HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPR - JUNE 1971316
Bakersfield, California, April 5, 1971
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 5, 1971.
Mayor Hart 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:
Absent:
Mayor Hart.
None
Minutes
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker,
Stiern, Vetter, Whirremote
of the regular meeting of March 29, 1971 were
approved as presented.
Council Statements.
Councilman Bleecker read a copy of a letter signed by
Mrs. Lee Willoughby, Chairman of the Committee of Mothers with
Draft Age Sons, addressed to the three U.S. Selective Service
Boards in Kern County, expressing concern regarding the conviction
of 1st Lt. William Calley, and requesting the three draft boards
to call a moratorium on the draft for the area under their authority
until such time as Lt. Calley's conviction may be reversed or he
may be fully pardoned by the President of the United States.
Councilman Bleecker moved that the letter be received and ordered
placed on file. This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Vetter inquired of the Director of Public
Works what action had been taken on a recent request from Mr. and
Mrs. Francis Moore for a left turn slot at 24th Street and Elm
Street. Mr. Jing stated that the State Division of Highways had
been contacted and they will be doing this work. He understands
that Councilman Bleecker has sent letters to the residents of Elm
Street soliciting their comments regarding the installation of the
left turn movement, however, he does not know what response Council-
man Bleecker has received to his inquiries. Councilman Bleecker
stated that he would call Mrs. Moore and discuss this matter with
her.
Bakersfield, California, April 5, 1971 - Page 2
Councilman Whittemore called Mr. Jing's attention to a
heavy growth of weeds on the southeast corner of Chester and
California Avenues and asked him who was responsible for abating
these weeds. Mr. Jing advised that it is the abutting property
owner's responsibility. However, his department is now starting
work on Phase I of the Weed Abatement Program for this year and he
will include this parcel in the proceedings.
Councilman Stiern pointed out that there are weeds growing
in the median island strips in many parts of the City which detract
from their appearance. Mr. Jing stated this area is the City's
responsibility and he will check up on it.
Reports.
Councilman Rucker, Chairman of the Auditorium-Recreation
Committee, read a report on the subject of the Recreational Division
1971-72 Operational Budget. Councilman Stiern stated there is
considerable food for thought in this report and it would be well
for the Council to consider it for a week or two. Mr. Graviss,
Auditorium-Recreation Manager, stated that this delay would not be
detrimental to his department.
Councilman Rucker, Chairman of the Auditorium-Recreation
Committee, read a report of that committee stating that G. P. Franey,
Business Manager of the Kern County Parks and Recreation Department
has advised that the total allocation the Bakersfield Recreation
Division will receive for the Fiscal Year of 1971-72 for general
recreation programming, which includes Bakersfield and Panama
School Districts, is approximately $9,800 less than was appropriated
for the previous year of 1970-71.
Mr. Franey has had many inquiries, not only from Bakers-
field, but from other recreation agencies throughout Kern County,
as they also have been quoted a lesser allotment for 1971-72.
Frank Stramler, Director of the Kern County Parks and
Recreation Department, called a meeting of the agencies concerned
to explain how the recreation allotments are made. He stated that
Bakersfield, California, April 5, 1971 - Page 3
the Recreation Division Budget is derived from a 55~ per capita
figure. These per capita figures are furnished them by the Kern
County Planning Commission. From the total amount of monies
appropriated, the cost of recreation and administration and special
services is deducted and the balance is then prorated to the par-
ticipating agencies. There are two reasons for a lesser amount
being quoted this year to all agencies:
1. The population figures were
previous year due to recent
2. The salaries were increased
less than the
census figures.
to personnel
for County supplied programs.
These reasons caused the per capita allotment to be
decreased from 41~ to 39~ to the self-administrating agencies.
The Agencies in attendance at the meeting asked if it
could be possible to hold the line the same for 1971-72 as it was
for 1970-71. Mr. Stramler stated that the formula of $5~ per capita
would have to be increased by 5~ to 60~ per capita to make up the
population loss to the County alone, and that any change in this
formula would require Board action. If this action were taken by
the Board of Supervisors~ a 5% decrease still would be forthcoming
due to salary increases. All Agencies agreed to go to their
respective boards or committees and ask them to go on record as
supporting a 5~ increase.
The Auditorium-Recreation Committee recommends that the
Council support this request. Also, it is recommended that unless
this request is granted, the budget for Bakersfield Recreation
Division for the 1971-72 Fiscal Year be adjusted accordingly.
Councilman Stiern asked for clarification from the Com-
mittee relative to the intent of this report. Councilman Rees
stated that in discussing this matter with members of the Recreation
Department staff, they were told that it would require a request
from all agencies to the Board of Supervisors to increase the
allotment per capita from 55~ to 60~. The net result of this
increase in the per capita allotment would be that after deductions
by the County for their own administrative and special expenses,
the agencies could expect to receive about 40~ per capita instead
of the 41~ received the last fiscal year. It is recommended in
Bakersfield, California, April 5, 1971 - Page 4
this report that the City Council go along with the other agencies
in asking the Board of Supervisors to support a 5~ increase, and
not to take any further action which would offset salary increases.
Mr. Graviss told the Council that the 5~ increase would
amount to about ~ on the tax rate of the County. The administrative
cost covers the salary increases that were given last year to the
personnel that are performing these services in the County, and
does not take into consideration any salary increases for this
year.
Councilman Bleecker commented that he would support
reducing'
asking the County for an increase but he would not support
the budget for the Bakersfield Recreation Division.
Mayor Hart asked Mr. Graviss what the intent was in the
phraseology of the last paragraph of the report where it states
that "we further recommend that unless this request is granted,
the budget for the Bakersfield Recreation Division for the 1971-72
Fiscal Year be adjusted accordingly." He asked if it meant that
the budget for the Bakersfield Recreation Division will be increased
to compensate for the loss of funds, or will it be decreased if this
amount is not received from the County. Mr. Graviss stated it could
be either way. The recommendation has already been made in the
proposed Recreation Division's Budget, that if the money is not
forthcoming from the County, the Panama School Budget be reduced
by the appropriate amount, and it is up to the Council to act on
the Bakersfield Recreation Budget.
Councilman Stiern commented that it seems to him to be
a rather inept way to make a request to the Board of Supervisors,
to suggest that it do something which it is appropriate for the
Board to do, and at the same time say that in the event it is not
done, the City will adjust its budget accordingly. Mr. Graviss
stated that the letter he has prepared for the Mayor's signature
addressed to the Board of Supervisors does not include any alter-
native.
After further discussion, Councilman Rees made a motion
that the appropriate letter be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors
32(
Bakersfield, California, April 5, 1971 - Page 5
recommending a 5% increase in the allocation for the Bakersfield
Recreation Division for the Fiscal Year of 1971-72. This motion
carried unanimously.
Consent Calendar.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Allowance of Claims
Nos. 3412 to 3487, inclusive, in amount of $157,119.11, listed on
the Consent Calendar, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Stiern,
Vetter, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the sale of real
property located at northwest corner of Orange Street and "H"
Street was authorized to the qualified bidder, Robert G. and
Dorothy M. Monson of 814 "H" Street and the Mayor was authorized
to sign the quitclaim deed for this property. The City Attorney
was instructed to place the deed in escrow set up by the bidder.
Adoption of Resolution No. 32-71 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
fixing a time and place for hearing
protests by persons owning real pro-
perty within territory designated as
"Akers No. l", proposed to be annexed
to the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No.
32-71 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield fixing May 24, 1971
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 "Akers No. 1", proposed to be annexed to the City of
Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees,
Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Rucker, Stiern,
Bakersfield, California, April 5, 1971 - Page 6
Adoption of Resolution No. 33-71 of
intention to include within the Greater
Bakersfield Separation of Grade District
a portion of certain territory designated
as "Akers 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 Rucker, Resolution No. 33-71
of intention to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation
of Grade District a portion of certain territory designated as "Akers
No. l", and setting May 24, 1971 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, Rees, Rucker, Stiern,
Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 34-71 of
intention to include within the Greater
Bakersfield Separation of Grade District
certain territory designated as "Stock-
dale No. 4"~ and setting the time and
place for hearing objections to the
inclusion of said territory within said
District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No.
34-71 of intention to include within the Greater Bakersfield
Separation of Grade District certain territory designated as
"Stockdale No. 4", and setting May 17, 1971 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, Rees, Rucker, Stiern,
Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
322
Bakersfield, California, April 5, 1971 - Page 7
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending the Municipal Code of the
City of Bakersfield by adding Sections
11.04.792 (Speed Limit on Hughes Lane),
11.04.793 (Speed Limit on Easton Street),
11.04.794 (Speed Limit on Montclair
Street).
First reading was considered given to an Ordinance of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the Municipal Code
of the City o£ Bakersfield by adding Sections 11.04.792 (Speed
Limit on Hughes Lane), 11.04.793 (Speed Limit on Easton Street),
and 11.04.794 (Speed Limit on Montclair Street).
Request from G. F. Labots-Misbeek
to connect residence located at the
southwest corner of Chester Lane and
Palo Verde to the City Sewer referred
to the Planning Commission.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, request from G. F.
Labots-Misbeek to connect residence located at the southwest
corner of Chester Lane and Palo Verde to the City Sewer was referred
to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation.
Purchasing DiVision authorized to
negotiate discount prices with
certain vendorS.
It was moved by Councilman Bleecker, that the Purchasing
Division be authorized to negotiate discount prices for printing
supplies, maintenance items, lumber, building supplies, automotive
brake, radiator, glass supplies and service, radio supplies,
chemical and photo supplies, from the following vendors:
A. B. Dick Products Co.
Bakersfield Sandstone Brick Co.
Chester Ave. Brake & Supply Co.
Davis Radiator Shop
Familian Pipe & Supply
Mobile Radio Service
Rose Chemical Eng. & Supply
San Joaquin Supply Co.
Scotty's Auto Glass
Towne Photo Supply, Inc.
This motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstaining: Councilman Heisey
Bakersfield, California, April 5, 1971 - Page 8
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3411 and
Mayor authorized to execute Contract
and Specifications for improvements
in said Tract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, it is ordered that
the Map of Tract No. 3411 be, and the same is hereby approved.
That all easements and Canter Way and Summer Tree Lane 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 City Council hereby
waives the requirement of signatures of the following:
NAME NATURE OF INTEREST
Walter Weichelt, Freda Hanning, 3/8 of Mineral Rights 500 ft.
Martha Green and Elsie Weichelt below surface by Probate No.
upward 6813, Recorded April 24, 1951
in Book 1800, Page 425, O. R.
and by Quitclaim recorded May
8, 1963 in Book 3604, Page 690,
O. R.
Robert R. Buckley and Olive 5/8 of Mineral Rights 500 ft.
Joy Buckley below surface as recorded May
8, 1963, in Book 3604, Page
692, 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 City Couneil of the.City of Bakersfield and the Mayor
is authorized to execute the contract and specifications covering
improvements in said Tract No. 3411.
Approval of Local Agency-State Agree-
ment No. 2 between the City of Bakers-
field and State of California for
TOPICS Project covering construction
or modification of seven traffic
signals.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, Local Agency-State
Agreement No. 2 between the City of Bakersfield and State of Cali-
fornia for TOPICS Project covering construction or modification of
seven traffic signals was approved and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the agreement. The seven traffic signals are located at
the following intersections:
324
Bakersfield, California, April 5, 1971 - Page 9
1. Ming Avenue at South H Street (Traffic Signal
Modification).
2. Ming Avenue at South Chester Avenue (Traffic
Signal Modification).
3. Belle Terrace at South Chester Avenue (New
Traffic Signal Installation).
4. California Avenue at H Street (Traffic Signal
Modification).
5. California Avenue at Chester Avenue (Traffic
Signal Modification).
6. 20th Street at L Street (New Traffic Signal
Installation).
7. 30th Street at H Street (New Traffic Signal
Installation).
City Funds
Federal Funds
$ 52,693
$130,907
$183,600
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 863 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its inten-
tion to order the vacation of a
Sewer Easement No. 3 in Lots 1 - 11,
Block 2, California Avenue Park
Tract No. 2 in the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution of Inten-
tion No. 863 of the Council Of the City of Bakersfield declaring
its intention to order the vacation of a Sewer Easement No. 3 in
Lots 1 - ll, Block 2, California Avenue Park Tract No. 2 in the
City of Bakersfield and setting May 3, 1971 for hearing on the
matter before the Council, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Stiern,
Vetter, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business tr~ come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Vertex,
adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
the meeting was
MA YOR~~o ~
Bakersfield,
Calif.
ATTEST:
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, April 12, 1971
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 12, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Charles
Schermerhorn.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker,
Stiern, Vetter, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of April 5, 1971 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Tom Carey, founder and Director of the "Winners
Circle", addressed the Council, stating that this group has picked
up an option on the old hospital building located at 19th and "R"
Streets and will be operating a rehabilitation center to treat up
to 50 narcotic addicts.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, communication from
the Public Utilities Commission replying to Mayor Hart's letter
expressing concern regarding the 19~ rate increase proposed by the
California Water Service Company, was received and ordered placed
on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, communication from
the Kern County Economic Opportunity Corporation soliciting the
support of the Council in the form of a letter to the Department
of Housing and Urban Development to make funds available for
Innovative Programs to be developed by this Corporation, was
received and ordered placed on file and referred to the Redevelop-
ment Agency for study and recommendation. This motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. T. M. Sundaram, Planning Director of the Kern County
Economic Opportunity Corporation, requested permission to address
the Council, stating that he was recently in Washington, D. C.,
requesting available funds in the amount of $200,000 to $300,000
to be given to the City of Bakersfield for an Innovative Program.
This program should have the endorsement of the City Council, as
32(;
Bakersfield, California, April 12, 1971 - Page 2
well as an endorsement from the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Bakersfield. If this program is funded, thousands of dollars
could be brought into this area to strengthen the economic base
of the City. Also, if this program is funded, he requested the
City Council to furnish them with a letter of intention to delegate
the Innovative Program to his agency, which he stated is a non-
profit corporation and quite eligible to carry out the necessary
functions.
Councilman Rees referred to a specific reference by Mr.
Taylor in the KCEOC letter, in which he stated that "upon receipt
of this information the staff of KCEOC developed some concepts for
an Innovative Program." This is the only sentence indicating some-
thing specific and it doesn't say what the specific thing is. He
asked Mr. Sundaram if he has had an opportunity to discuss the
Innovative Program with a Council Committee or members of the City
staff.
Mr. Sundaram stated he has not discussed the concepts of
the Innovative Program with staff members. On one occasion he
talked with Councilman Heisey, but the concepts were not discussed
in detail and at this point the complete program is not ready. If
the City Council supports this basic idea of the basic concept of
mobilizing all the resources for a redevelopment project in the
City of Bakersfield, the concepts for a $200,000 or $300,000
program can be written and submitted in advance, but if there is
any delay in receiving an endorsement from the City Council and
the Redevelopment Agency, their chances are very slim. If the
Council acts today, the Corporation stands a very good chance of
getting these funds for the City of Bakersfield.
Councilman Rees stated that he personally thinks he is
in favor or Mr. Sundaram's basic concept, but the difference between
what some people like to call a boondoggie and a worthwhile projec~
is the boondoggie is not specific and the project is specific. It
would appear that so far Mr. Sundaram has said "be on our side, give
us an endorsement, and we'll tell you later what we want to do."
Mr. Sundaram replied that he thought he was condensing
all the concepts in one sentence in stating that the basic concept
was to mobilize all the resources for a redevelopment project in the
City of Bakersfield.
:' 27
Bakersfield, California, April 12~ 1971 - Page 3
Mayor Hart commented that Mr. Sundaram has referred to a
particular program lhree different times. The letter stated that
an outline for a particular program will be forthcoming in the very
near future~ and the Mayor asked Mr. Sundaram if he had a draft of
the program referred to in the letter. The fact that this letter
has been in the City's possession for three or four days and the
concepts for an Innovative Program have not been forthcoming~ has
prompted the Council to refer it to the Redevelopment Agency, who
perhaps are aware of this program.
Mr. Sundaram answered that their plan is ready as soon
as they have some indication from the City Council that it is ready
to support their basic concept.
Councilman Vetter commented that he can't understand how
this organization could possibly ask the Council to endorse a con-
cept of a program when no program has been submitted to the Council
to endorse.
Mr. Sundaram stated that the deadline for submitting this;
program is June 30th and before that time they should have a com-
plete program package prepared. For this purpose they need some
support from the Council~ and after that is received, the outline
of the program~ which may be three or four pages in length~ will
be prepared in a very short time and sent to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
Councilman Vetter commented that he is not in favor of
spending two or three hundred thousand dollars of anybody's money,
whether it is federal or local money, just to figure out how to
develop additional programs. Before any support is expressed by
the Council, some kind of specific program should be submitted.
In his letter~ Mr. Taylor has stated that Mr. Sundaram was in
Washington recently and presented a concept of the program. Mr.
Sundaram must have presented something more to HUD officials than
he has presented to the Council here tonight.
Mr. Sundaram stated that he had presented the whole con-
cept of the program orally, he did not offer any written outline.
328
Bakersfield, California, April 12, 1971 - Page 4
did he
Mr. Sundaram told the Council
for downtown and East California Avenue
of these areas.
As of today, they do not have a complete program, but if the
Council supports the basic idea of the program, the outline will
be ready to submit within a couple of days.
Councilman Vetter asked Mr. Sundaram specifically what
intend to ask for in order to receive the Federal Grant.
that funds will be available
projects for redevelopment
Councilman Vetter stated he would agree that redevelop-
ment is necessary but in all honesty he could not support any
concept without more specifics on it.
Councilman Bleecker asked if it was Mr. Sundaram's
understanding after his trip to Washington, that this $200,000
to $300,000 will be available to the City of Bakersfield solely
because the City had applied for it without any specifics for the
use of the money or any program to apply it to.
Mr. Sundaram stated that he has presented the basic
concept of the program and funds will be made available for the
betterment of the community.
Councilman Bleecker commented that when a specific
program is forthcoming to the Council, he will be very happy to
judge it on its merits, but based solely on the letter, he could
not support the request.
Mr. Sundaram stated he could prepare a specific outline
of the program and send it to the City Council for confirmation
within a couple of days.
Councilman Heisey stated that he thinks they have taken
the proper action to refer it to the Redevelopment Agency and after
this body has had a chance to analyze it and come back with a
recommendation, everyone will know what they are discussing. He
visited the Kern County Economic Opportunity Corporation's office
and during his visit he did not see a picture of the President of
Bakersfield, California, April 12, 1971 -Page 5
the United States or the Governor of the State of California. He
did see the words "Revolution Now", and a picture of Black Panther
Leader Huey Newton on the building walls.
Nr. Sundaram stated that he wanted to work with the City
Council and receive its support and that of the Redevelopment Agency,
and it is not the policy of the Corporation to make revolution.
Councilman Rees asked if it would not be a good idea to
arrange a meeting with one of the Council Committees and a repre-
sentative of KCEOC so that some action could be taken next week on
this request.
Mr. Sundaram stated that if the matter was delayed for
one week, it would not have an adverse effect on their program.
Councilman Rees then moved that the matter be referred to
a Council Committee of the Mayor's selection in conjunction with
representatives of the program, and that the Committee report back
at the next Council meeting. Mayor Hart suggested that it be
referred to a joint committee of the Council and the Redevelopment
Agency and representatives from the Kern County Economic Opportunity
Corporation.
Both Councilmen Stiern and Heisey pointed out that the
Redevelopment Agency had been appointed to evaluate matters of
this nature and report back to the Council. During Council dis-
cussion, City Attorney Hoagland commented that the Redevelopment
Agency is an autonomous body and the motion to refer this matter
to the Agency is a proper one. However, a member of the Council
or a Council Committee could attend the discussion at an Agency
meeting.
Councilman Rees then withdrew his motion.
Mr. Hoagland stated that the City Manager has indicated
that he will seek an early meeting for this proposition to be heard
before the Redevelopment Agency, and he would assume that Mr.
Sundaram will present his concept specifically at that time.
Mr. Bergen stated that he can
ment Agency to a meeting for this week,
he will arrange it as soon as possible.
not commit the Redevelop-
however, if it can be done,
330
BakersTield, California, April 12, 1971 - Page 6
Councilman Bleecker asked if the approval of the Redevelop-
ment Agency would. not be a very important requirement to the Federal
Government before granting any funds to the City of Bakersfield.
Mr. Bergen stated he would think it was not only important,
but it would be mandatory.
Councilman Rees commented that in connection with the
California Avenue project, he had previously received a plot map
that had various blocks marked on it, which was in connection with
or related. to a'California Avenue business
Mr. Sundaram if this was part of his plan.
it was.
development. He asked
Mr. Sundaram said ihat
Mr. Art Arvizo stated that Councilman Rees had brought
out the fact that there were specific plans, or at least plans of
concepts, already submitted to certain agencies affiliated with
the City. Their efforts are to mobilize resources starting from
a small concept of visualizing a sort of telescope operation which
eventually gets to redevelopment of an area.
Councilman Rucker asked if it would not be necessary to
hold hearings before an application is made on a program of this
nature. Mr. Hoag}and stated that at some point in time, hearings
are required if a project is going ahead. The first thing that
is necessary are specifics to enable the Redevelopment Agency and
the Council to make application for a redevelopment project. As
he understands it, what.this group is looking for is called "seed
money" to develop the detailed'specifics that are necessary for a
project to be funded. He understands that they have more or less
a general concept of what they would like to do in the way of a
project and that general concept at this point should be presented
to the Redevelopment Agency.
Bakersfield, California, April 12, 1971 - Page
Mayor Hart read a communication from the California Jaycees
requesting the issuance of a Proclamation declaring the week of
April 18 through 24, 1971, as "California Ecology Week", and
welcoming the participation of all civic organizations, schools and
youth organizations in appropriate observances of this special week.
Councilman Rees moved adoption of the Proclamation, which carried
unanimously.
Council Statements.
Councilman Stiern read the following statement:
In the Bakersfield Californian of Tuesday, April 6th, the
lead editorial was entitled "The Public's Right to Know." It was
direct, succinct and struck the mark brilliantly. The thrust of
the editorial was to reiterate that all meetings of local City
Councils, Boards of Supervisors and various elective and appointive
boards, should most certainly be public. The public has a right
to know and is most concerned.
The editorial went on to discuss Assemblyman Ketchum's
proposed bill which provides that this same openness should prevail
at all meetings in our State Legislature, its Committees, Sub-Com-
mittees and Caucuses. Every year the State Legislature attempts
to broaden the provisions of the Brown Act which has served as
guardian over all phases of local government. Our own City Council
has gone on record repeatedly that we believe implicitly in the
public's right to be informed and we reiterated our complete
willingness to keep the public informed. Further, we have been on
record that a fair-minded State Legislature should be willing to
regulate itself with the same Act it deems to be appropriate and
necessary for all local governments.
Surely, the Legislature can no longer assume that Cali-
fornians are so naive as to believe that local politicians might
commit dishonest acts but that politicians in Sacramento are in
every instance ennobled by their high position. Assemblyman
Ketchum's bill is long overdue.
Notable for repeated violations of the Brown Act and
fertile subjects for close scrutiny by the news media, are the
Bakersfield, California, April 12, 1971 Page 8
weekly luncheon meetings of our Board of Supervisors. These very
privafe and often completely closed discussion sessions at some
posh local motel, have been existent for years and violate every
provision of the Brown Act, yet seem to have escaped the notice of
Sigma Delta Chi and the news media. At a recent committee meeting
called to discuss the proposed bus district legislation, our own
Supervisor suggested that we attend such an illegal meeting of the
Board.
(Supervisor Miller in the background "It is not illegal.")
Councilman Stiern If the Supervisor can control him-
self, I will go on.
We declined, of course, One sage observer-present
commented openly that it is unconceivable that the Brown Act could
be stretched so far as to expect a constituent to attend,some ''
private and fancy'luncheon in order to make himself heard by his
elected representatives on the Board of Supervisorsl I Would
challenge any present or past member of the Board of Supervisors
to defend'such flagrant violations of a familiar State statute.
I commend the Bakersfield Californian for its awareness of the
State-wide implications of the issue Of secrecy in government and
urge continued efforts for broader application of the law. The
Brown Act should apply to all office holders in California.and
should be enforced without exception., Thank you.
Councilman Whittemore said "Very well done, Dick."
Supervisor Miller asked if it would be possible for him
to be recognized. He was told "No", in unison by several members
of the Council.
Councilman Whittemore commented that Cou~ncilman Stiern's
remarks provided a very appropriate introduction to a comment on
"Fireworks" which he was about to bring before the Council.
He was approached several weeks ago by members of the
Veterans organizations in the City of Bakersfield asking if he
knew why fireworks displays were not permitted in the City. Actually
he did not. He asked the City Manager tO research it for him and
Bakersfield, California, April 12, 1971 - Page 9 ~ '~
found t'hat there has been an Ordinance on the City's books since
1946 which was not ignored, but a certain amount of laxity was
permitted to allow children to have sparklers and safe fireworks.
He also found out that the City has local option in controlling
this. He feels, as many other people do, that the celebration of
Independence Day is probably one of the most important holidays and
should be celebrated in the traditional manner. He moved that the
staff prepare an amendment to the existing Ordinance for the use
and sale of "safe and sane" fireworks in the City of Bakersfield,
to be presented to the Council for consideration at the next meeting.
Councilman Stiern stated that he would be in favor of it,
there are certain traditions connected with all holidays.
Councilman Heisey stated that everyone is much too prone
to over-protect our youth and he would like to see the kids have
the chance to celebrate this important holiday.
Councilman Rees stated he would be inclined to support
the motion. He has talked to Chief Paddock and has found that the
Chief is not inflexible about this type of fireworks.
Councilman Vetter stated he would strongly support Council-
man Whittemore's suggestion, the meaning of the Fourth of July is
brought back by the use of safe and sane fireworks, and it is very
important that children realize the meaning behind holidays.
Councilman Bleecker stated he would support Councilman
Whittemore's motion also. He feels that the Fourth of July is the
most important holiday this country has.
Councilman Rucker stated that he would support Councilman
Whittemore's motion, as all holidays are important to the people of
this country. As long as Chief Paddock approves this type of fire.-
works, he is in'favor of them.
Councilman Whittemore stated he has talked with the Fire
Chief who stated that he did not have any serious objection to
allowing safe and sane fireworks ~n the City Limits, that he could
be flexible in the Uniform Fire Code. Councilman Whittemore suggested
that the Fire Chief sit
Ordinance.
· - Vote was then
in on the drafting of this amendment to the
taken on the motion, which carried unanimously.
Bakersfield, California, April 12, 1971 - Page 10
Mayor Hart read a portion of Section 2.08.090 of the
Municipal Code pertaining to Public Statements. "Any person
addressing the Council making slanderous, impertinent personal
remarks, or who shall attempt by his actions or remarks to ridicule
or disparage the Mayor, Council or administrative personnel, may
forthwith be barred by the presiding officer from further audience
before the Council.during that meeting." He admonished Supervisor
Miller, who had requested permission to speak to the Council, to
conduct himself accordingly.
Councilman Bleecker commented that he has listened to
Supervisor Miller harass and harangue the Council many times for
no good reason, and he refuses to sit and listen to him tonight.
He stated that he was retiring to the Caucus Room and when Super-
visor Miller has concluded his remarks, he will return to the
meeting.
Supervisor Miller stated that he was asking for the
respect which was due the Supervisor of the Fifth District. 61%
of the people voted him into office and he thinks they have tried
to give the Council, the community and the County, a message. In
his campaign, he stressed cooperation between the City and County
and hoped that they could work together for the common good of all
of the people of the County.
He has made the statement that he wants to bring the City
and County together. He has accomplished that in the Sales Tax, in
the multi-recreational center, in the sewers, and he has accomplished
it as far as having the Transit District here which he was in favor
of, providing the rates were right.
So he feels that he has done more in
and County together than any Supervisor before
bringing the City
this. No Supervisor
before this representing the City has even bothered to come into
the Council meetings except to be recognized upon one or two
occasions. He comes to the Council meeting, not to be insulting,
but to see if the two groups cannot work together to try to bring
industry into this community.
Now, one of the Councilmen has just made a statement
relative to the luncheon meetings which the County has been holding
for years at the Sands at 701 Union Avenue, and it is so published
for the public.
Bakersfield, California, April 12, 1971 - Page ll
When he first went on the Board he made some statements
about the luncheon and it was cut out for six months. He expressed
surprise that no one has mentioned it, or is aware of it. It was
explained to him by the County Counsel that the Board was only
being briefed by the County Administrative Officer on what would
take place, but no decisions were ever made. He stated he would
take an oath on that, subject to perjury.
He looks at the City Council Agenda and sees no mention
made of the Caucus meeting which is held at 7:30 andhe doesn't
believe the public is aware of it. A Caucus meeting for half an
hour. It is no different than the Board's luncheon meeting for
two hours. They pay for their meals and he is not trying to knock
the Sands, but the food isn't too good, and he would rather eat
at his place.
He stated that he can't understand the constant attacks
on him and yet he is told he is the harasser, he is the haranguer,
and he makes accusations against people. He has yet to see where
he has used any words in the Council meeting which anyone could
say were really out of order. His words are emotional because he
feels them. He is not here to fight, he has come here to help the
Council. He doesn't get any extra pay for it, and he is not looking
to further his interests in politics. He is not trying to get
elected again, and he believes that the propaganda which is being
put out by the City Council is for a purpose to get Supervisor
Miller defeated and a new Supervisor in office. He added that the
Council should not worry because if he gets elected, it will not be
because of his campaigning. The Council is helping him get re-elected.
Councilman Stiern commented that it was not his intention
to accuse the Board of Supervisors of anything. He is simply asking
them when they are going to start obeying the State Law which every-
body else obeys. And furthermore, these lectures on morality that
they get from Mr. Miller every so often are a little too much. The
other side of the coin is different. Two or three weeks ago, we
had a little hearing here in the Council Chambers on an issue of a
subdivision map, it was an interesting and informative hearing
Bakersfield, California, April 12, 1971 - Page 12
before the City Council on an issue. Mr. Miller got up and accused
the whole community of dishonesty and before he was through the
Planning Commission was a bunch of crooks, Mr. Heisey was a crook,
Mr. Gay was a crook, and the City Council members were all crooks.
It was a typical Miller performance. It is monotonous to hear
these campaign statements made before the City Council. He stated
he is real tired of it and is left with the feeling of hearing an
essay on morality that was offered by A1 Capone or Jack the Ripper.
Mr. Miller thanked Councilman Sitern for the association.
The following comments were made by Councilman Vetter
and Supervisor Miller:
Vetter: When Mr. Miller brought up the fact of promoting
harmony and such between the Board and the Council, I, for one,
would certainly hope that all actions by all members of the Board
as well as members of the Council would encourage harmony. The
one question I would like to ask Mr.
the signs on your hotel to inviting
in the County, and also, how do you
Miller, is how do you relate
harmony between the City and
relate your signs with urging
people to come to Bakersfield and to settle here and enjoy our
community. This is something that I just don't understand.
