern River No. 1" pro-
posed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the
following vote:
Rees, Rucker,
None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 36-72 to include within the
Greater Bakersfield Separation of
Grade District a portion of certain
territory designated as "Kern River
No. 1," 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 of Inten-
tion No. 36-72 to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation
of Grade District a portion of certain territory designated as
"Kern River No. 1" and setting eight o'clock P.M., July 24, 1972
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 Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Request from Hardt Real Estate to
connect property on Belle Terrace
to the City Sewer referred to the
Planning Commission for study and
recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, request from Hardt
Real Estate to connect property on Belle Terrace to the City Sewer,
was referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation.
Failure to motion to take Ordinance
No. 1984 New Series off the table.
Councilman Medders commented that the Council has all
been served with a Notice of Intention to Circulate Recall petition,
however, this has nothing to do with what he is about to say as he
intended to make this statement whether the Notice had been received
or not. He has polled the Fifth Ward very carefully and discovered
that there are some people who would benefit from a reduction in
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1972 - Page 7
327
the tax rate, if the garbage collection fee is continued, however,
a majority of the people in the Ward would not benefit. He then
moved that Ordinance No. 1984 New Series establishing a garbage
collection fee be taken off the table.
Councilman Heisey stated that in his
advised to take such action tonight, as it was
this would be considered during budget
week.
follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
opinion, it is ill-
his understanding
hearings to be held next
Roll call vote taken on the motion failed to carry as
Councilmen Medders, Rucker, Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Thomas (Who stated he
feels this matter can wait until budget hearings)
Absent: None
This is
Hearings.
the time set for continued public hearing before
the Council on application by M.
zoning boundaries from an R-2-MH
Mobile Home Park) Zone to an MH (Mobile Home)
Zone, affecting that certain property located
corner of South "H" Street and Calcutta Drive.
Frank St. Clair to amend the
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling -
or more restrictive,
on the southeast
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent as prescribed by ordinance. A Mobile Home subdivision
is proposed on this 9 acre R-2-MH zone property, the old MH Overlay
Zone does not allow mobile home subdivisions.
The zoning proposed conforms to the Bakersfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan which depicts this area as low-density residential
and accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the,
zone change as submitted. This hearing was deferred from last
meeting as applicant did not appear at hearing.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the public hearing open for
public participation. No protests or objections were received.
The applicant, M. Frank St. Clair was present and answered several
questions posed by Councilman Whittemore. The public portion of
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1972 - Page 8
the hearing was closed at this time for Council deliberation and
action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
2017 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code by
changing the Land Use Zoning affecting that certain property located
on the southeast corner of South "H" Street and Calcutta Drive,
was
Ayes:
adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes:
Absent:
Council,
adjourned at
Rees, Rucker,
None
None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the meeting was
8:31P. M.
~ ~ /,
MAYOR of the City of ~akers~ield, Calif.
ATTEST:
a lo Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972
fornia,
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend
Ober of the First Christian Church.
Present:
Absent:
Minutes of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, Calf-
meeting in budget sessions at 7:00 P.M., June 19, 1972.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
Richard
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
None
Mayor Hart stated that this meeting is of gravest impor-
rance to the community and will be conducted under strict rules of
parliamentary procedure.
Councilman Rees asked permission for Mr. Burdell Dickenson
to be heard at this time.
Mr. Dickensen, who resides at 3500 Panorama Drive, urged
the Council to continue the user-pay charge of $2.00, as in his
opinion if will be much cheaper for the City to collect the refuse
than to turn it over to private enterprise at possibly a doubled
fee. The 57~ cut in the tax rate should off-set the garbage col-
lection charge in most instances. He stated he represents the
Apartment Owners Association in Bakersfield and the members feel
that the users should pay for the refuse collection service.
COUNCIL STATEMENTS.
Councilman Bleecker read the following prepared statement:
Over the past three years as a member of this Council, I have had
the opportunity to observe the functioning of all departments with-
in the City and to evaluate their effectiveness and worth to the
taxpayer compared to costs which seem to be ever increasing. I
have had the privilege this past year of serving on the Govern-
mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee of the Council which is
its most important Committee. The GEP is furnished certain facts
and data on a continuous basis regarding all aspects of all depart-
ments. This Committee also is empowered by the Council to carry
on all negotiations with organized labor and employee groups and
associations.
With this background and knowledge, I have come to certain con-
clusions reached over many months of evaluation regarding that
section of Public Works known as Refuse Collection, or Solid Waste
Pickup. The subject of refuse collection, as we all know, has been
tossed about for months. It has been an issue within the Council;
it has been a public issue in the press, on television and radio.
31 9
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 2
It has been unfortunate that certain factions from within
the Council on both sides, have seen fit to look upon the
issue as an opportunity for political revenge or notoriety.
And I will tell you right now that I cannot plead innocent
to this accusation myself.
Because of the dubiousness of this approach, the public has
become ill-informed and confused and the Council, itself,
has not enhanced its image or its effectiveness as a govern-
ing body. Our public relations have been exceedingly poor.
What we must do is reconcile our differences among ourselves
and between our office and the people and take some action
which may not be universally popular (for nothing ever is
universally popular in a democracy.) Otherwise, we do a dis-
service to the community and to the office we hold.
I cannot, in all conscience, and I have not in three years
as a Councilman, supported any elevation of expenditures
with the idea in mind that taxes would have to be increased
accordingly. In fhe general picture of fhings over the
nation, during the past few years and during the adminis-
tration of both political parties, great excesses have been
perpetrated against the people by the federal government.
These excesses have resulted in expenditures and indebted-
ness almost beyond the realm of human understanding and
certainly beyond the realm of continued endurance. Consumer
costs and taxes are the highest they have ever been. Our
economic policies in the last 20 years or more have been
ill-conceived, ill-administered and probably even illegal,
particularly in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans
in the middle income group who pay about 85% of the taxes.
In order to control federal expenditures and taxes, I have
the influence of one out of 260 million, but on this Council,
I have one vote our of seven - I like those odds much better.
For these reasons, I cannot support increased taxation on the
local level. Hopefully, later on in these budget sessions,
the Council will see fit to reduce property taxes as one of
the recommendations of the GEP Committee. Hopefully, in
fhe months to come, the 'Council will see fit to raise City
reserve funds in various accounts to acceptable levels.
Hopefully, the belt will get tighter and the philosophy of
deficit spending will not find any degree of permanence in
local affairs.
The requested refuse collection budget for the City of
Bakersfield for the coming fiscal year, already approved
by the Budget Review and Finance Committee is $1,127,000.
Prior to the enactment of the user pay ordinance, the one
we have now, all of this one million plus dollars would
have come from personal property taxation. As in the past
and probably in the future, the County Assessor has steadily
increased assessed valuation, which means that assessed
valuations go up, even though the City's tax rate remains
constant, more dollars flow into the City's coffers. This
also means that more dollars are available for refuse
collection services, and for all other City departments.
It has been my experience that it has been virtually
imposible to hold any kind of line on these expenditures.
The best way to stop the spending is to stop the inflow
of funds. In other words, "If you don't have it, you
can't spend it." You would be surprised at the number of
economics which can be made under these circumstances.
33t
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 3
If the Council reduces it tax rate by 57~ per $100 of
assessed valuation, if we refuse to subsidize our current
user-pay system which amounts to about a 30% subsidy
compared to cost, keep the user pay concept, take refuse
collection 100% out of property taxes and turn it over to
private colicclots, this Council will have accomplished
the largest single measure of economy to property taxpayers
we have seen in recent history.
With County taxes as high as they are already, you can
imagine how much higher they would be, if all of a sudden
the County of Kern went into the refuse collection business
and added these costs to their tax base.
There is certainly a mandate, that government must for
health reasons and other less tangible reasons, see to if
that refuse is disposed of in an orderly manner, but there
is certainly no mandate that government must actually per-
form the collection itself.
Much of the street construction in the City is put out to
bid because the Council feels that it is the cheapest and
best way to go.
At the present time about 1/3 of the refuse collected in
the City is handled by private collectors, those who were
already in business in County areas ultimately annexed to
the City. Not in any case has the City, to my knowledge,
ever intended to take over any of these City areas now
collected by privafe firms.
Under the present user-pay plan, each and every non-profit
organization or corporation within the City is paying for
refuse collection, which they would do under private
collectors. Prior to user-pay any entity not subject to
property tax paid absolutely nothing to the Cify for
services rendered. This category includes government
entities of all'types, churches, schools and all other
non-taxpaying enterprises.
All in all, I see the user-pay plan as a forerunner to
private collection, and this is the primary reason why I
have supported the concept and the ordinance.
There is a lot to be said for the idea that government
should do for the people only those things which they
cannot do for themselves. There is also a lot to be said
for the fact that in most cases, government cannot operate
as cheaply as private concerns because when government
gets in trouble it can always raise taxes in order to come
out, while private concerns must use every bit of know-
ledge and know-how at their disposal to meet competition
and stay alive.
It is for these reasons and many other which time does
not permit discussion of, that I implore the Council to
vote in the affirmative on the following motion:
Mr. Mayor, I move that the Refuse Collection Service in
the City of Bakersfield be put out to bids so fhat the
service may be contracted to private enterprise at the
earliesf possible date, and that bids be requested so
that they may be opened no later than the last day of
September, 1972.
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 4
Mayor Hart asked Mr. Hoagland if it would be necessary
to take action to remove Ordinance No. 1984 New Series from the
table before voting on Councilman Bleecker's motion.
Mr. Hoagland stated that he did not believe so, he thinks
the motion is proper under the circumstances, as the ordinance
itself is not being discussed.
Councilman Rees stated he wanted to speak on the motion.
He could give wholehearted approval to the general tone and intent
of Councilman Bleecker's statement up to the point where he moved
to put the refuse collection out to private bid. Mr. Dickenson,
as the representative of the Apartment House Owners, who spoke to
the Council previously, made a very telling point to him that it
is his considered belief people will pay more for refuse collection
to private collectors. Councilman Rees stated he wouldn't rule
out the possibility of considering private collection and he doesn't
think the Council as a whole is ruling it out. As Councilman
Bleecker has pointed out, the City
existing routes in areas that have
planning on letting out two of the
bidders, which will be then turned
is already contracting for the
been annexed. The City is
downtown commercial routes to
over to private contractors,
it would indicate to him the City does not
a fixed policy which is inflexible.
A bid issue of this nature could
have a closed mind,
SO
or
through the year, and studied in depth, and in his opinion it is
not timely now at the beginning of budget sessions, to with one
grand dramatic swoop, make a basic change in the City's economic
operation. The idea may have merit, but he feels the timing is
wrong, he would therefore oppose Councilman Bleecker's motion.
Councilman Whirremote stated that last year the Council
briefly studied contracting out the refuse collection to private
enterprise without forming any firm conclusion. It is an area
which certainly deserves further concentrated study. He asked
Councilman Bleecker if he intended payment to be made by the home-
owner or through the tax base.
be very well considered
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page
Councilman Bleecker replied that by having the user-pay
concept, the rates are already established, and it would have
continued in effect, to put the service out to bid to private
enterprise.
Councilman Whittemore commented that he does not oppose
seeking bids on the entire refuse collection system, the City is
being forced into it because of the expense of the operation. He
would agree with Mr. Dickenson, however, that in all probability
the rates will be much higher than the City is charging, because
the fee is being subsidized by other taxes in the general fund.
He would hestitate to support the motion in its present form, but
could support it if it were amended to authorize the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee to seek bids to determine the
better route to go. He does feel that the Refuse Ordinance should
be taken off the table before any action is taken on Councilman
Bleecker's motion.
Councilman Heisey complimented Mr. Bleecker for a well-
thought out presentation, he has a very valid point. As pointed
out by Councilman Bleecker, a large portion of the City is already
receiving pick-up from private collectors, and the City will be
receiving bids within the next few weeks for the two downtown
routes, to transfer the collection to private enterprise. It is,
therefore, only logical for the City to franchise out the balance
of the routes, and he would support Mr. Bleecker's motion.
Councilman Rucker thanked Councilman Bleecker for bringing
the matter to the attention of the Council. Most of the refuse
collectors would possibly be in favor of such action by the Council.
He feels that some reaction should be obtained from the public,
but he would agree that it should be studied by some council Com-
mittee to come back to the Council with a recommendation.
Councilman Thomas commended Councilman Bleecker for his
presentation. He reminded the Council and the staff that he has
been opposed to Ordinance No. 1984 New Series since it was first
333
334
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 6
brought to the Council, in that it would penalize the people in
the lower income bracket. It is his feeling that the rates will
be increased if if is franchised out to private enterprise, and
he would be opposed to the motion for that reason.
Mayor Hart asked if all persons in the City would be
required to subscribe to the service, if the collection was made
by private enterprise. Mr. Hoagland stated the City residents
would have to take the service, as it is the only way the health
of the City can be protected.
Councilman Thomas asked if the Council would regulate
the rates if the service was put out to private collectors.
Councilman Whittemore commented that the Council would set the
rates. City Attorney Hoagland stated that what would be contem-
plated is that the private collectors would bid on a franhhise
basis, the highest bidder offering the most return to the City
would receive the contract.
Mr. Len Winther, representative of the American Federa-
tion of State, County and Municipal Employees, representing the
City Sanitation Employees, asked permission to address the Council,
stating that the City does not pay excise taxes and therefore does
not have to make a profit. The AFS~ME feels that waste removal is
very important and should not be turned over to private enterprise,
as private enterprise must make a profit or go out of business, and
the public suffers. Government can furnish better service much
cheaper than private enterprise. He asked the Council to remember
that the City of Bakersfield is furnishing the best service at the
lowest possible cost to the community.
Councilman Bleecker took exception to the statement that
government can do something cheaper. To compare a user-pay plan
with a tax rare is somewhat erroneous, because if the City's tax
rate stays the same, and assessed valuations go up on personal
property tax, this City will find a way to spend envery dollar of
that money. So refuse collection is going to cost more, not less.
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 7
Councilman Heisey stated he wanted to challenge the point
that government could do somet~ng more efficiently than private
enterprise. The City of San Francisco, which has private pick-up,
has a very low charge for this service because it has such an
efficient system through private enterprise.
Councilman Medders stated he could agree with most of
Councilman Bleecker's statement, however, he has talked to the
people in his Ward, and he believes that Councilman Whittemore made
a private study earlier, and they have both found that the people
want to keep the City of Bakersfield in the refuse business.