Miller: For the very reason that I am not satisfied
with the way the community is being run. And the signs are up
there for that reason~ it's a protest. That is a private matter
between myself and the City. It has nothing to do with the com-
munity. The hotel has been condemned as a public nuisance, these
signs are no worse than the two bit signs which were put on my
building by the City and are still on my building. They are
supposed to be removed before I ever remove my signs. They are
still on there. In fact, Ken Hoagland saw fit to put one. on my
coffee shop. The building is no longer in use as a hotel, it is
not a hotel, it is a tombstone, because downtown is dead. That is
what I always say, I don't want anybody to invest their money in
the downtown unless you do some redevelopment.
Bakersfield, California, April 12, 19?l ~ Page 13 ')~¥
Vetter: Where do you propose they invest it, Mr. Miller'?
Miller: Invest in on California Avenue now, give it to
the Kern County Land Company.
Vetter: Wait now; Mr. Miller, you, yourself, came down
and spoke against the annexation of the California Avenue project
and then you say---
Miller: I spoke against the annexation? I never did.
I only said that Kern County Land Company was holding a sanctuary
on land, in which I was paying taxes for them. That's all I said.
Vetter: There was one time you did not approve a com-
mercial development on the new California Avenue portion because
you said it should go downtown. This was my understanding.
Miller: No, that isn't true. It was the Valley Plaza.
I said you can't take a pie and divide it up, one pie. I was not
against the California Avenue extension. I was against them getting
80,000 acres for what they were paying $200 an acre for.
Vetter: My point is that I don't believe the signs are
good fQr our community. I think that whatever any of us does in
public life it should be with one idea in mind only, and that is
if it improves our community, it helps our community. But if it
doesn't help, tends to be detrimental to our community, I don't
think we should participate in it, and I fully believe that the
signs on your hotel are detrimental to our community.
Miller: Don't you think it is detrimental to the com-
munity, that my hotel is not a hotel in the community. We must
sit down and work together. None of you have ever been in the
building. The building was condemned and I am paying more than
have you
Mayor Hart:
taken out.
Mr. Miller,
if you don't sit down,
I will
Miller:
Hart:
Miller:
Well, you
I'm telling
Alright.
didn't tell me to sit down.
you now.
Bakersfield, California, April 12, 1971 - Page 14
Reports.
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman, commented on a lengthy
report from the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee on
the subject of Needed Amendments in the Personnel and Compensation
Ordinances. He stated that each member of the Council and the
press have been provided with a copy and in order to maintain
continuity, all of the unchanged sections, as well as proposed
revisions, have been retyped and included with this report. There
are only two changes in the report, as follows:
Delete Section 3.18.020 (e) Merit Step. Executive and
Executive Support Group
Typographical error in Salary schedule for Senior
Section 3.18.060 Fire Inspector. Overtime
Compensation should be
changed from A to C
Councilman Whittemore then moved that the report be
approved as submitted.
.Councilman Heisey stated that he would like to have the
City residency requirements lowered to eight miles limit, rather
than ten miles from City Hall, as provided under Section 3.14.151.
He feels that this is more reasonable and would give'plenty of
rural area for City employees to reside in. It would also be a
reasonable distance for driving if an employee is called in during
an emergency.
During Council discussion, Mr. Bergen pointed out that
many meetings have been held with the Civil Service Commissions
and the Empl.oyees Association On this residency requirement, and
at one time some consideration was given to establishing it at 12
or 15 miles. }t was generally agreed upon by the Civil Service
Commissions and the Employee Association, every one that was met
with, that ten miles was reasonable and proper. A map of the
distance was displayed for the Council. Mr. Bergen stated that
he really doesn't think that in good conscience the Council can
change it at this time without going back and continuing these
same discussions with these groups.
After discussion, Councilman Heisey recommended that
this particular section be referred back to the GEPC Committee.
Councilman Whittemore agreed with Councilman Heisey, and amended
Bakersfield, California, April 12; 1971 - Page 15 "~)~;~
his motion to delete Section 3.14.151 - General Residency Require-.
ment establishing the City residency'requirements within a radius
of ten miles from the City Hall. The motion to approve the report
as amended was carried unanimously.
Councilman Rucker, Chairman of the Auditorium-Recreation
Committee, pointed out that a report of this Committee on the subject
of Recreation Division 1971-72 Operational Budget was read at last
meeting. Mr. Graviss, Manager of the Auditorium-Recreation Depart-
ment, stated that he hadn't received any reaction from the County
in response to the City's letter to the Board of Supervisors
requesting a 5% increase in the allocation to the Bakersfield
Recreation Division for the Fiscal Year 1971-72. He recommended
that the budget be accepted as submitted with the exclusion of the
nature study specialist, which amounts to $1028. If there is a
reduction from the County when the final budget is approved for
the year, it will be the prerogative of the City Council to take
whatever action at that time that it deems necessary. The program
can be restricted at a future date, if that is the desire of the
Council. Councilman Rucker moved adoption of the report, which
carried unanimously.
Consent Calendar.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Item (a) of the
Consent Calendar - Allowance of Claims Nos. 3488 to 3550 inclusive,
in amount of $82,100.50, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Stiern,
Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Transfer of Funds
in amount of $3,642.00 from Account No. 11-510-6100 to Account No.
11-640-8300, was approved. These funds will be used to furnish
and install an adequate air cooled condensor for the Refrigerator
Unit at the Central Fire Station.
Bakersfield, California, April 12, 1971 -Page 16
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1925 New
Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending the Municipal
Code of the City of Bakersfield by
'adding Sections 11.04.792 (Speed
Limit on Hughes Lane) 11.04.793
(Speed Limit on Easton Street), 11.04.-
794 (Speed Limit on Monfclair Street).
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Ordinance No. 1925
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by adding Sections
11.04.792 (Speed Limit on Hughes Lane), 11.04.793 (Speed Limit on
Easton Street), and 11.04.794 (Speed Limit on Montclair Street),
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Stiern,
Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 35-71
designating the City Manager as the
authorized representative of the
City of Bakersfield to file an
application for State and increased
Federal Grant for Sewage Treatment
Works.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution Nd. 35-71
designating the City Manager as the authorized representative of
the City of Bakersfield to file an application for State and in-
creased Federal Grant'for Sewage Treatment Works, was adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Stiern,
Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 36-71
establishing an administrative
charge of ten dollars for maintaining
non-resident sewer rental agreements.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No.
36-71 establishing an administrative charge of ten dollars for
administrative costs of setting up and maintaining non-resident
sewer rental agreement, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Stiern,
Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, April 12, 1971 - Page 17 ~')~il
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing to ascertain
whether public interest requires removal and undergrounding o£ over-
head utility facilities and Resolution forming Underground Utility
District No. 2.
An Ordinance amending Section 12.28.020 of the Municipal
Code requiring removal of Overhead Utility Facilities and completion
of Underground Installation in accordance with schedule.
Notices have been mailed to all utilities and affected
property owners in District No. 2.
On March 15, 1971, the Council established April 12, 1971,
as the date for a public hearing for the purpose of determining
whether public interest requires undergrounding of public utilities
in the Mt. Vernon Avenue area, the County Building area, and the
City ~all area. If the Council ascertains that the public interest
exists, a Resolution to form District No. 2 should be adopted which
sets forth the time limits for such undergrounding.
Also, the Council on March 15, 1971, had a first reading
on an Ordinance amending Section 12.28.020. This Ordinance pertains
to Underground Utility District No. 1 and will have the effect of
extending by five years the time within which the remaining 60% of
underground must be completed in District No. 1.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received, the hearing was
closed for Council deliberation and action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 1926
New Series amending Section 12.28.020 of the Municipal Code requiring
removal of Overhead Utility Facilities and completion of Overhead
Utility Facilities and completion of Underground Installation in
accordance with schedule, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Stiern,
Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, April 12, 1971 - Page 18
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No.
37-71 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, State of Cali-
fornia, establishing Underground District No. 2, was adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Stiern,
Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:37 P.M.
ATTEST:
to come before this
MAYOR. of.?t~e/~'C~%'o~fBakersfield,
Calif.
C~$~~-6~erk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, April 19, 1971 3~3
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 19, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend A1
Stringfellow of the First Baptist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker,
Stiern, Vetter, Whittemore
None
Minutes of
Absent:
the regular meeting of April 12, 1971 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Four members of ADEP (Alliance for Drug Education and
Prevention) addressed the Council at this time. ADEP is a self-
help organization for drug users that needs community support to
be totally effective in helping to decrease the number of drug users
in the community. Mr. Van Eyk, Director, explained the purpose of
this organization and stated that they are planning on establishing
an ADEP House in Bakersfield where former drug users can identify
with each other, help each other and become useful citizens. They
have acquired a house at Ninth Street and Chester Avenue and are
asking for furniture, food and funds to carry out a program which
to be 100% effective will need 100% community support and cooperation.
Mayor Hart thanked the group for appearing before the
Council. The City does not have a fund established for this purpose,
but the Council will do everything it can to stimulate interest in
the program and attempt to enthuse someone to promote financial
help for this worthy cause.
Mr. Edward Taylor, Executive Director of the Kern County
Economic Opportunity Corporation, addressed the Council, stating
that he wished to clarify assertions of certain activities of this
organization made at last week's Council meeting.
344
Bakersfield, California, April 19, 1971 - Page 2
He stated that he was dismayed that such a very negative
image was projected of the Corporation at last week's Council
meeting after nine months of continuous effort on his part to
establish working relationships and some type of confidence and
understanding between his agency and all other agencies in Bakers-
£ield and Kern County. He has constantly invited all City and
County officials and the whole community to visit the Corporation~
to see their operations, ask questions and learn what they are
doing.
Last week it was reported that on one of the walls of
the KCEOC office the words "Revolution Now" were painted, the
individual who did this was a former employee; it will be removed;
his agency is not creating a revolution, they are promoting peace.
He explained that the jeeps which were displayed on television and
which it was stated were possibly intended to aid in a revolution,
are stored in a garage adjacent to their office and have been in-
operable for two years. Application has been made to the General
Services Administration for removal of this "junk."
Councilman Vetter asked Mr. Taylor, since he was asking
the Council for an endorsement to obtain a $200,000 to $300,000
Federal Grant, what KCEOC intended to do with the money to develop
a redevelopment project over and above what could be done under
normal circumstances. The City has made application for a grant
to promote a redevelopment project for the downtown area, and it
was not funded, the application did not get off the ground.
Mr. Taylor stated that it was spelled out completely in
the draft proposal which was submitted to the regional office of
OEO in San Francisco for demonstration monies to carry out this
particular activity. He has heard that as a part of any type of
HUD development somewhere in the proposal, it has to reflect some
type of provision for housing in a redevelopment project, and he
understands that the City's application did not provide for any
type of housing. Mr. Sundaram, their Planner, has talked to HUD
in Washington and in the Los Angeles office, and it seems to be
the consensus that one could complement the other and that the
Bakersfield, California, April 19, 1971 - Page 3 ,~-'~5
particular program his organization is thinking of concerns itseli'
primarily in the target area, in the form of housing, small businesses,
shopping centers, etc., in a long range type of approach. Their
primary concern is the need for housing and the thrust of their
effort is in the area of not having to relocate people but rather
to provide individual single family homes in the target area where
many people already have homes that could be renovated, some have
homes that would need to be replaced. They hope that in that area
they will be able to primarily meet the housing needs and at the
same time, if it were approved, it would greatly enhance the down-
town urban renewal program, because if the downtown redevelopment
plan does not have a housing provisions, that could be one of the
hang-ups.
Councilman Vetter stated that he has seen the proposal
for the California Avenue Project, and asked if that was what Mr.
Taylor was referring to. Mr. Taylor said that it was. Councilman
Vetter commented that there was a lot of merit to it, but he
wanted to know what Mr. Taylor's organization would do with
$200,000 or $300,000 that would enhance the project, what would
he do in between times with these funds.
Mr. Taylor stated that in the first place it would
necessitate providing the funds to get started in the area. There
are various sources of funds from the Federal Government under
various types of housing programs which can be started by non-profit
corporations. One of the provisions under any housing program is
that the people living in the area must be involved in the process.
One of the provisions in his agency's program would be to initiate
corporations, maybe even a profit and a non-profit corporation,
composed not only of people in the area but people from all aspects
of the community, toward developing the housing program in that
area. In the beginning, one of the things that is necessary, and
this would be part of the demonstration money, is'to complete the
feasibility study of the activity, because at this point they have
not been able to do a complete study as required. They would like
346
Bakersfield, California, April 19, 1971 - Page 4
to do that to make sure because they do not want to embark on
another venture which they feel would not have some degree of
success. It may very well prove, after this study is completed,
that it might not be feasible, but this is part of what needs to
be done in the area.
Councilman Vetter commented that he still cannot see
where they can spend $200,000. If there is any way thai the Cali-
fornia Avenue Project can be continued, he will be very pleased,
but he cannot endorse an application or make a commitment on behalf
of the City to ask for that amount of money at the present time.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he had indicated to Mr.
Sundaram last week that he would visit the KCEOC office, and he
did go by today, and spent about 2½ hours talking to Mr. Taylor
and Mr. Sundaram about various aspects of their program, what their
goals and desires were with regard to the community, about the costs
of their overhead, etc. They talked in depth about the political
aspects of their program and he was informed by Mr. Taylor that
they are prohibited by law from entering into political activities
as a group. There were a couple of points that he would like to
bring up at this time which do delve'into the political area, such
as pictures and signs in the office; which were offensive to him as
an individual and he is sure would be offensive to the average
citizen. He noticed a very large picture of Angela Davis which has
no place on the wall of an agency of the Federal Government, as in
his opinion this does demonstrate certain political leanings. He
stated that if he has to stand all by himself he will never vote to
give any funds whatsoever to this organization as long as there are
any slogans on the wall, or pictures of Huey Newton, the Black
Panther leader, or pictures of Angela Davis, an admitted Communist,
or any other of the same ilk. Even though this program may be well
founded in every other respect, that would be enough for him to
never vote any funds to this particular organization.
Councilman Heisey stated that
Mr. Taylor on many previous occasions.
many people had modest hopes for it and
he has enjoyed talking with
When KCEOC first started
took a "wait and see"
Bakersfield, California, April 19. 1971 - Page
attitude. It has been in operation for many years now and frankly,
the more he has looked into it and particularly the last Week or so
he has been giving it a lot of his time reading up on it, studying'
documents that have come out of this organization, he has about
come to the conclusion that it represents what is quite frequently
referred to as a committee appointing the unfit, by the unwilling,
to do the unnecessary. He has been amazed at the type of documents
that have been published, and that even the members higher up in
the organization seem to have some doubts as to the effectiveness
of the program. He then read several.letters and press releases
which substantiated his statements. He went on to say that before
he would vote to support any program to give funds to fhis organi-
zation, he would like to see an audit from a Federal Grand Jury or
somebody like that having the power of subpoena, so they are certain
of getting facts that are true and will show exactly where this
organization stands, exactly what they have accomplished for the
amount of money that has been poured into it.
Mr. Taylor stated he appreciated the remarks and he would
say that there is a picture of Angela Davis on the wall, and if this
is offensive, it will be removed. As a representative of KCEOC he
feels it would be naive and factitious of him to say that every
undertaking of this organization has been successful, because it
has not. They fail in many of their ventures, but they do try,
and they hope from their experiences
themselves making the same mistake.
but it is also the most costly one.
that they profit and can prevent
Experience is the best teacher,
As they make their mistakes,
they try to correct them. They are striving daily to operate the
agency and program in a way to help the people they are supposed
to serve.
He stated that an annual audit is made by Federal Auditors
and the next one will begin for the program year that ended February
28, 1971, on May 1st. That audit is made available to the regional
office and the Governor's office. The Governor's office had advised
them that their program has been approved for the ensuing year.
The way they operate this program is not perfect, but he feels that;
everyone in San Francisco and Sacramento is aware that they are
Bakersfield, California, April 19, 1971 - Page 6
doing everything possible to do a good job so that this program in
Bakersfield and Kern County can serve as a model to every other
program in'the State of California and the entire country. He does
not have the answers to every question the Council asked, but he
does feel that the answers can be secured.
Council Statements.
Councilman Vetter stated that last week during a discussion
with Mr. Milton Miller regarding the signs on his hotel, he mentioned
the fact that the reason he did it was so that people would not
invest their money downtown. Councilman Vetter asked the Super-
visor at that time where one should invest his money and he said
"On California Avenue." Councilman Vetter reminded SuperVisor
Miller that at one time he opposed the commercial development out
there and he indicated that he did not. It is probably an honest
mistake, but on August 5, 1968, during an appearance before the
Council in reference to the annexation of California Avenue No~ l,
reading from the Minutes - "Mr. Miller assured the Council that he
is not against the entire annexation. He is protesting only against
the proposed development of the 98 acres along the extension of
California Avenue as it is a threat to the attempt of the downtown
merchants to redevelop and revitalize downtown Bakersfield."
Councilman Vetter stated that as he told Supervisor
Miller, he feels it is very important that whatever a public
official does, it should be for the betterment of Bakersfield and
his point is that he does not believe the signs on Mr. Miller's
hotel are an asset to the community. Mr. Miller has indicated
that it is strictly something between him and the City, that it
cannot be divorced from the community as a whole. It must be looked
at on the basis, is it good or is it detrimental. Councilman Vetter
re-emphasized that it is detrimental and he would certa'inly implore
Mr. Miller to do his very best to see his way clear to remove the
signs from his hotel.
Councilman Bleecker stated he w~s advised this afternoon
of a restraining order brought by Mr. Mel Rubin which would tempo-
rarily restrain and enjoin the City Clerk from administering the
Oath of Office 'to James Frederickson, Joe Davis and Kenneth Vetter
for the office of member of the Planning Commission. He asked the
City Attorney to give a brief explanation.
Bakersfield, California, April 19, 1971 Page
Mr. Hoagland stated that the City Clerk was served with
an order to show cause why a peremptory Writ of Mandate should not
issue and temporary restraining order. The temporary restraining
order enjoins and restrains from allowing James Frederickson, Joe
Davis and Kenneth Vetter and each of them, from assuming the office
of Planning Commissioners and pending the hearing on this matter,
the City Clerk is temporarily restrained and enjoined from adminis-
tering the Oath of Office to these three gentlemen. The petition
for Writ of Mandate alleges that the appointments were made illegally
in that no vacancy existed on the Planning Commission at the time of
the appointment of Mr. Frederickson and Mr. Davis, that the appoint-
ments were made prior to the expiration of their term which ended
on April 17, 1971. The allegation for Councilman Vetter's appoint-
ment was that his appointment was illegal because at the time of
his appointmen% he was a member of the City Council. Hearing on
the matter is set for April 30, 1971..
Councilman Bleecker commented
that if persons have expressed a desire
it has been his experience
to serve, and their attendance
has been regular, and they have done a good job on any Commission
or Committee, that many appointments are made a week or two or
maybe longer, before the actual expiration of the appointee's term.
He pointed out that on January 27, 1969, upon a motion by Council-
man Heisey, Councilman Hosking was appointed to serve as a member
of the Police Civil Service Commission to fill the unexpired term
of Mr. Ray Arnett, effective upon completion of his :term of office
as Councilman of the Fourth Ward for a six year term expiring
December 31, 1974. This motion carried unanimously, in 'fact
Councilman Whirremote voted for the seating of Councilman Hosking
as a member of the Police Civil Service Commission upon completion
of his office as ~Councilman.
So that there will be no misunderstanding whatsoever,
Councilman Bleeeker moved that Mr. Joe Davis and Mr. James Frederickson
be re-appointed for a new four year term on the Planning Commission
expiring April 17~ 1975.
351t
Bakersfield, California, April 19, 1971 - Page 8
Councilman Whittemore stated that he opposed the appoint-
ments because the longer you sit on the Council~ the more you
understand the proper manner for doing things, andat the~time he
voted to seat Councilman Hosking as a member of the Police Civil
Service Commission at the expiration of his term as Councilman, he
thought it was a correct and reasonable thing to do, and he voted
for it, but at this time he does not think it is legal to do this.
He asked the City Attorney for his opinion on making the appoint-
ments at this time.
Mr. Hoagland stated the court order is a temporary
restraining order and enjoins andrestrains these people from
assuming the office of Planning Commissioners pending the hearing,
based upon the fact that they were allegedly illegally appointed.
In the allegations it was stated that a vacancy did not exist by
virtue of the fact that their term had not expired. He stated that
it would make moot the allegation that these men were appointed
illegally, if since a vacancy does exist at the present time, the
appointment Was made at this time.
Councilman Whittemore called for a separation of the
question. Roll Call vote was~taken on the appointment of Mr.
James Frederickson as a member of the Planning Commission for a
four year term expiring on April 17, 1975. This motion carried
as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Stiern, Vetter
Noes: . Councilman Whittemore
Absent: None
Councilman Whirremote asked Mr. Hoagland if the Council
is in violation of any court order. Mr. Hoagland replied" I don't
believe so." Councilman Whittemore stated he didn't want him to
not believe so, he wanted a "yes" or "no" answer.
Roll Call vote was then taken on the appointment of Mr.
Joe Davis as a member of the Planning Commission for a four year
term expiring on April 17, 1975..This motion carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Stiern,
Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, April 19, 1971 - Page 9 ')~)'!
Councilman Vetter stated that if there was any doubt in
his mind that his appointment as a member of the Planning Commission,
if he is appointed, would in any way discredit the City of Bakers-
field, the Planning Commission, or the Council, he would ask that
he not be considered. He truly would like to serve on.the Planning
Commission, he would like to be involved in it. He does not feel
that anyone can point out anything to his discredit during the time
he has served as a member of the Council. He appreciated the vote
of confidence of the majority of the Council who voted for him to
serve on the Planning Commission, and he is looking forward to
continue to serve the City of Bakersfield, if this is~at all possible.
Councilman Bleecker commented that although he and Council-
man Vetter have not always agreed, he thinks that his four year's
experience on the Council makes him exceptionally qualified to be a
member of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Hart submitted the name of James Leonard Stewart,
1206 Princeton Avenue, for appointment as a member of the Redevelop-
ment Agency to fill the vacancy existing due to the resignation of
Mrs. Peggy Ghezzi on February 23, 1971. Upon a motion by Councilman
Heisey, the appointment of James L. Stewart as a member of the
Redevelopment Agency was ratified for a four year term expiring
February 1, 1975.
Councilman Vetter stated that it has been a real pleasure
to serve the City, and specifically the residents of the Sixth Ward.
He has truly enjoyed it and he feels that he has received much more
from it than he has contributed. Many things have been accomplished
in the last four years, and there is more to be done, specifically,
the redevelopment of the downtown area. Overall the Council has
been very progressive, the appointments made by this Council has
strengthened every Commission.
He complimented the City Manager and the Department Headm~
for the excellent job they have done. The City has good services.
The Council has tried very hard to keep the cost of government down
in the City of Bakersfield. During his four years, and for about
352
Bakersfield, California, April 19, 1971 -'Page 10
seven years prior to that, there has not been a tax rate increase
in the City of Bakersfield and that speaks well for past Councils,
and in fairness, it speaks well for this Council. It is very
important that people realize how their money is being spent in
government, and it is a tragedy that during budget hearings each
year the only people who ever appear are persons who have a specific
budget request.
This Council has been very responsive to the wishes of
the people and he cited the proposed charge for garbage pick-up.
It looked great on paper, but people just did not want it, and this
Council recognized the fact. It is easy for the Council to sit
down at budget time and tell people what is best for them, but if
the people do ~ot feel that way, it is the Council's obligation to
recognize this, and he believes this Council has done that.
Councilman Stiern stated he has never served quietly on
the Council and he wishes to make a serious statement on his last
night.
I have enjoyed my tenure on the City Council and I want
to congratulate this Mayor ~nd this Council for their good work on
behalf Of the taxpayers, they have done very well. I think we have
an outstanding City administration,'we have excellent department
heads and we have good employees.
I would just like to say at this point that I don't plan
to join the silent majority. I plan to work with an active and
interested group which calls itself "The Citizens for Good Local
Government." 'It is similar to the organization which worked so
hard for an equitable water program in the past, "Citizens Committee
for Good Water." We will work to make local government as efficient
and effective as possible. We will also probe and ask questions o~
our representatives, just as there are questions that need to be
asked right now and go begging for answers. Questions which the
community needs the answers to.
In. County government, must our County budget double in a
scant five years and must our County tax rate increase 95~ in one
year?
Bakersfield, California, April 19, 1971 - Page 11 ~)')'~
Why does the Supervisor not concern himself that City
residents pay twice for every service that they get? It is
certainly as an important consideration as an inedible algae-
flavored fish caught at a warm weed-infested pond. But the poor
quality fishing gets more consideration than the taxpayers of the
Cities do. Why can't the Supervisors hold public meetings in a
public place rather than a secluded out-of-the-way dining room on
Union Avenue.
In City government I think it would behoove the City
Council at the present time to study the campaign statements of
the various Council candidates that have been filed recently. No. 1.
Can a Councilman represent his entire City and his entire Ward, if
98% of his campaign expense of some $2500.00 comes solely from
union funds. No. 2. How can a Councilman list and spend $800.00
towards "Travel Expenses" in a Ward where he can only travel about
three square miles? It is pretty expensive shoe leather, I think.
No. 3. Was this $800.00 listed by the candidate as travel expenses
in fact a salary to the Councilman-elect paid from union leadership?
Will this salary paid by union leaders continue from the same source
each month, or can we now expect the Councilman in question to go
back to his former occupation? If he did receive such a salary or
continues to receive it, to whom will he be responsible? No. 4.
Did rank and file union members vote these campaign funds or was
the decision made by the local labor boss who recently took over
in our community?
No. 5. In another race where did the $500 come from
donated by Mr. Milton Younger, the attorney for the Firefighters
Union to an unsuccessful candidate in the Fifth Ward race. This
gift was $500.00 out of a total reported receipts by that candidate
of $559.00. Are the Firefighters trying to buy the City Council
outright?
These questions should be of considerable interest to the
remainder of the City Council. I hope they are in the months ahead[.
These questions must be asked for my constituents at the present
time and for all local taxpayers, I feel. Our Citizens Committee
will .work hard for good local government and I hope we will find
much to commend the new City Council for in the term ahead.
Bakersfield, California, April 19, 1971 - Page 12
Reports.
City Attorney Hoagland read a Legislative Report on
Assembly.Bill 813 by Assemblyman Knox, which proposes a Uniform
Annexation Act.. This Bill has the support of the Local Government
Committee of the Assembly and is sponsored by the League of Cali-
fornia Cities. It most likely will be controversial. The act
contemplates a revision of annexation procedures which are archaic
and unwieldy. It is recommended that the Council support AB 813,
the Uniform City Annexation Act.
Councilman Heisey then moved that the Council endorse
AB 8!3, and send letters supporting this Bill to all City Legis-
lators in Sacramento.
Councilman Whittemore. commented that the Council has
considered many bills on annexation, and this Legislative Report
is fine, but it doesn't give the refinements of the bill itself,
and he cannot support something on a condensed report of this
nature without being sure that the people in the unincorporated
areas will not be forced into annexing to the City and can make
their own decision whether they annex to the municipality or not.
Mr. Bergen quoted several specific statements from the
Bill itself, and stated that among other things, the Bill provides
that if there is a protest of 35% of the registered voters in an
area or 35% of the landowners, then the City Council must call a
special election. There was a lot of discussion at committee level
that the procedure for annexation should follow the procedures in
some of the other states where a vote is not required. But it was
the League of California Cities' position and the position of
Assemblyman Knox that these changes must be put in the Bill before
he would submit it.
Councilman Bleecker then made a substitute marion that
the matter be deferred for one week and that each Councilman be
furnished with a copy of the Bill for his perusal. Mr. Bergen asked
if a recap of the Bill would suffice as the Bill itself is quite
lengthy. Councilman Bleecker asked if the recap would explain each
and every aspect of the Bill in layman's terms. If so, a recap
would be sufficient. Vote was taken on the substitute motion,
which carried unanimously.
Bakersfield, California, April 19, 1971 - Page 13 ,~,)5
Consent Calendar.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Item (a) of the
Consent Calendar - Allowance of Claims Nos. 3551 fo 3684 inclusive,
in amount of $93,301.35 - was adopted by the following roll call
CouncilmenBleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Sfiern,
Vetter, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, unit prices bid by
Francis & Jacobs for the Improvement of Ming Avenue between Stine
Road and Real Road and the Paving of Median Islands on New Stine
Road from Stockdale Highway to Sundale Avenue was accepted, all
other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized ~o execute
the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman'Rees, low bid of Griffith
Co. for the resurfacing of portions of Mr. Vernon Avenue and Union
Avenue was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor
was authorized to execute the contract.
First reading of Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
adding Chapter 14.40 to Title 14 of
the Municipal Code regulating the
Sale of Safe and Sane Fireworks from
Temporary Fireworks Stands within
said City, and requiring Permit
therefore.
First reading was considered given Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield adding Chapter 14.40 to Title
14 of the Municipal Code regulating the Sale of Safe and Sane Fire-.
works from Temporary Fireworks Stands within said City, and requiring
Permit therefore.
Councilman Bleecker asked the City Manager if the County
had an Ordinance prohibiting the sale of fireworks and Mr. Bergen
replied that it did, however, it would not be applicable in the
City. Councilman Bleecker asked if the Board of Supervisors had
made any commenfs as to whether or not the County would adopt a
similar Ordinance. Mr. Bergen stated that the only comment he
received is that the County Fire Chief Williams called him today
vote:
Ayes:
356
Bakersfield, California~ April 19, 1971 - Page 14
and expressed some concern regarding lhe Ordinance. Mr. Bergen
told him that he didn't know exactly how strong the Council's
feeling was on it, but.he was ~ree to attend the City Council~
meeting or contact the Council and express his opinions. Chief
Williams told Mr. Bergen that considerable effort was brought
last year to get the Board of Supervisors to adopt this type of
Ordinance, but it wasn't success£ul.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1927 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Sections 3.18.010
through 3.18.050 and Sections 3.18.058
through 3.18.110, repealing Section
3.18.120, amending Sections 3.18.130
through 3.18.220 and adding Section
3.18.230 to Chapter 3.18 of Title 3 of
the Municipal Code, regulating Compen-
sation and other matters relating to
conditions of Employment.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 1927
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Sections 3.18.010 through 3.18.050 and Sections 3.18.058 through
3.18.110, repealing Section 3.18.120, amending Sections 3.18.230
to Chapter 3.18 of Title 3 of the Municipal Code, regulating Com-
pensation and other matters relating to conditions of Employment,
was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Stiern,
Vetter, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Minute Order relative to
overtime accumulated generally by
members of the Fire Department under
what was known as the.Merit System
in the Rules and Regulations.