Councilman Whirremote stated he had made a private study
and people have indicated to him that they wanted to keep the City
Refuse Department, they wanted it on their ad valorem taxes with-
out writing a separate check and that is what he has based his
arguments on. To vote on this motion tonight would more or less
pre-empt the wishes of the people~ without bringing it back to
Committee to make a complete study, get bids and determine exactly
what the cost would be to the homeowner and businesses to collect
refuse. It is possible that a better rate may be received by
volume~ if bids are asked for the whole City.
Councilman Bleecker commented that the City is collecting
the refuse collection fees for the private collector at the present
time, but it does not necessarily mean that under a competitive
bid basis for the whole City the contractor cannot collect it
himself or pay the City for the collection service. If the City's
refuse collection were franchised out to a private collector, each
time he wished a rate increased, he would have to make the request
to the Council for approval. If refuse collection is included in
the tax rate, the cost could double, and no one would ever know
about it.
335
Bakersfield, California, June, 19, 1972 - Page 8
Roll call vote taken on Councilman Bleecker's motion to
put the City's refuse collection service out to bid, failed to
carry as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey
Noes: Councilmen Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Councilman Heisey then moved that the previous question
be referred to the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee
for study and further recommendation to the Council at some later
date. This motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Bleecker moved that Refuse Collection Ordinance
No. 1984 New Series which was tabled on May 1, 1972, be taken off
the table. This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Bleecker stated that due to the confusion and
misunderstanding which seems to exist regarding Section 8.48.160. -
Enforcement - Powers and Duties of Director of Public Works - he
believes the wording can and should be changed. He moved that the
language of this section be changed, for clarification, as follows:
"He (referring to the Director of Public Works),
shall have the right with the verbal or written
consent of the property owner~ or renter, or
their bonafide agent, to inspect any and all
premises for the purpose of determining whether
the provisions of this chapter are being observed.
Without the aforementioned consdent, a search
warrant must be obtained, if he believes it is
in the best interest of the City to pursue a
determination.
Any person denying or obstructing such inspec-
tion, provided a search warrant has been
obtained, shall be subject to the penalties
herein provided, which is a misdmeansor.
City Attorney Hoagland commented that the wording as set
forth by Councilman Bleecker is very good, but he would like to
point out that the City can live with the deletion of the entire
sentence. If there is a health problem on anyone's premises which
337
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 9
can be observed by those persons in charge of enforcement of the
ordinance, it is not necessary to inspect the premises to find the
person in violation. They need simply to allege that the refuse
accumulated on the premises is dilatorious of the health and safety
of the general public and a complaint would be issued. Therefore,
the language could be deleted entirely.
Vote taken on Councilman Bleecker's motion to amend
Section 8.48.160 of Ordinance No. 1984 New Series carried unani-
mously. City Attorney Hoagland commented that this would be first
reading of the amendment to the ordinance.
Councilman Medders read the following statement:
When I ran for office, I told all of the people
that I was able to contact personally, that I
would do my best to represent the point of view
of the majority of the residents of the Fifth
Ward. I have done this as best I know how
within the framework of what my conscience
allows me to do, even in the area of Refuse
Collection Ordinances.
My conscience would not allow me to support
the ordinance that sought to balance the 1971-
72 Budget through charges to businesses,
apartments and condominiums.
I did not feel that a majority of the people
of the Fifth Ward thought that particular
ordinance was equitable - and people in the
area that I have talked to about it since that
time agree.
It is true, as the record shows, that I voted
in favor of Ordinance No. 1984 New Series,
because I felt that if anybody should have to
pay, everybody had an equal responsibility.
On the Refuse Issue. Strangely enough the
greatest anmount of mail and phone calls I have
had were almost a year ago, when there was
some discussion about getting out of the
business and franchising the entire operation
to private enterprise, and almost everyone was
in~'diredt opposition.
To make a long story short, I prepared and con-
ducted a survey with the help of my wife, and
I was able to place the survey sheets in many
areas of the Fifth Ward which I feel were
highly representative. I tried to give
factual information as I saw it and let the
people make up their own minds. The response
was excellent.
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 10
The results were 70% in favor of keeping the
charges in the tax rate and 30% favored the
present ordinance. I left a place on the sur-
vey sheet for comments and the most prevalent
comment from those who wished to keep the
charges in the tax rate, was the fear that the
rate would just move up again at a later date.
From those who favored the charge and tax
reduction, was the comment that free-loaders
(tax-exempt operations) would have to pay their
share.
My sympathy is with the people in my Ward who
have placed higher-priced property and homes
as a priority item on their list of accomplish-
ments, because property tax is grossly unfair
to them. Westpark is a prime example. In that
area, property taxes range from $750 to $1,500
yearly. I think they are paying more than
their fair share, much more.
As I promised when I was campaigning, I will
represent the majority viewpoint as best I can
determine it on important issues. On this
particular issue, the opinion of the majority
of the people in the Fifth Ward definitely
seems to be in favor of rescinding Ordinance
No. 1984 New Series.
Councilman Medders then moved that Ordinance No. 1984
New Series be rescinded.
Councilman Heisey pointed out that none of the Council
is an authority on making up survey sheets and taking polls on
issues which will accurately reflect the opinions of people, and
he doubted the poll which Council Medders has taken really means
anything, although he commends him for making this effort. More
than that, the Council is responsible for seeing that the City is
fiscally strong and that the Council is doing the job for which it
was elected. The entire community is looking to the Council to do
what is right in regards to this Refuse Ordinance.
Councilman Heisey went on to say that all seven of the
Council solemnly pledged to the community that they would reduce
the property tax rate by a minimum of 50~ this coming fsical year.
The Finance Director and City Manager have come up with a proposed
reduction of 57~ which is that much better. The most important
issue, far more important than the actual cost of collecting refuse,
is what is the Council's commitment to jobs and industry in the
329
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 11
community. Here is an opportunity to bring new dollars into the
community. Industry constantly bypasses Bakersfield simply because
the property tax rate is prohibitive, the City has one of the
highest tax rates in the State of California. He feels that it is
time for the Council to stand up and do what is right, what is good
for the community, and the City, regardless of what the mob says.
He has talked to the Finance Director and has been told that a 52~
could be made on the property tax rate, if the garbage collection
charge was reduced to $1.70 per month for refuse pickup. He does
not feel that there is anyone in the City who cannot afford to pay
this small fee for refuse pickup, as well as receive a 52~ reduction
per $100 on assessment of the property tax rate.
Councilman Heisey then offered a substitute motion that
the Refuse Ordinance be retained, but modified to the extent that
the charge on a single residential property be reduced from $2.00
to the reasonable sum of $1.70 per month.
Councilman Rees stated he hasn't polled his constituents
and he does not feel that they are familiar with all the facts and
statistics that are involved in this issue, and he feels sure that
the entire Council is not totally aware of the issues at stake.
He feels that if his constituents were familiar with the issue,
they would be in favor of retaining the user-pay concept. Because
he believes this, he wants to take what he regards as a position
of responsibility, which he feels is more important than popularity.
If the Council feels that the user-pay system is more £air than
adding the charge to the ad valorem taxes, it is the Council's
obligation to follow its conscience and its responsibility. He
intends to take that position. He would like to reserve his judg-
ment on the reduction of 30~, he would like to hear other comments
from members of the Council on this suggestion.
Councilman Whirremote stated he considers all members
of the Council as responsible people. It doesn't make any
340
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 12
difference whether the refuse charge is collected by the user-pay
concept, or added to the property tax rate, it is not going to
save money for the people of Bakersfield. They are going to have
to pay for refuse pickup, one way or another. In the survey made
in his Ward, people have very clearly indicated to him that they
would rather have it added to the property tax, than to pay it
separately. He does not think people in the other wards feel any
differently, they want the refuse collection left on the property
tax rate where they can at least write it off their income tax,
and they don't have to write a separate check each month.
Councilman Rucker, commented, that, not as a result of
the Intention to Circulate A Recall Petition, his position has
always been that keeping the refuse collection charge in the tax
rate is a much better thing for the citizens of Bakersfield. He
will therefor not be able to support Councilman Heisey's sub-
stitute motion.
After additional Council discussion, vote taken on
Councilman Heiesy's substitute motion failed to carry as follows:
Ayes: Councilman Heisey
Noes: Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Absent: None
Councilman Rees stated that speaking on the original
motion to rescind Ordinance No. 1984 New Series, the City is now
midway in its program evolving the user-pay principle. He doesn't
think this should be lightly considered. Any action the Council
takes tonight should be mindful of the position the City is in
now. It is not an accidental position, it is a position as a
result of the Council's action. Bills have been sent out, revenues
have been collected, personnel is working based upon the intent
of the Council to put the refuse collection on a user-pay principle.
If the position is reversed at this time, the Council is inflicting
a traumatic shock on the operation of the City of Bakersfield.
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page ]3
After some discussion, it was decided that with the
billings that are still pending, September 15, 1972, would be set
as the effective date for rescinding Ordinance No. 1984 New Series.
Councilman Bleecker asked the Mayor to recognize Mr.
Nurl Renfro, who addressed the Council. He commended Councilman
Bleecker for his earlier remarks, staling thai he had done an
excellent job in analyzing the situation as it has existed for
quite some time. He stated thai a private contractor could make
a profit and still serve the citizens of Bakersfield at a lesser
rate than it would cost to have the whole thing negotiated .through
the City and have a large number of supervisors and administrators
and the separate process of billing by the City. He feels the
users of the rubbish service should pay for it and he urged the
Council to negotiate with private enterprise for this service.
With this in mind, the property tax would be much lower and every-
one would benefit. More industry would be attracted to the
community and more jobs would be available. He commended all the
Councilmen for their series consideration of the matter and for
the fact that they have been in communication with and have
listened to the people in the City.
Councilman Bleecker stated that private business can
collect the refuse cheaper than government, he is convinced of
that, he always has been. The idea of the user-pay concept should
be retained because if the Council votes to rescind the user-pay
concept, it has regressed in his opinion, as it will be a vote to
put the charge in the property tax rate, and it will probably die
there. And as property taxes go up, so will the refuse charge.
Councilman ~homas stated that he was very much in favor
of the user-pay concept, however, the people in the Sixth Ward
have requested him to help rescind the ordinance, so he has no
other choice.
34l
342
BAKERSField, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 14
Councilman Rees commented that
move him to rescind the existing Refuse Ordinance.
Vote $aken on Councilman Medders' motion to rescind
Ordinance No. 1984 New Series carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees
Absent: None
Mr.
his responsibility doesn't
Scheduled Public Statements.
Harry W. Rubin, Commander of the American Legion
Bakersfield Post No. 26, had requested permission to address the
Council and read the following communication:
It has been brought to the attention of Officials
of Bakersfield Post No. 26, The American Legion,
that certain individuals of the community feel we
might in some way be supporting the recent moti-
vation for a recall of the Councilman.
We allow various organizations to use our Post
facilities for meetings and social functions,
who pay us rent for the Hall.
We wish to assure you, and to be placed on record,
that Bakersfield Post No. 26, The American Legion,
is not responsible for actions, opinions and
decisions made by various groups who rent our
Legion Hall.
When Post 26 takes action on matters, we do so
in regular meetings assembled of its membership;
and in our own name.
Clerk.
Therefore, we wish this letter to be recorded,
that in no way has Bakersfield Post No. 26, The
American Legion, authorized the use of its Head-
quarter's address for any group, particularly
recently, the GoodGovernment Committee's use of
our address in the present activation for recall
movement.
Mr. Rubin then filed the communication with the City
A recess was declared at this time.
The Council reconvened at 9:20 P.M. Councilman Heisey
commented that in view of the fact the Council has committee
itself publicly and unanimously to cut the property tax rate
possibly the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee
50¢,
should
343
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page
reconsider its recommendations, as their reports were based on the
refuse collection charge being continued on a user-pay concept.
There is about $800,000 to be deleted from this budget if the
Council is going to keep faith with the public.
Councilman Whittemore stated he wished to correct Mr.
Heisey. The Council adopted a resolution of intent to cut property
taxes based on continuing the refuse collection charge.
Councilman Rees commented that his intent was that the
reduction in the ad valorem tax would be conditioned and predicated
on the continuance of the refuse collection charge, and he feels
that his personal pledge is no longer effective.
Councilman Whirremote, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read the Committee's report
on 1972-73 Salary and Supplemental Benefit Recommendations.
During the past five months, the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee has met on
numerous occasions in "meet and confer" sessions
with the Bakersfield City Employees Association,
the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees and the Firefighters Union
Local 1301. During these negotiating sessions
this Committee has heard various salary and
supplemental benefits requests from each of
these employee organizations and the Committee
has offered various alternatives to these
requests. Every attempt has been made to comply
with all of the provisions of the Meyers-Milias-
Brown Act.
This Committee's recommendations take into
account the requests and information provided
to us by the two unions and the Employees'
Association, as well as recommendations of
the Administration.
After numerous "meet and confer" sessions and
hours of deliberation on these requests, this
Committee is making the following comments and
reconunendations to the City Council for its
consideration for Fiscal Year 1972-73.
'BAKERSFIELD CITY EMPLOYEES'ASSOCIATION
SALARY & SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS REQUESTS
Request No. 1:
A flat $49 per month increase across the
board for all employees of the City. Based
on the average City employee salary, this
increase would approximate 1
5~%.
GEPC Comments: Disapproval with modification.
B~kersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 16
Request No. 1:
GEPC Comments:
Request No. 2:
GEPC Comments:
Request No. 3:
GEPC Comments:
Request No. 4:
GEPC Comments:
Request No. 5:
GEPC Comments:
Request No. 6:
GEPC Comments:
Request No. 7:
GEPC Comments:
Request No. 8
GEPC Comments
Request No. 1:
GEPC Comments:
Request No. 2:
SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS
Complete City payment of Medical Hospital
Insurance premiums for both the employee
and his dependents.
Disapproval
Increase holidays to match the County's eleven
annual holidays.
Approval
Revise the paid vacation schedule to provide
four weeks after fifteen years instead of
after 20 years, as at present.
Disapproval with modification.
Updating of present uniform allowance policy
to provide more equitable treatment.
Disapproval
Conversion into cash or added vacation of at
least one-half of accumulated unused sick
leave beyond 120 days.
Approved with modification.
The present $3 per shift pay for any employee
required to serve on stand-by duty should be
increased to at least $5 per ~hift.
Disapproval
The 1959 PERS Survivors Benefits Program should
be made available to City employees effective
not later than January 1, 1973 under an amended
City contract with the Public Employees Retire-
ment System.
Approval
Group Dental Insurance.
Disapproval
BAKERSFIELD FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1301
SALARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS REQUESTS
Salary Requests
That a certain schedule be adopted for certain
positions based on a current percentage dif-
ference in adding a 5.3% salary increase for
1972.
Disapproval with modification.
10% pay raise requests for position of Fire
Alarm Operator.
GEPC Comments: Disapproval
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page
Request No. 1:
GEPC Comments:
Request No. 2:
GEPC Comments:
Request No. 3:.
GEPC Comments:
Request No. 4.:
GEPC Comments:
Request No. 5:
GEPC Comments:
Request No. 1:
SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS
5% incentive pay increase for employees of the
Bakersfield Fire Department who have obtained
an Associate of Arts Degree or have completed
21 units of Fire Science, Management or Super-
vision courses.
Approval with modification
Uniform Allowance of $120 annually.
Disapproval
Establishment of a longevity program which
will grant a 2~% salary step increase for
each ten years of service.
Disapproval
11 Shift Annual Holiday Schedule.
Disapproval with modification.
Contribution of $12.70 per month for insurance
be allowed the Federated Firefighters Union of
California Plan instead of Blue Cross Plan.
Approval
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY
AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
Salary requests
Salary adjustments in certain Classes of
positions within the Sanitation Department.
GEPC Comments: Disapproval with modification
GOVERNMENTAL EFFICIENCY & PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS
In considering salary increases, this Committee had to
take into consideration many factors such as the salary controls
established by the Federal Government, the economic conditions of
the local community, salaries being paid by the public and private
sector and salary increases which have been granted City employees
in the past.
With these thoughts in mind, the GEPC recommends for
Fiscal Year 1972-73 a two and one-half percent pay increase for
all City employees effective July 1, 1972.
345
346
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 18
In addition to this 23% increase, the Committee is recom-
mending salary adjustments, job eliminations, title changes and
reclassifications of some positions in the various City departments.
These recommendations are in Part II of this report.
Councilman Bleecker commented that as a member of this
Connnittee, his agreement to the recommendation of a pay increase
of
23% was predicated on retention of the user-pay refuse collection
charge. Also, it is his intention to honor the promise he made to
the people of the City of Bakersfield to reduce taxes by at least
50~ per $100 assessed valuation. However, it has been indicated
by some members of the Council that they are no longer obliged to
reduce the property tax. He is going to wait until the rest of the
report is read before he votes to give all City employees a 23%
pay increase, but he would like to indicate now that as a member
of the Committee, his agreement to this pay raise was predicated
on continuance of the user-pay refuse tax and reducing the property
tax by 57~. This Council has to be honest with the people, and
when a promise is made in an open meeting, it should be kept. He
is going to reserve his approval of the GEPC report at this time.
After additional Council discussion, Councilman Whittemore
preceeded with Part I of the GEPC report.
SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation No. 1:
Re the 1959 Public Employees Retirement
System Survivors Benefit.
By granting this request, the employees
would be given the opportunity to select
this coverage at a cost to them of $2.00
per month. The cost to the City is one-
half of one percent of the regular pay-
roll. The annual cost would amount to
$21,000, however, this request is for a
six month period beginning January 1,
1973, and the anticipated cost would be
$10,500 for 1972-73.
Bakersfield, California, dune 19, 1972 -Page 19
Recommendation No. 2:
Additional Vacation allowance for unused
Sick Leave and placement of 120 days
maximum for accumulated Sick Leave.
The estimated cost of this benefit is
$23,000, however, this Committee feels
that this policy change should ultimately
result in lower out-of-pocket cost.
Councilman.Heisey asked how the Committee arrived at the
lower out-of-pocket cost. Mr. Bergen explained that as time goes
on employees will be converting part of their unused Sick Leave to
vacation, rather than being paid in a lump sum at retirement and
eventually this could amount to a considerable sum of money.
Recommendation No. 3: Increase in h~lidays t~ match the County.,s.
eleven holidays without election days.
The estimated cost to the City will be
$17,000. This cost is for employees who
must work on holidays.
Recommendation No. 4: . Compensation for education advancement
in the Fire Department.
This Committee recommends the following
procedure for educational advancement of
safety personnel within the Fire Depart-
ment.
5% increase for Associate of Arts
Degree in Fire Science and five
years experience with the City Fire
Department or,
23% increase for a Fire Science or
Fire Management Certificate requiring
21 units and 8 years experience with
the City Fire Department.
It is estimated that the cost to the City
will be less than $1,000 during 1972-73.
Recommendation No. 5:
Re payment of insurance premium to Feder-
ated Firefighters Union of California.
Since the Firefighters Union represents
over 100 employees and they have made
this request for the past few years, and
in view of the fact that this is a no
cost item, this Committee recommends
that the City contribute this amount for
those Fire Department employees who desire
this coverage.
348
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 20
Recommendation No. 6:
Re creation of a Sanitation Crewman III
Classification.
The Committee would recommend that a
Sanitation Crewman III classification
be established at Range 32. Effective
July 1, 1972, employees operating equip-
ment of over 30 cubic yards capacity
will be paid Sanitation Crewman III
wages on an acting basis for those hours
required in driving these vehicles.
Councilman Whittemore commented that
reading of Part I of the Government Efficiency
Committee's report.
this concludes the
and Personnel
Councilman Bleecker asked the Finance Director what 50~
per $100 assessed valuation on the tax rate would amount to in
dollars. Mr. Haynes replied that 50~ on the tax rate would amount
to approximately $775.000. Councilman Bleecker pointed out some of
the City's reserve funds are depleted, especially the Equipment
Replacement Fund set up to replace all types of equipment necessary
for the functioning of the City. In fact this reserve fund is
short $400,000. With the proposed reduction of 50~ on the tax
rate, this amounts to $1,175.000. He asked where the Council
intends to find this money, as it is his intention to keep faith
with the people, and he is going to ask the Council to vote favor-
ably on reducing the tax rate.
He then moved that the tax rate of the City of Bakersfield
be reduced 50~ per $100 assessed valuation.
Councilman Whittemore asked Councilman Bleecker to enumerate
the areas where he would like the taxes and services cut in the
amount of 50~ per $100. Councilman Bleecker suggested that the
Council go through the budget find about $775,000 and cut if out
of the budget.
City Manager Bergen pointed out that if the Council goes
through and cuts the budget it will result in the carry-over being
less for the next budget year. The carry-over for this year is
$500,000 less than the preceding year, brought about by the Council
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 21
cutting into the various budget accounts without cutting the level
of service. That is why he has attempted to make it very clear
that if the Council really wants to cut the budget, the level of
service must be cut likewise. The Council has to make the final
decision on what level of service it is going to approve.
Councilman Thomas commented that he thinks Mr. Bleecker's
motion is a little premature, as the people in his ward indicated
very strongly to him that they wanted the refuse collection charge
included in the property tax rate. He endorsed the Resolution of
Intent to cut the taxes~ but he is sure that his constituents were
aware he cannot honor his promise to cut the tax rate, and still
include the refuse charges in the property tax.
Councilman Bleecker stated he would make a deal with the
other members of the Council. He will go for the 2½% raise for
City employees if the budget can be cut 50Q and, if necessary,
cut the level of services.
Councilman Heisey commented that he felt the members of
the GEPC would want to take their recommendations back and recon-
sider them in view of the action which was taken earlier rescinding
Ordinance No. 1984 New Series, and then present it to the Council
with any modifications they deem appropriate.
Councilman Whittemore commented that he is sure all
members of the Council will do everything possible to reduce the
tax rate; however, he does not feel that the budget can be reduced
at this point; not until the entire report has been analyzed to
find out which areas reductions can be made.
Councilman Heisey stated that since the rescinding of
the Refuse Collection Ordinance has thrown all the previous cal-
culations out of balance, he would hate to see the Council adopt
this budget and report tonight, he feels the Council needs another
day or two to study it.
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 22
Councilman Rucker commented that he cannot see where the
Council can just cut the tax rate 50~ at this time, without first
going through the budget to find places to cut the proposed
expenditures. That is the way it has always been done in the past.
Mayor Hart read Resolution No. 87-71 of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield expressing its intent to cut the tax rate
by 50~ or more during Fiscal Year 1972-73, in which it is stated,
that since the City has gone to a direct charge for refuse collection
rather than financing the same out of the general funds of the City,
this change of concept can result in appropriate changes in the tax
rate set by the Council for the operation of City services.
After additional Council discussion, Councilman Bleecker
stated that if the Council will consider reviewing the proposed
budget in an effort to cut the tax rate by at least 50~, he will
withdraw his motion.
Councilman Whirremote, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read Part II of this Committee's
Recommendations on Department Requests, stating that during the
past year, extensive job audits have been made by the staff through--
out various departments of the City. The GEPC has met with depart-
ment heads and the various employee organizations concerning
information gathered through these job audits. After a careful
evaluation of these requests the GEPC is recommending approval of
some reclassifications, job eliminations, title changes, salary
adjustments and new positions. These recommendations are in
addition to the recommendations in Part I. Councilman Whittemore
then proceeded to read in detail the Committee's recommendations
by departments in alphabetical order.
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 2:3
COST ANALYSIS BY DEPARTMENTS ON PART II OF GEPC REPORT
Department Cost
Auditorium-Recreation $ 5,724
Building 4,435
City Attorney -123
City Clerk 545
City Manager 3,150
Finance 2,940
Fire 1,246
Planning 500
Police 93,362
Public Works 6,837
Total Additional Cost
1972-73 Fiscal Year
$ 118. 616
Mr. Nurl Ren£ro, speaking for the Good Government Com-
mittee, stated he had been instructed to inform the Council that
his group will not file notice of recall in connection with Council.-
man Bleecker. The recall movement against the other six Councilmen
will be discussed at the Committee's next meeting on Friday. He,
personally, will recommend that the action be dropped entirely.
The Notices of Recall addressed themselves to two major points;
one, being the unconstitutionaltry of the ordinance and the other
to the fact that members of the Council were not really listening
to people. Action taken this evening eliminated both of these
points. He said he would like to see the Council proceed with
franchising refuse collection to private enterprise.
At this time, some discussion ensued between Councilman
Thomas and Mr. Renfro regarding the Good Government Committee's
activities.
Councilman Bleecker stated that since certain very costly
changes have been made tonight, he would move that the whole report
of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee be held over
Bakersfield, California, June 19, 1972 - Page 24
and considered at the budget session tomorrow evening. This motion
carried unanimously.
City Manager Bergen passed out a summary of the Park
Development Program and summaries of estimated potential savings
by eliminating certain services, functions and improvements in the
Parks Division and other Divisions of the Street Department, for
the Council's information and evaluation.
He stated that the staff will make appropriate changes
to be submitted to the Council tomorrow evening as a result of
repealing the Refuse Collection Ordinance, as it does effect a
number of accounts and activities.
Adjournment.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:30 P.M.
M-~o'f
the~Cif~ Of' Bakersfield.
ATTEST:
a~d ex-officio clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California.
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972
Minutes of the Council ot the City of Bakersfield, Cali-
fornia, meeting in budget sessions at 7:00 P.M., June 20, 1972
In the absence of Mayor Hart, Vice-Mayor Whittemore acted
as presiding officer and called the meeting to order, followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman Walter Heisey.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Henry Post, of 3219 Harvard Drive, addressed the
Council regarding the eleven holidays proposed to be given the
City employees, stating that he believes this number to be excessive,
and not allowed by private industry. He feels that granting City
employees the privilege of accumulating 120 sick days and applying
portions of sick leave to paid vacations is not fair to the City
taxpayers and employees in private industry, and is morally wrong.
Mr. Charles Ellerd, 105 Panorama Drive, addressed the
Council, objecting to the reassessment o£ his property by the
County of Kern, stating that protests will be made to the reassess-
ment and the Council should not depend on any additional property
tax in order to balance its budget. He discussed the refuse rates,
objecting to the City subsidizing a portion of the collection
charge through property taxes, and compared refuse collection
service offered by the City of Bakersfield with other cities in
the valley. He feels that the employment of a third man on refuse
collection trucks is not necessary, other cities use a two man
crew which reduces the operating costs.
Reports.
Mr. Bergen stated that three full-time positions and two
part-time positions have been budgeted for refuse billing in the
Finance Department. Due to action taken to rescind the Refuse
Collection Ordinance the three full-time positions can be elimina-
ted, but the part-time employees will be utilized subject to
Council approval as follows:
1. 50% of an Auditor Investigator's time is
devoted to processing the delinquent refuse
354
Bakersfield~ California, June 20, 1972 - Page 2
bills. The other 50% is devoted to checking
delinquent accounts, audits for business,
tax purposes and searching for unlicensed
businesses. In the past the Finance Depart-
ment has been able to audit only 2½% of
business licenses each year, it is proposed
to assign the Auditor Investigator to that
task on a full-time basis, thus enabling
him to check about 5% of these licenses
each year.
60% of a Data Processing Operator's time
was devoted to the processing of refuse
collection billings. The other 40% was
devoted to processing data vital to City
operations in other areas. The City is
reimbursed for this position's salary under
the President's Emergency Employment Act
for Veterans of Vietnam and since there
is no cost to the City during 1972-72 for
that position, it is recommended that the
additional available time of this employee
be devoted to the improvement and updating
of other data processing applications.
He reported that the total reduction in the Finance
Department and Data Processing Division Budgets due to rescinding
of the Refuse Ordinance, computed on a nine months basis, amounts
to $31,255. He suggesfed that this savings be credited to the
Equipment Replacement Fund, which as Councilman Rucker pointed
out last night, needs to be built up.
The estimated refuse charge that will accrue to the City
of Bakersfield up to September 15, 1972, after deduction of the
delinquency factor, would be approximately $77,000, which will be
paid by the citizens for refuse collection. He suggested that this
amount be placed in the Capital Improvement Fund for whatever use
the Council decides upon, and perhaps a portion of it should be
credited to the Capital Reserve Fund.
Members of the Council and the staff discussed projected
revenue to be received from individual refuse collection billings,
the delinquency factors, and various billing cycles which will be
required until the September 15, 1972 cut-off date. It was brought
out that a total of $131,000 will be owing the City for refuse
collection charges if no further payment is received.
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972 - Page 3
355
The Council explored and discussed suggested alternates
for reduction of Refuse Collection Costs which had been prepared
by the Public Works Department for the Council information:
Alternate No. 1: Twice-Week - No Walk-in Service.
If instituted would result in a total cost
reduction of $46,900.