After discussion, it was moved by Councilman Whittemore
that the following Minute Order be adopted by the Council:
At least for the last 30 years, under the Rules and
Regulations of the Fire Department of the City of Bakersfield,
overtime has been accumulated generally by members of lhe Fire
Department under what was known as the Merit System in the Rules
and Regulations.
The Merit System was one in which members working on
their off-shifts would receive certain merits which could be equated
with overtime compensation. The Merit System appeared to be somewhat
in conflict with the Ordinances and was a vehicle peculiar only to
the Fire Department. All our Ordinances, then and now, provide fer
overtime pay or compensatory time off for additional work, but the.
Ordinances vary in their application. Since the adoption of the
new Ordinance, the methods of accruing overtime pay and/or compen-
satory time off have been stringently controlled and will change
the foregoing methods of accumulating overtime, as has heretofore
been mentioned. After the effective date of the present Salary
Ordinance and Compensation Ordinance, overtime pay will be rigidly
controlled.
For those persons in the Fire Department who have over
these years accumulated overtime, they are to work them off by
taking compensatory time off prior to November 1, 1971. For those
persons who retire prior to November l, 1971, they are to be paid
compensation for their overtime upon their separation from the
service.
It is therefore suggested and recommended that the City
Council adopt this measure in order to clear the record of past
practices, with the recognition that new practices will preclude
overtime, except under strict and stringent control. This motion
was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Stiern,
Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1928 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 3.14.150
of Chapter 3.14, Bakersfield Municipal
Code, eliminating City residency re-
quirements and adding Section 3.14.151
establishing General Residency Require-
merits.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 1928
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section
3.14.150 of C~apter 3.14, Bakersfield Municipal Code, eliminating
City residency requirements and adding Section 3.14.151 establishing
General Residency Requirements was adopted
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees,
Vetter, Whittemore
Noes: None
by the following vote:
Rucker, Stiern,
Absent: None
35S
Bakersfield, California, April 19, 1971- Page 16
Approval of Boundaries of Proposed
Annexation designated as Union #4.
~pon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the boundaries of
proposed annexation designated as Union #4 were approved and referred
to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to LAFCO.
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Sections 17.15.010, 17.15.020,
and 17.15.080 of Chapter 17.15 of Title
17 of the Municipal Code regulating the
R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zone.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 17.15.010,
17.15.020, and 17.15.080 of Chapter 17.15 of Title 17 of the Muni-
cipal Code regulating the R-2 Limited Multiple Family Dwelling
zone.
Adoption of Resolution No. 38-71 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field to include a limited Portable
Concrete Batch Plant to the list of
permitted uses in an M-1 (Light Manu-
facturing) Zone, and that any Concrete
Batch Plant be required to first obtain
a written permit from the Air Pollution
Control Board before construction.
At a regular meeting held on April 7, 1971, to consider
a request to permit the operation of a Portable Concrete Batch
Plant in an M-1 Zone, it was the opinion of the Planning Commission
that the inclusion of an additional use, to-wit: Limited Portable
Concrete Batch Plant in an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zone would
not be more obnoxious or detrimental to the welfare of the com-
munity than the permitted uses specifically mentioned in Chapter
17.31 of Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code.
The C.ity Clerk read a communication from Dr. and Mrs.
Frederic A Lane, stating that they are concerned a~out potential
air pollution sources that could add to the existing countywide
problem. Uncontrolled concrete batch plants produce dust and in
order to assure.compliance with the Rules and Regulations of the
Kern County Air Pollution Control District and to minimize air
pollution fro~ the proposed concrete batch plants, they requested
the City Council to require advance review of construction plans
and written permit from the Air Pollution Control District prior
to issuance of a building permit for construction of any concrete
batch plants within the City of Bakersfield.
The Planning Director and the Administrative Staff
answered questions from the Council relative to the location and
size of this portable batch plant. Mr. Sceales informed the Council
of the uses permitted in a M-1 zone. Councilman Bleecker stated
that he would like to see the recommendations contained in Dr.
Lane's letter included in the Resolution and moved that Resolution
No. 38-71 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield to include a
limited portable concrete batch plant to the list of permitted uses
in an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zone be adopted including the words
"and that any Concrete Batch Plant be required to first obtain a
written permit from the Air Pollution Control Board before con-
this motion carried by the following
struction." After discussion,
roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker~
Noes: None
Absent: None
Heisey~ Rees~ Rucker, Stiern,
Vetter, Whittemore
Reception of City Clerk's Statement of
Votes cast at the Special Annexation
Election in Curran No. 1 held April 13,
1971.
Upon a motion by Councilman Stiern~ the City Clerk's
Statement of Votes cast at the Special Annexation Election in that
certain inhabited territory designated as Curran No. 1 held on
April 13, 1971, was received and ordered placed on file. The
statement read as follows:
Cons. Precinct No. 1
Cons. Precinct No. 2
Absentee Votes Cast
Total Votes Cast
Special Annexation Election
as Curran No.
YES NO
57 91
110
3
170 .
in that
1 is therefore declared to have
172
3
266
territory designated
failed to carry.
Bakersfield, California, April 19, 1971 - Page 18
City of Bakersfield and Wainwright & Ramsey,
Consultants, was approved, and the Mayor was
ApprOval of Agreement between City of
Bakersfield and Wainwright & Ramsey,
Inc. Financial Consultants.
Upon a motion by Councilman Vetter, Agreement between
Inc., Financial
authorized to execute
Request from Bakersfield Sandstone
Brick Company for abandonment of
that portion of Inyo Street extending
north of East Truxtun Avenue to a
point parallel with the southerly
line of the alley in Block 143
referred to the Planning Commission.
Upon a motion by Councilman .Stiern, request from the
Bakersfield Sandstone'Brick Company for abandonment of that portion
of Inyo Street extending north of ~East Truxtun Avenue to a point
parallel.with the southerly line of the alley in Block 143, was'
referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation.
Presentation of Keys to the City to
Vice-Mayor Richard A. Stiern and
Councilman Kenneth E. Vetter.
Mayor Hart commented that there is nothing he can say
this evening, or for that matter, at any time publicly, to com-
pensate and truly thank Dick Stiern for his twelve years of service
to the community. It is with ~dmiration and respect and in behalf
of the City of Bakersfield that he presents him with a Key to the
City of Bakersfield reading: To Dr~ Richard A. Stiern, Vice-Mayor.
In gratitude and with appreciation for your service to the City of
Bakersfield a~ Councilman and Vice-Mayor. 1959 to 1971.
Mayor Hart stated he would be remiss in not reflecting
here the real dedication that Kenneth E. Vetter has exhibited as
a Councilman. It has been a privilege to work with him and in
behalf of the people of the City, he presented him with a Key to
the City of Bakersfield reading: To Kenneth E. Vetter. In gratitude
and with appreciation for your service to
as Councilman of the Sixth Ward. 1967 to
the City of Bakersfield
1971.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, the meeting was adjourned at
10:15 P.M.
/
YOR o t~kersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
0~;~~-o'~~ o~ ~e ~ou~c~
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, April 26, 1971
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 26, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Robert
Kuyper of the First United Methodist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker,
Whittemore
Absent:
approved
Councilmen Stiern, Vetter
Minutes of the regular meeting of April 19, 1971.were
as presented.
Adjournment.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees,
the Council adjourned.
Newly Elected Council Members
Sworn in by City Clerk.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and
Loyalty Oath to the following newly elected Councilmen:
Present:
Walter F. Heisey Councilman Second Ward
Clarence E. Medders Councilman Fifth Ward
Don L. Thomas Councilman Sixth Ward
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
the
Absent: None
Election of Vice-Mayor.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Rucker, Councilman Whittemore was unanimously elected Vice-Mayor
of the City of Bakersfield, by the following roll call vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Appointment of Kenneth E. Vetter as
Member of the Planning Commission.
Councilman Heisey stated that in the best interests of
both economically and otherwise, he would move to re-
nomination of Kenneth E. Vetter as a member of the
the City,
affirm the
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, April 26, 1971 - Page 2 '{~)~{
Planning Commission, as his term as Councilman of the Fifth Ward
expired this evening.
Councilman Whirremote commented that it isn't a foregone.
conclusion that Mr. Vetter is a member of the Planning Commission,
or that he should be reaffirmed as such, it is a question of legality.
The Municipal Code states that an immediate appointment will be made
to fill a vacancy, which was not done. He asked City Attorney
Hoagland for a legal opinion on the matter. Mr. Hoagland stated
he doesn't believe the restraining order applies to the appointment
of Mr. Vetter as he is no longer a member of the Council. Council-
man Whittemore then offered the name of Mr. John Wiley to serve as
a member of the Planning Commission.
After considerable discussion,
on the appointment of Kenneth E. Vetter
roll call vote was taken
as member of the Planning
Commission for a four year term expiring April 17, 1975, which
carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker
Noes: Councilmen Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Appointment of Council
Standing Committees.
Councilman Whittemore proposed
following Council Standing Committees:
the appointment of the
VOUCHER APPROVAL
Clarence E. Medders, Chairman
Keith Bleecker
Don L. Thomas
CITY-COUNTY COOPERATION
Don L. Thomas, Chairman
Clarence E. Medders
Samuel Del Rucker
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT & PARKING
Keith Bleecker, Chairman
Samuel Del Rucker
Don L. Thomas
WATER & CITY GROWTH
Walter F. Heisey, Chairman
Robert N. Whirremote
Raymond E. Rees
AUDITORIUM & RECREATION
Samuel Del Rucker, Chairman
Walter F. Heisey
Clarence E. Medders
BUDGET REVIEW & FINANCE
Raymond E. Rees, Chairman
Walter F. Heisey
Robert N. Whittemore
GOVERNMENTAL EFFICIENCY & PERSONNEL
Robert N. Whittemore, Chairman
Keith Bleecker
Raymond E. Rees
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore,
of Committees, as proposed, was approved.
the assignment
Bakersfield, California, April 26, 1971 - Page 3
Appointment of Councilman Raymond E.
Rees to serve as Council's Legislative
representative.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, seconded by
Councilman Rucker, Councilman Raymond E. Rees was appointed to
serve as the Council's Legislative representative.
Appointment of Councilman Robert N.
Whirremote as Council representative
on the Planning Commission.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Councilman Robert N.
Whittemore was appointed as Council representative on the Planning
Commission.
Correspondence.
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, 1971, was referred
Efficiency and Personnel Committee for study
to the Governmental
and recommendation.
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey referred to pictures carried in the
Bakersfield Californian on Wednesday, April 21, 1971, of a Gus
Davidson, Kern County Economic Opportunity Corporation staff member,
who displayed a candid camera photograph of himself sleeping which
hangs on the wall of the Eureka Street Headquarters. The news
article stated that Councilman Heisey was mistaken in his contention
that this photograph was a picture of Black Panther Leader Huey
Newton. Councilman Heisey stated that he wished to assure the com-
munity and the Bakersfield Californian that he was not mistaken,
that he did see Huey Newton's picture at the office of KCEOC, dis-
played on the wall. There is a picture on file in the news files
of Channel 29 of Huey Newton which was photographed by a newscaster
from this studio at the office of KCEOC. He feels that the public
should know that an obvious fraud was perpetrated on the newspaper
by this Corporation.
Councilman Rees introduced nine high school students and
their advisor from East Bakersfield High School, who are involved
in the American Field Service Organization. Five of them are
American Students who hope to attend school in other nations next
year; four of them are students from Panama, Norway, Guatamala and
Uruguay.
Bakersfield, California, April 26, 1971 - Page 4 '-' ~'~
Councilman Thomas made the following statement:
I'd like to thank the voters and the residents of
the Sixth Ward of Bakersfield for supporting me in
my candidacy and I want to say that I will serve
the residents of the Ward to the best of my ability.
I wish to point out that I represent all people of
the Ward and the City. I am not interested in
dignifying the innuendos that were recently made
against me. I pledge to represent the people of
the Ward and the City of Bakersfield in a fair
manner and not to cater to any special interests.
As a working man I received considerable support
from working men and women of the community. I
came here to work on City business. I am not
interested in entering into a partisan debate
with sour grape types of innuendos and Charges.
The campaign is over, so for my part the question
is closed. Let's get on with what the voters
sent us here to do - conduct City business.
Councilman Whirremote stated that he will need some help
from the press on the matter he is about to bring up. A couple of
the service groups in East Bakersfield and some citizens have con-
tacted him relative to the fact that for over a year the State
Building on Kentucky Street, which is well-painted and bears the
Governor's name over the doorway, is not flying the American Flag
as required by State law. One of the Assemblymen has been contacted
on various occasions and he has not been able to convince the staff
that the American Flag should be flown. In the past the news media
has taken up a crusade of this nature and he feels that it is worth-
while to make the effort to show patriotism and fly the American
Flag daily on State Buildings.
Councilman Medders made the following statement:
I would like to take this opportunity to again
thank the voters of the Fifth Ward for helping
me with the write-in campaign. People said it
couldn't be done, but we did it. So maybe that's
a first, but with a group of energetic people,
there might be some more firsts. A good many of
these people are here tonight and I want to wel-
come them.
As the incoming Fifth Ward Councilman, I expect
to do my best to represent all of the people of
the Ward, from the corner of 8th and "~" Streets
to the intersection of California Avenue Extension.
In the beginning I am faced with a gigantic problem.
That problem is following Dr. Stiern who has served
12 years on the Council. As a constituent and now
366
Bakersfield, California, April 26, 1971 - Page 5
his successor, I want to thank Dr. Stiern on behalf
of the citizens of the Fifth Ward for his many years
of dedicated service. I wish him every success in
his new endeavors, and hope that he will be available
from time to time for consultation.
I did not seek the Council seat because I was dis-
satisfied with the way things were going. I have
no proverbial bone to pick with anyone. I think
the City of Bakersfield offers excellent services
to its citizenry. I feel that we are blessed with
very fine personnel who do their jobs conscientiously
and well. I do believe that local and state finances
may well become critical in the not too distant
future, if indeed they have not reached that point
already. School districts recently received an
indication of what the:taxpayer thinks of adding
more to his tax bill. A negative vote on some
school issues does not mean that people are against
schools per se, but it rather well indicates that
people are having difficulty paying the increased
revenues, in many cases on fixed incomes.
Many people in the City of Bakersfield are faced
with this same dilemma. It behooves the City and
County to work together for the elimination of
duplication of services, as some people are paying
taxes again, on some services they are paying the
City and the County, and I think it is wrong.
I will be available to the people of my Ward by
telephone aside from school hours. I am setting
aside Thursday evening from 7 to 9 for the people
who wish to see me. I have a room set up for this
purpose and I hope to make good use of it. I am
urging my constituents to contact me. I have no
better way of knowing how people feel and I cer-
tainly urge them to discuss these issues with me.
Hindsight I have in abundance, it's foresight I
need the help with.
In closing, I'm happy to be a member of the Bakers-
field City Council and I hope to be an asset to the
Fifth Ward and the entire City of Bakersfield.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 3685 to 3735,
inclusive, in amount of $18,490.21.
(b)
Sewer Easements from Elwood M. Engledue,
Charlie Lum, The Methodist Church, and
the Panama School District, for the pro-
posed Planz Road Trunk Sewer.
(c)
Street Right of Way Deed from Andrew P.
Pounds, for widening of Belle Terrace at
Golden State School.
(d)
Plans and Specifications for Constructing
Median Island Irrigation System on Panorama
Drive and Columbus Street.
Bakersfield, California, April 26, 1971 - Page 6 ~)[) ~
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Items (a), (b),
(c) and (d) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following
vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1929 New
Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Sections
17.15.010, 17.15.020, and 17.15.080
of Chapter 17.15 of Title 17 of the
Municipal Code regulating the R-2
Limited Multiple-Family Dwelling
Zone.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
1929 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Sections 17.15.010, 17.15.020, and 17.15.080 of Chapter 17.15 of
Title 17 of the Municipal Code regulating the R-2 Limited Multiple.-
Family Dwelling Zone, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1930 New
Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield adding Chapter 14.40
to Title 14 of the Municipal Code
regulating the Sale of Safe and
Sane Fireworks from temporary Fire-
works Stands within said City and
requiring permit therefor.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
1930 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adding
Chapter 14.40 to Title 14 of the Municipal Code regulating the
Sale of Safe and Sane Fireworks from temporary Fireworks Stands
within said City, and requiring permit therefor, was adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, April 26, 1971 - Page
Council opposes Assembly Bill 813
by Assemblyman Knox - Uniform
Annexation Act.
The Council engaged in a discussion relative to Legis-
lative Report on Assembly Bill 813 by Assemblyman Knox - Uniform
Annexation Act which was deferred from last week's meeting for
further study by the Council. This bill represents the first
comprehensive revision of California Annexation Laws in more than
50 years. It eliminates ambiguous and conflicting provisions and
provides for an orderly procedure. Among the major changes, it
permits the City to initiate annexation and it permits annexation
of City-owned non-contigous territory. It maintains the requirement
for a special election in inhabited territory where there is
expression by the property owners that they do not wish to annex.
City Attorney Hoagland explained.the difference between
the existing Annexation Statutes, which are considered archaic
and unwieldy, and the proposed Bill.
Councilman Bleecker stated that this proposed Bill may
clarify the provisions of the existing annexation laws, but he
firmly believes that it should not be the prerogative of the
taxing body to initiate matters of annexation to that taxing body,
that the initiative should come, and it usually does in most issues,
from the people themselves. It is proposed to change existing
legislation so that the City can start the annexation and the
people opposed to it would have to vote against it. For this
reason, he would oppose Assembly Bill 813 and he would advise the
Council to do likewise.
Councilman Whittemore agreed with Councilman Bleecker.
The City would be using taxpayers money to promote an annexation
and the people living in the unincorporated areas who would wish
to oppose it, would have to use their private funds in order to
fight it. It is another attempt by organized government to force
people to either expend money to fight the annexation, or be annexed
involuntarily. He has been opposed to this, as he feels that the
initiation of any annexation should be by the people of the unin-
corporated areas.
Bakersfield, California, April 26, 1971 - Page 8 ~}~'~
City Manager Bergen stated that under the present statutes
the. City is not permitted to initiate annexations. Under the pro-
posed legislation it does not require a City to initiate it, it
merely adds to the procedures that LAFCO could initiate it, property
owners could initiate it, or the City could initiate it. He ex-
plained that the property owner who wishes to annex at the present
time is required to obtain the signatures of 25% of the property
owners in the area on a petition. Under the proposed Bill, if a
property owner desires to annex, and the Council approves it, the
Council can initiate the proceedings. He pointed out that the City
is paying County taxes on its property located outside the City
boundaries, and under this particular statute the City could annex
these properties and eliminate the taxes. If a petition of over
35% of the registered voters is received opposing the annexation,
then a special election is required. There are many sections in
the Bill which would be of considerable benefit to the City of
Bakersfield.
Councilman Heisey stated that with the formation o£ LAFCO,
which sits as an arbitrator and judge to decide which annexations
are of benefit to the people, all the safeguards are present as
far as the people in the outer areas are concerned, and he thinks
this is progressive legislation which has been necessary for a
long period of time and the cities need this revision of the annexa-
tion laws.
Councilman Bleecker commented that in his opinion this
legislation violates the inherent right of the people to the right
of referendum for annexation, and at the same time it tells those
persons that if they don't want to come into the City, they must
protest it by carrying around the same type of petition which they
formerly had to do to become annexed to the City initially.
Councilman Thomas asked what percent of the property
owners must protest before the Council to terminate an annexation.
Mr. Bergen stated that
filed by the owners of
proposed to be annexed,
the present law states if protests are
one-half of the value of the territory
the proceedings shall be terminated.
Bakersfield, California, April 26, 1971 - Page 9
Councilman Heisey reminded the Council that this Bill
was sponsored and endorsed by the League of California Cities.
He then made a motion that the Council support AB 813 and notify
the City Legislators in Sacramento of this action. Roll call
vote
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker,
None
Councilman Bleecker
zed to direct a
taken on the motion failed to carry as follows:
Councilmen Heisey, Rees, Rucker
Medders, Thomas, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
None
then moved that the Mayor be authori-
letter to the State Legislators in Sacramento
the Council of the City of Bakersfield failed
This motion failed to carry by the following
Councilmen Bleecker, Thomas, Whittemore
Councilman Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker
Adoption of Resolution No. 39-71 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field, State of California, extending
time by 30 days within which the
removal of Overhead facilities and
Underground installation shall be
completed by Utilities in Underground
Utility District No. 2
After discussion, Councilman Heisey, moved adoption of
Resolution No. 39-71 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield,
State of California, extending time by 30 days within which the
removal of Overhead facilities and Underground installation shall
be completed by Utilities in Underground Utility District No. 2.
This motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
notifying them that
to support AB 813.
roll call vote:
Bakersfield, California, April 26, 1971 - Page 10 ~,)7 I
Councilman Whittemore requested that before any further
areas are included in Utility Districts, the City Attorney prepare
a report to the Council and explain exactly what effect these
Districts will have, because it is his understanding that in many
cases it will work a hardship on the property owners who will be
expected to pay the cost of installation of these underground
facilities.
Hearings.
This is the time set for hearing protests, objections or
appeals in respect to the diagram, assessment and work done in
Public Improvement District No. 854, (Construction and Installation
of Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Driveway Approaches and necessary
drainage facilities)adjacent to Lots 1 through 90, Tract No. 1171,
Lots 88 through 131, Tract No. 1232, and the south 135' feet of the
Block bounded by Owens, Murdock, Robinson Streets and Virginia
Avenue, in the City of Bakersfield under and pursuant to Resolution
of Intention No. 854 and the Improvement Act of 1911.
This hearing has been duly advertised and notices of
assessment sent to all affected property owners. No written
protests were filed in the City Clerk's office.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received and no one
speaking in favor of the Public Improvement District, the Mayor
declared the public portion of the meeting closed for Council
deliberation and action.
Councilman Rucker commented that the construction of the
curbs, gutters and sidewalks did not improve the area as the property
owners desired because the rough streets need some type of resur-
facing by the City.
Public Works Director stated that the City fully intends
to resurface all the streets in this area as soon as the weather
permits.
Councilman Rucker then moved adoption of Resolution No.
40-71 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, pro-
viding for contribution of part of the cost of expenses of certain
Bakersfield, California, April 26, 1971 - Page 11
work completed in Public Improvement District No.
carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Rucker,
Resolution No. 41-71 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield,
California, making determinations and confirming Assessment of
the cost of doing the Work ordered pursuant to Resolution of
Intention No. 854, by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
854. This motion
Appointment of Councilman Clarence
Medders as second member of the
Legislative Committee.
Councilman Heisey remarked that it had just occurred to
him it would be a good idea to expand the Legislative Committee to
two members, so that one Councilman would be available at all times.
He nominated Councilman Clarence Medders to serve with Councilman
Rees on this c.ommittee.
Councilman Whittemore stated he had no opposition to this
but he hoped it would not interfere with the special committee
appointed by the Mayor to study the effects of the Williamson Land
Act and report back to the Council. The committee would like to
continue with :this study until it arrives at a report stage.
Councilman Whirremote pointed out that if Councilman Medders joined
this committee, its meetings would be in violation of the Brown
Act with four members present.
Mayor Hart commented that the special committee could
be restructured and re-appointed Councilman Bleecker and Whittemore,
with Councilman Rees to act as Chairman, to serve on the special
committee.
Bakersfield, California, April 26, 1971 - Page 12
Councilman Medders was
Committee by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstaining:
then appointed to the Legislative
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey,
Whirremote
None
None
Councilman Medders
Rees, Rucker, Thomas
Councilman Whittemore stated that if there was no further
business, he would move that the Council meeting adjourn. City
Manager Bergen asked if adjournment could be held up as he had
what he considered an urgent Minute Order to submit to the Council.
Councilman Bleecker asked if the staff could submit some-
thing to the Council after a motion had been made to adjourn.
Mayor Hart stated that adjournment had priority. Councilman Heisey
suggested that the GEPC Committee meet after adjournment to act on
the proposed Minute Order. Councilman Rucker commented that if the
City Manager considered the business important enough to come before
the Council, the motion to adjourn should be withdrawn. Councilman
Thomas requested that the motion to adjourn be withdrawn. Council-
man Whirremote withdrew his motion. Mr. Bergen read sections of
the Salary Ordinance, and submitted the following Minute Order for
consideration of the Council:
MINUTE ORDER
TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT POLICY - SANITATION DIVISION
On occasion, employees of the Sanitation Division are
required to temporarily assume all of the duties and responsi-
bilities of a higher classification.
A. REFUSE COLLECTION SECTION:
When a Sanitation Crewman I receives a tempo-
rary assignment to a Sanitation Crewman II
for two or more consecutive hours, the person
so assigned shall be compensated at the rate
of 5% above his present rate of pay for the
entire duration of the temporary assignment.
Bakersfield, California, April 26, 1971 - Page 13
B. REFUSE DISPOSAL SECTION (Landfill Operation):
When a Sanitation Crewman I receives a temporary
assignment to an Equipment Operator III for two
or more consecutive hours, the person so assigned
shall be compensated at the rate of 5% above his
present rate of pay for the entire duration of
the temporary assignment.
C. NIGHT SWEEPING SECTION:
On a special occasion, when a Utility Man receives
a temporary assignment to a Motor Sweeper Operator
for four or more consecutive hours, the person so
assigned shall be compensated at the rate of 5%
above his present rate of pay for the entire dura-
tion of the special temporary assignment.
To assure the department that these temporary assignments
are filled by qualified personnel, preference will be given to men
who have qualified for the higher class on the basis of their
ranking on the eligible list. In the absence of an eligible list,
seniority in grade in the subordinate class shall be considered.
Councilman Bleecker commented that there might not be
anything at all wrong with this proposed Minute Order. However, he
doesn't think it proper for the staff to propose a Minute Order to
the Council without first having gone through a committee of the
Council. It is his understanding that these 5% increases have
been paid by the City for some time and he believes that the proper
thing to do is to act on a Minute Order that was submitted by a
Council Committee or a Councilman. He then moved that the Minute
Order be referred to the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
Committee for study and recommendalton.
Councilman Rees stated that he is on the GEPC to which
this Minute Order was referred and he does not feel that a more
detailed explanation would be made in a Committee meeting than
has already been given by the City Manager in the Caucus Room and
on the Council floor. The Manager is hired to bring matters of
this nature before the Council and if the Manager says this is
urgent, as far as he is concerned, it is urgent.
Bakersfield, California, April 26, 1971 - Page 14
Councilman Heisey called for the question and Councilman
Bleecker's motion failed to carry by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders
Noes: Councilmen Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Councilman Rees moved that the Minute Order be adopted.
After discussion, the motion carried by the following roll call
vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Medders
None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore,
adjourned at 9:32 P.M.
the
the meeting was
Calif.
ATTEST:
·
C~.~ ~'~-' - rk of the
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Council
376 Bakersfield, California, May 3, 1971
Minutes of
City of Bakersfield, California,
the City Hall at eight o'clock P.
The meeting was called
the regular meeting of the Council of the
held in the Council Chambers of
M., May 3, 1971.
to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend George
Woodgates of the All Saints Episcopal Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Minutes of meeting of
April 26, 1971 were approved as corrected.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, communication from
Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District enclosing payment
for maintenance and beautifying the Beale Avenue Overpass, was
received and ordered placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, notice from Division
of Highways of relinquishment of frontage roads adjacent to 178
Freeway was received and ordered placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, communication
from United States Senator John V. Tunney, in reply to Mayor Hart's
letter urging that the inland route be included in Railpax, was
received and ordered placed on file. Senator Tunney advised that
he has examined the two Bills mentioned by the Mayor but he doubts
they will provide a meaningful solution to the. problem of providing
rail service to the San Joaquin Valley and recommended that cities
investigate the possibility of contracting with Railpax for the
service.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, communication from
Vernon G. Smith, County Road Commissioner, containing comments and
recommendations regarding the Panorama Drive Development Access
Road within the City of Bakersfield, was received and ordered placed
on file and referred to the Planning Commission.
Bakersfield, California, May S, 1971 - Page
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Notice from Division
of Highways that a traffic switch to the new alignment of Freeway
178, the crosstown Freeway beyond Oswell Street to the East, is
scheduled for Thursday, May 6, 1971, was received and ordered
placed on file.
Mayor Hart reported on a communication received from
Mayor Ujita of Wakayama, advising that the citizens of Bakersfield"s
Sister City were very pleased that Bakersfield had suffered no
damage as a result of the earthquake in
Mayor Ujita informed Mayor Hart that he
Japan Red Cross in Tokyo demanding that
the Los Angeles area.
had sent a letter to the
the United States prisoners
of War be accorded the courtesies of the Geneva Conference and
permitted to communicate with their families.
Reports.
The City Clerk read a report submitted by Frank D. Casey,
Assistant to the Finance Director, in response to a request made at
an earlier Council meeting by Mayor Hart, on the subject of City
use of recycled materials and sale of used materials to be recycled[
by private industry.
Mr. Casey pointed out that the City of Bakersfield is
presently participating in an active program of selling used
machinery, equipment and materials that have a reuse value.
Materials such as scrap metal, cardboard, and used data processing
tab cards are sold to private enterprise companies for recycling.
In addition to surplus materials sales, the City makes
use of many of its own surplus or used materials, such as treated
sewer waste water to irrigate the City farm property, use of sewer
sludge for fertilizer by the Parks Division, which also collects
leaves and grass cuttings and deposits them onto compost piles.
All new paper stock being purchased by the City of Bakers-
field has varying degrees of recycled paper in its composition,
thus the City is participating in the use of recycled paper
materials.
At the present time the City is making no attempt to
segregate the garbage or trash collected by its Refuse Division,
but this may be a future possibility. In segregating the trash,
such materials as aluminum cans, glass and scrap metals could be
salvaged and might be put to some kind of reuse by the City or
sold to private salvage companies.
The possibility of collecting, separating and storing
scrapped mixed paper, discarded by City employees, for eventual
sale was studied and it was found that at this time, it could be
a highly inefficient endeavor. There is, however, a market for
used newspaper. The Bakersfield Association for Retarded Children
has made the suggestion that the City allow it to place a newspaper
receptacle bin on one of the employee parking lots at the rear of
City Hall so that used newspapers from City Hall and City employees
can be placed in this receptacle.
After a rather limited study, it becomes apparent that
the City has in reality been participating in recycling programs
for many years. This does not mean that the City is now doing all
that can ever be done, but it does indicate that much thought has
been given and several programs implemented for the recycling of
used and/or surplus materials. This study has indicated that
someday it may become possible that most materials discarded by
citizens can be recycled and reused in some form. Due notice will
be given the City Council when such a program becomes feasible.
Councilman Rees commented that if the City is doing all
these things, he thinks that considerable pride should be taken
in this action. He is impressed by the excellent report and stated
that Mr. Frank Casey should be conunended for his fine work. Council-
man Heisey agreed, but he feels there is much more that can be done
by recycling than the report has indicated. He stated that he has
been contacted by a private company which recycles materials and
its owners would like to discuss with the City staff the feasibility
of separating cans, papers and scrap metals from the City refuse
collections and recycle this material at their plant.
Bakersfield, California, May 3, 1971 - Page
Mr. Bergen stated that if the Council has no objections,
a receptacle will be placed on the City Hall parking lot for pickup
of newspapers by the Bakersfield Association for.Retarded Children.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, the report on City
use of recycled materials was received and ordered placed on file.
Councilman Rees, member of the Council's Legislative
Committee, reported to the Council on Senate Bill 249 by Senator
Grunsky which increases retirement benefits for those retiring on
or after July l, 1971, at age 63 or earlier. The compulsory retire-
ment age would be reduced from age 70 to 67. This is only applicable
to miscellaneous employees of the State and those cities which have
contracted with P.E.R.S., which includes the City of Bakersfield.
The employee contribution would be 7% for all miscellaneous members.
The employee would not be entitled to a service retirement benefit
until he or she completes five years of service. The rate of con-
tribution for the employer would be 7.65% of the employee's salary,
as opposed to 6.934% now in existence. The total annual cost under
existing circumstances would run approximately $15,000. The increase
in benefits to the employee would be, up to age 63, approximately
20%. This Bill has been endorsed by Governor Reagan for all State
employees.
Councilman Rees commented that this Bill is non-partisan
and non-controversial and has been supported by both parties.
Actually it represents the benefits from more profitable use of the
State Retirement Funds.
Councilman Heisey asked in what way it would serve the
best interests of the taxpayers of the City of Bakersfield. He
stated that he did not have all the information he needs to support
the Bill.
Mr. Bergen stated that if the City can take advantage of
the State's change in the plan based on a better use of retirement
funds, he believes it would behoove the City to do it. It has been
years since there has been an improvement in the benefits for
miscellaneous employees of the City. This proposed legislation
amounts to an increased cost of approximately 7% to the City, while
it increases to approximately 20% the retirement benefits for
employees retiring on or after July 1, 1971. The City annually
Bakersfield, California, May 3, 19?l - Page 5
spends $203,795 on retirement contributions for miscellaneous
employees, while contributions to public safety employees' retire-
ment amounts toi$§20,000 per year.
After discussion, Councilman Rees moved that the position
of the Council endorsing Senate Bill 249 be transmitted to the
City's Legislative representatives in Sacramento.
Stating that it represented a cent and a quarter on the
tax bill, Councilman Heisey offered a substitute motion that the
Council take no position On Senate Bill 249.
Councilman Rucker stated that he is going to support
this Bill because he feels that anything ~the Council-can~do to
improve the retirements benefits for City employees should be
done, as in his opinion, it would result in improvement, of City
services.
Councilman Rees commented that employers everywhere,
whether they be in public or private business, are trying to do
what they can to improve their employee's morale and when they
can get what to'him appears to be a bargain at a minimum cost to
the City, the Council should take advantage of it. He cannot
understand why a non-controversial bill of this kind should be
made into an issue before the Council.
Roll call vote taken on Councilman Heisey's substitute
failed to carry as follows: ~
motion
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilman Heisey
Councilmen Medders, Rees,
Councilman Bleecker
Roll call vote taken on
to support Senate Bill 249 carried as
Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
Councilman Rees' original motion
follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Medders,
Councilman Heisey
Councilman Bleecker
Rees,
Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Bakersfield, California, May 3, 1971 - Page 6
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 3736 to 3838,
inclusive, in amount of $92,458.13.
(b) Change Order No. 2 to Hemisphere Con-
structors in amount of $476.72 for the
Southwest Bakersfield Water Pollution
Control Facility.
(c) Acceptance of Work and Notice of Completion
for Contract No. 17-71 to Field & Gooch,
for the relocation of Sewers at Brundage
Lane and Mt. Vernon Avenue.
Councilman Medders moved adoption of the Consent Calendar
and recommended approval and payment of Budget Transfer in amount
of $4,644.00 from Fund No. 33-510-6100 to Fund No. 33-592-9500.
This transfer provides for contribution of the City's share of the
expenses of certain work completed in Public Improvement District
No. 854. This motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Meddlers, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, bid of Moore Business
Forms for Annual Contract for printing Special Forms was accepted,
all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the contract.
Adoption of Resolution No. ~43-71 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield,
California,. deleting a Council Meeting
in the month of May, 1971.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No.
43-71 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California,
deleting Council Meeting of May 10, 1971, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders,
Whitfemore
None
Councilman Bleecker
Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Bakersfield, California, May 3, 1971 - Page 7
Approval of Contract with the Bakers-
field City School District for
'Transportation to Day Camp.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, contract with the
Bakersfield City School District for use of buses to transport
boys and girls to Camp Okihi was approved, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute same.
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 864 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, declaring its inten-
tion to order the vacation of the
Alley in Block 421-B and a portion
of Cedar Street, City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution of
Intention No. 864 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield,
California, declaring its intention to order the vacation of the
Alley in Block 421-B and a portion of Cedar Street, City of Ba~ers-
field, and setting May 17, 1971 for hearing on the matter before
the Council, was a'dopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Approval of Contract with Panama
School District for Recreational
Services.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, contract with the
Panama School District for recreational services was approved and
the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of Contract with Musician's
Union Local 263 for Band Concerts.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, contract with Musician's
Union Locat 263 for seven band concerts to be held in Beale Park
as the annual summer recreation program was approved, and'the
Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Hearings.
This is the time set for hearing before the Council on
Resolution of Intention No. 863 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield, California, declaring its intention to order the
Bakersfield, California, May 3, 1971 - Page 8
vacation of Sewer Easement No. 3, Block 2, California Avenue Park
Tract No. 2, in the City of Bakersfield. This hearing has been
duly advertised and no written protests have been filed in the
City Clerk's office.
Mayor Hart
patton. No protests
speaking in favor of
declared the meeting open for public partici-
or objections being received, and no one
the vacation, the public hearing was closed
for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman
Rucker, Resolution No. 42-71 of the Council of the City of Bakers-
field ordering the vacation of Sewer Easement No. 3, Block 2,
California Avenue Park Tract No. 2, in the City of Bakersfield,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on application by James L. Stewart to amend the zoning boundaries
from an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectrual
Design) Zone to an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) or more restrictive,
Zone, of that certain property commonly known as 3900 through 4020
South Real Road and 3700 through 3860 Marjal Avenue. This hearing
was duly advertised and posted and no written protests were filed
in the City Clerk's office.
The zone change includes 19 lots in Tract No. 3201. The
only lots to remain R-3-D are Lots 72 through 78 facing on White
Lane and Lots 1 and 2 facing on Real Road. The Planning Commission
recommends approval of the zone change as submitted.
Mayor Hart declared the meeting open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received and no one
speaking in favor of the zone change, the public hearing was closed
for Council deliberation and action.
384
Bakersfield, California, May 3, 1971 - Page 9
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Council, upon a motion
adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
1931 New Series amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code by changing
the Land Use Zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakers-
field commonly known as 3900 through 4020 South Real Road and 3700
through 3860 Marjal Avenue, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
None
Councilman Bleecker.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
by Councilman Rucker, the meeting was
MAYOR ~/t~ie~C~t~ of Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
and Ex~-Offi~io Clerk of the 'Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
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 17, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Edward
K. Ziegler of the Church of the Brethren.
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 May 3,
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. L. S. Van Voorhis, Assistant District
charge of Planning for the Division
Fresno, submitted a progress report
Resolution of December, 1969, which
1971 were
Engineer in
of Highways, District VI in
in response to the City Council's
requested the State Division
of Highways to make freeway studies on State Route 58 and 178
between Interstate 5 and "M" Street in Bakersfield. At the com-
mencement of the studies, the State Division of Highways suggested
that a Citizens Committee be appointed to work with the State staff
so that it could have the advantage of local thinking. Ten meetings
have been held with the Technical Coordinating Committee, which is
made up of the City's staff, the County's staff and members of the
Division of Highways. Three meetings were held with the Citizens
Committee appointed by the Council and chaired by Councilman
Bleecker.
With the assistance
presented overlays on a large
and explained alternate routes
of his staff, Mr. Van Voorhis
traffic assignment map and aerials
which the Citizens Committee has
requested the State to investigate. He stated that both the City
and County staffs have recommended the State confine its efforts
to seven alternate routes.
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 - Page 2
At the present time they are conducting the next phase
which is the engineering studies of the more precise location of
the various alternates. The next thing that will be done is to
arrange a meeting with the technical staff for review of the de-
tailed studies and then a meeting with the Citizens Committee for
review and discussion of the next phase, which he believes will be
within two or three weeks.
Mayor Hart thanked Mr. Van Voorhis for his excellent
report.
Don Hoffman, Executive Secretary of the Fire Fighters
Local No. 1301, addressed the Council and read the following
communication:
In December of 1970 the City Council passed
Ordinance No. 1897 that removed the experienced
women operators from the Bakersfield Fire De-
partment Alarm Office. Arguments against
passage of this Ordinance were valid and there
were too many reasons why it should not have
been passed.
Placing Firefighters in the responsible position
of Alarm Dispatcher on a part time basis was and
is a dangerous experiment. As four Firefighters
are required to operate the dispatch office the
claim of saving money is false.
Part time dispatchers are not as efficient as
full time professional operators.
Removing four Firefighters from the fire sup-
pression force to man the alarm office causes
engine and truck companies to run short-handed.
During arguments against this bad legislation a
petition signed by 94 members of the Bakersfield
Fire Department was presented to the City Council.
These men were rightly concerned that this trial
and error method of operation would decrease the
efficiency of the department.
Councilman Whittemore took his time to contact
21 Fire Departments in California of the approxi-
mate size of Bakersfield, and of the 21 departments
surveyed, sixteen Fire Chiefs stated that the pro-
posed method of operation could not work efficiently,
four stated they had never considered it and one
said it would be satisfactory as it would get rid
of women and their problems.
We know of no other department that uses the Bakers-
field method. A common sense observation will
reveal that the best trained Firefighters cannot
do their jobs if they cannot find or are delayed
in reaching an emergency.
We respectfully request that Ordinance No. 1897 be
rescinded and that the trained Fire Alarm Operators
who were replaced by part time personnel, be asked
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 - Page 3
to return to their former positions and any lost
salary be reimbursed, with any salaries or annuities
earned in that period to be subtracted from the
back salary.
If the Council sees fit to do this, it is requested
that this be made effective as of June 1, 1971.
Mr. Bergen, City Manager, stated as follows:
After the pre-meeting and just before 8 P.M., I was
given a copy of the letter addressed to the City Council dated
May 14th. The Committee and Council was given the same information
that was given to me, and my recommendation on this subject, like
the decision of the Council was
debate the subject, but I would
will answer any questioned that
based on it, I don't intend to
like to clarify the record and
I have knowledge of.
This matter of the Fire Alarm Operators has been discussed
since the City converted our Fire Alarm System from a Class B to a
Class A system about this time in 1969 - two years ago. That
report and subsequent reports assume that separate positions of
Fire Alarm Operators would be phased out and replaced with Firemen.
During last year's budget hearings in June, 1970, the
Council approved phasing out the special positions of Fire Alarm
Operators effective January l, 1971. Because of the considerable
interest in this matter, the Council requested the GEPC to review
the matter. After lengthy discussion, both at the Council and
Committee level (including the local news media), the discussion
to utilize Firemen to operate the Fire Alarm System was re-affirmed.
If the Council desires to re-evaluate its decision, I
would recommend that the matter be referred to the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee for further study. This would
be especially appropriate in view of the change in administration
that will very shortly occur within the Fire Department.
Councilman Rees commented as follows:
I feel that the statement of Mr. Hoffman has considerable
merit. This Council has made mistakes before and I'm convinced
that the Council made a mistake this time when they passed Ordinance
No. 1897. Our City Manager, as highly as he is respected in general,
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 - Page 4
and specifically by me, is always capable of making mistakes. It
has been suggested from various quarters for various reasons that
this matter be delayed. I feel that the only result from such
delay would be possibly further expense and some embarrassment to
the City. It is my opinion that because of the discrimination
against women in the case, that the City would not stand a chance
before a Fair Employment Practices Board. It is also my opinion
and that of some others on the Council, that the City would stand
to lose a suit which is now in process, that this would be more
embarrassing to the City than a peaceful, out-of-court settlement
of the issue.
The question of the change of administration in the Fire
Department was raised. I might point out that the new Chief will
be only the Acting Chief according to my information up until
August $th. After August §th for a six months period, this new
Chief will be a Probationary Chief. In other words, the Council
might as well do what is right and do it now.
I propose that we rescind Ordinance No. 1897 which
provides for the elimination of the Fire Alarm Operator's positions;
adopt an Ordinance reestablishing the Fire Alarm Operator's
position; that female operators phased out and placed in other
City positions be offered transfer back to their former positions
if they desire; and that the one operator who was not placed in
another position be reinstated effective June 1, 1971, if she
desires, with payment for the time lost since her discharge. I
would so move.
Councilman Heisey stated he would like to make a comment
or tWO:
I received, unsolicited in the mail, a copy of the Labor
Journal for May. I find that the May issue of the Labor Journal
not only had a front page article defending the Padre Hotel, but
it had an arrogant editorial striking our at former Vice-Mayor Dr.
Stiern and Planning Commissioner Ken Vetter. In taking a long look
at the comments, it appears to me that the paper and those that
determine its policy, were serefly stung by Dr. Stiern's public
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 - Page 5
revelation of the fact that the unions financed the election
campaign of one of our Councilmen to the tune of over $2300.00 and
he put $800.00 in his pocket for alleged travel expenses in his
Ward. The rumors are going around that this Council can no longer
make a committee or a commission appointment without consulting a
union, that the Council has four stooges who will jump to the
union's tune. I would hate to fhink that this is true. It will
be very interesting to follow the actions of this Council in the
following months.
It isn't my purpose here to recite what is already public
knowledge or suspicions. But to make clear to Mr. Hoffman and his
union colleagues in their hierarchy that I, as one Councilman, will[
not sit in mute silence while his stooges dip into the City's coffers
to grant unwarranted raises and benefits in a post election pay-off.
The past four years I was privileged to serve on the
GEPC. We granted fair and equitable raises and we were able to
protect the City's tax rate. This past year we have had the extra
funds from the Utility Tax, all of which has gone to the employees
in the form of increased wages and benefits. This year we need
substantial funds for long delayed Capital Improvements in our
City. It is absolutely imperative that the GEPC act with responsi-
bility. Two weeks ago we supported legislation costing the City
over $15,000 for additional retirement benefits for our City
employees. I voted against this, not because I am opposed to it
in principle, but because I think it should have been a matter for
the GEPC to consider and evaluate along with the rest of the benefits
that will be presented as a package at a later date.
On May 3rd, the Bakersfield Californian printed a very
interesting article entitled "Hard Hit Cities Scramble For New
Taxes." They reported the names of cities first whose revenue
sources are not growing fast enough to keep up with expenditures.
There was a second list of cities which have had to use most of
their reserves to finance operating budgets.
field does not wish to be added to either one
do not need to be. However, the City will be,
The City of Bakers-
of these lists. We
if we permit our
Bakersfield, California, May l?, 1971 - Page 6
personnel policies to be written in the back room of organized
pressure groups. This can be a great year for the City of Bakers-
field if we give the citizens the break they deserve. If we spend
major funds on capital improvements and not give it all away at
the bargaining table, we can continue to move forward in this
City in a responsible manner with a strong fiscal policy.
This reference and motion in regards to the Fire Alarm
Operators is untimely, it was an economy move to begin with, and
I would like to offer a substitute motion at this time that it be
referred to the GEPC for further consideration.
Councilman Rees commented that he won't call Councilman
Heisey a stooge, if he doesn't call him a stooge, as he is not
and never has been stooge to any organization, pressure group or
otherwise.
Councilman Whittemore commented as follows:
For the benefit of the people in the audience this
evening, Mr. Bergen gave a real fast explanation of what transpired
on the Council floor last year when the Alarm Operators were let
out, and I feel unjustly so. Also, I wish to digress for a moment
and say that I will go along with Councilman Rees, I don't think
in the eight years that I have served on this Council that I have
been a stooge of anybody. I have called them as I see them.
I opposed eliminating the women Alarm Operators last
year and when Mr. Bergen said that during the budget session it
was a recommendation o~ the GEPC that we do away with the women
operators, I will tell you that we were fed some false and mis-
leading information in my Committee, which Mr. Heisey has served
on for several years. I have been Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee for almost seven years. When
we made the recommendation, we understood thai the women would be
phased out through attrition; in other words, as they reached the
retirement age or quit the City. Then they would be replaced with
men, Firefighters in that position.
But this isn't the way it materialized on the Council
~1oor. We took it back into the Committee and attempted to correct
that error, and it was an error on the part of the City, because it
wasn't anything but actual discrimination against the women
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 - Page
employees. When it was re-affirmed by the City Council, it wasn't
unanimous, the vote was 4 to 3. Now the complexion of the Council
has changed. I wouldn't accuse any Councilman of being a stooge or
a tool of anyone else. I am going to say this, however, that as
far as I am concerned~ this is an excellent motion by Councilman
Rees. It is an opportunity for this Council to be fair and to
correct a condition which was wrong in the first place, and I am
ready to support him and his motion.
Councilman Medders commented as follows:
I feel that the City Manager is as good a City Manager
as we can possibly have and I don't see why anybody would object
to sending this matter back to the GEPC. Surely, it is not going
to come out and be changed, but perhaps some flaws could be taken
out and something brought back that is for the betterment of the
City as well as look toward next year's budget on it at the same
time. No one contacted me before the meeting or over the weekend
to learn how I felt about it. I do feel that the City Manager has
made the best recommendation at this point.
Vote was taken on Councilman Heisey's substitute motion
to refer the matter to
Committee for review.
roll call vote:
the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
This motion failed to carry by the following
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders
Noes: Councilmen Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
Absent: None
Councilman Bleecker stated as follows:
I mentioned at the pre-meeting that any motion brought
before the floor could be decided at that time. The members of
the Council will also recall that I asked the City Manager to be
prepared this evening to have a responsible member of the Fire
Department here, an expert to answer certain questions that have
been brought up in Mr. Hoffman's letter to this Council.
He then asked Mr. Bergen if the Fire Chief or his
assistant was present, and Mr. Bergen replied "not to his knowledge."
Bakersfield, California~ May 17, 1971 - Page 8
Councilman Bleecker stated that he is unprepared at
this time to discuss this motion. It appears that the motion is
going to pass, that the Ordinance will be rescinded, and he thinks
that with the foreknowledge that the repeal of this Ordinance was
going to be brought up at tonight's meeting, with full knowledge
also, that any Ordinance that is discussed here could be rescinded
at this meeting, that the staff should have been prepared with its
experts from the Fire Department to answer any questions that the
Council might have. Therefore, he will abstain from voting on the
motion that this Ordinance be repealed.
Mayor Hart pointed out that Mr. Hoffman's letter was
made available only this evening to the balance of the Council
and to the City Clerk. It was not in evidence prior to this
meeting.
Councilman Bleecker stated that all seven of the Council
knew that Mr. Hoffman was coming here tonight with a presentation
to this Council, and it has been known for months in all circles,
that the repeal of this Ordinance was going to be asked for.
Councilman Thomas asked the City Manager how long it
would take to summon the City Fire Chief or his assistant to the
meeting. Mr. Bergen said it would possibly be half an hour, but
in view of the change over in administration, the Fire Chief
himself should be requested to be present.
Councilman Bleecker commented that one of the reasons
for the change in the Ordinance was that it would save the City
money by using two Firefighters to take over the ~ire Alarm Operator's
positions. Mr. Hoffman has stated in his letter to the Council
that it has taken four Firefighters, and he assumes in his letter
that by using four instead of two, it is actually costing the City
money instead of saving money. He feels that it behooves the staff
and City Manager to have experts from the department present to
answer the Council's questions concerning very important issues
covering the safety of the of the Fire Department.
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 - Page 9
Councilman Whittemore stated that he can't see what
bearing the Fire Department staff would have on it, he doesn't
know if they could shed any more light on the economics of the
issue than was discussed at great length last year. However,
Fire£ighters receive considerably more salary than was paid to
the women Alarm Operators.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Bergen if he was prepared
to say that the change in the alarm system has worked efficiently
and has saved the City money.
Mr. Bergen replied that to his knowledge, it has saved
the City money; however, he realizes there are problems in the
operation of this office. Any time a petition is signed by 94 men
that something won't work, 94 men are just about determined that it
won't work. His office has started an evaluation of the entire
department prior to the budget. The staf£ has interviewed a third
of the Fire Department but due to the press and problems of the
budget and the time of the year, they have been £orced to discontinue
the interviewing until such time as the budget is completed. He
stated he believes there are some changes that should be instituted
in the operation, but it hasn't been shown to him by either the
Chief or the Assistant Chief or the Alarm Operators, that the
system, with modifications, couldn't work for the best interests
of the City.
Councilman Bleecker commented that the only way he can
vote intelligently on this issue is to have some answers. He asked!
Mr. Bergen if he still strongly supported the change in this
Ordinance.
Mr. Bergen replied that nothing has changed his opinion
that the operation of using Firemen for Fire Alarm Operators will
not work and save money for the City of Bakersfield. There are some
procedural changes that need to be made in the daily operation and
assignment, but he still hasn't been shown that the system will not
operate to the advantage of the City of Bakersfield.
After additional discussion, Councilman Bleecker asked
for the separation of the question. Roll Call Vote taken to rescind
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 - Page 10
Ordinance No.
position
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
paration
1897 which eliminated the Fire Alarm Operators
carried as follows:
Councilmen Bleecker, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Councilman Heisey
None
Roll Call Vote was taken on motion to direct the pre-
of an Ordinance reestablishing the Fire Alarm Operator
positions, which carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey,
Noes:
Absent:
Rees' motion, that
City positions, be
if they so desire;
Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
None
None
A discussion ensued on the third phase of Councilman
female operators phased out and placed in other
offered transfer back to their former positions,
the one operator not employed in another City
position be reinstated as a Fire Alarm Operator effective June 1,
1971, and reimbursed for lost salary, with any salary earned during
this period to be deducted from this sum. Councilman Bleecker
asked for a division of the question. Vote was taken on the motion
to transfer back to their former positions in the Fire Department
those female operators whose positions were phased out and who are
now employed in other City positions, which carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders
Absent: None
Councilman Bleecker commented that the one female Alarm
Operator was advised by the union not to accept any position with
the City. Since this employee had the opportunity to be inter-
viewed by Department Heads for a full time job with the City at
no cut in pay, he doesn't believe the employee concerned showed
loyalty to the City of Bakersfield and the Council should not vote
to reinstate her with back pay.
Councilman Whirremote commented that these four women
were professional Fire Alarm Operators, they were happy in their
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 -Page 11 '}'~'}
jobs, Miss Ingram was happy in her job, she had spent fourteen
years in this position as an efficient Alarm Operator and that is
what she wanted to be. He stated he admired her for fighting City
Hall and the mistake made in discriminating against the women.
Councilman Bleecker stated that since he has certain
knowledge that he would like to impart to the GEPC, of which he
is a member, he would ask the members of that committee and the
members of the Council, to do him the courtesy of supporting his
substitute motion to refer the matter of reinstating the one female
Alarm Operator to the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee.
Councilman Rucker asked how long this matter would be delayed and
Councilman Bleecker promised it would be brought back to the
Council as soon as possible.
Roll Call Vote taken on Councilman Bleecker's substitute
motion carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rucker
Noes: Councilmen Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Don C. Hoffman, Executive Secretary of Local 1301, read
a request to the Council for adoption of an appropriate resolution
to be sent to U.S. Congressmen and Senators, to support the
passage of a bill for general revenue sharing. Upon a motion by
Councilman Heisey, the letter was received and referred to the
Budget Review and Finance Committee.
Council Statements.
Councilman Rucker offered the name of Councilman Don
Thomas to serve as the Council representative on the KCEOC Board
of Directors. Councilman Thomas stated that he would accept the
nomination. Vote taken on the motion carried unanimously.
396
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 - Page 12
Councilman Heisey commented as follows:
Last Thursday night the students of John L. Compton
Jr. High School presented the "Pageant of the Flags"
together with the "Freedom Foundation at Valley
Forge presentation of Awards for 1970."
It was a thrilling evening honoring several of our
local schools, our teachers and our students. It
made one proud not only to be American and to share
the rich heritage of freedom that is our birthright,
so long as we are willing to fight for it, but more
than that, I was proud, encouraged and strengthened
in my own dedication and resolve to serve and to
preserve this Republic. It was an enthusiastic and
contagious pageant demonstrating mature patriotism
with a fine sense of National history, most beauti-
fully presented by the faculty and students at
Compton Jr. High School.
Mr. Don Pruett, Principal, and all of those who
participated in this splendid pageant deserve not
only a "well done" but also the eternal gratitude
of our community. We are all richer because of
this presentation.
It would be nice if we could just talk about what
is right with America but we cannot in honesty close
our eyes to what is wrong with America.
Whether right or wrong - when any government agency
or program has lost the support and confidence of
those it is intended to serve; when it holds Out
false hopes and dreams that soon disolve into dis-
solutionment; when unrealistic programs are adopted;
when public funds are dissipated for highly question-
able purposes; when a long list of projects die at
birth through ineptness and boondoggling; when there
is no criteria for success and no fixing of respon-
sibility for failure; when the major occupation of
the staff is their own welfare and personal aggrandi-
zement; when decisions are made at late hours of
the night by a few; when good men resign and refuse
to be identified with the program; when greedy
factions spar for power and spoils; when directors
of a program fear an audit might bring a criminal
complaint of misuse of Public funds or of malfeasance
in office and when a long suffering middleclass
grows sick with financing what appears to be waste,
corruption and revolution; when middleclass America
comes to the growing conclusion that it is financing
its own demise by providing funds for individuals
and groups that are not building America but are
determined to destroy it;
When these things have come to pass in our community
and across our land as documented and reported by
responsible sources concerning O.E.O. and KCEOC,
they are performing a grievous disservice to society
and it is time for us to demand an end to such cor-
rosive waste. The "War on Poverty" had such a grand
name that we all sat back for several years hoping
it would fulfill its avowed purpose. It has been a
dismal failure.
There are at least four things that can be done to
improve the current situation:
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 - Page 13
1. We can ask for a Federal Grand Jury Investigation
of the KCEOC, a GAO audit or a Congressional
Investigation to determine where the funds have
gone, what has been accomplished and to fix
responsibility and awards for success or failure.
2. We can ask the President of the United States to
abolish the entire program. It is a function of
the Executive Branch of government but with
seemingly little or no loyalty to the President.
3. We can ask Congress to eliminate all funding of
O.E.O. programs.
4. Finally, as provided in the "Green Amendment"
as a minimum step, we can ask the Kern County
Board of Supervisors to take.over the program
in Kern County by Resolution and to appoint an
Administrative Board for Policy, Budgets and
Audits. Mariposa and Ventura Counties have
already taken such action.
The proper course of action, I believe would be for the
Council to request a GAO investigation and audit. I have discussed
this with members of the Board of Supervisors, with some of our
Councilmen, with a number of individuals here in our community,
and I .am convinced that this is the proper avenue for us to take.
It will dispel a cloud that hangs very heavily over the entire
operations of KCEOC. I think for their own good, they need to have
this investigation and audit. I am not opposed to programs to
help the poor, and I want to see all people advance to the point
where they can help themselves. But I am opposed to waste of
public funds.
It is only because I have been asked by many low income
people, as well as members of minority groups, and board members
of KCEOC, that I have become thus involved. I have been in touch
with knowledgeable people up and down the State for the past week
trying to determine in my own mind what should be done. It was
quite inadvertently that I even became involved in the affairs of
KCEOC. As most of you know, I went there on a visit and since then,
from the resultant publicity, I have had a stream of individuals
from all segments of society, dropping in the office to see me and
find out what can be done to set things right in this organization.
I would like to move that the City Council adopt a Resolution
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 - Page 14
requesting an investigation of the activities of the KCEOC by the
General Accounting Office of the United States Government, to be
transmitted to Congressman Robert Mathias.
Councilman Rucker agreed that all organizations should
have some investigation and if anything is wrong at KCEOC, it
should be corrected, although he
thing beneficial for the citizens
permission for Mr. Edward Taylor,
to address the Council.
feels they are trying to do some-
of the community. He asked
Executive Director of the KCEOC,
Mr. Taylor stated he was very glad to see the Council
appoint a representative on the Board of Directors tonight so that
through the representative the Council will know what is going on.
He pointed out that during the controversial period, no member of
the City Council has taken the time to come by his office to
discuss some of the boondoggie that they are accused of doing and
some of the boondoggie that is circulating in the community. As
far as an investigation is concerned, he stated they would cooperate
with whoever did it. Their annual audit starts in the month of
May, the audit for the program here which has just ended on February
28th, is now in progress and these audit reports are public records.
Copies will be made available upon request, of this audit and any
previous audits that have been made. He knows that this program
has not been successful in everything that it has undertaken.
There are times when they have to reverse themselves just like the
Council reversed itself tonight. Mistakes are made and they do not
try to hide them, they try to keep the public informed of all their
activities.
Councilman Heisey stated that even members of the Board
of Directors of KCEOC had requested an investigation and he thinks
it is very good that members of the Board are concerned, because
he knows that every member of that Board of Directors is geniunely
concerned with what it is doing and how it is doing it.
Councilman Whittemore stated he has met with one group
of ladies, a committee member, he has discussed it with other
interested members throughout the community and he knows that the
Bakersfield, California, May l?, 1971 - Page 15 ' '
opponents of KCEOC have used such figures as the KCEOC receiving
a total of $60,000,000. These figures which have been circulated
throughout the community would amount to about $1,000,000 a month,
which would mean that Bakersfield would be the most prosperous
community in the world. This amount would probably represent the
total federal funds spent in Kern County during the last six years.
He stated this is certainly an injustice to this organization and
he is not going to accuse any organization or be a part of a vote
on which he does not have concrete facts to substantiate the charges
made. The trash which he has received is not facts and it irritates
him when they say that the City of Bakersfield should refuse all
federal funds. He does not think this is the time to say that
this organization has been boondoggling when there are no facts to
substantiate it. With that amount of money coming into the organi--
zation, he feels confident that there are some type of County
controls on the spending and that they will not object to an audit
by any branch of the Federal Government. He is pleased to see Mr.
Thomas accept the appointment as a member of the Board of Directors
so that the Council will have a more complete picture of what is
going on within KCEOC.
Vote was taken on Councilman Heisey's motion, which
carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Reports.
Chairman Whittemore reported on a meeting held by the
Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee with Mr. Donald E.