Alternate No. 2: Once/Week - No Walk-in Service.
Would result in an estimated savings of
$68,000. It should be considered that once
a week service could present a serious health
problem in warm weather. Residents would be
required to provide more containers and/or
bins to accomodate an entire week's accumu-
lation of refuse.
Councilman Bleecker suggested that perhaps an efficient
operation could be carried out with a two man crew instead of the
three man crew presently operating City refuse equipment, if the
collector does not have to walk into the property. Public Works
Director Bidwell stated that if the City does to curb-side pickup
they could run two-man crews and see how it works out. Up to this
time the Public Works Department has never had the option to try
it.
Councilman Bleecker asked Finance Director Haynes how
much revenue the City expects to receive through the increased
assessed valuation on City property. Mr. Haynes replied approxi-
mately $557,000 additional property taxes. Councilman Bleecker
asked if balancing the budget depended upon these funds, and Mr.
Haynes stated an allowance of 3.1% will be deducted as a delinquency
factor, with the balance budgeted.
Councilman Bleecker commmented that Mr. Bergen has many
times referred to the fact that the only way to reduce the budget
would be to cut the level of services, and asked him if there were
other areas, besides refuse collection, where services could be
cut.
Mr. Bergen explained that the "Pie" Chart of expenditures,
submitted with the Preliminary Budget, shows only three major areas
Bakersfield, California~ June 20~ 1972 - Page 4
where cuts could be considered~ as the Police Department is 23%,
the Fire Department 17%~ and the Public Works Department 2?% o£
the total proposed budget. He doesn't believe that the Council
or the citizens of the community would want a reduction of ser-
vices provided by the Police Department. In connection with the
Fire Department, there are some areas which should be explored,
but any evaluation of this department would require plenty of time
in order to complete all aspects, and should not take place during
budget deliberations.
The Public Works Department
additional means for cutting expenses
and by ways to modify or reduce the level
the public.
Councilman Bleecker stated that
is constantly exploring
by more efficient operations
of services rendered to
it is his opinion that
a great deal of savings can be made to the taxpayer over a period
of years if there were a functional consolidation of the City and
County Fire Departments. He then moved that the Council go on
record, by Minute Order, thai a committee of the Council negotiate
with a committee of the County of Kern to seriously look into the
functional consolidation of the City and County Fire Departments~
for the best interests of the Greater Bakersfield area.
Councilman Rees asked Mr. Bleecker if he would accept
an amendment to his motion that the matter first be referred to
the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee for an in-depth
study~ from the City's standpoint, before conferring with a similar
committee on the County level. Councilman Rees stated he would
assume that the committee would consider any and all areas which
might be explored toward improving efficiency in the Fire Depart-
ment in terms of City and County cooperation.
Councilman Heisey commented that many of the older members
of the Council will recall this subject has been discussed with the
Board of Supervisors~ many times, at some length~ but there was no
meeting of the minds and nothing was ever accomplished.
357
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972 - Page 5
As a point of information, Councilman Medders asked if
the County had an adequate Fire Training Facility.
Mr. Don Hoffman, Executive Secretary of the Kern County
Firefighters Union, 1301, stated that the County doesn't have all
the training facilities; it does have some that the City doesn't
have, and vice-versa. He stated that he would recommend against
the City moving into functional consolidation overnight, as there
would be problems which would hurt the City rather than help it.
He would suggest that the City and County enter into reciprocal
agreements, whereby the County would be called upon to handle a
catastrophe on the freeways inside the City Limits or to respond
to grass fires, as it has the equipment for this purpose. On the
other hand, Station No. 7, for instance, could respond to County
island fire calls. This would be the first step.
There should also be multi-company training between the
City and County, where company drills could be held on border lines.
These are the kind of things to start with, and work into functional
consolidation gradually; it should be something like a five year
plan, which is a perfect way to save the City and County additional
taxes and at the same time pay an adequate salary to the Firefighters.
Councilman Rees reminded the Council that it does have a
City-County Cooperation Committee, and he asked if the motion could
be amended to refer the matter of functional consolidation of the
City and County Fire Departments to this Committee for study and
recommendation. This amendment was accepted by Councilman Bleecker,
and the motion carried unanimously.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Councilman Heisey asked Vice-Mayor Whittemore to recognize
Mrs. Helen Lee, who stated that she had hoped to address the Council
before budget deliberations were started. She has heard the Council
invite the general public to attend budget hearings and that is the
reason she is present. She stated she had one suggestion and that
is that the Council would learn to say "no", not just to the
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972 - Page 6
taxpayers, but to all the people and individuals who come to the
Council with a request. Tell the individual pressure groups "no",
and if these people who are rejected by the Council, come in and
give them static, let the taxpayers know so they stand behind the
Council.
Finance Director's Report on Revenues
and Summary of Balances, Revenues and
Budgets by Funds for 1972-73.
Finance Director D. L. Haynes proceeded to make a report
on all revenues, reviewed budget summaries and explained the basic
information for preparing the City Manager's recommended budget
for 1972-73. He pointed out to the public and the Council that
these figures are based upon estimates only, the City must estimate
the amount of money that is carried over for this year and the
amount of revenue that is expected for the coming year. The various
expenditure recommendations for next year are also estimates. The
assessed valuation has been estimated at approximately $173,504,70(I.
The final budget document will be prepared after the tax rate is
set in August and at that time the exact carry-over and assessed
valuation will be known. He noted that the carry-over for this
year is approximately $623,700 smaller than the balance made avail-.
able one year ago from this same source. He explained the restricted
reserves which are maintained as cash reserves for payroll purposes,
and general reserves required by the City Charter and created to
provide operating cash between July and December 15th until the
first property tax collections are received. There are also reserves
for retirement of bonds issued outstanding in the City of Bakers-
field and reserves for equipment replacement and street work in the
service departments. Mr. Haynes answered all
the Council and explained that the budget was
including refuse collection charges, so after
the total estimated
$9,694,285.
questions posed by
originally printed
last night's action
revenue will be reduced from $10,480,285 to
359
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972 - Page 7
Councilman Whittemore stated that the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee's report to the Council on the
budget was held over last night for consideration this evening,
he suggested that at this time the Council consider Part I, Salaries
and Supplemental Benefits, and offer the opportunity to the unions
and employee associations to address the Council. He recognized
Mr. Howard Dallimore, representing
Association.
Mr. Dallimore stated that
the Bakersfield City Employees'
City employees are taxpayers
and property owners and have the right to negotiate for raises and
fringe benefits under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. Despite
criticism from groups and individuals who have maintained that City
employees do not deserve a decent salary, he is here making what
he thinks is a fair request and will continue to come back and ask
the Council to be heard. The GEPC has treated all representatives
of the employees very fairly and he appreciates the fact that the
Committee respects them as citizens of the community.
He stated he realized that the Council had to make a very
tough decision when it rescinded the Refuse Collection Ordinance,
which curtails revenue to the City and creates a financial problem.
He pointed out that certain positions in the City are being paid
below the County level, such as the Utility Men, Park Maintenance-
men, Equipment Operator-Tree Trimmers, Motor Sweeper Operators,
Steno Clerks and Keypunch Operators. He asked that these salaries
be adjusted as were a number of others. He pointed out that raises
are being given in every level of industry, and that the cost of
living is still going up and can be met only by granting increases
in salaries.
He urged the Council to adopt the recommendations made
by the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee.
Mr. Don Hoffman, Executive Secretary for the Kern County
Firefighters Union, 1301, stated that he is very pleased that the
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972 - Page 8
relationship and communication with the administration Of the City
and fhe Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee has changed
for the better within the last year or two, and he commended the
GEPC for the courteous treatment received and the great amount of
time spent with the representatives of the union. It is very much
appreciated and shown that the Committee wished to cooperate within
the provisions of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act.
He went on to say that he could understand the Council's
position and the tough decision it had to make on the Refuse
Collection Ordinance, particularly as it creates a financial pro-
blem in attempting to balance the City's budget.
The Firefighters are not asking for anything which is
not warranted, they are only playing "catch-up", not asking for
anything that would put them ahead of other Firefighters in the
State. The job of Firefighter is one of the most hazardous in the
United States, it surpasses even that of miners. The Firefighters
are not asking for a reduction in hours, they have only asked for
an increase which will grant a cost-of-living wage, a uniform
allowance, and incentive pay for the educational, technological
requirements for this occupation.
He stated that the union does not in anyway endorse the
proposed recall election which was encouraged by a radio program
which creates hate. He stated that both his and Mr. Dallimore's
lives have been threatened because they advocate public salary
increases. He thanked the Council for its time.
Mr. Paul Smith, President of the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees Local 1078, which represents
the sanitation workers, stated that he was somewhat surprised after
looking over the recommendations of the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee and at the statement made that the Committee
held numerous "meet and confer" sessions with his organization,
they feel that this' did not take place. Another meeting was
supposed to have been held with the Committee after meeting with
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972 - Page 9
361
the City Manager and staff,
fore, they cannot accept
the sanitation workers.
if this can be arranged.
and this did not come about. There-
the proposals and recommendations for
They are willing to hold another meeting,
However, this is their stand at the
present time, they cannot accept the GEPC's proposal.
During discussion of Mr. Smith's remarks, Mr. Bergen
stated it was his recollection that there was a request for another
meeting, the GEPC indicated that they would not have sufficient
time to hold another meeting, but would do so if possible. The
Committee authorized him to meet with the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees, and make certain statements
and comments, the AFSCME asked him to make a counter-proposal, and
he stated he was not in a position to do so. He told them that
the Committee would be willing to meet with them immediately after
budgets. Councilman Whittemore stated Mr. Bergen's recollection
of the incident was correct.
Councilman Rees commented that he was a member of the
Committee and they did review the last proposal given to them by
the AFSCME; the Committee made its response and.gave it to the
Manager who passed it on. He asked what the effect would be upon
the budget if a further meeting with the union was held. Mr. Bergen
replied probably not too much, it. would depend upon what agreement
could be made.
Councilman Bleecker stated he was a member of the Com-
mittee and as far as he is concerned, he feels that he fulfilled
his obligation under the law. He suggested that any reference to
Refuse Collectors be deleted from the GEBC report, act on every-
thing else, and he would have no objection to going over the
situation with the union representatives after budget sessions.
Hopefully, they would not fail to show up, which happened once;
and hopefully, there would be no tape recorders in the room which
terminated one meeting quickly.
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972 - Page 10
Councilman Whittemore commented that Mr. Smith and members
of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee differ on
the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, and this Committee feels that it has
done more than fulfill the obligations of meeting and conferring
in good faith as outlined in that Act. Many meetings were held
which lasted well into the early morning hours, so he feels that
this Committee has shown good faith to all employee organizations.
Councilman Thomas commented that he is sympathetic with
the employees, as he is a union man himself, but if the GEPC has
fulfilled its obligations in meeting and conferring with the
employee representatives, he cannot see deferring action on this
matter.
Councilman Heisey asked the City Attorney for his legal
opinion and Mr. Hoagland stated that in his opinion, the GEPC has
done all it could in good faith in meeting and conferring on all
the requested items of the AFSCME.
Councilman Heisey stated he has gone through the GEPC's
report carefully, he thinks the requests are reasonable, it has
been submitted unanimously without a dissenting report, the recom-
mendations that the GEPC has made are good, valid recommendations,
ones which he can support wholeheartedly. He then moved that the
Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Report of 1972-73 Salary and
Supplemental Benefit Recommendations and Departmental Requests be
adopted. This motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: Councilmen Medders, Rucker
Absent: None
During the roll call vote,
in favor of
higher paid
was not
and the
to the employees in
Councilman Rucker stated he
granting the 2~% increase to department heads
employees~ he feels the raise should be limited
the lower paid brackets of the City.
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972 - Page ll
363
After the roll call, Councilman Bleecker commented that
the GEPC report had been gone over rather hurriedly last evening,
and if Mr. Medders or Mr. Rucker have certain questions~ he would
be in favor of opening the matter up for further discussion.
Councilman Heisey concurred, stating that he was not
attempting to preclude further deliberations when he moved to
adopt the report.
Councilman Bleecker then moved that the GEPC report be
reopened for additional discussion, not to be gone over page by
page, but just to clear up any questions on certain recommendations
in the report. This motion carried unanimously.
A brief recess was declared at this time.
The meeting reconvened and a discussion of the Govern-
mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee's report ensued.
Councilman Rucker offered the suggestion that raises be limited
to those employees up to the $12,000 salary bracket, stating that
he thinks it would be £easible to grant raises to the lower group
this fiscal year~ and increase salaries for other employees in
1973-74. This would give the taxpayer some relief this year.
Councilman Whittemore stated that the duties and respon-
sibilities of the individual determines the rate of pay he receives,
and he would hate to see a spread develop, in the salary structure,
which would require increasing the budget next year.
Councilman Medders commented that in some of the offices,
percentage raises are creating a
creaKa morale problem, however,
He agrees with Councilman Rucker
hierarchy; he hopes it doesn't
he wouldn't know how to cure it.
that consideration should be given
to the lower paid employees in the City.
Councilman Rucker moved that the proposed 2~% salary
increase be limited to those employees whose salary does not exceed
$12,000 a year.
Bakersfield, California, Ju'ne 20, 1972 - Page 12
Councilman Rees stated that the spread of income is
based upon merit, education, experience, ability and s~rvice to
the City beyond minimum requirements, without overtime compensation.
These people are higher paid because they are delivering more to
the taxpayers of the City of Bakersfield. He is convinced that
these people are entitled to just as much increase in salary,
stepwise, as those in the lower income brackets. In his opinion,
the suggestion, well-intended as it is, is not a practical one.
Councilman Heisey agreed these were good points. He
would like to add that the lowest paid City employees are not
poorly paid, it is a living wage and the City does not have to be
ashamed of it. Those persons in the higher-paid responsible jobs
will find that half of what they receive will be paid out as income
tax.
Vote taken on Councilman Rucker's motion failed to carry
by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Report was adopted by the Council, and first reading was
given to necessary amendments to the Salary Ordinance.'
Adoption of Budget Review and Finance
Committee Report on the Subject of
Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 1972-73.
Councilman Raymond Rees, Chairman of the Budget Review
and Finance Committee, read a report of the members of this Com-
mittee, stating that the Budget Review and Finance Committee is
responsible for reviewing the Operating Budget which includes
operating expenses and departmental capital outlays only. The
Operating Budget does not include salaries and supplemental wage
benefits nor capital improvement projects. The Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee has reviewed salaries, and the
Councilmen Medders, Rucker
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
None
Therefore, the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
considered[
36.5
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972 - Page 13
entire City Council will review the Capital Improvement Program
which has been approved and recommended by the Planning Commission.