Ruggenberg and Mr. Burton H. Armstrong of Elmer Fox & Company,
Certified Public Accountants, to discuss the annual audit of the
City's accounting records and fiscal affairs. It was the Committee's
opinion that past audits by this firm have been comprehensive and
adequate. The hourly rates have been slightly increased; however,
the new contract maximum of $9,000 is $250 less than that of the
previous year.
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 - Page 16
The Committee recommends that Elmer Fox & Company be
awarded the contract for auditing the City for the year 1970-71.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the report was
adopted.
Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of the Business Development
and Parking Committee, reported that a meeting had been held with
members of the Downtown Business Promotion District Advisory Com-
mission who requested a tax increase within the present Downtown
Promotion District. The original estimate for revenue from this
District was $40,000, however, because of a Business License
reduction, only $28,257 was raised during the 1970-71 Fiscal Year.
During the 1970-71 Fiscal Year, this Promotion District
paid out salaries to a Director and clerical staff, paid half the
costs of the downtown Christmas decorations, was involved with
proposed legislation ~or the Transit District, and promoted the
Downtown Business Area through radio, television and newspapers.
With the busy year they have had, they found that their $28,000
budget was inadequate and they have been forced to cease promotions
during the last few months of this Fiscal Year.
The members informed the Committee that nearly all
businesses which have been contacted to date have had little or
no objections to this proposed tax change. The additional tax would
bring in approximately $12,000 additional per year making a total
of approximately $40,000 which the Commission feels would be
adequate to promote the downtown area. Time is of the essence,
as July 1st is the start of the new Fiscal Year and any changes
are to be made, they should be made prior to the new Fiscal Year.
The Committee would recommend that the necessary notices be mailed
and a public hearing scheduled for June 7.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the report was
adopted.
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 - Page 17
Consent Calendar.
The following items are listed on the Consent Calendar.
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 3829 to 3998,
inclusive, in amount of $104,679.85.
(b)
Plans and Special provisions for the
Installation and Modification of Traffic
Signals and Street Lighting Systems at
various intersections.
(c)
Two Storm Drain Easements and an Alley
Easement from Stockdale Development
Corporation for separate drainage and
alley projects outside of subdivisions.
(d)
Street Right of Way Deeds from Swedecki,
Goodman and Hill Top Developers for
Julian Avenue.
Councilman Medders moved adoption of Items (a), (b), (c)
and (d) of the Consent Calendar, including Budget Transfer in amount
of $14,000.00 from Fund No. 11-510-6100 to Fund No. 11-675-4200.
This motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, bid of Kern Sprinkler
Company, Inc. for the construction of Median Island Irrigation
System on Panorama Drive and Columbus Street was accepted and the
Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Reception of City Clerk's Statement
of Votes Cast at Special Annexation
Election held on May 4, 1971, in that
inhabited territory designated as
Terrace Way No. 1.
The talley of votes cast at Special Annexation Election
held on May 4, 1971 in that inhabited territory designated as Terrace
Way No. i is as follows:
TOTAL REGISTERED YES NO
VOTERS
Consolidated Precinct #1
Absentee. Votes Cast
25 8 8
2
Total Votes Cast 8 10
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, the City Clerk's
Statement of Votes Cast at the Special Annexation Election in
Terrace Way No. 1 was received and placed on file, and Election
was declared to have failed to carry.
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 19?l - Page 18
Petition from 13 property owners
requesting annexation and formation
of sewer district for that area
bounded by Real Road, Kennedy Avenue,
Wible Road and Planz Road referred
to the Planning Commission for study
and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, petition from 13
property owners requesting annexation and formation of sewer
district for that area bounded by Real Road, Kennedy Avenue~ Wible
Road and Planz Road was referred to the Planning Commission for
study and recommendation.
Encroachment Permit granted Richard
Sloss to install chain link fence at
3101 Laurel Drive.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, Encroachment
Permit was granted Richard Sloss to install a 4' chain link fence
behind the sidewalk at 3101 Laurel Drive. Councilman Whittemore
stated that the staff should advise Mr. Slocc of the deed restric-
tions in this area regarding the construction of fences in front
yards, and if complaints are received from his neighbors, the fence
must be removed at his expense.
Action deferred for one week on granting
Encroachment Permit to Sam Wiskirchen
for existing 6' redwood fence adjacent
to sidewalk at 3809 Teale Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, action on granting
Encroachment Permit to Sam Wiskirchen for a 6' redwood fence which
had already been built adjacent to the existing sidewalk at 3809
Teale Street was deferred for one week, to enable Councilman
Whittemore to check it out personally.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1932 New
Series approving annexation of a
parcel of uninhabited territory to
the City of Bakersfield, California,
designated as "Stockdale No. 4", and
providing for the taxation of said
territory to pay the bonded indebted-
ness of said City.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Ordinance No. 1932
New Series approving annexation of a parcel of uninhabiled territory
to the City of Bakersfield, California, designated as "Stockdale
No. 4" and providing for the taxation of said territory to pay
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 - Page 19
bonded indebtedness
vote:
Ayes:
of said City, was adopted
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey~ Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
by the following
Rees, Rucker,
Adoption of Minute Order authorizing
Lease of City-owned property between
21st and 22rid Street and "M" and "N"
Streets for three week period.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Minute Order authorizing
Lease of City-owned property between 21st and 22nd Street and "M"
and "N" Streets, for a three week period subject to certain condi-
tions was adopted. Councilman Whittemore voted in the negative on
this motion.
Acceptance of Map of Tract No. 3481-A
and Mayor authorized to execute the
Contract and Specifications for improve-
ments in said Tract.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Thomas,
it is ordered that the Map of Tract No. 3481 Unit "A" be, and the
same is hereby approved, that all 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. Also, the alleys shown upon said map and
therein offered for dedication be, and the same are 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
Tenneco West, Inc.
The Clerk of this Council is
NATURE OF INTEREST
Owner of mineral rights
below a depth of 500 feet
with no right of surface
entry
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-
merits in this Tract.
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 - Page 20
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on Resolution of Intention to include within the Greater
Bakersfield Separation of Grade District that certain territory
designated as "Stockdale No. 4". This hearing has been duly
advertised and no written protests have been filed in the City
Clerk's office.
Mayor Hart
patton. No protests
Noes:
Absent:
declared the hearing open for public partici-
or objeclions were received. A representative
from the Stockdale Development Corporation was present to answer
any questions of the Council. The Mayor declared the public hearing
closed for Council action. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders,
Resolution No. 44-71 annexing that certain territory designated
as "Stockdale No. 4" to the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade
District, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
None
None
This is the time set for public
hearing before the CounciL1
on the initiated action by the Planning Commission to Zone Upon
Annexation to an R-1-CH (Single Family Dwelling - Church) or more
restrictive, Zone, that certain property in the County of Kern
located on the north side of Stockdale Highway across from Stock-
dale Estates and between the existing incorporated area of the
City on the west side and on the east side by St. Philip's School,
designated as Parcel "C" of the Stockdale No. 4 Annexation.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and no
written protests have been filed in the City Clerk's office.
Stockdale No. 4 Annexation consists of three parcels with Parcels
"A" and "B" proposed for R-1 zoning and Parcel "C" for R-1 with a
church overlay. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the
R-1-CH zoning for Parcel "C" as requested.
Bakersfield, California, May 17, 1971 - Page 21
Noes:
Absent: None
This is
on an application
zoning boundaries
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections was received. A representative
from the Stockdale Development Corporation was present to answer
any questions of the Council. The Mayor declared the public hearing
closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by
Councilman Medders, Ordinance No. 1933 New Series amending Section
17.12.020 of Chapter 17.12 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of
the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Meisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
None
the time set for public hearing before the Council
by Stockdale Development Corporation to amend the
from an "A" (Agricultural) Zone to an R-1 (Single
Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone; to an R-2 (Two Family
Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone; and to a C-2 (Commercial) or
more restrictive, Zone of that certain property located at the
southwest corner of Ming Avenue and New Stine Road.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and no
written protests have been filed in the City Clerk's office. The
Planning Commission recommended the "D" Overlay be applied to all
multiple zoning and that the C-2 be reduced to C-1-D. The "D"
(Architectural Design Overlay) is recommended for property control
of commercial property adjacent to residential properties.
Recommended zoning from an "A" (Agricultrual) Zone is as
follows:
R-1 190 acres
R-2-D 26 acres
R-3-D 36.3 acres
The proposed zone plan basically follows the general plan
of the State College area.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partiCi-
pation. No protests or objections were received. A representative
from the Stockdale Development Corporation was present to answer
any questions of the Council. The Mayor declared the public hearing
closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by
Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 1934 New Series amendint Title
Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by
changing the zoning of those certain properties in the City of
Bakersfield located at the southwest corner of Ming Avenue and
New Stine Road~ was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas~ Whittemore
None
None
Noes:
Absent:
This is
Intention No. 864
the time set for public hearing on Resolution of
to order the vacation of the alley in Block 421-B
and a portion of Cedar Street, City of Bakersfield.
Petition was made by the Tennis Development Cbmpany of
Bakersfield. This hearing has been duly posted and no protests
have been filed in the City Clerk's office.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No opposition was expressed to the proposed vacation. Mr.
Lake Lovelace of the Tennis Development Company of Bakersfield
spoke in favor, stating that all the neighbors in the block had
signed a petition in approval. Mayor Hart declared the public
portion of the hearing closed for Council deliberation and action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 45-71 ordering
vacation of alley in Block 421-B and a portion of Cedar Street, was
adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees~ Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Recess until May 19, 1971.
There being no further business to come before the
Council the meeting was recessed to reconvene !dnesday, May 19,
1971, at 8 P.M. M o ~~rsfield, Calif.
ATTEST'
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, May 19, 1971
Minutes of a recessed 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 19, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart.
Mayor Hart. Councilmen
Present:
Absent:
Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Thomas Whittemore
Councilman Rucker
Adoption of Resolution No. 46-71 of
the City Council of the City of Bakers-
field requesting an investigation of
the activities of the KCEOC by the
General Accounting Office of the United
States Government.
Mayor Hart read into the record a Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Bakersfield requesting an investigation of
the activities of the KCEOC by the General Accounting Office of
the United States Government, in which dissatisfaction has been
expressed in the following assertions:
(1) Unrealistic programs are adopted by KCEOC
for implementation.
(2) Public funds are dissipated for highly
questionable purposes.
(3) Many programs die because of ineptness
of management.
(4) There is no criteria set for success and
no fixing of responsibility for failure.
(5) Public funds may have been misused and
malfeasance in office may have occurred.
(6) Questionable displays in offices of known
revolutionaries and slogans of revolutionary
design.
The City Clerk was instructed to transmit copies of this
Ordinance to Congressman Robert Mathias.
Councilman Bleecker moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilman Whittemore commented that he had voted at
Monday's Council meeting to request the GAO to audit the funds of
the organization, but he cannot endorse all the accusations set
out in the Resolution, as they are serious charges and he doesn't
have any concrete facts on which to base such accusations.
Bakersfield, California, May 19, 1971 - Page 2
City Attorney Hoagland stated that he had authored the
Resolution and having no other guidelines, had followed Councilman
Heisey's statements contained in the Minutes of May 17, 1971. He
had attempted to couch it in language that would indicate the dis-
satisfaction which has been expressed in the community, but he
doesn't believe this necessarily means that the Council has express. ed
it. He pointed out that if an investigation is asked for, there
must be concrete evidence set forth in the Resolution which
Congressman Mathias can present to the GAO to warrant an investigalion.
Councilman Bleecker agreed with the City Attorney that
the Council must submit reasons for asking for the investigation,
that a responsible arm of the Federal Government cannot be expected
to conduct this investigation without something to go on.
Councilman Whittemore stated this isn't what the Council
voted on the other evening, and he would go on record as being in
favor of the audit investigation but not to include these accusa-
tions.
Councilman Heisey commented that he thought the Attorney
had done a good job of briefing down his comments to the Council.
He stated he can guarantee that all of these assertions have been
raised, as a steady stream of people both on the phone and in
visits to his office has expressed these very specific doubts
regarding the KCEOC. In discussing it with the Board of Supervisors
and with Congressman Mathias's local representative, it was pointed
out to him that it would be very necessary for these things to be
spelled out, otherwise they would not know the Council's intent.
Mayor Hart stated that the Council is aware that questions
have been raised, and he feels that the paragraph in the Resolution
stating that the "City Council of the City of Bakersfield desires
that these assertions be investigated to determine the truth or
falsity of the same" would certainly adequately cover any misinter-
pretation of the Council's motives in asking for the investigation.
Bakersfield, California, May 19, 1971 - Page 3
Councilman Rees offered a substitute motion to modify
as follows:
Public funds are dissipated for questionable
purposes.
(3) Some programs die because of ineptness of
management.
Public funds may have been misused.
the assertions
(2)
(5)
(6) Delete.
Roll call vote
tie, as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
have the right to vote on all
results in a tie. Mayor Hart
substitute motion carried.
on the substitute motion resulted in a
Councilmen Rees, Thomas, Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders
Councilman Rucker
Pursuant to Section 14 of the Charter, the Mayor shall
matters when the vote of the Council
voted in the affirmative and the
Councilman Bleecker commented that it has been made very
obvious by personal visits to the KCEOC office by at least two
members of the Council that there were highly questionable displays;
of pictures of revolutionaries, and it does not seem realistic to
believe thai the Council would vote to remove Item 6 from the
Resolution, as it is a reflection on the patriotism of the Council
to do so.
Mayor Hart took exception to Councilman Bleecker's state-
ment, saying that he construes the Resolution to be a reference to
an investigation of the use of funds and abuse of these funds which
have been granted to KCEOC by the Federal Government. Revolutionary
displays or patriotism are not the questions here tonight, the
question is the funding and the implementation of programs adopted
by this organization.
Councilman Bleecker then moved that Item (6) "Questionable
displays in office of known revolutionaries and slogans of revolu-
tionary design" be reinserred in the Resolution.
Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, May 19, 1971 - Page 4
During discussion of the motion, Councilman Heisey stated
that Mr. Bob Jennings, local representative of Congressman Robert
Mathias, particularly specified that Item 6 be included in order
to put some teeth in the Resolution, for the Congressman to have
something to hang his hat on. Mr. Hoagland stated that he had
talked to Mr. Jennings also and was informed that inclusion of a
statement of this nature was a "must" in order to get action by
the GAO.
Mayor Hart commented that in light of what Mr. Heisey
and the City Attorney have pointed out to him that Item 6 gives
the GAO something tangible to base the Resolution on, so that it
can be aggressively followed up, his viewpoint on the matter has
undergone a change and it will govern his vote on Councilman
Bleecker's motion.
After discussion, roll call vote on the motion resulted
in a tie as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders
Noes: Councilmen Rees, Thomas, Whirremote
Absent: Councilman Rucker
Pursuant to Section 14 of the Charter, the Mayor shall
have the right to vote on all matters when the vote of the Council
results in a tie. Mayor Hart voted in the affirmative, and the
motion carried.
Councilman Heisey then moved that the Resolution be
adopted as amended. Councilmen Bleecker asked that the motion be
amended to instruct the City Clerk to send copies of the Resolution
to Senators Alan Cranston and John Tunney, Congressman Robert
Mathias and Barry Goldwater~ Jr.
Roll Call Vote on this motion carried as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker~ Heisey,
Whittemore
None
Councilman Rucker
Medders, Rees, Thomas,
Bakersfield, California, May 19, 1971 - Page 5
City Manager and Finance Director
submit preliminary budget estimates
and review of City's financial
picture for the coming year.
City Manager Bergen stated that the administrative staff
is always searching for ways of improving the budget process and
has asked for this informal meeting in order to submit the tentative
budget figures for consideration of the Council in conducting budget
hearings commencing June 14, 1971.
Finance Director Haynes stated that the Council must,
at this point in time, rely upon only estimates in tonight's review
of the financial picture for the coming year. Estimates must be
made of the amount of monies to be left over at the end of this
year. Estimates must be made of the amount of revenues expected
during the coming year, and he must also estimate the assessed
valuation of all property within the City Limits, upon which
property taxes will be levied in August.
He explained the basic method used to finance the City's
budget for the coming year and presented City revenues, other than
property taxes, for financing next year's budget. He stressed that
these are only estimates made to the best of his knowledge today.
They can be useful as general guides as the Council makes its
review of the new budget. It would be in error to expect these
estimates to be exact.
The Council and the staff engaged in an informal question
and answer period, and M.
the meeting was adjour~ at 9:45 P.
ATTEST:
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield~ California, May 24, 19?l
Minutes o£ 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 24, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge o£ Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Clyde
Skidmore of the First Southern Baptist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker~ Thomas~ Whirremote
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of May 17, 1971 and the
recessed meeting of May 19~ 1971 were approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Bill Clark, Chairman of the Aviation Committee of
the Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, presented a framed Resolution
to Mayor Hart on behalf of the City Council of the City of Hayward,
California, extending its appreciation to the City of Bakersfield,
the Kern County Airport System and the Bakersfield Chamber of
Commerce for their many years of assistance in the Hayward-Las
Vegas Air Races.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, letters from
Gerald D. Smith~ Dorothy M. House, William B. Greene, M.D., and
Jimmie Icardo requesting an investigation of funds being expended
by the Kern County Economic Opportunity Corporation, were received
and ordered placed on file.
Council Statements.
Councilman Whirremote stated that a group of citizens
was in attendance at the meeting this evening who have been quite
concerned over a rumor which has been widely circulated that a HUD
low-income Section 235 Housing Project will be constructed on a
five acre tract located in their neighborhood. He asked Mr. Sceales
if the land in question would require subdividing, and Mr. Sceales
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 2
stated that if it is the parcel that he thinks it is, it would
have to be subdivided for a 235 project. Councilman Whittemore
asked if there is any way that this plan could be prohibited
through zoning.
City Attorney Hoagland stated that Federal District
Courts have not handed down favorable decisions for local entities
when they attempt to place restrictions on zoning for this type o£
housing. He agreed to study a case cited by Councilman Whittemore.
Councilman Whittemore asked Mr. Hoagland to keep him advised so
that he can noti£y the concerned citizens in the area if any project
of this nature is contemplated.
Mr. Sceales, Planning Director, stated that if it were a
236 program it would require a zone change, but a 235 project would
be strictly approval of a subdivision map. Councilman Whittemore
asked Mr. Sceales to advise him if at any time an application is
submitted to his office so that the people can organize to oppose
the development of this project.
Councilman Bleecker commented that according to Mr.
Hoagland's statements~ the Federal Government could override the
City's Zoning Ordinance on this type of project. Mr. Hoagland
stated that the emphasis has been on a philosophy that the City
can't use zoning in order to prohibit the aims of the government
in providing low cost housing. It is almost a policy by which
they have been attacking local zoning regulations throughout the
nation. If the projects meet the housing requirements and the
zoning requirements, it will be a very difficult thing to prohibit
the construction.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he thinks whether or not
this Council would in the future accept Federal Funds for various
projects, would have a lot to do with the Federal Government's
thinking on issues of this type. If the Federal Government is
inclined to strike down the City's ordinances, they would probably
be more inclined to do so if the City has been accepting Federal
Grants supposedly with no strings attached and used the funds
according to Federal Regulations. He stated it would behoove the
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 3
3
Council to take a long look before accepting Federal Funds in the
future, particularly in regard to housing.
Councilman Thomas thanked Mr. Bill Clark for appearing
before the Council. Two weeks ago he and Councilman Medders
accepted an invitation for a flight around Bakersfield and he
thanked Mr. Clark publicly for the ride and the beautiful smog-free
view on that day.
Councilman Whittemore commented as follows:
In the May 20th issue of the Bakersfield Californian, a
publicity-seeking City Councilman in his usual grandiloquent manner,
chose to twist and distort an honest comment by an eminently
qualified State Division of Highways Engineer, Mr. L. S. Van Voorhis.
To refresh Mr. Bleecker's memory, or perhaps point out some important
facts of which he may not be aware, Cooperation Agreement No. 40-65
between the City of Bakersfield, the County of Kern and the State
of California Division of Highways, and Agreement No. 78-64 executed
by the same parties, establish a Technical Coordinating Committee
and a Policy Committee to prepare data for use by the governing
bodies in their consideration of plans and important programs for
the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area.
Section 3 of Agreement 40-65 states "That it is not the
intent of this agreement that any agency should assume the respon-
sibility of any phase of planning for any other agency, but rather
that the planning of all agencies is properly coordinated to the
maximum benefit of all concerned." Subsequently, a Citizens Advisory
Committee was appointed to bring all segments of our community into
active participation to determine the best possible location for
our badly needed freeways.
Mr. Van Voorhis and District Engineer, Mr. Robert Ramey,
together with his staff, have worked diligently and in complete
cooperation with all the duly constituted committees. The planning
portion of the program is progressing rapidly, the time has arrived
for expert opinions to be expressed.
After Mr. Van Voorhis' presentation at our last Monday
4
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 Page 4
Westchester, the other
one of these alternate
ways.
night's Council meeting, he was complimented by Councilman Bleecker
and others for his comprehensive presentation. I am confident the
public rebuke will not affect the progress of our freeway programs.
I look forward to the opportunity of continuing our excellent working
relationship with Mr. Van Voorhis and others of the Division of
Highways.
Councilman Bleecker stated that what the Vice-Mayor has
just said is strictly his own opinion and he would like for it to
be judged as that. He commented as follows:
Tonight, I brought along with me a copy of the Bakers-
field Californian dated Tuesday, May 18th, that has to do with
freeway const.ruction. At this point in time, the Citizens Advisory
Committee, which is composed of two Councilmen now, and the rest
by citizens, have had three meetings with the Division of Highways,
Mr. Van Voorhis acting as spokesman for that Division.
There are five freeway proposed routes that include the
24th Street area. There are two others, both of which were proposed
and studies asked for, by your Citizens Committee. One is a rain-
bow type of arrangement that goes around the top of the Riviera
goes north and south around old "99." Neither
routes was proposed by the Division of High-.
So
these meetings for consideration,
routes take off the City streets.
tions, as were stated in comments
far, the only criteria that has been brought up at
is how many cars do the proposed
There are many other considera-
made by myself in the Californian
dated May 20th. Sometimes I would think that better considerations
are arrived at when the people who are affected, the ones who are
most considered, are the ones who can call most of the shots.
Mr. Van Voorhis did make the statement,
Californian, at the Board of Supervisors meeting
24th Street Freeway and I quote "If you don't put
according to the
in regard to a
a freeway through
5
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 5
there, you will have worse problems than you have today;"this under
a headline that said "24th Street Freeway Needed Foretold."
Subsequent to that, when Mr. Van Voorhis came to this
City Council meeting, he didn't make any strong statements like
that about a proposed route, when two other routes do not include
the 24th Street area, and I would suppose, because he knew ahead
of time that as Chairman of the Committee, I would make some comment
about that. The freeway routes are far from being determined.
However, I do not believe that it is the prerogative of the State
Division of Highways to prejudge Citizens Committees, Executive
Committees and Staff Committees of the Board of Supervisors and
the City of Bakersfield and publicize its preference for any
particular route that would go through the City of Bakersfield.
The other considerations in regards to freeways include
air pollution, the closing of City streets, the relocation of sewers
and many other human considerations, that hopefully will be brought
out in public hearings. In view of the State's attitude in proposing
a specific route through this City when freeway considerations are
still going on, I will recommend at the next meeting of the Citizens
Advisory Committee, that the City Council, or a committee of the
City Council, hold public hearings where the people can come down
and have their say, instead of the Division of Highways.
It is common knowledge in this community, particularly
in the Fourth Ward, that a numbel' of years ago a 24th Street Freeway
System was proposed by the State and the citizens hired a lawyer
and defeated it. I am not saying that a 24th Street Freeway would
not be the most feasible route, what I am saying is, that when you
have three separate City Committees, and two or three County Com-
mittees duly instituted to study this issue, that a representative
of the State of California should not second-guess them and make
public notice of his preference.
Councilman Whittemore stated he wanted to make one comment
for clarification:
Long before you were on the Council, Councilman Bleecker,
6
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 6
Mr. Van Voorhis and his staff have appeared before the City Council.
on numerous occasions. They pleaded with us to create the Citizens~
Advisory Committee, which was finally done last year. The City of
Bakersfield is represented on the Technical Coordinating Committee
by its Director of Planning and its Director of Public Works. Also,
serving on this Committee are the Planning Director of the County
of Kern, the County Road Commissioner, Assistant District Engineer
of Planning Mr. Van Voorhis, the District and Past Planning Engineer
of the Division of Highways and the Urban Planner of the Division
of Highways. On the Policy Committee there are Mr. Robert Ramey,
District Engineer, Division VI~ Vance Webb, Supervisor of the Fourth
District County of Kern, and for the City of Bakersfield, Bob
Whittemore of the Seventh Ward. On no occasion has Mr. Van Voorhis
ever said that the State is going to put that freeWay down 24th
Street, but in his opinion after about 30 years of experience in
the freeway business, he has indicated a strong preference for this
route, as far as the utility of it is concerned for the City of
Bakersfield.
I don't say that it is going to go there, but I respect
his opinion and I would say at this point in view of some of the
alternates that were proposed, that this seems possibly the most
intelligent consideration. Wherever you put a freeway, and we
certainly know that we need them, everyone who travels them knows
that out streets cannot handle the tremendous amount of automobile
traffic we have today.
Councilman Bleecker commented that all he can say is
that outside of all the brass mentioned by Councilman Whirremote,
that now the people are represented.
Councilman Rees stated that he has seen and heard Mr.
Van Voorhis speak a number of times before public groups, including
the Council, and a Committee of the Council, and the one thing he
remembers about his introductory remarks is that he has said "I
have gotten pretty bloody in Bakersfield before and it is not going
to happen again. I am merely going to give you the facts as I see
them and am not going to try to shove anything down anybody's
throat."
7
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 7
Reports.
Councilman Robert Whittemore, Chairman of the Govern-
mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported that during
the past two weeks, this Committee and the staff have met with
representatives of the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees Union, Local 1078, which represents employees
of the Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department, in
regards to driver differential compensation.
Ordinance No. 1836, Section 3.18.110 (b) Temporary
Assignments, which was adopted in November of 1969, set a limit
of 5.0% for temporary assignments providing thai the City Council
would grant prior approval of a temporary assignment policy. Due
to an oversight by the Public Works Department, the policy of paying
7.5% driver premium pay begun in February 1969, was continued until
it came to the attention of the Manager's office in April of 1971.
The Sanitation Division employees were notified that this practice
would not be continued.
On April 26, 1971, the Council approved a Minute Order
granting the required temporary assignment policy to allow the
Sanitation Division to pay 5.0% above the present rate of pay for
certain positions in the Sanitation Division on temporary assign-
ment to a higher classification. As a result of this action, the
AFSCME Union requested a meeting with the GEPC to protest being
included under Ordinance No. 1836, Section 3.18.110 (b). The
Committee has reviewed this situation and recommends that the City
Council adopt the Emergency Ordinance attached, which will amend
the Compensation Ordinance by adding Section 3.18.115 to provide
that within the Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department,
a Crewman I assigned to the duties and responsibilities of a Crewman
II, shall be compensated at the rate of pay of the Crewman II in
the step held by the assigned employee. This would provide for the
same pay that was established in February of 1969.
Councilman Heisey commented that it would appear the City
illegally paid these employees 7.5% when they should have been
receiving 5.0% for approximately a year and a half. If this
Ordinance is adopted, will they be required to refund the overpay-
ment to the City.
8
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 8
Mr. Hoagland stated that the employees would not be
expected to pay this amount back to the City. From their stand-
point, they state that they have never received notice, so the
City in effect disregarded that particular Ordinance and continued
to pay them. Under the circumstances, he thinks it would be very
difficult to establish that the Ordinance was an effective Ordinance.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Emergency Ordi-
nance No. 1936 N.S. of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Chapter 3.18 of the Municipal Code by adding Section
3.18.135 providing Driver Differential Compensation in the Sani-
tation Division of the Public Works Department, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Robert Whirremote, Chairman of the Govern-
mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported as follows:
On Tuesday, May 18, 1971 this Committee met to discuss
the reinstatement of Miss Effie Ingram as a Fire Alarm Operator
with the Bakersfield City Fire Department.
It is the recommendation of this Committee that Miss
Effie Ingram be reinstated as a Fire Alarm Operator effective
June 1, 1971. Miss Ingram is to receive all benefits, such as
retirement, vacation, sick leave and lost salary minus any salary
she earned during the time her position was abolished.
This Committee further recommends that the Council adopt
Emergency Ordinance No. 1935 New Series amending Section 3.18.060
of the Municipal Code by adding the positions of Fire Alarm
Operators.
Councilman Bleecker stated it was not his intention to
present a minority report from the GEPC, however, he would like
to correct the report. It was his understanding at the time, and
it is still his understanding, that Miss Ingram had already been
reinstated by the act of this City Council at its prior Monday
meeting, and it was not a subject of discussion at the GEPC
9
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 9
meeting. The issue as to whether or not she would receive back
salary, benefits, etc., was brought up at the Committee meeting.
As a matter of clarification, it was also mentioned at the meeting
that any severenee pay she may have received would be refunded to
the City, which is not included in this report, perhaps through an
oversight. He asked if she had received any severenee pay and Mr.
Hoagland sta~ed she had received $532.95, and this amount should
be deducted from her lost salary, the report should include it.
Councilman Bleecker then moved that this report be amended
striking out all reference to Miss Ingram being reinstated, and
that she receive her lost salary minus any salary she earned during
the time her position was abolished, and minus any severenee pay
paid to her.
Councilman Medders stated he would like to reiterate,
as he had in the pre-meeting, that he still feels there are two
different things involved here, one which he is in favor of and
one which he is opposed to. The third paragraph is concerned with
an amendment to an Ordinance and the other portion o£ the report
is concerned with benefits for an employee whose position has been
abolished and which was not in effect for the period from December,
1970 until last week's meeting. He doesn't believe this can be
construed as legal. He asked how the City can owe somebody for a
position that didn't exist for four or five months.
Mr. Hoagland explained that the action taken by the City
Council last Monday evening rescinded the prior Ordinance which
abolished the position of the Fire Alarm Operators. By rescinding
the prior Ordinance, the Council in effect re-established those
positions except, technically and administratively, something must
be done to get them back into the Municipal Code, that is the reaso:n
for the Emergency Ordinance. The action taken last December abolislhed
the positions and at last Monday night's meeting that particular
action was rescinded.
l0
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 10
The Emergency Ordinance can be disregarded from the
standpoint that the Council is establishing a position, because
in effect the prior Ordinance was simply rescinded. But it has
to be put back on the books, and he felt that this action would
accomplish it.
Councilman Medders asked how much was owed the other
three operators and Mr. Hoagland replied they were placed in
positions elsewhere in the City and given a Y-rating, which estab-
lished their salaries the same as if they had continued employment
as Fire Alarm Operators, so they suffered no loss of pay.