The Departmental Operating Budget requests, as originally
submitted, totaled $2,?40,902. These requests have been reduced
as much as felt possible; therefore, this committee is recommending
approval of an Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 1972-73 of $2,600,1125
or approximately 17 percent of the total $15.8 million budget. In
view of the small relative size of the Operating Budget to the
total budget, it was impossible to make reductions totaling a
substantially large amount of money. Many of the operating account
requests, such as utilities, are impossibl~ to eliminate. Any
reductions below what is recommended would only result in less
carry-over next year. In addition, these utility costs are a
substantial part of the Operating Budget. During this next year,
the City's electrical power bill will amount to nearly $330,000 or
approximately 12 percent of the whole Operating Budget.
This Committee has looked closely at departmental capital
outlay which is also tied to maintenance and operations. By estab-.
lishment priorities, spreading out requests over several years, or
deferring a few items, some budget accounts were reduced.
Councilman Rees then proceeded to review the individual
operating budgets listing for each activity (1) the total budget
amount requests which includes salaries and supplemental wage
benefits, (2) the Operating Budget amount this Committee is recom-
mending which includes departmental capital outlay, (3) the increase
or decrease amount in the Committee's recommendation over what was
approved last year, and finally,(4) pertinent comments about each
of the various activities. He stopped for Council discussion and
requests for explanation from the staff. Comments were made on
the following departmental budgets:
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972 - Page 14
517 - CITY CLERK - ELECTIONS Total Budget Request $20,335
Operating Budget $20,050 (No Departmental Capital Outlay)
Increase in Operating Budget $17,335
This increase results from estimated expenses for Council-
manic Elections during the next fiscal year.
Councilman Bleecker stated that this is not necessarily
an increase in the Operating Budget, the funds will be used for
the Councilmanic Elections. Councilman Rees stated the City Clerk
must assume that there will be not only a Nominating Election, but
that run-off elections could occur; therefore, she must budget
funds for this purpose.
Councilman Bleecker asked what happens to the funds if
they are not used. Mr. Bergen stated they would be transferred
into the carry-over funds for next year.
520 - CITY MANAGER - Total Budget Request $163,320
Operating Budget $42,245 (Departmental Capital Outlay $2,515)
Increase in Operating Budget $23,735
This request includes an additional $20,735 for manage-
ment consulting services and increased medical examination costs.
Also included in $700 to pay the Department of Justice, Office of
State Attorney General, for fingerprinting costs. The departmental
capital outlay request is for video tapes and equipment to be used
in supervisory training.
Councilman Rees commented that the $20,735 for management
consulting services is an amount which the Committee agreed was
proper to budget subject to a very careful study of whom they
should employ.
Bakersfield, .California, June 20, 1972 - Page 15
367
760 - TRANSIT SYSTEM - Total Budget Request $399,975
Operating Budget $73,720 (No Departmental Capital Outlay)
Increase in Operating Budget $2,405
This increase is due to additional equipment parts and
tire costs. This budget represents operational expenses for a full[
year at the same level as in the past. With the formation of the
Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan Transit District, this Committee
recommends that the operation of the Transit System be transferred
to the new District as soon as practicable.
Mr. Bergen called the attention of the Council to the
fact that Mr. Haynes had reported there was $171,000 in the Equip-
ment Replacement Fund for buses. It is the intent to enter into
an agreement with the new Transit District as soon as it is formed
whereby the City will operate the system, which should result in a
very substantial savings to the taxpayers of Bakersfield.
530 - FINANCE - Total Budget Request $215,745
(REVISED due to rescinding of Refuse Collection Ordinance)
Operating Budget $31~831 (Departmental Capital Outlay $60)
Decrease in Operating Budget $2,713
This overall decrease results
in office supplies and office equipment.
offset by a request for the
primarily in a reduction
This reduction is partia~[ly
repair of an NCR posting machine.
532 - DATA PROCESSING - Total Budget Request $81,745
(REVISED due to rescinding of Refuse Collection Ordinance)
Operating Budget $29,840 (Departmental Capital Outlay $50)
Decrease in Operating Budget $1,699
This overall decrease results from a reduction of $1,949
in office supplies and $1,450 in departmental capital outlay.
However, this decrease was partially offset by increased expenses
for in-service training in.computer techniques and higher data
processing equipment rental charges.
Bakersfield, .California, June 20, 1972 - Page 16
540 - PLANNING - Total Budget Request $131,170
Operating Budget $20,890 (Departmental Capital Outlay $150)
Increase in Operating Budget $580
This increase is due to a request for additional reim-
bursable employee expenses and departmental capital outlay for a
storage filing cabinet. This budget covers the proposed consulting
fees for John Gray, the City's Urban Renewal Financial Consultant.
The City has paid approximately $1,000 to Mr. Gray this year.
Councilman Bleecker asked what is included in "additional
reimbursable employees expenses." Mr. Bergen explained that the
City does not pay any of its Boards and Commissions as most other
entities do, therefore, it has been the policy to budget funds for
members of the Planning Commission to attend the League of Cali-
fornia Cities' Conference each year. It also covers pre-meeting
luncheons for the Planning Commission, etc.
621 - ANIMAL REGULATION - Total Budget Request $90,820
Operating Budget $15,960 (No Departmental Capital Outlay)
Increase in Operating Budget $10,175
Other than slightly higher maintenance supply costs and
utility charges, $9,665 of this increase is due to needed repairs
and additions to the dog pound. This Committee recommends that
the City Council send a letter to the Board of Supervisors out-
lining the urgency of transferring the operation of the Dog Pound
to the County as soon as possible; nevertheless', certain improve-
ments must be made this year. These changes will be made upon
concurrence with the County after a joint on-site inspection.
With the exception of the City's Animal Warden salaries and their
vehicle costs, the City is reimbursed 100 percent by the County of
Kern for the operation of this facility.
Mr. Bergen asked for approval of the City Council to
send a letter to the Board of Supervisors stressing the urgency
369
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972 - Page 17
of transferring the dog pound operation to the County. He stated
that he hopes action will be taken by the County, and that this
item will not appear in the budget next year. Councilman Medders
moved that the Council authorize sending of this letter and after
discussion, vote taken on the motion carried unanimously.
711 - COMMUNITY BUILDING - CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARK - Total Budget
Request $66,005
Operating Budget $45,660 (Departmental Capital Outlay $35,500)
Increase in Operating Budget $30,940
Due to a delay on the part of HUD, this facility is not
expected to be ready for operation until at least January 1, 1973.
The increase in this account results from budgeting six months,
rather than three months, as last year. Since community groups
have, in the past, indicated their willingness to provide funds
to be used in furnishing this facility, this Committee is recom-
mending evaluation of the $35,500 departmental capital outlay
request by the entire Council before approval.
In conclusion, this Committee has spent many hours
reviewing the Operating Budget requests. Because the Operating
Budget is primarily tied to the maintenance and operation of the
City departments, substantial reductions are generally not possible,.
Any significant reductions would have to be made in the area of
personnel. Of course, the net result of any reductions in personnel
amounts to a reduction in the level of service provided to the
community.
This Committee recommends acceptance of this report and
approval of the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 1972-73 as herein
outlined.
Councilman Rucker asked which community group, or groups,
have indicated their willingness to provide funds to furnish the
California Avenue Park Multi-Purpose Building, as stated in No.
711 - COMMUNITY BUILDING - CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARK. He feels those
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972 - Page 18
groups should have been contacted and have been present tonight
to advise the Council what they had in mind for this building.
Mr. Bergen stated a detailed copy of all the requests
for the building would be in the hands of the Council within a
few minutes, it was being duplicated at this time.
Councilman Rees asked Mr. Graviss, Auditorium-Recreation
Manager, to advise the Council what equipment is contemplated and
what equipment has been promised by citizens groups.
Mr. Charles Graviss stated this building has been under
consideration since 1968. A Citizens Advisory Committee of 9
members from the area has held a number of meetings and at one of
the meetings, a member of the Committee, Mr. Vernon Strong, made a
statement that if the target area would become more involved in
raising funds for the building, the people would feel that it is
more a part of their area, and that perhaps the City should estab-
lish a reserve fund for contributions from people in the area to
furnish certain types of equipment for the building. He listed
the items which are requested in the budget, which it is felt are
needed to have a continuity in the construction, and which are not
part of the construction cost.
He stated that agencies using the building will be
required to pay a fee established by HUD on a square footage basis.
At this time the rate is set at 29~ per square foot, as under HUD
regulations, the City can charge only the same fee which is charged
for other buildings in the target area. This will result in the
multi-purpose facility not being capable of sustaining itself from
the revenue received.
Councilman Bleecker inquired if the agencies renting the
building could not furnish their own equipment, thus doing away
with this capital outlay expenditure. Mr. Graviss stated the
City wants to supply lockable file cabinets and keep control of
the furniture as more than one agency will be using the same office
at different times.
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972 - Page 19
371
Mr. Bergen stated that if the City is responsible for
the building, they wish to keep control of it, and would not want
a renter to place his own furniture in the building and feel that
he was entitled to additional rights as far as the occupancy aspect.
Councilman Whirremote asked Mr. Graviss if any agency
has indicated its willingness to occupy the building. He replied
that the Parole Officer, part of the Public Health Department, both
the High School and Grade Schools have indicated that they would
like to have facilities in the building, for pre-school and day
care centers, and would supply their own furniture, with the City
furnishing storage space. Also the facility will be rented for
dances, meetings, etc.
Councilman Heisey remarked that the rental rate seems
very low, and asked who made the determination of the rate. Mr.
Graviss stated it was set out in the application to HUD at 29~ per
square foot. Councilman Heisey asked if the City was committed to
the Federal Government to lease this space at 29~ per square foot
furnished. Mr. Graviss stated he was under the impression that it
was for square footage only, it does not include the items in the
rooms. Councilman Heisey stated he would certainly be in favor of
charging more, as Federal Agencies have the funds to pay the going
rate, and he would think there would be the possibility that the
rate could be increased in many instances.
Mr. Graviss advised the Council that HUD has verbally
informed City representatives, that a letter dated June 6, 1972,
was sent to the City accepting the plans and specifications sub-
mitted by the City's Architect, and as soon as this letter is
received, confirming HUD's acceptance, the project will be put out
to bid.
Councilman Bleecker stated that since there is some
uncertainty about whether the letter has been sent accepting the
plans and specifications, for this facility, which would enable the
372
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972 - Page 20
City to put the project out to bid; since the Council is uncertain
about furnishing the building; since the Council doesn't really
know on what basis it can charge for rental space, he would move
that the $35,500 be deleted from the budget at this time.
After discussion, Councilman Heisey recommended that the
amount budgeted for Capital Outlay for this building be transferred
to the Council's Contingency Fund for use if and when needed to
furnish and supply office equipment for the facility.
Councilman Bleecker agreed to amend his motion to transfer
the funds to the Council Contingency Fund, but stated he feels
there will be better participation by groups to provide funds for
furnishing this facility, if these groups are not aware that money
is available for this purpose
Mr. Bergen reminded
Contingency Fund must receive
in the City budget.
the Council that money in the Counci]L's
Council approval before it can be
transferred out of the fund for any purpose.
Vote taken on the motion carried unanimously.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, the report of the
Budget Review and Finance Committee on the Operating Budget for
Fiscal Year 1972-73 was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Bleecker stated that it is his intention
when the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee makes its
report and recommendation back to the Council, on franchising City
refuse collection to private enterprise, he is going to recommend
that the Public Works Department bid against private enterprise
and that the refuse collection service be contracted to the lowest
qualified bidder.
Councilman Whittemore commented he would like to support
Mr. Bleecker but he doesn't know how he is going to. Councilman
373
Bakersfield, California, June 20, 1972 - Page 21
Bleecker stated he feels
been done in one City. If the City Public Works Department is
successful bidder, it will be held to that bid.
Councilman Whittemore remarked that a schedule is set
for inviting sealed proposals for the removal and disposal of
refuse in the.downtown area, and the GEPC will meet and explore
bids from private contractors for franchising refuse collection
in the entire City of Bakersfield just as soon as budget session
is over.
Adjournment.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the budget session
was adjourned at 11:11P. M.
it is a sound approach as it has already
the
up
MA~O~ '0~~ the Cit%y ~f Bakersfi~l'd, Calif.
ATTEST:
of 'the City of Bakersfield~ California
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1972
Minutes of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, Cali-
fornia, meeting in budget sessions at 7:00 P.M., June 21, 1972.
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:
Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
to refer to Page 5 of the
1972-73 Preliminary Budget where it been proposed to budget
$37,000 for a Demolition Fund for removing and demolishing dangerous
buildings. A specific problem has developed this year, requiring
the demolition of the burned-out Imperial Hotel, located in East
Bakersfield, at a cost to the City of $25,000.
Councilman Bleecker asked what action has been taken on
the Advanced Shoe Store Building on Chester Avenue. Building
Director Olsson stated that there has been a great deal of negotia-
tions, paper work and discussions, on this building. Two sets of
plans were submitted to the Building Department, they have a work-
able plan now; a permit was taken out by the contractor in October
of last year; the bank loan for the construction was completed in
December, and the owner states they have a signed contract with
the builder who has taken out the permit. Problems have developed
regarding increasing costs of the project, and up to this point,
no work has been commenced. He feels that credit should be given
to the owners inasmuch as they are trying to arrive at a solution
of their financial problem in order to construct and move back
into their own building, from the leased building across the
street.
Councilman Bleecker stated that this is an eyesore and
for some time was dangerous until the Fire Department boarded it
up. He urged the Building Director to use every legal means that
Present:
Absent:
Heisey.
None
Mr. Bergen asked the Council
has
Bakersfield,
California,
June 21,
1972 - Page 2
he can to
possible.
influence the owner to start his building, as soon as
matter to
is accomplished within 90 days.
The Council engaged in discussion regarding the
Hotel. In response to a question from Councilman Medders,
Mr. Bergen asked Mr. Olsson to make a note to bring this
the Council's attention with a status report, if nothing
Imperial
City
Attorney Hoagland stated that the City did not wish to reconstruct
the hotel, it would cost in the neighborhood of $25,000 to clear
the land, and that the City expected to be reimbursed in the amount
of $10,000 for the sale of the land, if a buyer can be found.
At this point, Mrs. Ann Monroe, requested permission to
address the Council. She asked Councilman Bleecker if it was the
intention of the Council ~to cut the tax rate in the amount of 57~,
that she had not been able to follow the budget proceedings too
closely the last couple of nights. Councilman Bleecker stated the
part of the budget covering this matter had already been adopted.
He had submitted certain suggestions to the Council but did not
receive any support to accomplish a tax cut. If the Council had
followed his recommendations, the budget could have been cut in
certain areas and the tax rate reduced, but it was quite obvious
that without support he was unable to move ahead on these proposals.
Mrs. Monroe pointed out that a number of times the public
had been urged to attend the budget sessions, but no one was given
the opportunity to be heard, she could not see any advantage as
far as the public is concerned to attend the Council's budget
sessions.
Councilman Bleecker stated that there were only a very
few persons who had requested the opportunity to be heard. The
Council would have permitted any person present to speak on any
issue they wished.
376
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1972 - Page 3
Mayor Hart commented that the Council Committees and
the staff spent many hours preparing the budget and their recom-
mendations to the Council were sincere in their desire to hold down
expenses. The budget presented to the Council was such that it
would permit the City to move ahead and offer services which the
citizens of Bakersfield have come to expect from its City. No one
was prohibited from speaking, everyone was permitted to be heard
who asked to address the Council.
Councilman Heisey stated that the City Manager and the
Finance Director submitted a proposed budget which provided for a
50~ cut in the property tax rate, with the assumption that the
refuse collection charge would be on a user-pay basis. The Council
on a 4 to 3 vote decided that it didn't want to do this, which
nullified the property tax reduction. The GEPC is going to be
reconsidering this~ and come back with a recommendation that the
Council can live with. The tax rate will not be set until August
and hopefully, at that time the 50~ reduction will be a reality.
He is very much committed to the fact that he publicly stated and
voted that the Council would cut the tax rate by 50~ this year.
The budgets that have been presented were gone over very carefully
in committee and practically all the deletions that could reason-
ably be made and still have a viable City, have been made. These
budgets are very frugal this year~ and he is pleased with the
recommendations and the work of the Committees who reviewed these
budgets.
Councilman Bleecker stated that it is his contention
that in a user-pay concept where definite rates are established,
if the refuse collection service is franchised to private enter-
prise, those people will have to make a request to the Council,
just as any other public utility, for a raise in rates. If the
refuse collection service continues to be hidden in the tax rate,
as assessed valuations go up the City receives more money for its
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1972 - Page 4
'77
coffers, and because of the nature of government, he feels that
all of the additional funds would be spent.
Mrs. Cecelia Johnson addressed the Council, stating she
has never been here before, although she has called members of
the Council individually and discussed the City's problems. She
feels that it is time for the average citizen to come forth as it
has got to the point where the community can no longer support a
tax increase every year. She suggested that streets not be swept
as frequently as they are; that a wage increase not be granted to
City employees; and that the City hold the line on property taxes,
give the citizens tax relief.
Councilman Bleecker commented that at this point in time
the Council is dealing with estimates, the money that the City has
to spend has been depleted over the last few years, the reserve
funds are low, and since the largest portion of the budget is
devoted to salaries, there will come a time when a limit will be
placed on employee's wages, and that may occur sooner than a lot
of people think.
The Council returned to the subject of demolishing the
Imperial Hotel. Councilman Heisey stated he didn't think the
Council had any choice, this building is dangerous, the owner has
abandoned it and it is dumped in the Council's lap, all it can do
is demolish it and recoup some of its losses from the sale of the
property.
Councilman Rees moved that the recommendation to demolish
the Imperial Hotel be approved and implemented. This motion carried
unanimously.
Capital Improvement Program 1972-73.
The City Manager stated that the format of the Capital
Improvement Program for 1972-73 has been changed very slightly.
Category I - Transportation and Traffic; Category II - Sanitary
Sewers and Storm Drains; Category III- Parks; and Category IV -
Public Buildings and Improvements.
378
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1972 - Page 5
At this time Councilman Heisey asked permission for Mrs.
Edna Buster, 2009 California Avenue to address the Council. Mrs.
Buster asked for an explanation of the refuse collection charge
billed to the public for the three months period of April, May and
June, which She was told resulted in an alleged 12½% tax cut to
the community. Mr. Bergen explained the City's position on this
action.
Director of Public Works Bidwell reviewed the Capital
Improvement Budget by Category, stopping for discussion and questions
from members of the Council, beginning With Category I - Transpor-
tation and Traffic. Twenty-two projects are listed under this
program, amounting to $979,500, proposed to be financed from Gas
Tax Funds and T.O.P.I.C.S. Funds.
City Manager Bergen pointed out that the Gas Tax Funds
are restricted to certain projects and cannot be spent for any
other purpose. These funds can be held over from year to year but
must be spent on projects designated by the State.
Mr. Bergen stated that projects "Reconstruction of "Q"
Street between SPRR and 34th Street (SB325)" and "Reconstruction
of Ming Avenue between Hughes Lane and South "H" Street," (City-
County Cooperative Project) will not be constructed unless funds
are available from the Gasoline Sales Tax. The City will not be
required to match these funds in any way.
Under Category II - Sanitary Sewers and Storm Drains,
$30,000 has been budgeted from Bond Funds and $150,000 from Capital
Outlay Funds to construct 8 Storm Drain Projects and Phase II
Municipal Farm Tailwater Return System.
Under Category III- Parks, $156,541 has been budgeted
from Capital Outlay Funds and $75,624 from Federal Grants. City
Manager Bergen recommended that three projects be added to the
Capital Improvement Budget.
379
Bakersfield, ,California, June 21, ~1972 - Page, 6
A number of complaints and requests have been received
from the persons using Community House and patrons of the
Cunningham Memorial Art Gallery, also organizations using the park
group picnic facilities, for additional parking. It is the City's
responsibility to provide parking for this park, and he is recom-
mending that $8,000 be budgeted for a parking lot near the 21st
Street side of Central Park.
Councilman Bleecker moved that the amount Of $8,000 for
the parking lot near 21st Street side of Central Park be approved
and included in the Capital Improvement Budget under Category III -.
Parks.
Mr. Bergen pointed out that the Council is only approving'
the funds for these projects at this time, all plans and specifi-
cation will be submitted at a later date for approval.
During discussion of the Grissom Street Park Site for
which $50,916 in Capital Outlay Funds have been budgeted and an
application made to HUD for a 50-50 grant in amount of $68,748
for the development of this park site, Mr. Bergen stated that HUD
has indicated to the City an answer should be received by July 1,
1972, on whether these funds will be made available. If the grant
is not approved, the City will not proceed with this project.
Councilman Bleecker moved that the $50,916 budgeted in Capital
Outlay Funds be placed in the Council's Contingency Fund until
such time as the Federal Grant is received. This motion carried
unanimously.
The development of the Pacheco Greenbelt depends upon
receiving a grant of $6,875 from HUD, with a like amount budgeted
by the City. Councilman Bleecker moved that the $6,875 from Capital
Outlay Funds for the development of this project be placed in the
Council's Contingency Fund until the Federal Grant is received to
proceed with the work.
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1972 - Page 7
Mr. Bergen recommended that the two lighted Tennis
in Siemon Park and Parking Lot and development of the new
be budgeted
Courts
area in Lowell Park, which were scheduled for 1973-74,
this year.
After discussion, Councilman Rees moved that the two
lighted Tennis Courts at Siemon Park, at a cost of $14,000, and
the Parking Lot and development of the new area at Lowell Park,
at a cost of $9,000, be included in the 1972-73 Budget. This
motion carried unanimously.
Under Category IV - Public Buildings and Improvements,
Mr. Bergen pointed out that the New Police Facility Building which
is scheduled to be constructed in 1972-73, will be paid for entireSly
from bond funds, no Capital Outlay Funds from the City will be
required. He stated that this completes the Capital Outlay Program
for Fiscal Year 1972-73.
Councilman Bleecker commented that because of the recom-
mendation which he made last evening, which was approved by the
Council, to study the functional consolidation of the City and
County Fire Departments for the Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan
Area, it might be possible to save $199,500 for a proposed City
Fire.Station No. 9, $225,000 for a proposed Fire Station No. 10,
and $250,000 for a proposed Fire Station Facility, or $675,000
scheduled for the 1974-77 budget.
Councilman Bleecker moved adoption of the Capital Improve-
ment Budget for 1972-73. This motion carried unanimously.
Adoption of Resolution No. 37-72 of the
City Council of the City of Bakersfield,
California, approving and adopting the
Budget for the Fiscal Year 1972-73.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No.
37-72 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield, California,
approving and adopting the budget for the Fiscal Year 1972-73
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1972 - Page 8
was
Ayes:
adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, ~edders,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes:
Absent:
Rees, Rucker,
None
None
Councilman Medders asked if anyone had ever ascertained
the size of the California Avenue Park Multi-Purpose Building.
Mr. Graviss advised that it was approximately 25,000 feet in size.
Councilman Medders commented that he is on the Committee and would
like to know more about this building. Mr. Bergen stated that
floor plans of the building will be prepared and submitted to each
member of the Council. Councilman Heisey remarked that he would
also like a projection of the revenue which the City can expect
to receive from this facility.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council sitting in budget session, upon a motion by Councilman
Whittemore, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
MAYOR' of ~he ci of Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
- icio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972
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 26, 1972.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Captain David C.
Patrick, Salvation Army Men's Social Service Director.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present:
Absent:
Mayor Hart.
None
Minutes of
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
the regular meeting of June 12, 1972 and the
budget hearings of June 19, 20 and 21, 1972 were approved as
submitted.
Scheduled Public Statements.
City Attorney Hoagland stated that the formation of
the
Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan Transit District was approved by
the electorate but until the Board of Supervisors canvasses the
returns of the election of June 6, 1972, and a certified copy of
the resolution of the Board of Supervisors declaring the District
formed is filed with the Secretary of State, there will be a delay
before the Council can act to appoint two members to the Board of
Directors of the District, as it is improper to make any appoint-
ments until the District has been duly formed.
Sunny Scofield, Appointments Chairman of the National
Women's Political Caucus, Kern Section,
stating that this organization requests
a woman to fill one of the positions on
are not suggesting anyone for appointment,
Council will appoint persons qualified to
the best interests of the District.
addressed the Council,
the City Council to appoint
the Transit Board. They
as it is understood the
fill the positions in
Mr. Len Winther, representative of the American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees, negotiating for the City
Sanitation Employees, stated that there were a number of things he
wanted to bring to the attention of the Council. At the last budget
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 Page 2
session, the GEP Committee and the Union failed to achieve agree-
ment. At that time, there was some doubt in their minds that the
GEPC had filled its obligation under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act.
They attempted to work something out through their attorney and
the City Attorney. The same thing has happened again this year
with one significant difference. They not only did not achieve an
agreement, but the GEPC did not meet with them for a last meeting
after making a proposal. They were never given an opportunity to
come back and respond to that proposal. That is one problem. The
second problem is that in the Union's proposal, it was suggested
that position of Senior Sanitation Crewman be established at Range
36. The GEPC in its counter-proposal agreed to this position at
Range 35; at the meeting which was canceled, the AFSCME had intended
to accept Range 35 for this position; however, in its report to the
Council the GEPC recommended Range 32. He stated that the City
routinely pays black workers less money than their white counter-
parts. He is here tonight to tell the Council that they intend to
file complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on
the basis of the GEPC not meeting and conferring with them in good
faith, and discrimination against the Sanitation Workers because
of the deletion of two positions which could have been filled by
black employees.
Mr. Larry King, who stated that he is in the process of
liquidating his business the King Lumber Company, addressed the
Council, stating that he does not exactly agree with the idea of
the 57~ property tax being assessed against all of his property.
He endorsed the idea of the user-pay concept and urged the Council
not to rescind the Refuse Collection Ordinance.
Mr. Burdell Dickinson, 3500 Panorama Drive, stated he
spoke at the first budget hearing asking the Council to retain the
user-pay charge, but it doesn't look as though it will do so. He
pointed out to the Council that assessing the refuse collection
charge against property is not fair to those
pieces of property, and he urged the Council
user-pay concept. He stated that it appears
people who own several
not to rescind the
to him the City Manager
figured up how money there would be on the reassessment of City
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 3
property, divided up the "pie" using all the money for City
expenditures, without leaving a little "crumb" for the taxpayers,
not cutting even a penny or two from the tax rate.
Mrs. R. Glendening of 2425 Truxtun Avenue, requested the
Council to place in the Reference Department of the Kern County
Library for the perusal of the public, a weekly report of all
money spent in each City department including the names of all
personnel using and handling taxpayers funds; also, the Minutes
of each Council meeting and a copy of the current budget. She
voiced objection to including $8,000 in the Capital Improvement
Budget for a parking lot at the 21st Street side of Central Park.
She suggested that part of the cost of the seven summer concerts
at Beale Park could be derrayed by charging a fee to those persons
attending.
Councilman Thomas pointed out to Mrs. Glendening that her
requests for certain services, such as placing documents in the
Kern County Library for the convenience of the public, would cost
the City both in money and in man hours to prepare, although she
is suggesting to the Council that the cost of a parking lot be
deleted from the budget in order to save money. He assured her
that the Council does have a Finance Committee which scrutinizes
carefully all expenditures made by City departments, and that City
spending is very well controlled by the Council.
Mrs. Glendening felt that these records should be made
available and accessible to the public. Mayor Hart commented that
by the time these records are computerized, transcribed and sub-
mitted to the Library, it constitutes a considerable expense to
the City, and this special service could be compared to the service
of constructing a parking lot for a certain segment of the. City on
which she has just registered her objections to the Council.
Mr. Bergen commented that this parking lot is to be con-
structed not only for the Cunningham Memorial Art Gallery patrons
and the senior citizens at the Community House, but for a signifi-
cant number of people using the park who would benefit from the
construction of a parking lot at this location.
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 4
Mrs. Glendening stated
asking for tax relief, she feels
should not have been budgeted at
that when so many people are
this $8,000 for the parking lot
this time, until sufficient people
have made a request for it to the Council.
Councilman Rees commented that if Mrs. Glendening was
staying with specifics, he could agree with her. But suggesting
that the City refrain from investing in any public works, or making
any City expenditures until sufficient people have requested it, is
an impractical yardstick and not a fair one. Two or three new parks
are being developed, he doubts that anyone petitioned them, it is
improbable that a list has been made of the people who asked for
some of the City's major street improvements and yet they are
basically necessary. The Police Department spent a good many
thousands of dollars in solving a very difficult criminal case,
and he doesn't know of any citizen who asked the Chief of Police
specifically to spend money for this purpose. He feels that the
principle should be confined to specifics and not carried to an
unworkable conclusion.