Mayor Hart asked if these employees were not offered the
option to return to the Fire Alarm positions or retain their position
in another department of the City. Mr. Hoagland stated that it was
his understanding they had an option to return or maintain their
new positions, that in effect what they are doing is occupying two
positions, with the option of going back to one or remaining in the
other.
Councilman Heisey asked if Miss Ingram did not have the
same opportunity as the other girls had to accept employment in
another department of the City and remain in the Y-rating without
loss of pay or benefits. Mr. Hoagland stated that was correct,
but she never showed up for an interview for any position that
might have been available. She chose to fight the action.
Councilman Rees commented that he was willing to accept
the possibility that the three other girls had varied skills which
might be useful in other departments and that Miss Ingram, a com-
petent Fire Alarm Operator, did not have skills which would permit
her to transfer to another department. This could be one of the
reasons which kept her from applying for jobs which she felt she
could not possibly qualify for.
Mr. Hoagland stated that these particular positions have
been a matter of a great deal of controversy, and a law suit was
filed in connection with the matter. The resolution of the problem
as far as he is concerned, came about with the re-establishment of
the positions. In doing so from a legal standpoint, it would be
re-establishing the position as of the time it was abolished.
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 19?l - Page ll 11
Councilman Rees stated that he had listened very care-
fully to the City Manager when he discussed privately and in the
Council meeting~ the future o£ these four employees and he is quite
sure that his statement was made cautiously that these girls would
be given the opportunity to apply for various positions within the
City, but that he could not guarantee all four would obtain such
employment.
After additional discussion, Councilman Whittemore moved
adoption of Emergency Ordinance No. 1935 New Series of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 3.18.060 of the Munici--
pal Code by adding the positions of Fire Alarm Operators. Councilman
Bleecker restated his amendment to the motion to strike out of the
GEPC report all reference to reinstatement of
since this had already been accomplished by a
Council and was not a matter of discussion at
Miss Effie Ingram
prior act of the
the GEPC meeting and
to add the words "her compensation be minus any serefence pay she
received."
Councilman Whittemore stated that a list of the deductior~s
to be made from her lost salary was submitted to the GEPC and
evidently the reference to serefence pay was inadvertently omitted
by the City Manager. He agreed that Councilman Bleecker is correct
in including these words in the report.
Mr. Hoagland commented that the use of the word "rein-
statement" is only declaratory of the act of the Council, it
wasn't intended for anything new, it is just an affirmation of the
previous action taken at last Monday's meeting.
After discussion~ Mayor Hart clarified Councilman Bleecker's
amendment of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee's
report to read as follows:
"On Tuesday~ May 18, 1971, this Committee met to discuss
the reinstatement of Miss E£fie Ingram as a Fire Alarm Operator witlh
the Bakersfield City Fire Department.
It is the recommendation of this Committee that Miss Effie
Ingram be reinstated as a Fire Alarm Operator effective June l, 1971[.
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 12
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Miss Ingram is to receive all benefits, such as retire-
ment, vacation, sick leave, and lost salary minus any salary she
earned during the time her position was abolished, minus any
severance pay she received.
Vote was then taken on the morion to amend the report
which carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Vote was taken on the adoption of Emergency Ordinance
No. 1935 New Series which carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
Councilmen Heisey, Medders
None
Councilman Heisey,
that the staff came up with
in voting in the negative, stated
the recommendations a year ago to
delete the operators for reasons of economy and efficiency, and
he still thinks they are valid reasons.
Councilman Robert Whirremote, Chairman of the Govern-
mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported that during
the past several months, the Committee and staff have met with
representatives of the Bakersfield City Employees' Association
to discuss the subjects of annual employee association and union
dues deductions and an 80-hour work period for all employees of
the Public Works Department.
The present Compensation Ordinance provides that any
employee desiring to authorize deductions from his or her salary
for dues in an employee organization or union, must file a written
authorization with the Finance Director annually, such authorization
to be revoked at any time.
The Bakersfield City Employees' Association requested
that the annual signup for dues deductions be discontinued. The
staff has investigated the policies of other public agencies
throughout the State and it appears the City of Bakersfield is
the only City which requires this annual signup.
13
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 13
In regards to the employee work period, the present
Compensation Ordinance provides that the basic work period for all
employees of the City is forty hours during a one week period with
the exception of the employees of the Sanitation Division and of
the Transit Division, who have a basic work period of 80 hours
over a two-week period and employees of the Fire Department who
work one hundred forty-four 24-hour duty shifts per year.
The staff has recommended that the basic work period for
all Public Works Department employees be eighty hours over a two-
week period. This proposal would allow flexibility in scheduling
of shift personnel and for the convenience of certain employees
who wish to be scheduled to work more days in any one week of the
two-week period.
It is understood that employees of the Public Works
Divisions affected by such change shall maintain their normal
work schedule. An Administrative Rule and Regulation outlining
this intent will be issued.
This Committee recommends
the present Ordinance to delete the
that the City Council amend
requirement for annual authori-
zation for dues deductions and designate all employees of the Public
Works Department to have a basic work period of eighty hours over a
two-week period and consider this the first reading of the attached
Ordinance.
Councilman Walt~ Heisey, Chairman of the Water and City
Growth Committee, commented that he has served on this committee
for four years, and hopefully, by the end of another four years
they will have arrived at some definite answers regarding water
for Urban Bakersfield. Some months ago the Committee thought it
was on the verge of an agreement with Tennece, the owners of the
Kern River water interests, for an exchange of water directly out
of the Kern River. These negotiations are still continuing but not
as rapidly as the Committee had hoped.. Many conditions have been
tied in to these exchanges to make them unworkable at the present
time. Also, the City has a number of suits which are being pursued
with the utmost vigor, some of which are for condemnation of water
in the Kern River, other suits deal with the water rights of the
14
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page
City of Bakersfield. At
decision of the judge as
sue; when that answer is
the prosecution of these
the present time the City is awaiting a
to which entities the City can legally
received, the attorney will proceed with
actions. Councilman Heisey then introduced
Mr. Tom Stetson, the City's Engineering Consultant who has worked
for a number of years on the City's engineering problems in bringi£~g
in water.
Mr. Tom Stetson made an oral presentation to the Council,
stating that they have been working on this matter for a number of
years and have explored several exchange proposals which ended up
as being either too expensive, or a source of water which could
not be depended upon. About a year aso they started studying
seriously the methods of bringing State water from the State
Aqueduct on the west side of the valley over into the urban area.
There is a turn-out near Tupman at which point water for the Urban
Bakersfield area, the Rosedale Rio-Bravo Water Storage District
and others can be obtained. Several alternates were studied and
they were reviewed by the City and the County Water Agency, and in
February a final plan was proposed by the engineers for Kern County
Water Agency so far as the Cross-Valley Canal was concerned. This
plan proposed an extension of the basic Cross-Valley Canal up the
river as far as the Calloway Canal and then up onto the Beardsley
Canal. It was that portion of the plan with which they could not
agree in its present form. After several meetings with the Water
Agency's staff, they have now arrived at what appears to be a
reasonable solution to thai problem. This report was prepared for
the Agency in connection with a series of public hearings relative
to the formation of the Improvement District, which would include
the entire urban area, in addition to the City of Bakersfield.
They feel that since they are still attempting to negotiate
exchange agreements, that for any exchange agreement for Kern River
Water, they must have the water at least to the Friant-Kern Canal,
because any exchange agreement is going to require that some of the
State Water be put into the facilities of the river interests with
which the exchange is finally made, whatever success they have on
exchanges, they must get the water to that point. The reason for
15
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 15
taking the water up to the Calloway Weir is that this then brings
the State water into the heart of the Urban Bakersfield area and
our present plans to initiate this program by spreading the water
for recharge of the underground water basin. The water producers
would pump additional water from the existing wells and recover in
that fashion a like amount of water. In ten or fifteen years if
some of these entities decide they would like to take their water
and treat it and put it directly under their systems, they could
do so.
The total cost of the Cross-Valley Canal to the Friant-
Kern Canal is about $10.7 million dollars, but the participation
of the agricultural entities along with the Urban-Bakersfield area
would result in the capital cost to the Urban-Bakersfield area of
about 3~ million dollars. The extension canal up to the Calloway
Weir will cost approximately one and three-quarters million dollars,
and depending upon whether or not othersparticipate in it, that cost
would be allocated to the urban area and to whomever else partici-
pates in that particular extension.
In their review, they have concluded that this is the
least expensive way to bring State water across the valley into
the urban area and it is a basic plan that is flexible, it leaves
the options open on exchanges and leaves the options open on a
future conversion of the water from a spreading and recovery program
to a direct use program. It
of the Improvement District;
are continuing, there is one
is all to be included under the formation
the hearings on the Improvement District
later this week which they will request
be continued, because this plan is being revised by the engineers
of the Kern County Water Agency and there. are other negotiations
under way.
At the present time, however, in order for East Niles
Water District and the North of the River District to decide what
they can do under this plan, there must be come commitment by the
City of Bakersfield. The problem that those entities face is that
they know if the City of Bakersfield does not support the plan, the
plan will be changed, and if they spend a lot of money on planning
studies at this stage and the plan does not go through, they will
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 16
have wasted their money, because if the City of Bakersfield does
not participate, the plan will be changed appreciably. What they
are proposing is that based on the conclusion that they have to
have the water over to the Friant-Kern Canal, the City would commit
itself to the concept of a joint use canal to that point, not
necessarily committing themselves to any cost figures, because all
these cost figures are subject to review and are being reviewed
now. They also feel that they should indicate an interest to the
extension of the canal up to the Calloway Weir because that offers
very distinctive advantages in the spreading and recovery of water.
It is about the best plan for spreading of the water.
Councilman Rees asked if there were pumps involved in
this plan and Mr. Stetson stated that there will be six pump stations
over the Cross-Valley Canal and five pump stations up to the Callo-
way Weir. This is an open canal and the lifts are not high, and
the spreading and recovery process is simply a process that gives
storage of the water so that large reservoirs for storage of the
water are not required for the peak demands. It gives filtration
of the water so a filtration plant does not have to be built and
it gives distribution of the water. The total length of the canal
is about 21 miles.
Councilman Bleecker asked who the pumpers were who would
benefit from this underground storage of water, and Mr. Stetson
replied it would be anyone who pumps within the urban area. Under
the Improvement District there will be provisions to levy a pump
tax against all pumpers within the urban area, those who pump that
water out through their wells will pay an assessment each year on
each acre foot they pump.
Councilman Bleecker asked if that in any way would
recover a large part of the 5~ million dollars mentioned. Mr.
Stetson stated that it would, he doesn't know the exact figures
because they do not know at this point what the rates will be, the
17
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 17
Improvement District has a limitation of 20~ on the ad valorem tax
and $20.00 per acre foot on the pump tax. Several repayment
schedules were submitted to them in February, and there have been
two modifications of those figures since that time. It depends on
what rate is set on the pump tax as to what the ad valorem tax will
be. The combination of the two tax rates is to recover all costs,
the capital costs, the operation and maintenance costs gnd the
repayment of the urban area's share of the contract.
Councilman Heisey stated that it is important to point
out that the City of Bakersfield will be agreeing only to the con-
cept, not the distribution of costs, and until the costs are worked
out to be equitable to the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, there
will not be any canal. It has taken a long time just to get to
the point where agreement has been reached in concept and he is
sure there will be some long, hard discussions before agreement
will be reached as to how those costs are going to be shared.
City Attorney Hoagland commented that he thinks it is
important that the Council realizes the City is paying for State
water at the present time, paying the Zone of Benefit Tax, even
though the water is not here. If the City did not bring over a
drop of water, it would still be necessary to pay for it, and it
would just go elsewhere. In connection with this proposal, the
staff members and the Council Water Committee have drafted a letter
to the Kern County Water Agency, which was a result of a meeting
with the urban water entities in which they expressed a great deal
of reluctance to proceeding with engineering studies to participate
in this plan without some assurance from the City of Bakersfield
that it would proceed on it. This letter is such an assurance to
the Kern County Water Agency, stating that the City of Bakersfield
does approve the construction of the Cross-Valley Canal to the
Friant-Kern Canal and would approve the extension of the canal to
the Calloway Weir, provided that all who receive benefits therefrom
will equitably share in its cost.
18
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 18
He explained the second paragraph of
it states the City expects the assurance that if
77,000 acre feet of State project water reserved
Bakersfield area is not needed
its best efforts to dispose of
credit the proceeds thereof to
the letter in which
any part of the
for the Urban-
by said area, the Agency will use
the same or substitute therefor and
the member units within the proposed
improvement district in the proportion that such member units have
contributed thereto. That paragraph is a reference to the City's
law suit. If the law suit is successful and the City is able to
recover Kern River water as rightfully theirs, the 77,000 acre feet
would be reduced by the amount of the water the City gets from the
Kern River and would want assurance that it would be credited for
that amount.
Councilman Heisey then moved that the Council authorize
the Mayor to send the letter to the Kern County Water Agency. This
motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Rees, Chairman of the Legislative Committee,
reported that the City of Baldwin Park is endeavoring to change
the distribution formula of the Sales Tax from the present formula
to an apportionment based upon population. The City of Bakersfield
is opposed to such change, as it would stand to lose over 1.5 million
dollars in revenues annually from such a shift. He moved that a
letter be prepared for the Mayor's signature, to send to the League
of Californfa Cities indicating the City's position of opposing any
change in the distribution formula on the Sales Tax. This motion
carried unanimously.
The
(a)
(b)
following
Consent Calendar.
items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
Allowance of Claims Nos. 3999 to 4156,
inclusive, in amount of $128,164.64.
Quitclaim Deed from Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph Company for street right-of-way
at northwest corner of Planz Road - South
"H" Street intersection.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a) and (b)
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 19 49
of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Encroachment Permit granted Sam
Wiskirchen for redwood fence adjacent
to sidewalk at 3809 Teal Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Encroachment
Permit was granted Sam Wiskirchen to construct a 6' redwood fence
adjacent to the existing sidewalk at 3809 Teal Street.
Approval of Agreement with Elmer Fox
& Company, Certified Public Accountants,
for audit of City accounts and records.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Agreement with Elmer
Fox & Company, Certified Public Accountants, for audit of City
accounts and records was approved, and the Mayor was authorized
to execute the contract.
Adoption of Resolution No. 47-71 fixing
the time of Meetings of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield during the months
of June, July and August of 1971.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 47-71
fixing the time of Meetings of the Council of the City of Bakers-
field during the months of June, July and August of 1971, was
adopted by. the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Request from Mrs. Alice Gil to connect
residence at 2313 Akers Road to the
City Sewer System referred to the
Planning Commission for study and recom-
mendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, request from Mrs. Alice
Gil to connect residence at 2313 Akers Road to the City Sewer System
was referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation.
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 20
Approval of Plans and Specifications
and Finance Director authorized to
advertise for bids for Construction
of Automatic Sprinkler System at
Patriots Park Drainfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Plans and Specifica-
tions were approved and the Finance Director was authorized to
advertise for bids for Construction of Automatic Sprinkler System
at Patriots Park Drainfield.
Approval of Plans and Specifications
and Finance Director authorized to
advertise for bids for Paving and
Improving White Lane between South
"H" Street and Pontiac Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Plans and Speci-
fications were approved and the Finance Director was authorized to
advertise for bids for Paving and Improving White Lane between
South "H" Street and Pontiac Slreet.
Encroachment Permit granted Guadalupe
Mercado for chain link fence adjacent
to the existing sidewalk at 921 Dolores
Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Encroachment Permit
was granted Guadalupe Mercado for construction of four foot chain
link fence adjacent to the existing sidewalk at 921 Dolores Street.
Action delayed for two weeks on Map
of Tract No. 3537-A.
Councilman Thomas moved to accept the Map of Tract
No. 3537~A and ~uthorize the Mayor to execute the Contract and
Specifications, subject to contractor controlling any dust by
adequate watering of the project during the construction. Council-
man Bleecker offered a substitute motion that the action be delayed
for one week. Councilman Thomas withdrew his motion.
A representative of the developer addressed the Council
requesting that the Map be approved as it would result in a two
week delay, inasmuch as the next Council meeting will not be held
for a period of two weeks due to the upcoming holiday.
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 21
Councilman Rees asked for a comment from the staff, and
Director of Public Works Jing stated that the subdivision has been
reviewed by the Planning Commission and it is recommended for
approval. The developer has bonds to cover all of the off-street
improvements and it does meet all the requirements of the Sub-
division Ordinance.
Councilman Heisey asked Mr. Sceales if fhis is a low-
income housing pro3ect. Mr. Sceales stated fhe developer plans
on erecting modular pre-built housing on this property.
Councilman Whirremote commented that last week and this
week also, the Council has been introduced to a new concept in
housing and he believes that 40 lots on 4.22 acres is a lot of
housing. It meets the R-3 zoning requirements, but it is putting
a great number of people into a small area, as normally on four
acres of land sixteen houses can be built. This is a fallacy in
the Zoning, and he has tried for years to have a reversion clause
in the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Director Sceales stated that play areas will be
provided and actually the density is far below what they can build
on this property.
Councilman Bleecker then moved that it be held over two
weeks, which motion carried unanimously.
Date fixed for hearing before the
Council on appeal by James F. Flinn
from decision of City Manager Bergen
granting Harvey L. Hall a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity
to operate an ambulance service within
the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, date of June 21st was
set for hearing before the Council on appeal by James F. Flinn
from decision of City Manager Harold'Bergen granting Harvey L. Hall.
a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate an
ambulance service within the City of Bakersfield.
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 22
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council for hearing protests by persons owning real property
within territory designated as Akers No. l, proposed to be annexed
to the City of Bakersfield. This hearing was duly advertised and
those property owners required by law were notified. No protests
or objections were filed in the City Clerk's office.
The Mayor declared the public hearing open for public
participation. No protests or objections being received and no
one speaking in favor of the annexation,the public hearing was
closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by
Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 48-71 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring that a majority protest has not been made
to the annexation of Akers No. 1 proposed to be annexed to the
City of Bakersfield was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Ordinance No. 1937
New Series approving annexation of a parcel of uninhabited terri-
tory to the City of Bakersfield, California, designated as Akers
No. 1 and providing for the taxation of said territory to pay the
bonded indebtedness of said City, was adopted by the following
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on Resolution of Intention to include within the Greater
Bakersfield Separation of Grade District certain territory desig-
nated as Akers No. 1. This hearing has been duly advertised and
no written protests have been filed in the City Clerk's office.
vote:
Ayes:
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 23 23
The Mayor declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received and no one speaking
in favor, the public hearing was closed for Council deliberation
and action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 49-71
annexing that certain territory designated as Akers No. i to the
Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District, 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 Joe Giumarra to amend the zoning
boundaries from an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3
(Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone of
that certain property located at the northeast corner of Christmas
Tree Lane and Columbus Street.
This hearing has been duly advertised and the property
posted and no written protests have been filed in the City Clerk's
office. The proposed zoning would be an extension of existing
multiple family development. The "D" Overlay was recommended in
order to insure a compatible development with adjacent single
family zone properties.
The Mayor declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received and no one speaking
in favor of the rezoning, the public hearing was closed for Council
deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Ordinance
No. 1938 New Series amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code of the
City of Bakersfield changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain
property in the City of Bakersfield located at the northeast corner
of Christmas Tree Lane and Columbus Street, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
24
Bakersfield, California, May 24~ 1971 - Page 24
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on application by Stockdale Development Corporation to amend the
zoning boundaries to an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) or more
restrictive, Zone; to an R-2 (Two Family Dwelling), or-more
restrictive, Zone; and to an R-2-MH (Two Family Dwelling - Mobile
Home Park), or more restrictive, Zone, affecting thai certain
property located east of Ashe Road, south of Sunnydale, west of
New Stine and Stine Road, and north of White Lane.
This hearing has been duly advertised and the property
posted. No written protests have been filed in the City Clerk's
office. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this zone
change with the "D" (Architectural Design) Overlay applied to the
R-2 and R-2-MH to protect the adjacent properties and traffic flow
onto the adjacent streets.
The Mayor opened the hearing for public participation.
No protests or objections were received. A representative of the
Stockdale Development Corporation pointed out that on the Mobile
Home portion of the zoning, the property is already zoned for that
purpose, they have only relocated the canal because they feel that
it offers a better buffer to the single family and multiple family
residential and because of the change in the canal location, it
has shifted the boundaries.
Mr. Sceales pointed out that what they are asking for is
a re-arrangement of the R-2-MH zone and explained how the acreage
will be divided after the rezoning.
Councilman Thomas moved that action be delayed on this
rezoning
proposal.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
for two weeks in order for him to personally study the
This motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
Bakersfield, California, May 24, 1971 - Page 25
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:00 o'clock P.M.
MAY~_.q.f-/t~W~ Cify 6f BakerSfield,
Calif.
ATTEST:
CITY o Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
26
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971
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 7, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Thomas
Toler of the First Christian Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Absent: None
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Minutes of the regular meeting of May 24, 1971 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Don Vollmar, spokesman for the Southwest Residents
Group, addressed the Council, stating that he was appearing for a
group of citizens concerned about so-called low cost housing which
has mushroomed during the last year or so in the Bakersfield area
through grants from the Los Angeles office of HUD. Housing of a
single family nature is made possible under Section 235 of the
Federal Housing Act, while apartment complexes are being built
under Section 236 of the same Act. He pointed out that approximately
100 members of the Southwest Residents Group were present in the
Council Chambers.
In their attempt to put together comprehensive information
and to determine the status of a recent application of 235 Project
housing on a 5-acre parcel near Julian and McCourry Streets, they
have contacted a number of people and as a result of these contacts,
the Group has arrived at the conclusion that HUD is virtually
impregnable, an agency accountable to no one at the local govern-
ment level and very tight with the facts as
Kern County. Among other things, HUD shows
federal housing already constructed in this
abandoned or foreclosed.
to its operation in
little concern for
area which lies vacant,
He stated that their purpose here tonight is two-fold.
First, to seek a resolution directed jointly to HUD offices in
Washington and Los Angeles, with copies to be sent to appropriate
Senators and Congressmen, and to the Kern County Board of Supervisor?s,
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 2
27
requesting that further Section 235 and 236 projects in this area
be deferred until such time as HUD can demonstrate that this type
of housing is desirable £rom the standpoint of market demand,
quality of construction and location within the community, and tha~;
City services and school districts are capable of absorbing the
population density which follows such projects. Secondly, that
the City Council direct the Planning Department to keep Mr. Jon
Reed, President of this Group, closely advised regarding each and
every request for lot size modification to something less than the
present 7200 square foot minimum called for under R-1 zoning, with
particular regard to a modification request expected soon concerntrig
the property at Julian and McCourry Streets.
He presented the Council with copies of a petition con-
taining over 1500 signatures obtained from residents in the Seventh.
Ward of the City of Bakers£ield and also from the unincorporated
area to the south which lies within the boundary of the Greenfield
School District. Copies of the petition have been mailed to repre-
sentatives of the office of HUD and to certain Washington officials.
A copy of the petition will be presented to the Kern County Board
of Supervisors at its meeting tomorrow.
Councilman Whittemore supported Mr. Vollmar's stand and
complimented him on an excellent presentation to the Council. He
thanked the many residents of the southwest area for displaying
their concern to the members of the Council. The existing 236
project in the Seventh Ward will throw a tremendous load on the
school district and will cause traffic problems. He urged the
members of the Council to support the Southwest Residents Group's
request for a resolution, as they are not asking for anything un-
reasonable, only to have a fact-finding committee from HUD come to
Bakersfield and determine if there is a need for additional 235
and 236 housing projects. He stated that he wished to go on record
that he will oppose any modification of the lot size, not only in
this Tract, but in any other Tract, where it is planned to construct
235 projects.
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 3
District.
July 1st.
committee
ordinance.
Councilman Rees asked the City Attorney to comment on thc~
City's current position relative to these housing projects. Mr.
Hoagland stated that it is immaterial as far as the City is con-
cerned whether it is a 235 or 236 project, if it meets the building',
zoning and subdivision requirements. The City could prohibit the
Section 236 type of construction by refusing to fezone it R-3; how-
ever, once it is zoned R-3, this type of housing may go in.
He pointed out that the last time a resolution was pro-
posed, it engenered an argument when it was presented to the Council,
so he asked for guidance in preparing the requested resolution.
Councilman Heisey asked how large an area would be
encompassed by this resolution. Mr. Vollmar stated that their
particular concern lies with the impact on the Greenfield School
They would like to have the resolution not later than
Councilman Heisey recommended that the Mayor appoint a
to meet with the City Attorney to draw up the requested
Councilman Medders commented that if applications of this
nature continue to be approved and funded in this area, it could
mean that the Greenfield School District would find it necessary
to expand and State funds to provide adequate housing for additional
students are not available at this time.
Councilman Whittemore stated that Mr. Frank Bruins of
3512 Canadian Street had asked to be placed on record as favoring
this housing project. He then moved that the Mayor appoint a
committee to meet with the City Attorney to draw up the resolution
for Council consideration not later than July 1st. Also, that Mr.
Jon Reed be placed on the mailing list of the Planning office, so
that he can be notified of any applications for this type of
housing.
Councilman Rucker asked that the resolution not include
the entire City, as he felt that each application should be judged
on its own merits. Mayor Hart asked Mr. Vollmar to give this some
thought in view of Councilman Rucker's request, and Mr. Vollmar
replied that he would be prepared to meet with the City Attorney
and define the area to be covered in the Resolution.
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 4
Mayor Hart named Councilmen Heisey and Whittemore to
assist in drawing up the Resolution. Vote was taken on the motion,
which carried unanimously.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, communications from
Congressman Bob Mathias and Congressman Barry M. Goldwater, Jr.,
regarding Resolution adopted by the Bakersfield City Council
requesting an investigation of the Kern County Economic Opportunity
Corporation, was received and ordered placed on file.
Councilman Heisey stated that he had received a personal
letter from Congressman Mathias and he is mosf gratified at the
results of his request for an investigation of KCEOC. Offensive
statements painted on the walls have been removed, as well as
questionable pictures taken down. Something is going on within
this organization. He has been assured that there will be a
thorough and comprehensive investigation of the effectiveness of
the programs administered by the KCEOC and the quality o~ its
management.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, the Mayor was authorized
to prepare an appropriate resolution honoring Mrs. Marguerite Holcombe
for her years of service to public education in the Central San
Joaquin Valley.
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey stated that he had been contacted by
Mr. Mel St. John, Assistant Administrator for the San Joaquin
Community Hospital and asked to extend an invitation to the Council
to attend formal ground breaking ceremonies for the new hospital
which will be held on Wednesday, June 9, 1971, at 1:00 P.M.
Councilman Heisey stated that Los Angeles has conducted
a study of 20 cities in the State, polled 1600 citizens on their
opinions and the survey indicated that 98% of the public favors
government restrictions on lewd and sexual performances in theatres
and public places. He is shocked to learn that the stage show "Hai~?"
has been scheduled to play the Civic Auditorium. He understands
that the cast of this play has been arrested time and time again
and he believes it is up to the Council to take a public stand. He
3O
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 5
therefore moved that the Civic Auditorium Manager be instructed
to cancel the booking of this show which has been scheduled for
Monday, June 28th.
Councilman Rees stated that he is not qualified to assess
this thretrical production, he has never seen it, but he has heard
comments from people he considers normal, responsible people of
taste who have seen this play in some of the larger cities, and
their evaluation was that it represents this generation and they
did not consider it particularly offensive. In good conscience,
he would oppose the motion.
Councilman Whittemore stated he has not seen the production,
but he has seen in the paper that the Los Angeles Police Department
has arrested the cast on seven consecutive nights. If it is a play
that is objectionable to society, he would have to support Council-
man Heisey's motion.
Mayor Hart asked Mr. Graviss if he had witnessed this
show. Mr. Graviss stated that he had not, and to his knowledge
no member of Hair's cast has been arrested. He explained that he
has been told there is one scene which might be considered objection-
able. "Hair" is on the Broadway Theatre League's list of plays
and has been shown in many auditoriums around the country.
After discussion, vote was taken on Councilman Heisey's
motion to cancel the booking for the play "Hair", which carried as
follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: Councilman Rees
Absent: None
Reports.
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of
and Personnel Committee, reported
the Governmental
Efficiency on a meeting held
with the representatives of Firefighters Local 1301 to discuss a
proposed reclassification of three Firefighters to Fire Engineers.
In September, 1970, three Fire Engineers were reclassifie~
to Fire Captains, thereby reducing the Fire Department authorized
complement of Fire Engineers by three.
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 6 31
Due to the fact that the Fire Chief has requested to
increase the Fire Department authorized complement of Fire Engineers
by three as soon as possible to. correct this situation, that re-
classification would not require additional personnel, that three
Firefighters are presently assigned as Acting Fire Engineers on a
full-time basis thereby receiving acting pay and there would be no
additional cost to the City, the GEPC recommends that the Council
approve a reclassification of three Firefighters to Fire Engineers
to become effective June 14, 1971.
Councilman Whirremote moved adoption of the report.
Councilman Bleecker commented that the three Fire Engineers were
reclassified to Fire Captains at the time the Council had approved
the construction of a new Fire Station, which has not been con-
structed and perhaps will not .be built for some time. He suggested
that in the future the need should be there before City employees
are promoted to a higher grade. However, he has no objection to
the recommendation of the GEPC and will support adoption of the
report.
Vote was
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on
(a)
taken on the motion, which carried unanimously.
(b)
the Consent Calendar:
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Allowance of Claims Nos. 4157 to 4261,
inclusive, in amount of $147~136.85.
Notice of Completion and Acceptance of
Work for resurfacing portions of
Vernon Avenue and Union Avenue.
Sewer Easement from Central Baptist
Church of Bakersfield.
Grant Deed from Viola Moore.
Plans and Specifications for Construction
of Planz Road Sanitary Sewer between
Akers Road and South Real Road.
Utilities Agreement between the State of
California and the City of Bakersfield
for relocation of water line.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b),
(d), (e) and (£) of the Consent Calendar were approved by the
following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas~ Whirremote
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
(c) ,
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 7
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, low bid of San
Joaquin Supply Company for Annual Contract for Janitorial Paper
was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Annual Contract
for Lamps was awarded to General Electric Company who has named
Stewart Electric as their local distributor, and the Mayor was
authorized to execute the contract.
Deferred Business.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 1939
New Series of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 3.18.030
Basic Work Week, 3.18.035 Work Periods - Public Works Department
and Transit Division, and Section 3.18.160 (b) Written Authoriza-
tion - Filing, of Chapter, 3.18 of the Municipal Code, City of
Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3504 and
Mayor authorized to execute Contract
and Specifications for Improvements
therein.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, it
is ordered that. the Map of Tract No. 3504 be, and the same is hereby
approved. That all the easements, ways, courts, alleys and avenues
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 dedication. 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
Tenneco West, Inc.
Formerly Kern County Land Co.
NATURE OF INTEREST
Mineral rights below a depth of
500' with no right of entry
33
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 8
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 therein.