Mrs. Glendening stated that all citizens are required to
pay for public works and police protection, but a large percentage
of special services not requested by anyone, could be cut out of
the budget and afford the citizens tax relief.
Council Statements.
Councilman Bleecker quoted from a copy of the Minutes of
the Kern County Association of Cities of May 4, 1972, in which it
was stated that the City of Bakersfield voted in favor of a certain
item and the Mayor of Delano, Vice-Chairman, had asked Councilman
Rees to come early to the next meeting to act as a Nominating
Committee to select a slate of officers for the Kern County Associa-
tion of Cities. He asked how this Council goes about approving
items that may come up at the Kern County Association of Cities
meetings when all the Council is not present and how Council members
are selected to serve on Nominating Committees. Also, how are these
functions delegated for the Annual League of California Cities
Convention.
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 5
Mr. Bergen stated he didn't think he could answer all
these questions, but the Kern County Association of Cities operates
under its by-laws, and he will duplicate copies for the Council.
Generally, when a Councilman attends these meetings, he goes as
one Councilman from the City of Bakersfield, if he becomes active
and attends regularly, he is very likely to be elected to some
particular office. Any action taken by Councilmen present at a
meeting of the Kern County Association of Cities doesn't obligate
the City of Bakersfield, and if Council action is needed, the
matter would have to come back to the Council for its deliberation
and approval.
Councilman Bleecker stated that the particular action
taken at the May 4, 1972 meeting, which was supposed to have
originated from the County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield, was
to raise the Transient Occupancy Tax, called T.O.T. from 5% to 6%,
including the proposals that this particular increase would be
inadvisable if it were not County wide, and a roll call vote taken
indicated the City of Bakersfield voted "yes". What he wants to
know is where did someone from the City of Bakersfield receive the
authorization to attend this meeting and propose that this tax be
raised from 5% to 6%. He didn't give anyone permission, and he
wants to know who did.
Mr. Bergen stated he would think the answer would be that
no permission was given.
Councilman Bleecker commented the Council had better
change the procedure.
Councilman Rees said the City Manager has been attending
these meetings for a longer period than he has. .The invitation is
always given to the Council as a whole to go, and as many as are
able and willing attend these meetings. If there are a number of
Councilmen there and a matter of business comes up, it is his
observation that each City's representatives discuss the matter,
have a friendly concensus of what action would be taken for the
best interests of his City, and indicate that position when the
matter is voted upon. The Vice-President of the Association
appointed him to the Nominating Committee, it didn't occur to him
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 6
to clear it with anyone to accept the appointment, and the members
of the Committee are proposing to nominate a slate of officers to
serve for the coming year, at the next meeting in Taft.
Councilman Whittemore explained that this Association
has actually been a very successful organization where open dis-
cussions are held on the various problems confronting the cities
and the County of Kern. Any action by the Association is predicated
upon City representatives taking proposals back to their respectiw~
Councils for deliberation, as no member can bind any City Council
to the proposals discussed at the Association's meetings. The
Chamber of Commerce is in favor of raising the Transient Occupancy
Tax because a portion of the additional tax would be used to promote
the City of Bakersfield. He went on to explain that each year,
prior to the League of California Cities Conference, a delegate,
usually the Mayor, and an alternate delegate - such as the Vice-
Mayor or a member of the Council - is appointed to vote on behalf
of the City on any proposal submitted to the League.
Councilman Heisey added that the Association of Kern
County Cities is a very worthwhile forum and it isn't binding on
anyone. He would urge those attending the next meeting to propose
that the Association correct its methods of writing up the minutes
so that they accurately reflect the action taken by the members.
He pointed out that usually a copy of the proposed agenda for the
League of California Cities Convention is received early so that
everyone is aware of the pertinent issues to be discussed, and if
the Council so desires, its delegates can be instructed on how to
vote on the issues which concern the City of Bakersfield.
Councilman Thomas stated the Chamber of Commerce and the
Hotel-Motel owners are in favor of an increase in the Transient
Occupancy Tax, and he recalls that a representative appeared before
the Council last year and asked that consideration be given to
increasing the tax by 1%.
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 7
Mr. Bergen stated he can recall this matter being dis-
cussed unofficially, but no action was taken by the Council.
Councilman Bleecker stated this was just one particular
item he was taking exception to, it could be a number of other
issues. What he is pointing out is that the City of Bakersfield
made certain proposals as the City of Bakersfield. Therefore, he
would think that the City would check ahead of time, put it into
Committee, and receive permission at Council level on what the
City is going to promote throughout the County. As Councilman
Heisey pointed out, if the minutes indicate who proposed this, a
Councilman or the City Manager, then everyone would know what is
going on and it wouldn't appear that the City is necessarily in
favor of that piece of legislation.
Mr. Bergen commented that when reference was
minutes that the City of Bakersfield proposed this, it
referring to individuals of the City and the Chamber of Commerce,
including representatives of hotels and motels. Perhaps a little
more attention should be given to the writing o£ the minutes in
order to clarify these points.
Councilman Whittemore moved that Ordinance No. 1785 New
Series of the Fire Department Relief and Pension Fund be amended
to eliminate the offset reductions for other compensation received
which is applied to those Fire Department employees on disability
resulting in retirement. He asked that this be considered first
reading of the Ordinance.
Mr. Bergen stated the record should show that this will
become effective August 1, 1972. Also, the Ordinance should be
amended to provide that the Fire Pension Board will meet annually,
instead of monthly, as it has done in the past.
Councilman Heisey asked for a detailed explanation in
writing and he would like also to see a recommendation either for
or against this from the GEP Committee.
Councilman Bleecker stated that
to the Council, in order to save time,
would indicate publicly that he is in
Ordinance being given first reading.
made in the
probably is
if it would be helpful
he, as a member of the GEPC
favor of the motion and the
Bakersfield, California~ June 26, 1972 - Page 8
After additional discussion, vote taken on Councilman
Whittemore's motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Whittemore stated that he has had numerous
telephone calls from the mothers of youngsters who are being pro-
hibited from using the City's ball diamonds after two o'clock in
the afternoon in order for the City's crews to prepare the diamonds
for the adult leagues which start playing at six o'clock in the
evening. It seems to him that four hours is an unreasonable length
of time to close up these ball diamonds to the young people in the
City.
Auditorium-Recreation Manager Graviss explained that the
league play for adults starts at six o'clock in the evening. The
City has one man to water, line and surface for the evening leagues;
and he does this at two parks, Planz and Wayside. In order to
accomplish this work on the ball diamonds,
o'clock in the afternoon. After the'work
can go back on the diamond to play.
he has to start at 2
is finished, the youngsters
Councilman Whittemore suggested that the City request
the ballplayers and their manager, who usually arrive early, to
water and feline the diamonds and get them in shape before they
start playing. Mr. Graviss pointed out that the City has only one
lining machine and dragger, and unless the City bought additional
equipment, this could not be corrected. He stated they would make
a report back to the Council as soon as they have given the problem
further study.
Councilman Medders suggested that in order to get the
Transit District off to a good start, members of the Board of
Directors should be appointed with the following experience:
1. Attorney, or someone with legal experience.
2. A successful businessman or woman.
3. An Accountant.
4. Someone who has experience in transportation.
3§O
Bakersfield, California, J~ne 26, 1972 - Page 9
, Councilman Bleecker stated he has had
time to time regarding the treatment of garbage
collectors. By.:~hat he is referring to abusing
rainors in such a manner that the tops will not
complaints from
cans by the refuse
the refuse con-
fit and they beomce
unusable in a very short period of time. Since the issue of the
refuse collectors has come up at this time and certain rules and
regulations requested for the City to abide by, he would therefore
ask the Director of Public Works to instruct the employees in the
Sanitation. Division of the City to be extremely cautious in the
handling of refuse containers, and that penalties such as docking
of pay or suspension from duty be assessed against those employees
who damage other people's property.
Reports.
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported on the subject of
the Interim City Transit Operation.
With the majority of.the votes cast in favor of the
formation of the Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan Transit District:.
this Committee wishes to insure a smooth and orderly transfer of
the City's transit operation to the District. It is apparent that
there will be some time delay before any contractual arrangements
with the District can be worked out. In the first place, the
organization of the District is not complete until the County Clerk
records with the County Recorder a certified copy of the resolution
of the Board of Supervisors declaring the District duly formed.
Thereafter, within 30 days, the City Council and the Board of
Supervisors will have to appoint four members to the Board of
Directors of the District. These four Directors will appoint a
fifth member to the Board. In addition, other statutory provisions.
will have to be accomplished before this Board of Directors will
be able to function.
The Transit Superintendent retired on June 1, 1972, and
in order to allow the District complete flexibility in the appoint-
ment of a General Manager, this Committee is recommending elimina-
tion of the civil service position of Transit Superintendent.
391
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 10
However, during the interim period before the District is able to
take over the transit operation, this Committee is recommending
that the Council approve a services contract with Mr. Carl Chitwood
to direct the City Transit Systems at a salary equal to that paid
before his retirement. This contract is on a month to month basis:.
terminable upon one month's notice.
Councilman Whittemore moved adoption of the report and
contract, and after discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims, Nos. 3900 to 4100,
inclusive, in amount of $197,065.95.
(b) Claim for damages from W. John Tenney,
2321 Christopher Court (to be referred
to the City Attorney).
(c)
Claim for damages from Jim Mack Meadows,
1400 Woodrow Avenue (to be referred to
the City Attorney).
(d)
Resolution No. 38-72 of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield making finding
that Tentative Tract No. 3626, together
with provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with appli-
cable general and specific plans.
(e)
Street Right of Way Easement from Stock-
dale Development Corporation for Ashe
Road between Ming Avenue and Sundale
Avenue (for acceptance).
(f) Quitclaim Deed from County of Kern to
City of Bakersfield (for acceptance).
(g)
Deed from Frank Reynolds Post No. 26,
The American Legion, for Lots I and 2
of Block 287 (for acceptance).
(h)
Sewer Easement to City of Bakersfield
from Wayne and Sammy Jo Reeder (for
acceptance).
(i)
Acceptance of Work and Notice of Comple-
tion for Contract No. 35-72 for Sanitary
Sewer Construction in Madison Street
Extension between Planz Road and Watts
Drive.
(J)
Plans and Specifications for the Con-
struction of a right turn lane on Oak
Street at California Avenue.
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 11
To the Consent Calendar was added the following item:
(k) Transfer of Funds in amount of $19,000.00'
from Account No. 11-510-6100 to Account No.
11-620-0100 - Police Department. In pay-
ment of necessary overtime and costs and
expenses for major investigations and
events which could not be anticipated.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b), (c):,
(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k), were adopted by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Whirremote voted Aye on all items listed on
the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item (g) on which he
abstained due to a possible conflict of interest.
Action on Bids.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Thomas,
low bid of Dicco, Inc. for improvement of Ming Avenue between New
Stine Road and Ashe Road and improvement of Ashe Road between Ming
Avenue and North City Limits was accepted, all other bids were
rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2018 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 3.18.060
(Salary Schedule) of the Municipal
Code of the Ciiy of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
2018 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 roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: Councilman Medders
Absent: None
At this point, Councilman Heisey asked the City Attorney
to comment on the accusations made against the City by the repre-
sentative of the AFSCME Union. He feels that some public statement
by the City would be appropriate.
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 12
393
Mr. Hoagland stated there was one meeting scheduled with
the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee to meet and
confer and the members of the union did not show up. Another
meeting was terminated without any discussion as the GEPC objected
to the union representative's intention to tape the proceedings.
It is unfortunate that the Committee did not have the opportunity
to meet with the AFSCME again, but to say that the Committee, or
the City, acted in bad faith, in his opinion, is unjusttried.
Councilman Whittemore stated he wanted to comment on this
also, as he has had just about all the remarks that he needs from
the AFSCNE. The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act to meet and confer was
enacted and the counties and cities are required to abide by it,
however, the State of California doesn't do this. The GEPC spent
a great deal of time with the AFSCME, meeting with them attempting
to iron out the differences and explaining to them what the Cify's
stand was, but no matter what the Committee did, it could not
satisfy the demands of this union. The GEPC is satisfied that it
is meeting and conferring in good faith. So when the AFSCME threatens
to complai.n to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, he can
say that the GEPC did more than it should have done in attempting
to meet and confer with these employees.
Mr. Bergen stated he would like to very definitely refute
the statement that the City is eliminating positions in order to
keep a black employee from being promoted. The facts are that it
is proposed to have a promotional examination within the Department:
for three Foremen I and one Foreman II positions.
Councilman Heisey remarked that he didn't want to let the.
statements of the union's representative go unchallenged because
that may be the last time he will be heard.
Councilman Bleecker commented that it makes him very
unhappy for some one to come to the Council and make the statement
that employees in the Refuse Collection Department are being dis-
criminated against because of their color. It is unwarranted, it
is uncalled for, and it has never happened since he was a member
of the GEPC.
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 13
Councilman Rucker called the attention of the Council to
the fact that approximately ten years ago black employees of the
Refuse Department were not being promoted, and he requested the
City Engineer, now the City Manager, to correct this situation.
Eventually-one black man was employed as a Foreman in the Refuse
Department. Later he asked the City Manager to overlook an infrac--
tion of the rules by a black employee, as he felt this would
penalize other black employees in the Public Works Department.
As a result of his discussion with the City Manager, there are
black Foremen in the City's departments. If a vacancy occurs in
top positions in the department, he feels that a black man should
be considered to fill them.
Councilman Bleecker stated he was speaking specifically
about the Refuse Department, not something that happened ten years
ago. As a member of the GEPC he can only say that this Committee
has been impeccably fair, it has bent over backwards to be fair
with all employees in all departments.
Councilman Whirremote commented that when the GEPC is
presented with a proposition to reorganize a department, which is
done constantly, in order to effect better performance and efficiency,
then it is recommended to the balance of the Council. One of the
objections of the AFSCME is a lateral transfer being made in a
division within the Public Works Department which will eliminate a
position, save the taxpayers money, and still operate more efficiently.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2019 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 3.18.180
(a), (b) and (i), (Holidays) and
Section 3.18.200 (g) (Accumulation of
Sick Leave and Additional Vacation in
Lieu of Accumulation of Sick Leave)
of the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, Ordinance No.
2019 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 3.18.180 (a), (b) and (i), (Holidays) and Section 3.18.200
(g) (Accumulation of Sick Leave and Additional Vacation in Lieu of
395
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 14
Accumulation of Sick Leave) of the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: Councilman Medders
Absent: None
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2020 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 3.18.095
of the Municipal Code .on Incentive Pay.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
2020 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 3.18.095 of the Municipal Code on Incentive Pay, was adopted
by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2021 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 3.22.020
of the Municipal Code (Group Medical
Insurance) by adding a new Section
regarding Firefighters' Insurance.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, Ordinance No.
2021 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 3.22.020 of the Municipal Code (Group Medical Insurance) by
adding a new Section regarding Firefighters' Insurance, was adopted[
by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2022 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending the Bakersfield
Municipal Code by amending Section
8.48.160 (a) of Chapter 8.48 (Refuse
Collection and Control and Charges
Therefor).
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 2022
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the
Bakersfield Municipal Code by amending Section 8.48.160 (a) of
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 15
Chapter 8.48
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
(Refuse Collection and Control and Charge8 Therefor),
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
Rees, Rucker,
Adoptionof.Ordinance No. 2023 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield repealing Chapter 8.48
(Ordinance No. 1984 New Series)
(Refuse Collection and Control) of
the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield.
At this time the Council considered a proposed Ordinance
to repeal Chapter 8.48 (Ordinance No. 1984 New Series) effective
September 15, 1972, which was considered at budget hearings and
given first reading.
Councilman Rees stated he listened with interest to Mr.
Larry King when he stated his position regarding the City's rescinding
the ordinance providing for the user-pay principle, which the
Council is proposing to send down the drain tonight. He regards
rescinding the ordinance as a mistake and is not in the best
interests of the people of Bakersfield, and he will continue to
vote "no" when the opportunity presents itself.
Councilman Heisey commented that he has spoken many times
in opposition to rescinding this ordinance, as he believes the
user-pay principle is an honest and valid one which the Council
should support. He pointed out that in cancelling this service,
the Council will again go back to providing free refuse collection
service to all tax-exempt entities. Whether or not the ordinance
is rescinded tonight, he hopes that the Council will continue to
evaluate it up to the time in August when the Council will be
required to set the property tax rate.
Councilman Bleecker stated his position on this is already
well-known. He would reiterate that it is regressive, and sooner
or later the Council will have to understand that putting the
refuse collection charge on the tax base is exceedingly more
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 16
397
expensive to the property owners than it should be. If the Govern.-
mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee recommends to the Council
that the Refuse Collection Service be put out to bid, he would
request that the Department of Public Works be required to bid
against private enterprise. Then the City can really find out
whether or not three men or two are needed on a rear loading truck:,
or City equipment is conducive to the cheapest possible pick-up of
refuse within the City. He would therefore vote "no" on this issue.
Councilman Whirremote moved adoption of the Ordinance.
During discussion, Councilman Thomas stated his position. He is
opposed to the Refuse Ordinance on its face, and for only one
reason, and that is he represents the people of the Sixth Ward
and they have instructed him to act to repeal this ordinance. He
thinks they have been misled, and he hopes that in the future they
will reconsider and instruct him to vote for a user-pay charge for
refuse.
Councilman Rucker stated he has always felt it was unfair
to the poorer class of people, people on fixed incomes, to adopt a
refuse collection charge. That is the reason he is in favor of
repealing the ordinance.
Roll call vote taken on Councilman Whittemore's motion to
adopt Ordinance No. 2023 New Series repealing Chapter 8.48 (Ordinance
No. 1984 New Series) (Refuse Collection and Control) of the Munici-
pal Code of the City of Bakersfield, carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees
Absent: None
Approval of Agreement with the County
of Kern for programs of Supervised
Community Recreation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Agreement with the
County of Kern for programs of Supervised Community Recreation was
approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 17
Five year extension of time granted
Sanitation Engineers for Concession
Rights at the Civic Auditorium.
At this time exfension of five years of Contract No.
46-67 between City of Bakersfield and Sanitation Engineers for
Concession Rights at the Civic Auditorium was discussed. Council-
man Rees asked what was meant that a look be taken into the prices
charged for concession items to see if they should be adjusted.
Mr. Graviss explained the prices in the contract are set, but a
proviso in the contract permits the City Manager and Auditorium
Manager to agree to price increases upon request. It may be to
the City's advantage to look into the prices charged at other
facilities, as in most instances, prices have increased consider-
ably over the five year period.
Councilman Bleecker asked if there was any specific
advantage to the City to extend this contract for another five
years. Mr. Graviss slated seven bids were sent out when the
contract was bid five years ago, only one was received from the
existing contractor, who offered 34% for the privilege of operating
the concessions, which is a very good bid.
Councilman Bleecker moved that the contract be re-adver-
tised, as he believes it is unwise to award a contract for a five
year period.
Mr. Graviss stated that the contract in existence now is
for five years with a five year option for renewal, subject to the
Council's approval. The Citizens Auditorium-Recreation Commiftee
recommends that the Council exercise its option. Councilman
Whirremote commented he was going to support the Committee.
After considerable discussion, vote taken on Councilman
Bleecker's motion to advertise the operation of the Concession
Righfs at the Civic Auditorium for competitive bidding, failed to
carry by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilman Bleecker
Councilmen Heisey, Medders,
Whittemore
None
Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 18
399
Councilman Whittemore then moved that the five year
extension of Contract No. 46-67 between City of Bakersfield and
Sanitation Engineers for Concession Rights at Civic Auditorium be
this
approved. Councilman Bleecker voted in the negative on
motion.
Request from Kenneth C. Cummings, Inc.
for annexation to the City of Bakers-
field of uninhabited territory situated
between West White ~Lane and Pacheco
Road referred to the Planning Commission
for study and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, request from Kenneth
C. Cummings, Inc. for annexation to the City of Bakersfield of
approximately 40 acres of uninhabited territory situated between
West White Lane and Pacheco Road was referred to the Planning
Commission for study and recommendation.
Reception of Certificate of County
Clerk of Results of Consolidated
Primary Election for the Office of
Mayor in the City of Bakersfield,
California, held June 6, 1972.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Certificate of County
Clerk of Results of all Votes cast at the Nominating Municipal
Election for Mayor held June 6, 1972, in the City of Bakersfield,
was received and ordered placed on file.
Total number of Registered Voters
Total number of Votes Cast
Total number
Total number
Total number
of Votes Cast
of Votes Cast
of Votes Cast
Total number of Votes Cast
for Donald M. Hart
for James B. French
for Donna Handy
for Scott N. Hanson
Finance Director authorized to write
off certain uncollectible receivables
from City books and initiate any
further collection efforts deemed
necessary.
34 260
25 547
16 488
3 504
1 684
2 309
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the Finance Director
was authorized to write off certain uncollectible receivables
totaling $138.65 from the books of the City, with collection efforts
to be continued which are deemed necessary.
400
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 19
Approval of Plans and Specifications
and authorization granted to advertise
for bids for California Avenue Park
Neighborhood Facility.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Bergen if due to the fact
that HUD has delayed the approval on the plans and specifications,
is it possible that the Council might receive a bid which would
be in excess of the funds available. Mr. Leonard Schroeder,
Architect for the California Avenue Park Facility, informed the
Council that there are possibly twelve alternate bids to the con-
tract, each totaling a certain amount of money, which can be cut
from the building without deteriorating from it, other than refine-
ments, as far as square footage is concerned. If the bids come in
particularly good, all the alternates can be included; if the bids
are not good, alternates which are not a necessity will have to be
eliminated, and the basic building will remain. Councilman Rucker
moved that the plans and specifications be approved and the Finance
Director authorized to advertise for bids for the California Avenue
Park Neighborhood Facility. This motion carried unanimously.
Extension of Time granted until June
19, 1972, Acceptance of Work and
Notice of Completion for Contract No.
98-71 for construction of Tailwater
Return System for Municipal Sewer
Farm.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, extension of time
until June 19, 1972 was granted William H. Schallock, Contractor,
the Work was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
Notice of Completion for Contract No. 98-71 for construction of
Tailwater Return System for Municipal Sewer Farm.
Mr. Bergen informed the Council.that he wanted to supple-
ment budget discussion on the construction of the Police Building,
stating that he wished to add that as a result of Council action
in March, 1972, the Architect was authorized to proceed with the
preparation of the plans and estimate, representing an obligation
to the Architect of approximately $44,000. If bonds are approved
for this project, his fee will be paid out of bond funds; otherwise:,
this expense, out of necessity, will be paid by the City out of
next year's budget.
401
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 20
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on application by Doug Minner to amend the zoning boundaries from
a C-0 (Professional Office) Zone to a C-1 (Limited Commercial) or
more restrictive, Zone, of that certain property commonly known
as 1201 and 1207 Columbus Street.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent as prescribed by ordinance.
A 250' x 117' parcel of land is proposed from C-0 to C-1
zoning. The west side of the property is developed with a shoe
store, by variance, and the remaining property is proposed to be
developed with a building and parking lot for C-1 and office uses.
The proposed zone change is in accord with the land uses
as shown on the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. The
Planning Commission would recommend approval of the change of zone
subject to the application of the "D" Overlay to insure a compatible
development with adjacent properties and to control traffic flow
and circulation onto Columbus Street.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections were received and the applicant,
Mr. Doug Minner, was present to answer questions of the Council.
The Mayor closed the public hearing for Council deliberation and
action. Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Ordinance No. 2024 New
Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City
of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain
property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 1201 and 1207
Columbus
Ayes:
Street, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstaining: Councilman Heisey
Thomas
(Due to possible conflict of interest)
Bakersfield, California~ June 26, 1972 - Page 21
Mayor Hart
patton. No protests
Frank St. Clair, was
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on application by Frank St. Clair to amend the Zoning
Boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-2-D
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) or more
restrictive, Zone, o£ that certain property commonly known as 1321
White Lane.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent as prescribed by ordinance.
An R-1 strip~ 250 feet wide by 1305 feet deep, between
White Lane and Calcutta Drive is proposed to be rezoned
Said parcel is proposed to be developed with a low-density apart-
ment complex similar to an existing development to the west which
contains 104 apartments.
This proposed zoning pla~ is in accord With the overall
neighborhood density as shown on the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan. The Planning Commission recommends approval of said
zone change as submitted.
declared the hearing open for public partici-
or objections were received. The applicant,
this
present to answer
Councilman Whittemore stated
rezoning, as when the development
questions of the Council.
he has mixed emotions on
of this piece of property
was first started, a great many people appeared before the Council
and circulated petitions, opposing it. At that time the Council
and the developer promised to maintain the R-1 Zone as a buffer
against existing houses to the east, and develop their own R-2~
using their own R-1 as a buffer for that zoning. At the final
stages, it will be developed where it will back up to the existing
residences. Mr. St. Clair stated they have talked to the property
owners in the area, and most of them are very much in favor of this
type of development~ as they will be one bedroom units, single
level, and no children in the complex. There was no opposition
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 22
403
at the Planning Commission level. The whole complexion of the
area has changed since the first development was started. Mr.
St. Clair stated that the Planning Commission has approved this
subject to a D-Overlay and it is possible the Commission will
require a masonry wall to be constructed running the length of
the project.
Planning Director Seeales stated that a plan has not
been filed but there is a possibility there are some private drives:
along the back of the proposed complex, and if a private wall is
required, he doesn't know yet whether that will be necessary, it
would be abutted back up along the fences o.f the adjoining property
which would cause a problem. It will take a little leg work to
find out how the property owners feel about this. Mr. St. Clair
stated they have a very good relationship with the neighbors and
will attempt to work out. a solution which will be acceptable to
them.
Councilman Whittemore stated if there isn't any oppositien
to the proposed rezoning and some assurance that adequate protection
is provided for the property owners abutting this complex, he will
withdraw his objections. He instructed the Planning Director that
when the plan. comes into his department and the D-Overlay is applied,
they make sure there is adequate protection for the R-1 residents
abutting the complex. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore,
Ordinance No. 2025 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use
Zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly
known as 1321 White Lane, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California~ June 26~ 1972 - Page 23
Noes:
Absent:
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on application by Stockdale Development Corporation to amend the
Zoning Boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to a
R-2-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design)
or more restrictive, Zone, affecting that certain property located
south of Cypress Point Drive, extending southerly and westerly,
and adjacent to a portion of the Kern City Golf Course.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent as prescribed by ordinance.
An R-1 parcel containing approximately 6 acres is proposed
to be rezoned to R-2-D. This property is adjacent to the Kern City
Golf Course which lies to the northwest. This proposed zoning
plan is in a.ccord with the overall density shown on the Bakersfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan. The Planning Commission recommends
approval of said zone change as submitted.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public par.tici-
patton. No protests or objections were received. Mr. Chuck Tolltee,
representing the Stockdale Development Corporation, stated that
this property is immediately adjacent to the nine story Baptist
Retirement Homes where the ground breaking was held yesterday, and
it is surrounded by R-2 zoning. They feel that R-2-D of low density
multiples is more appropriate.
Mayor Hart closed the public hearing for Council deli-
beration and action. After discussion, upon a.motion. by Councilman
Thomas, Ordinance No. 2026 New Series amending Title Seventeen of
the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land
Use Zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield
located south of Cypress Point Drive~ extending southerly and
westerly, and adjacent to a portion of the Kern City Golf Course,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders~ Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
405
Bakersfield, California, June 26, 1972 - Page 24
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on Phase I of the 1972 Weed Abatement Program. The Director of
Public Works reported that between May 1 and May 22, 1972, 206
parcels were posted. Lack of rain, an extended burning period,
and the 1971 Weed Abatement Program could account for the low
number of parcels posted.
Between June 7 and June 9, 1972, 188 "Notices to Destroy
Weeds" letters were mailed. A second inspection was made on June
19 and June 20, 1972, with 65 compliances (31.5%).
Certified letters will be sent to those not complying.
Councilman Medders commented that the Public Works
Department is purchasing a Polaroid Camera to take pictures of the
lots both before and after the weeds have been destroyed. He feeIs
the Council is obligated to back up the Department of Public Works
when the final hearings are held on the Weed Abatement Program, or
advise the department not to go to the trouble and expense to take
these pictures.
No protests or objections being received, the public
hearing was closed. Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote,
Resolution No. 39-72 finding fhat certain weeds growing on property
in the City constitute a public nuisance and directing the Superin-.
tendent of Streets to destroy said Weeds, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the meeting was
Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
. A ' the oouneil
of the City of Bakersfield, California