Adoption of Resolution No. 50-71 pro-
viding for collection of unpaid Cash
Assessments under $50 in Public Improve-
ment District No. 854.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 50-71
providing for collection of unpaid Cash Assessments under $50 in
Public Improvement District No. 854, was adopted by the following
vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 11.04.430 of Chapter
11.04, Bakersfield Municipal Code,
increasing the length of Angle Parking
Stalls.
First reading was given an Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield amending Section 11.04.430 of Chapter 11.04,
Bakersfield Municipal Code, increasing the length of Angle Parking
Stalls.
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
adding Section 11.04.796 to the Muni-
cipal Code establishing a Speed Limit
on White Lane, between Wible and Stine
Road.
First reading was given an Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield adding Section 11.04.796 to the Municipal
Code establishing a Speed Limit on White Lane, between Wible and
Stine Road.
Approval of Contract with Patricia L.
Thoman for Concession Stand in Jastro
Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Contract with
Patricia L. Thoman for Concession Stand in Jastro Park was approved
and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
34
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 9
Approval of Supplemental Agreement
with the County of Kern for Programs
of Supervised Community Recreation.
It was moved by Councilman Rucker that Supplemental
Agreement with the County of Kern for Programs of Supervised
Community Recreation in the Panama Union School District ahd the
Bakersfield City School District for the Fiscal Year 1971-72, be
approved and the Mayor authorized to execute same.
Councilman Whittemore asked Mr. Graviss if the amount
received from the County this year is less than was paid to the
City for the Recreation Program last year. Mr. Graviss stated
that it was and explained that the decrease was based equally on
a drop in the population as shown in the recent census and an
increase in County administrative costs.
Councilman Whittemore commented that he feels this is
one of the most important programs that the County and the City
provides for the City's young people and he hopes that a joint
meeting is held with the City-County Cooperation Committee next
year in an endeavor to increase the amount to the level of previous
years.
Mr. Graviss pointed out that a request had been made to
the County to increase the program one cent and there is still a
possibility that this will be restored in their budget, however,
it is necessary to sign the contract at this time in order to
commence the program by July 1st.
Councilman Heisey commented that the reason for the cut
in the program is the fact that the County is spending more money
for administration and salaries which results in less money for
the kids.
After discussion, vote was taken on Councilman Rucker's
motion which carried unanimously.
35
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 10
Acceptance of resignation of Mr. O.D.
Williams as' Member of the Board of
Building and Housing Appeals.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Heisey, the resignation of Mr. O. D. Williams as a Member of the
Board of Building and Housing Appeals was accepted with regret,
and the Mayor was authorized to send him a letter of appreciation
for his outstanding service to the community.
Approval of Agreement with the Bakers-
field Swim Club to operate a Concession
Stand in Jefferson Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Agreement with the
Bakersfield Swim Club to operate a Concession Stand in Jefferson
Park during their swim meet on July 10, 11, 17 and 24, 1971, was
approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Agreement.
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3536 and
Mayor authorized to execute Contract
and Specifications for Improvements
therein.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, it is ordered that
the Map of Tract No. '3536 be, and the same is approved, that the
continuing easement and right of way over Lot 1 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 requirements
NAME
Tenneco West, Inc.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
of signatures of the following:
NATURE OF INTEREST
Mineral rights below 500
Tower Line Easements
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
was authorized to execute the Contract and Specifications for the
Improvements therein. Councilmen Medders and Whittemore voted in
the negative on this motion.
36
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 -~Page 11
Approval of Cooperative Agreement
between County of Kern and City of
Bakersfield for Improvement of
Monitor Street between White Lane
and. a point 500 feet southerly
thereof.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Cooperative
Agreement between the County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield
for Improvement of Monitor Street between White Lane and a point
500 feet southerly thereof, was approved and the Mayor was authorized
to execute same.
Encroachment Permit granted Stephen
McCollum for construction of fence
at the northeast corner of San Dimas
Street and 31st Street subject to
certain conditions.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker,
Encroachment Permit was granted Stephen McCollum to construct a
four foot chain link fence in line with the back edge of the
future sidewalk at the northeast corner of San Dimas Street and
31st Street, subject to the following conditions:
1.Construct curb, gutter and sidewalk for
pedestrian safety.
2. Provide sight clearance by constructing
the fence with a ten foot corner cut-off.
Hearings.
This is the time set for continued public hearing before
the Council on application by Stockdale Development Corporation to
amend the zoning boundaries to an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) or
more restrictive, Zone; to an R-2 (Two Family Dwelling), or more
restrictive, Zone; and to an R-2-MH (Two Family Dwelling - Mobile
Home Park), or more restrictive, Zone, affecting that certain
property located east of Ashe Road, South of Sunnydale, west of
New Stine and Stine Road, and north of White Lane.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of this
zone change with the "D" (Architectural Design) Overlay applied
to the R-2 and R-2-MH to protect the adjacent properties and traffic
flow onto the adjacent street. The hearing was continued from last
meeting at the request of Councilman Thomas.
37
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 12
The Mayor declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak
in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Chuck Tolltee of Stockdale Develop-
ment Corporation explained that this change in zone covered two
separate parcels o£ property. They are asking that the one located[
at Ashe Road and Ming Road be rezoned from an "A" to an R-l, and
that the other one, located at the southwest corner of Frazier and
Stine Roads, be rezoned from R-1 to R-2.
Councilman Thomas commented'that he had spent considerable
time with Mr. Mel Jans, Executive Vice-President of Stockdale
Development Corporation, and was quite impressed with the plans
for developing this property, however, he didn't realize that this
company had petitioned to change the R-1 zone to an R-2 zone and he
didn't agree with that portion of the application.
After additional explanation by Mr. Tolfree, the Mayor
declared the hearing closed for Council deliberation and action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 1940 New Series
amending Title 17 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 east of Ashe Road, south of Sunnydale,
west of New Stine and Stine Road and north of White Lane, was adopted
by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker~ Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes:
Absent:
Rees, Rucker,
None
None
This is the time set
initiated action by
on the
Annexation to an R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) or more restrictive,
Zone; to an R-2-MH (Two Family Dwelling - Mobile Home Park), or
more restrictive, Zone; to an R-2-D (Two Family Dwelling - Archi-
tectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone; to an R-2 (Two Family
Dwelling - Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone; to an
R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) or
more restrictive, Zone; to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling)
for public hearing before the Council
the Planning Commission to Zone upon
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 13
or more restrictive, Zone; to a C-1-D (Limited Commerci'al Archi-
tectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone; and to an "A"
(Agricultural) or more restrictive, Zone, affecting those certain
properties in the County of Kern located between Wilson Road and
White Lane and between Stine Road
No. 1 Annexation.
The Planning Commission
and Wible Road, known as Akers
recommends approval of the
requested zoning upon annexation with the exception of that parcel
located east of the proposed extension of Akers Road approximately
250 feet south of Planz Road from an R-3 to R-2-D.
The Commission further recommends the "D" (Architectural
Design) Overlay be applied to all multiple and commercial zoning
to insure compatible developments with adjacent residential
properties.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and no
written protests were filed in the City Clerk's office.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation and asked if there were persons present who wished to speak
in approval of this Zoning Upon Annexation.
Mr. Bob Davidson, speaking in behalf of the property
owner of that portion located at the junction of Akers and Planz
Road, stated that they are requesting R-l, R-2 and R-3 zoning of
this area. He stated that their proposed development will be a
real asset and credit to the community and they are not contem-
plating any low-cost housing.
Mr. Paul Abrams stated that his company owns the 50 acres
located at Wible and Planz Road. The Planning Commission has cut
down his request for a small commercial development, but he has
been told that if the proposed zoning is granted tonight and he
has any plans for future development, he can present an application
for rezoning his property for consideration of the Planning Com-
mission. On that basis he accepts the judgment of the Planning
Commission.
Mr. J. A. Wheelan, representing Elmer F. Karpe, Inc.
contract purchaser of approximately 20 acres of land lying at the
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 14
39
northeast corner of Stine Road and Planz Road, stated that they
have requested 2~ acres C-1-D for a small neighborhood shopping
center; approximately 2~ acres R-3-D; approximately 6½~acres R-2-D
and the balance of 30 lots to be zoned R-1. Theyare not requesting
zoning on a speculative basis,- they have plans to start deVelopmen~
immediately and includes no plans whatsoever for low-cost housing.
A number of persons interested in the Church of God
property indicated their approval of the rezoning.
Mr. Fred Thompson, owner of seven acres on Stine Road
and White Lane, proposed to be zoned R-2-MH, spoke in favor of the
rezoning.
No objections being received, the Mayor closed the public
hearing for Council deliberation and action.
Councilman Whittemore stated this is a tremendously large
piece of property to rezone and he feels the Planning Commission
has done an excellent job. He then moved that Ordinance No. 1941
New Series amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter 17.12 (Zoning Map)
of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield be adopted with
the restrictions as recommended by the Planning Commission. This
motion carried by the following roll call 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 the initiated ~ction by the Planning Commission to amend the'
zoning boundaries from an R-2-MH-D (Two Family Dwelli~ng - Mobile
Home Park - Architectural Design) Zone to an R-2-D (Two Family
Dwelling - Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone of that
certain property located on the southwest corner of Planz Road and
South Chester Avenue.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and no
written protests were filed in the City Clerk's office. The
Planning Commission initiated this zone change to eliminate the MH
(Mobile Home Park) Overlay so that mobile homes cannot be placed
on these lots designed for permanent structures.
4O
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 15
Mayor Hart opened the hearing for public participation.
No protests or objections being received, the public hearing was
closed for Council deliberation
commented that he hopes this is
comes up before the Council for
satisfactory, as the density is
and action. Councilman Whirremote
the last time this piece of property
rezoning and that the R-2-D will be
right. He then moved that Ordinance
No. 1942 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code
of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use Zoning of that
certain property in the City of Bakersfield located on the south-
west corner of Planz Road and South Chester Avenue be adopted.
This motion carried by the following roll call 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 the initiated action by the Planning Commission to
amend the zoning boundaries from a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural
Design) Zone to an R-2-D (Two Family Dwelling - Architectural Design)
or more restrictive, Zone, of that certain property abutting Golden
State Highway on the south side and lying between Stine Canal on
the west and Elm Street on the east.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and no
written protests were filed in the City Clerk's office.
The Planning Commission initiated this zone change to
R-2-D for said parcel with the application of the "D" Overlay to
protect the existing adjacent developments and the traffic flow.
The property owner has submitted a tentative subdivision map for
subject property to be developed with condominium apartments
designed to an R-2 density.
The Mayor opened the hearing for public participation.
No protests or objections being received, the hearing was closed
for Council deliberation and action. Councilman Bleecker moved
that Ordinance No. 1943 New Series amending Title Seventeen of
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 16
the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, by changing the Land
Use Zoning of that certain property abutting Golden State Highway
on the south side'and lying between Stine Canal on the west and
Elm Street 'on the east. This motion carried by the following roll
call 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 proposal to change the rate of additional tax for a
Business License for all businesses conducting their activities
in the Business Promotion District as established pursuant to
Chapter 6.50 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield.
This hearing has been duly advertised and notices sent
to all property owners and businesses in the Business Promotion
District. This change in the rate of additional tax was requested
by members of the Downtown Business Promotion District. The member's
informed the Council's Business Development and Parking Committee
that nearly all businesses which have been contacted had little
or no objections to this proposed tax change.
Mayor Hart opened the meeting for public participation,
asking that those people in favor of the change in the rate of the
Business License Tax address the Council at this time. Mr. Leland
Noble, of Brock's downtown, stated that he is qualified to give
the reason for making this request to the Council. As originally
set up, the Promotion District funding was to be a surcharge on
the City Business License which was then in existence. Since that
time the Council has completely revised the Business License
structure in the City and the cash flow to the Business Promotion
District was inadequate for its promotional activities. The initial
budget as presented to the Council a couple of years ago on the
basis of a $40,000 tax flow, has shrunk to a little over $28,000,
as of the last annual billing. This is not adequate to carry out
42
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 17
the programs that the Downtown Business Association envisioned
when it was given the contract to operate the District. This is
a request to restructure the tax base back to its original amount.
Had they known what the Business License structure would have
brought in at the time, the surcharge could have been adjusted
and this request'would not have been necessary.
No one else speaking in approval, Mayor Hart asked if
there were persons in the audience who would speak in opposition
to the proposed increase in the Business License Tax for the
operation of the Business Promotion District.
Mr. Gerald Striker, owner of the Rose Yardage Shop at
2010 Chester Avenue, addressed the Council, stating that additional
tax is not the solution. He stated that 25% of the monies collected
in 1970 went for staffing the District. The Christmas promotion
cost the District $15,000 for lights. The remaining $14,000 was
spent on promotions throughout tile year. He, personally, took a
canvass of as many people as he could contact, and only three
persons were in favor of the promotional district. The people in
the so-called promotion district did not ask for this tax. A small
group of men have asked for it and therefore it was approved. The
actual promotion participation by the downtown business people
with licenses issued by the City of Bakersfield is less than 10%.
If this promotion district had merit, the businesses would tax
themselves, but the district stated that the only way this money
could be obtained would be by having the City tax the people.
Actually, what is being done is the District is subsidizing a very
few stores at the expense of a great many people within the City,
which is driving the high gross businesses out into the unincorporated
areas.
Certain businesses originally proposed to be within the
District, protested, so they were eliminated, but the hard core
did not protest, they didn't realize what the tax was going to do
and fhe little benefit that would be derived from it. He happens
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 18
43
to be one of about ten businesses which could benefit from the
promotional:district and he doesn't believe in it,.because an
injustice is being done to many people who are getting absolutely
no benefit from it. He, and the people he has contacted are opposed
to this increase and they ask that the Council reject this proposed
increase and seriously consider repealing the Business Promotional
District Ordinance.
Councilman Rees asked Mr. Striker to elaborate on his
statement that less than 10% were participating. Mr. Striker
stated that he believes the City has issued 300 licenses within
the area and he would say that less than 30 participate promotional-
wise.
about the
Other persons who spoke in
District, are as follows:
Vernon T. Wall
Earl August
Ron Sharp
Bob Moses
Leon Volhey
Nathan Krevitz
Marvin Lipco
David Salyer
Alfred Pearce
Arlie Knight
opposition and asked questions
Hearing Aid Center
Golden Empire Appliance
Bakersfield American Hearing
Aid Company
Acme Jewelry & Loan
Guarantee Shoe Center
International Security Co.
Alan Jewelry & Loan
Trans Western Mortgage Co.
Real Estate & Insurance
Watch Shop
Mr. Leland Noble attempted to clarify certain things
which were brought up by the people who spoke in opposition to the
proposed tax. He brought out that the District was formed under a
State Enabling Act, formed under Assembly Bill 103, which was passed
several years ago by the State to permit the central business cores
of cities to do something to compete with the outlying shopping
areas, and explained its operation. He defended the Downtown
Business Association request by stating that the one purpose of
the promotion district was to promote traffic in downtown Bakers-
field and they have not spent the taxpayers money for specific
promotion of any certain type of business, this is forbidden under
the Enabling.;Act. He pointed out that the contract with the City
forming the District can be revoked within 90 days upon request.
44
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 ~ Page 19
Councilman Rees commented to Mr. Noble that the Council
had its agenda on Friday and the explanation of the hearing con-
tained the statements that "the members informed the Council's
Business Development and Parking Committee that nearly all businesses
which have been contacted had little or no objections to this pro-
posed tax change." He asked Mr. Noble if he felt that the survey
was adequate or possibly those people making the survey drew an
erroneous conclusion. Mr. Noble replied that he couldn't answer
it because he didn't know anything about a survey and had no idea
where that statement originated.
Councilman Bleecker remarked that the statement was made
to the Council's Committee when it met with the Downtown Business
Association Board of Directors at the time they came to the Com-
mittee and asked for the increased tax. There had to be some kind
of survey made by someone in order to make the statement which was
contained in the report which evaluated what was said at the Com-
mittee meeting.
Mr. Noble stated that a poll was not made for the parti-
cular revision and if that impression was given, he was sorry.
Mr. Ivo Keyser, Executive Director of the Downtown
Business Association stated that the Board of Directors unanimously
approved making~a request to the City for an increase in the
Business License Tax. He pointed out that when the Downtwon
Business Promotion District was formed, the Association had less
than 70 members, and today they have 112. It is true that people
are moving away from downtown, but since the District was formed,
25 new businesses have opened up in the downtown area, and only
nine retail businesses have left the area.
Councilman Heisey stated that it appeared to him the DBA
hasn't done a good job of selling itself to the people downtown.
He is very disappointed at the number of protests received. Per-
sonally, he was very enthused when the District was formed, and at
that time the Council Chamber was packed with people who were in
favor of the District. He stated that he feels the hearing should
be continued for a reasonable length of time to enable the Council
Committee to give the matter further study.
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 20
Mr. Hoagland pointed out that a real problem will be
created if this matte~ is continued as, by law the notices must be
sent out with the forms for the Business License which fal~ due
on the first of July.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he was completely unaware
that there would be substantial opposition to the proposed increase
in the Business License Tax, and as Chairman of the Committee, he
is upset that he was led to believe some kind of poll had been
taken and there was very little or no opposition to it. Hopefully~
some solution can be arrived at that will be favored by everyone,
and in view of the opposition here tonight, he would suggest that
a meeting be held prior to the Council meeting of June 21st, where
he can listen to every person present this evening~ to any other
opposition, and to any other proponents of this proposal.
Councilman Bleecker then moved that the whole matter be
referred back to the Business Development and Parking Committee
for further study and the hearing be continued until June 21st.
This motion carried by the following roll call 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 Phase I of the 1971 Weed Abatement Program.
Director of Public Works Jing reported that the depart-
ment made a City-wide inspection of all the vacant properties for
weeds between April 30 and May 18~ 19?l, at which time 517 parcels
were posted. Notices were sent out to all the affected parcels on
May 19 to May 24, 1971. The second inspection was made today and
they found thai there was approximately a 45% compliance on
destroying the weeds.
Certified letters will be sent to all non-complying
property owners prior to June ll, 1971 and they will be given a
46
Bakersfield, California, June 7, 1971 - Page 21
period of
advertise
not complying. The bid opening will be on July 7,
bids will be submitted to the Council for award on
No protests or objections being received,
12 days to remove the weeds, after which time they will
for bids for cleaning of the lots owned by those persons
1971, and the
July 12, 1971.
upon a motion
by Councilman Rees, Resolution No. 51-71 finding that certain
Weeds growing on property in the City of Bakersfield constitute
a public nuisance and directing the Superintendent of Streets to
destroy said Weeds, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
None
None
Adjournment.
no further business
There being
upon a motion by Councilman Rucker,
Council~
adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
to come before the
the meeting was
Sakers f le ld,
ATTEST:
an Of~ r~ of the
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Council
47
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971
Minutes
the City of Bakersfield, California,
of the City Hall at seven o'clock P.
The meeting was called to
of a Budget Hearing meeting of the Council of
held in the Council Chambers
M., June 14, 1971.
order by Mayor Hart, followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by
Adams of the First United Methodist Church.
Present:
Absent:
the Reverend Kenneth
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
None
Rees,
Report of the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee Re - Salaries
New Personnel Requests, Reclassification
Requests and Supplemental Benefits.
Mayor Hart stated that the report of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee regarding Salaries, New Personnel
Requests, Reclassification Requests and Supplemental Benefits will
be read in its entirety, afler which the Bakersfield City Employees
Association, the Bakersfield Firefighters Local 1301 and the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-
CIO Local 1078 will be given the opportunity to comment, in that
order.
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read a report of that Com-
mittee as follows:
The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee
recommendations to the Bakersfield City Council concerning employee
salaries and supplemental benefits for the 1971-72 Fiscal Year are
hereby submitted for your consideration. This Committee has met
with and reviewed the requests of the Bakersfield City Employees
Association, the Bakersfield Firefighters Local 1301 and the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-
CIO Local 1078.
48
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 2
Every attempt has been made to comply with the "meet and
confer" provisions of Senate Bill No. 1228, the Meyers-Milias-Browr~
Act. We would like to call to the attention of lhe City Council
that the personnel and related areas represent approximately 70%
of the 1971-72 Budget and bear a direct relationship to the quality
and level of service to be provided during the next Fiscal Year.
This Committee's recommendations take into account the
recommendations of the City Manager and Department Heads, as well
as the requests and information provided to us by the two unions
and the Employees' Association.
As pointed out to us by the Administrative Staff, the
establishment and maintaining of a fair and equitable salary plan
is extremely complex, especially when it covers so diverse a range
of classes as we have in the City of Bakersfield and when supple-
mental benefits and working conditions must be considered as an
integral part of this City's salary plan. For at least the past
three consecutive years, extensive salary adjustments have been
made within the City. During these three years, salaries without
supplemental benefits have increased an average of approximately
7.2% per year. The local salary survey made by the Kern County
Personnel Department shows that wages in Kern County advanced on
the average of 6.2% from a year ago. The cost of living, according
to the Consumer Price Index, has increased approximately 5.5%
during this same period.
Taking into account all of the above information, the
Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee is recommending
a cost-of-living increase of 5% for all employees, with the
exception of the Fire Engineer and Fire Captain positions for which
it is recommending a 7½% increase. After reviewing this City's
Fire Department classification schedule, this Committee felt there
was a need to create a more realistic salary spread between the
Firefighter, Fire Engineer and Fire Captain positions.
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 3 49
After many hours of reviewing the 1971-72 salary and
fringe benefits proposals, the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
Committee has come to the conclusion that the City Council must
take a serious look at the level of services being provided to
City residents versus the costs to provide these services. It is
obvious that this City's expenditures and revenues must have a
realistic relationship if it is to remain solvent and finanically
sound. This is especially true in the area of non-governmental
type services.
The most obvious example in this City of a non-govern-
mental service is its refuse pick-up. In reviewing the AFSCME
salary request, it came to the Committee's attention that a
substantial cost factor is involved in this service and this cost
is increasing more than any other service. During the past four
years and taking into consideration the projected costs for 1971-
72, this City's refuse collection costs climbed from $683,000 to
$1,077,000, an increase of over 50%. This cost amounts to a direct
72~ on the present City Property Tax rate.
In comparing this City's refuse service with 19 other
central California cities, the Committee finds that none of these
cities include their refuse costs in their tax rate. All of these
cities make a monthly charge from a low $1.25 to a high of $3.25
per month, and many of them have their refuse franchised or con-
tracted out to private collectors.
The GEPC feels that this practice holds a great deal of
merit and would recommend that the City Council direct the Adminis-
trative Staff to begin a study immediately concerning the franchising
or contracting of this City's refuse service. The Administrative
Staff estimates that the City could eliminate more than $1,000,000
annually from the tax roll.
There are several other alternatives which could save
the City money but do not attack the basic issue, such as the City
5O
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 4
by the Governmental
Request No.
Comment
Recommendation
Request No. 2
Comment
continuing to operate the refuse collection services on a user-pay
basis. Another alternative would be for the commercial and indus-
trial refuse to be handled by municipal forces and residential
collection to be franchised. A third alternative would be once a
week pick-up in the residential areas rather than twice a week,
which is the present practice. A fourth alternative would be to
go to front yard pick-up.
The GEP Committee feels, however, that all of the goals
of this City would be best served by transferring its refuse
collection service to the private sector. This action would allow
the citizens to continue to receive the high level of service they
have come to expect and if effected by January 1, 1972, the City's
budget could be balanced this year and would allow a significant
property tax reduction the following year.
The Bakersfield City Employees' Association has requested
certain employee benefits and the following action was recommended
Efficiency and Personnel Committee:
Conversion~of unused sick leave at retirement
or termination if laid off.
This request is considered to have merit and
is being granted by many cities throughout
California. During the past two years, the
City of Bakersfield has had ten and eleven
employees retire. This past experience
would indicate that the present annual cost
would be approximately $21,000.
It is recommended that initially the City
institute a procedure allowing payment for
one half of accumulated sick leave at the
time of retirement, effective October 1, 1971.
Twenty day vacation after 15 years service.
The consensus of the Administrative Staff and
of this Committee is that there are more
urgent employee benefits to be considered at
this time. The Administrative Staff also has
recommended that in the future, consideration
should be given to allow some credit for
unused sick leave to be added to vacation
allowance rather than allow more vacation
time to employees.
51
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 5
Request No. 3
Comment
Recommendation
Request No. 4
Comment
Recommendation
Request No. 5
Comment
Recommendation
Request No. 6
Comment
Recommendation
Request No. 7
Comment
The updating of the miscellaneous employees
retirement plan benefits.
The City of Bakersfield presently contributes
$524,000 annually to safety member retirement
benefits while contributing $206,000 for
miscellaneous employee retirement benefits.
The City Council recently endorsed Senate
Bill No. 249 which will provide increased
benefits to miscellaneous employees on retire-
ment. The effect of the change from the basic
1/60 formula to the 1/50 formula is to provide
an improvement in retirement benefits for
miscellaneous employees at approximately 20%
for those retiring at age 63 or earlier,
includes the reduction of the compulsory
retirement age from 70 to 67 and it also
includes survivor benefits.
This Committee would recommend that the up-
dating of the miscellaneous employees retire-
ment plan benefits be approved.
Uniform Allowance.
If the City were to grant the same amount to
all employees required to wear a work or dress
uniform, it is estimated that the additional
cost would be $16,759.00.
This Committee would recommend no action on
this request this year.
Additional Holidays.
The Administrative Staff feels that this re-
quest has considerable merit in view of the
lack of the City's conformity with other public
agencies operating in Bakersfield. However,
additional holidays would increase the operat-
ing costs in departments,other than those
working in City Hall, would amount to approxi-
mately $14,627.00 per holiday.
In view of budget limitations, this Committee
would recommend no action on this request this
year.
Night shift differential for employees whose
regular shifts fall between the hours of
3:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.
If this request were implemented, it would
cost the City in excess of $70,000 annually.
Recommended this request be denied.
Support the revisions of the current medical
and life insurance plans as proposed by the
City Insurance Committee.
The Administrative Staff feels that the Insurance
Committee's recommendations are sound and
supports them.
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 6
Recommendation
The GEP Committee recommends in favor of both
the medical and life insurance proposals for
a total net cost to the City of $6,288.
The Bakersfield Firefighters Association, Local 844 has
requested certain benefits for employees of the Fire Department
and action was recommended by the Committee as follows:
Request No. 1-A
Work week reduction at same pay.
Comment
If the City were to reduce the work week as
requested, it is estimated that it would need
to hire eight additional Firefighters this
year and an additional eight Firefighters the
following year which would cost the City over
$100,000 for each year.
Recommendation
Not to approve at this time.
Request No. 1-B Parity with Police Department.
Comment
Salary adjustments for Fire personnel have been
recommended and discussed under "Salary Recom-
mendations" earlier in this report.
Request No. 2
Medical insurance contribution.
Comment
The City presently has one medical insurance
plan which covers all City employees. It is
the opinion of this Committee as well as the
Administrative Staff that the City has a
better plan by having all employees included
under one policy.
Request No. 3
Fire Engineer's positions.
Comment
This request was acted upon by the City Council
on Monday, June 7th.
Request No. 4
Pension benefits.
Comment
At the present time, the City's Fire Pension
Board is making studies of various pension
plans concerning the City's Fire personnel.
Recommendations will be forthcoming prior
to January 1, 1972.
Request No. 5
Uniform Allowance.
Comment
No uniform allowance is granted to the City
Police, Fire personnel or Bus Drivers.
Recommendation
It is the opinion of this Committee that this
request is a low priority at this time and
would recommend no action be taken this year.
Request No. 6
Longevity
Comment
The Administrative Staff estimates that if
this request were granted, it would cost the
City approximately $13,500 this year. If
Longevity were granted to Fire personnel it
is felt that the policy should be in effect
for all City employees, which would result in
additional cost of $52,500.
53
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 7
Recommendation
Disapprove at this time.
Request No. 7
Pay for unused sick leave.
Comment
Discussed previously in report.
Recommendation
One-half pay for accumulated sick leave at time
of retirement, effective October 1, 1971.
Request No. 8
Vacation
Comment
If this additional vacation time was granted,
it is estimated that the cost next year would
exceed $25,000.
Recommendation
Disapprove this request.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees have requested certain benefits for employees of the
Refuse and Sanitation Department as follows:
Request No. 1
New position of Sanitation Crewman III
Recommendation
It is the recommendation that until such time
as the City's complement of vehicles of 25
yards or over is enlarged or expanded, there
is not a need for this position. Earlier in
this report, it has been requested that a
thorough study be made in the City's Refuse
Division.
Request No. 2
Salary increase for Sanitation Foreman, Sani-
tation Route Inspector and Street Cleaning
Foreman.
Comment
Separate levels of Foreman in the Public Works
has been established, distinguished by the
technical skills and knowledge involved. The
upgrading of these three positions into Range
42 has no sound basis.
Recommendation
5% Cost of living increase be granted for these
positions.
Request No. 3
Salary increase - Sanitation Crewman I, Sani-
tation Crewman II and Equipment Operator Ill.
Comment
Salary recommendations made earlier in this
report recommends 5% cost of living increase.
Request
Recommendation
REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
DEPARTMENT - FINANCE
One Office Clerk
One Keypunch Operator
Approve
54
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 8
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
DEPARTMENT - PUBLIC WORKS
One Park Maintenanceman
Disapprove
One Engineering Technician
Approve
Two Equipment Operator I
Disapprove
One Maintenanceman II
Approve
One Automotive Serviceman I
Approve
One Sanitation Crewman I
Approve
Two Sewer Maintenancemen
Disapprove
DEPARTMENT - BUILDING
One Building Inspector I
Disapprove
DEPARTMENT - POLICE
One Clerk Typist
Approve
REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATIONS
DEPARTMENT - FINANCE
Office Clerk to Account Clerk
Approve
Storeskeeper to Buyer-Trainee
Approve
DEPARTMENT- PUBLIC WORKS
Equipment Operator II to Equipment
Disapprove
Equipment Operator I
Approve
Sanitation Crewman I
Approve
Operator III
to Equipment Operator II
to Equipment Operator III
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 9
55
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
Request
Recommendation
DEPARTMENT - POLICE
Parking Meter Serviceman to Maintenanceman II
Approve
Two Maintenancemen II to Maintenance Leadman
Approve
Two Detectives I to Detectives II
Approve
DEPARTMENT - FIRE
Clerk Typist to Office Clerk
Approve
Fire Inspector to Senior Fire Inspector
Disapprove
RECAP OF COST OF GEP COMMITTEE 1971-72 SALARY
AND SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT RECOMMENDATIONS
SALARIES
698 Employees at 5.1% increase
(This figure includes the Com-
mittee's recommended new
personnel and reclassifications).
SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS
1. Conversion of unused sick
leave at retirement.
2. Updating miscellaneous
employees retirement plan.
3. Additional medical and life
insurance coverage.
Total Estimated Cost
$441,382.00
21,000.00
18,000.00
6,288.00
45,288.00
Total Cost GEP Committee
Recommendations $486,670.00
Councilman Bleecker, member of the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee, commented that this Report has been sub-
mitted to the Council after many hours and days of deliberation,
with full knowledge that any wage increases would mean a rise in
property taxes unless some way to offset a tax increase could be
found. He wished to make it clear to the Council and to the public,
that his concurrence, as a member of this Committee, with what
amounts to a 5% across the board salary increase in the amount of
56
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page l0
some $500,000, is predicated upon finding sufficient funds to pay
this raise plus enough additional revenue to bolster the City's
reserve accounts to acceptable levels, all without raising taxes.
Councilman Rees stated he looks wifh interest and sympathy
on Councilman Bleecker's statements and is confident that the
Council will find ways and means of carrying out his objectives.
Mr. Howard S. Dallimore, General Manager of the Bakers-
field City Employees' Association, read a communication to the
Council calling for a basic 10% salary increase for all City
employees, or a flat salary adjustment of $75.00 per month, and
liberalization of fringe benefits and supplementary pay practices,
which have already been reported upon and recommendations made by
the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee.
He commented on the recommendation made by the GEP
Committee to transfer refuse collection service to the private
sector. He stated that his Association violently opposes
out any type of service which City employees can perform.
that the employees in the low income bracket are the ones
more than a 5% increase, and he strongly urged the Council to
seriously consider granting all employees a 10% increase or a flat
amount of $75.00. He is referring particularly to Clerical, Typists,
Stenos, Keypunch Operators, Building Maintenancemen, the Utility
Men, Equipment Operators, Motor Sweeper Operators and Miscellaneous
Maintenancemen. He also commented on the action taken by the GEP
Committee on fringe benefits requested by the BCEA.
He stated that at the GEP Committee meetings, he was
informed that there would be some classes or positions which would
be discussed after the budgets are completed. He referred to the
position of Electrician and stated that he hoped this position
would be given full consideration.
Mr. Dallimore reiterated that he thinks the City tax-
payers would complain if the City contracts out its refuse service,
as it does have fine equipment and at the present time everyone is
satisfied with the job being done by City forces.
contracting
He stated
who need
57
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 11
Mr. Don Hoffman, Executive Secretary for the Kern County
Firefighters Union, Local 1301, addressed the Council,. stating that
the Firefighters will be appearing before the Council in the very
near future with a plan for the functional consolidation of the
fire services in this County; more specifically, the Bakersfield
Fire Department and the Kern County Fire Department. He will submit
evidence which is irrefutable and will show that money can be saved
for the citizens of the community. Both County and City Fire
Stations can be closed in this area, which will save possibly a
million dollars to start.
He then read the following statement:
The Bakersfield Firefighters Local 1301 has
submitted exhibits and pertinent information
for your consideration.
We assure you that our survey is composed of
the best information available to us. We wish
to report that our recommendations are made by
scrupulously following a policy of "Like Salary
and Benefits for Like Work."
In our comparison with cities of comparable
size using the benchmark position, we .find the
Bakersfield Firefighters are lower in salary
than 19 of the 20 cities surveyed. Bakers-
field Firefighters have a 6 hour longer work
week and receive 2½ fewer holidays annually
than the average of the 20 cities surveyed.
Medical Insurance Contribution: In all cities
where the Firefighters have the Federated. Fire-
fighters Medical Plan and another plan for
other City employees, the cities contribute
the same dollar amount to both plans. This
is also true in Kern County.
The only exceptions to the above statement are
the California State Division of Forestry and
the City of Bakersfield. It should be noted
that the Division of Forestry has advised the
Forestry Firefighters Local Union that when
they have attained 500 participants in their
medical plan, they will make a contribution
equal to that of the State Medical Plan.
No facts exist to support the argument that
other City employees rates will increase if
the Firefighters withdraw from the City plan.
Cities and other governmental agencies that
have had many years of experience with both
plans have found that the competition benefits
all employees.
58
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 12
This request is a no cost item for the City,
therefore, we sincerely request that the City
contribute to the Firefighters Plan, an amount
equal to the contribution granted to the City
Blue Cross Plan, not to exceed the employees
premium.
Each Councilman has been furnished a copy of
our Salary and Fringe Benefits requests and
the reasons for them. We believe our requests
to be reasonable as they are based on "Like
Salary and Benefits for Like Work."
He stated that his organization supports the fringe
benefit requests which were submitted to the GEP Committee for
consideration and discussed earlier in that Comittee's report.
He asked that the Council consider segregating the medical con-
tribution request from the balance of the report and take it up
for separate consideration.
A discussion ensued regarding Mr. Hoffman's statement
that there would be no detrimental effect on the other City
employees' insurance rates, that there would be no increase if
the Firefighters were permitted to withdraw from the City to be-
come members of the Federated Firefighters Medical Plan if the
City agreed to contribute the same
City Manager Bergen commented that
Committee feels very strongly that
dollar amount to both plans.
the City Employees' Insurance
it will have an adverse effect
and increase the insurance premiums. This of course, is an opinion;
however, the basis behind it is that if the Firefighters are re-
moved, who are probably above average in physical fitness and a
lower age group, it will have an adverse effect on the City's
insurance plan.
Mr. Bergen suggested thai Phil White, who is the Chairman
of the City Employees' Health Plan,
matter.
Mr. White stated that he
be called upon to clarify the
is Chairman of the City's Health
Plan Committee, which is made up of one member from the Fire Depart-
ment, one from the Police Department, one from the Corporation Yard,
one from the Transit Department and one from the Finance Department.
This Committee feels strongly that to split up the plan would be
59
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 13
eventually detrimental to the City employees remaining in the Blue
Cross Plan. He pointed out that at the present time this Plan
covers the retired employees, who are covered with no increase in
rates or any reduction of coverage. It is necessary to have as
broad a base as possible, thus spreading the benefit over a greater
number of members. The administrative costs are a fixed percentage
of the premium, and the greater the participation in a plan, the
smaller the cost for administration.
The Fire Department employees are eligible to retire at
the age of 55 years, instead of the 65 age requirement for the
Miscellaneous Departments. To remove this group from the plan
would have the effect of raising the average age of the group, and
also any decrease in the number of participants in the plan would
be detrimental to the present plan. He stated that in the past
the plan has more or less been slanted to assist the older employee,
but the proposed health plan which is recommended for all employees,
will include maternity benefits, increase coverage of children from
birth to age 23, and provide a number of other changes which would
be extremely beneficial to the younger employees. Mr. White
answered questions posed by the Council and the Mayor regarding
the existing Blue Cross Plan and the makeup of the Health Plan
Committee.
Mr.
the agent
employees,
employees
Hoffman interjected that they had been informed by
for the proposed insurance for the Fire Department
that this company could not insure miscellaneous
for any different premium than they are now paying for
the Blue Cross Plan.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr.
the proposed medical plan for the Fire
Hoffman if the rates for
employees can be raised,
and Mr. Hoffman stated not without their permission, however, they
can reduce their benefits if the employees refuse to go along with
a reasonable rate increase.
6O
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 14
Mr. White assured the Council that the City's rates under
the present plan are guaranteed until May, 1972, and the City group
has not had a rate increase since 1969. The reserve on hand of
about $60,000 can be withdrawn at any time, and it belongs
exclusively to the City employees to be used to reduce rates when-
ever it is justified.
Mr. Paul Smith, President of Local 1078, American Federa-.
tion of State, County and Municipal Employees, discussed their
request for a new position of Sanitation Crewman III whose principal
duties would be the operation of waste disposal vehicles of over
25 cubic yards capacity. At the present time, the City has only
two such vehicles that have a capacity of 25 yards or over. He
stated that for some time the Sanitation Division has been discrim-.
inated against~ that they have made every effort to meet and confer
in good faith~ and they have recommended that a mediator be appointed
to work out an agreement that would be acceptable to both parties,
but this wasn't done.
He stated that the recommendation to transfer the refuse
collection to private contractors would not result in a savings to
the taxpayer because private business cannot operate as'cheaply as
the City with its own equipment and forces. Mr. Smith took exception
to the recommendation of the GEP Committee that no adjustment be
made other than the 5% cost of living increase for Sanitation Fore-
man~ Sanitation Route Inspector and Street Cleaning Foreman, stating
that it isn't fair and these three positions should be upgraded in
line with other Foreman positions in ~the City.
Mr. Bergen commented that with the acquisition of heavier
equipment for transporting refuse the salaries for the Crewman I
and II have been increased over the years. He pointed out that
there are two other Foreman classifications in the City which are
being paid at the same wage level, and he doesn't feel that there
is any discrimination directed toward these positions in the
Sanitation Division.
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 15 61
Mr. Bergen also stated that the recommendation to franchise
or contract the City's refuse service was included in the GBP Com-
mittee's Report last year, and wasn't submitted to the Council for
the first time this year.
Councilman Whirremote stated that as far as the City is
concerned, the action to transfer the refuse collection to a private
sector would allow a significant property tax reduction and balance
the City's budget this year.
Mr. Bergen stated that there are various levels of super--
visorial positions such as Foremen in the Department of Public
Works, as well as other departments. These classifications each
call for different responsibilities, and each pays a different
salary. These salaries are based on a combination of responsibility,
size of department, span on control, training and education. It
necessary to take all of these things into consideration for each
of these Foremen positions and try to relate them into a salary
schedule which would be fair to the level of employees. He has
said in committee that the inter-relationship of some of the Foremen
in the Public Works Department should be re-evaluated. This will
be done probably next year, but he does not think that they are
out of step at the present time to the extent that it is an urgency
matter requiring modification this year. He has stressed to the
GEP Committee that as soon as one budget is finished, any of these
salaries is open to further discussion as facts are brought out.
Councilman Thomas discussed the operation of heavy
equipment in the Refuse Division with Mr. Smith. He criticized
the attitude and actions of certain employees of the Sanitation
Division when a breakdown of a vehicle occurred near his home.
Mr. Len Winthers, Business Agent of the American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees, discussed the legislation
providing for "meet and confer" sessions with employers, stating
that he is here tonight to ask the Council to authorize City
Management to jointly request with his organization, that the
State Conciliation Service send in a mediator to solve the empasse
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 16
with the City. He also asked why the City is imposing an insurance
program on the employees by fiat without meeting and conferring on
the matter. He stated that any decision of the City to contract
out its refuse service is also subject to "meeting and conferring."
Councilman Whittemore commented that the GEP Committee
explained the recommendations submitted to the Council tonight to
him in a meeting. It isn't cut and dried that City refuse service
is going to be farmed out to private emterprise, it will be necessary
to get the pulse of the people, and if it is indicated by the public
that operations should be transferred to a private contractor, that
is what will happen. Councilman Whittemore stated he feels that
the Committee and the Staff has complied with every requirement of
meeting and conferring with the AFSCME.
Mr. Winthers stated that he was not challenging the
statement that they met and conferred with him, the question is
"did they meet and confer in good faith." What was said at the
committee level is that "this is what we are going to do, take it
or leave it." .Councilman Whirremote commented that Mr. Winthers
told the Committee 5% is not acceptable and got up and walked out.
Councilman Bleecker commented that it was probably a
matter of sematics because he knows that he met in good faith with
everyone who came before the GEP Committee. The Committee has not
recommended anything different for the Sanitation Division than it
did for any other department of the City, except recommending a
2½% differential in the Fire Department. He doesn't see any of
the other representatives saying that the Committee didn't meet
in good faith or didn't entertain their propositions.
A brief recess was declared at this time.
A discussion was entered into between Councilman Thomas
and Mr. Smith of the Sanitation Division regarding the use of City
vehicles by the employees of this Division to drive home to lunch.
Councilman Thomas stated that this should be brought up at the
next year's budget session when fringe benefits are discussed.
Mr. Smith pointed out that his Division is not the only one who
Bakersfield, California, Jun~e 14, 1971 Page 17 63
utilizes City vehicles for this purpose.. Councilman Thomas stated
that he just wanted to bring it out for public info~mation, as he
had received many complaints on this subject.
A~ter additional discussion, Mayor Hart commented that
he believes the intent of the Council is to assure Mr. Winthers
that they have met and conferred in good faith, while Mr. Winthers
has assured the Council that he has done the same thing. He stated
that he feels the field has been covered very well by both parties..
Councilman Whittemore stated that as. Chairman of the GEP
Committee he would say to Mr. Winthers that they have considered
his proposal, they analyzed the figures and the cost .to the City
of Bakersfield of his proposaI and counter-proposal, and the
Committee came back and reported that they had considered all
things, and were going to recommend a 5% increase for all employees.
Mr. Winthers reaction was thai it was not acceptable, and left the
meeting. The Committee did not terminate the discussion, Mr.
Winthers did.
Councilman Thomas made a motion to separate the question
of the City Medical Plan from the Governmental Efficiency and
Personnel Committee Report. Roll call vote taken on this motion
failed to carry as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey,~ Medders, Rees, Rucker
Absent: None
Councilmen Heisey made a motion that the recommendation
contained in the Governmental Efficiency and personnel Committee
Report to grant the Fire Engineer and Fire Captain positions a 7½%
increase, be separated from the question. This motion failed to
carry by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker~ Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
None.
64
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 19?l - Page 18
Councilman Medders
to adopt the GEP Committee Report, he wanted
additional 20~ property tax by the City, and
increase by the County of Kern, would result
being taxed an additional $80.00 next year.
commented thai before action is faken
to bring out that an
including any tax
in a $25,000 home
When asked to comment, City Manager Bergen stated that
predicated on the tentative action of the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee, and also on recommendations to be made by
the Budget Review and Finance Committee on the Operational Budget,
failure to effect a substantial service reduction or transfer of
service, would result in approximately a 20~ property tax increase
to balance the budget. This final determination will be made by
the Council in August when the tax rate is established and if at
that time action has been taken to put the refuse collection service
on a user-pay basis, no tax increase will be necessary, and funds
will be available to beef up several of the City's reserve accounts.
Councilman Heisey stated that he would like to be in a
position to support adoption of the GEP Committee's Report, but he
cannot support an increase in the property tax rate. Stating that
in view of the fact the tax rate must be set in August, he would
move to adopt the budget effective September 1st, to give sufficier~t
time to solve the refuse problem.
City Manager Bergen commented thai the budget must be
adopted, Certain items can be withheld, but the budget must be
adopted in order to set the tax rate in August.
After considerable Council discussion, and explanation
by the City Attorney of the consequences of holding the budget
over to be adopted on September 1st, Councilman Heisey restated
his motion that the report be adopted effective Sepfember 1st, and
that the 5% raise be granted for a period of nine months.
Councilman Rees pointed out that the cost of living has
gone up for almost everyone in excess of 5%. This has been told
to the Committee by every employee organization it has met with
65
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 19
for the past few weeks, and to deny the City employees this 5%
increase for a full year, would be taking an unrealistic position,
as the City has to remain competitive in paying its employees, as
it has to remain competitive in everything else that it~ does. He
stated he would oppose Councilman Heisey's motion.
Councilman Heisey stated that he feels the motion has
been discussed enough that everyone understands it, and called
for the question.
Councilman Bleecker offered a substitute motion that
prior to the supposed adoption of the GEP Committee Report, a
vote be taken on a Minute Order, that it is the intention of this
Council to find a way to balance this budget in order to increase
s'alaries 5% 'with the two exceptions already mentioned, plus creating
reasonable reserves. He stated that this Minute Order would at
least morally obligate the Council to act responsibly within the
next two months to find the necessary funds to balance the proposed
budget without increasing the tax rate.
Councilman Whirremote commented that no one on the Council
is overjoyed at the thought of raising the tax rate, but there are
no more rabbits to pull out of the hat in order to continue the
City's record of the last five years of cutting or holding the
property tax rate.~ The City's reserves are depleted to the point
where they are dangerously low and
discussed, by which the budget can
an increase in the tax rate, which
there is only one way, already
possibly be balanced without
is by contracting the refuse
collection out to private enterprise. He feels that the intention
of the Committee's report was to have the public inform the Council
whether or not they wish the City to continue its tax-supported
refuse collection service, or adopt one of the several alternatives
proposed in the report. He stated that at this point, he will
oppose the substitute motion and Councilman Heisey's original
motion.
66
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 20
committed
him; that
lower it,
motion.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he was not suggesting
that the City contract out the refuse service to balance the
budget, there are numerous other ways to do it, by cutting operating
expenses and he wants that made a public record and that the press
take note of it. All that he has asked for is an expression of
fiscal responsibility on the part of the Council by support of
his Minute Order, as he will not in any way favor an increase in
the tax rate.
Councilman Thomas said morally he was not required to
vote for Councilman Bleecker's proposed Minute Order, he is morally
to the votes he received, and his precinct workers helped
he has been elected to stabilize the property tax or
if possible, and he cannot support Councilman Bleecker's
After additional discussion, vote was taken on Councilmar~
Bleecker's substitute motion, which failed to carry by the followtrig
roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders
Noes: Councilmen Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
Absent: None
Vote was taken on Councilman Heisey's motion, which
failed to carry by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders
Noes: Councilmen Rees~ Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Councilman Whittemore moved adoption of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Report on the Subject of 1971-72 Budget
requests.
Councilman Bleecker commented that as a member of the
Committee he feels that he has made every effort to support the
GEPC Report. He has made it clear that he would support the report
if some means could be found to grant pay increases without raising
the tax base, but he will not be able to vote in the affirmative
when the roll is called.
67
Bakersfield, California, June 14, 1971 - Page 21
Councilman Whittemore pointed out that there are two
more nights to consider budgets and assured Councilman Bleecker
that every member of the Council will do everything~that he can
to hold the present tax rate. Every attempt will be made to do
this, and he sincerely hopes that it will not be necessary to
make any increase in the property tax.
Councilman Bl.eecker stated that. in view of the Vice-
Mayor's remarks, he would offer a substitute motion that the
Council postpone adopting the report in attempt to find the funds
to balance the budget, before voting for the 5% raise for City
employees.
Roll call
to carry as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
vote was taken on this motion, which failed
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders
Councilmen Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
None
Roll call vote was taken on Councilman Whittemore's
motion to adopt the GEP Committee's Report which ~carried
as
MAYOR
follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders
Absent: None~
Adjournment.~
There being nothing further to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the meeting was adjourned
at 11:35 P.M.
~f"~~City of Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
C~ L'~~and ~-O~fic~k of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
68
Bakersfield, California, June 15, 1971
Present: Mayor
Absent: None
Minutes of the Budget Hearing of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall at seven o'clock P.M., June 15, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart
by the Pledge of Allegiance
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
followed
Adoption of Budget Review and Finance
Committee Report on the subject of
Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 1971-
72.
Councilman Raymond Rees, Chairman of the Budget Review
and Finance Committee, read a report of the members of the Budget
Review and Finance Committee, stating that the departmental requests
as originally submitted to the City Manager, totaled $14,613,640.
However, a substantial gap existed between the total City Budget
req, uests and anticipated revenues; therefore, the departmental
requests were reduced as much as the City Manager felt possible
and still maintain the same level of service currently being pro-
vided City residents. These reductions in the Operating Budget
amounted to $839,410.
This Committee was responsible for reviewing the Operating
Budget which amounted to approximately $2.2 million or 16% of the
total $13.8 million budget. In view of the small relative size of
the Operating Budget to the total budget, it was impossible to
make cuts totaling a substantially large amount of money. Also,
many of the types of items in the Operating Budget were impossible
to reduce at all. An example is the City's electrical power bill.
This one item alone will amount to nea~ly $300,000 or 15% pf the
whole Operating Budget proposed for the next fiscal year, and this
figure represents only one utility. However, this Committee was
able to reduce the departmental requests an additional $45,710.
69
Bakersfield, California, June 15, 1971 - Page 2
In shmmarizing the various departmental requests, this
Committee finds that the following operating expense accounts have
increased over the requests of last year:
Description
Depreciation - Annual Charge
Utility Bills
Professional and Consulting Services
Subscriptions, Dues and Miscellaneous Services
Insurance Accounts
Equipment Parts
Repair and Maintenance - Outside Firms
Building and Maintenance Supplies and Hand Tools
Reimbursable Employee Expenses '
Uniforms and Accessories
Fuel, Oil and Lubricants
Prisoner Expense
Chemical Materials
Tires, Tubes and Recapping
$ 9O
31
21
18
17.
17.
12.
7
900
435
812
818
896
145
498
690
3 905
1,355
1,000
1,000
305
300
Total $226,059
However, these increases have been partially~0ffset by
several operating expense accounts that are less than the requests
of last year.
Description
Increase
Street and Sewer Maintenance Materials
and Supplies
Tax Collection Charges
Materials and Supplies NOC
Stationery, Office Supplies
Taxes, Refunds and Contributions
Legal Advertising
Rental - Outside Organizations
Audit Fees
$106
10
4
2
2
2
1
200
000
952
730
675
375
695
250
Total $130,877
Although the proposed Operating Budget is larger than the
Operating Budget approved last year, it must be recognized that in
spite of the rapid growth in City services, as demonstrated in the
attachments, the Operating. Budget has not increased at the same
rate.
It must be remembered that the proposed 1971-72 Operating
Budget includes operating expenses and departmental capital outlays
only. The Operating Budget does not include salaries and supple-
mental wage benefits nor capital improvement projects. The
Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee has reviewed
7O
Bakersfield, California, June 15, 1971 - Page 3
salaries, and the entire City Council will review the Capital
Improvement Program which has been approved and recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Mayor Hart asked if the staff had a comment. Mr. Bergen
stated that he wished to re-emphasize one of the statements, which
he believes is very significant, that the electrical energy charge
is approximately $300,000, which is about 15% of the entire
Operating Budget. Another general statement is that it is very
important to maintain a balance between materials and manpower.
Councilman Rees then proceeded to review the Operating
Budget by departments, stopping for Council discussion and requests
for explanation from the staff. Comments were made on the following
departmental budgets:
551 - COMMUNITY PROMOTION - Total Budget Request $43,000
Operating Budget $43,000 - No Change
The overall Community Promotion Budget was reduced two
years ago. This Committee recommends budgeting the same amount
this year as last year. The major portion of 'this budget is
represented by two contracts - $14,000 for the Convention Bureau
and $20,000 for Industrial Promotions (see attached letter from
George Barton, General Manager of the Chamber of Commerce). In
this letter, the Chamber of Commerce recommends raising the Hotel
Room Tax from 5% to 6%.
Mr. Bergen was asked how much the City would receive in
Hotel Room Tax if it were raised 1%. Mr. Bergen replied about
$30,000. He pointed oul that this was brought to the Council's
attention previously and there was no interest indicated by the
Council at that time. It appears that the County of Kern is not
planning to levy this 1% and he got the feeling from the Council
that the City would not impose an additional tax until the County
did.
71
Bakersfield, California, June 15, 1971 - Page 4
Councilman Heisey commented that it might be a good idea
to broach 'the subjecf to the County and see what their reaction is
at this time. Mr. George Barton, Manager of the Greater Bakers-
field Chamber of Commerce, who was presenf in the audience, stated
that he understands the CoUnty was looking favorably on increasing
the tax. Mr. Barton reminded the Council that the City of Bakers-
field initially imposed fhis tax quite some time before the County
took the same action.
Mr. Charles Collins, General Manager of the Ramada Inn,
addressed the Council, stating that all of the major hotels in the
City have discussed it and agree that the additional 1% tax will
benefit them as well as the City through the added Convention
Bureau activity. He stated that he wouldn't anticipate any objection
from the other hotels and motels in fhe City, as it comes out of
the pocket of the traveler and will benefit the Cify.
After discussion, Councilman Heisey moved that the City
Attorney prepare an ordinance increasing the Room Tax to 6% for
consideration of fhe Council at a later meeting.
Councilman Rees commented that the original request from
the Chamber of Commerce was that the 6% tax be imposed and a portten
of the tax be allocated to the Convention Bureau for promorion.
City Manager Bergen stated'that he would assume the
Council.could determine at the time the ordinance is adopted what
precentage to allocate to the Convention Bureau.
715 - CIVIC AUDITORIUM - Total Budget Request $243,325
Operating Budget $104,590 - Increase in Operation Budget $22,860
A portion of this increase results from higher maintenance
costs due to the age of the'building. Also included is $18,000 for
a basketball floor. Mr. Graviss, the Auditorium Manager, has
received a favorable indication that Cal State Bakersfield will
play their basketball games at the Civic Auditorium this next
spring.
Bakersfield, California, June 15, 1971 - Page 5
The Council engaged in a discussion regarding the signing
of the contract for use of the basketball floor by Cal State
Bakersfield. Mr. Graviss advised that the college will sign a
five year contract but it hadn't been accomplished at this point.
Councilman Bleecker commented that he doesn't believe the Council
should bedget $18,000 for this purpose until a legal and binding
contract has been signed. Mr. Graviss responded that the contract
will amortize the cost of the floor over the five year period.
711 - COMMUNITY BUILDING-CALIFORNIA AVE. PARK - Total Budget Reques~t
$57,700
Operating Budget $23,500 - Increase in Operating Budget $23,500
This is a new activity which has been set up just for
this facility. However, due to a delay on the part of HUD, it
will not be possible to have this facility ready for operation by
January 1, 1972. (See attached letter from Samuel Weinstein,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Metropolitan Planning & Develop-
ment, HUD). The Committee is recommending that operations be
budgeted only from April 1, 1972. Also, community groups have
indicated their willingness to provide items which are of a
departmental capital outlay nature. As a result of this, the
Committee has been able to cut $34,200 from the original request.
Mr. Bergen stated that he had just passed out a letter
from HUD to the Council which indicated that action was commencing
on the City's application for federal funds, and assured the City
that they will send it an answer by June 18, 1971. He understands
that the Board of Supervisors has budgeted its share of the
construction. He also pointed out to the Council that by the
addition and construction of this community building, salaries of
about $35,000 a year will be added to the operation and cosl of
City Government.
620 - POLICE PROTECTION - Total Budget Request $1,769,100
Operating Budget $216,800 - Increase in Operating Budget $12,120
Of this increase $6,000 represents a request for repairs
to the roof of the Police Building (See attached memorandum from
73
Bakersfield, California, June 15, 1971 - Page 6
J. M. Towle, Police Chief). Due to the creation of the downtown
parking m~11, the parki.ng meter activity has been eliminated.
However, certain of the costs, approximately $5,000 necessary to
maintain the parking lots, has been transferred to this activity.
The request of $1,000 for a speed computing device has been deleted
by this Committee.
Councilman Whittemore asked if three competitive bids
would be solicited for the replacement of the Police Building
roof. Mr. Bergen stated that was true, Police Chief Towle had
assured him that there would be no action taken until bids are
received, an evaluation made by the Public Works Department, and
award made by the Council. Councilman Whittemore stated he was
only questioning the spending of $6,000 for this purpose as it
seemed somewhat excessive.
In conclusion, this Committee has considered the many
services provided by the City, and has also taken into consideration
the taxpayers who pay for them. The Operating Budget is primarily
tied to facilities and equipment, and substantial reductions are
generally not possible. However, it is apparent: that significant
reductions are possible in the area of personnel. Of course, the
net result of any reduction in personnel amounts to a reduction
in the level of service provided to the community.
Mr. Bergen called special attention to graphs attached
to this report showing the increase in City street mileage, and he
stated that it is very descriptive that even without increased
personnel, the Public Works Department is doing a very fine job.
He stated that the main reason for the very steep line on the
Sanitary Sewer Mileage is the purchase of the Broadview Sanitation
Company several years ago, which has increased the mileage of the
sewers very rapidly. Requests were made for additional personnel
but it was recommended that this be deferred because of the extremely
tight budget year.
74
Bakersfield~ California, June 15, 1971 - Page
The third chart shows the power charges as they are
continually going up with additional street lights, etc. The
final chart indicates the acreage maintained by the City Park
Department, which this Department carried on without any increase
in personnel for six years, primarily due to equipment.
Mr. Bergen pointed out that the City has over 300 pieces
of equipment, and the fact that only 17 pieces of the 92 pieces of
equipment now fully depreciated are being requested to be replaced
during the next fiscal year will speak very well of the very careful
consideration that the Equipment Superintendent and the Police and
Fire Department mechanics give to the mobile equipment operated by
City Departments, before asking for replacement.
He has asked the Finance Director~ starting July 1, to
add the cost of retirement and Workmen's Compensation to the
Operating Budgets, or salary accounts, of each of the departments.
At the present time, the Workmen's Compensation Budget 'is $353,500,
shown in one budget,'and this will be distributed to the payroll
account in each of the departments. The retirement costs for the
City of Bakersfield for this next year are $802,000, distributed
among three. departments. It is the Finance Director's intent to
give these funds an account number and add them to each one of the
salary budgets, which will reflect the true cost for personnel in
each department.
Councilman Rees then moved the adoption of the Budget
Review and Finance Committee's Report.
Councilman Whirremote pointed out that there is $9,000
appropriated in the Community Promotion Budget which is allocated
for special City promotion purposes. The Council is searching for
ways and means to curtail spending and he suggested that the $9,000
be deleted from this budget and if necessary expended from the
Council's Contingency Fund of $100,000. After discussion, no
action was taken on this suggestion.
Bakersfield, California, June 15, 1971 - Page 8
75
Councilman Bleecker returned to the $18,000 earmarked
in the Civic Auditorium Budget for a basketball floor to be
utilized by Cal State Bakersfield for basketball games at the
Civic Auditorium next spring. Mr. Graviss explained that a five
year contract will be signed, but Cal State's schedule for their
basketball season conflicts with four other dates which have already
been booked in the Auditorium, and at the present time they are
negotiating with schools to schedule other dates. That is why the
contract cannot be signed at this time, it is not that there is no
intention to sign the contract, the information is not available
to do it. Councilman Bleecker suggested that this amount be
removed from the budget until such time as a contract is signed
as he is trying to find someplace to reduce the budget without
raising taxes. After considerable discussion, no action was taken
on this suggestion.
Vote was then taken on Councilman Rees' motion to adopt
the report which carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Finance Director's Report on Revenues
and Summary of Balances, Revenues and
Budgets by Funds 1971-72.
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 1971-72. He pointed out that the staff of his department has
made estimates based upon unknown balances of June 30~ 1971. The
final budget document will be prepared after the tax rate is set
in August and the picture can change after the books are closed.
He answered questions posed by the Councilmen and explained budget
carry-overs. He also explained the restricted reserves which are
maintained as cash reserves for payroll purposes, as general
76
Bakersfield, California, June 15, 1971 ~ Page 9
reserves required by the City Charter and created to provide
operating cash between July i and December 15 until the first
property tax collections are received, and reserve for purchasing
replacement buses for the Transit System. There are also restricted
reserves for Retirement of Bond issues outstanding in the City of
Bakersfield and reserves for Equipment Replacement in the service
departments.
Mr~ Bergen stated that.the final budget will be recapped
to the Council in the middle of August, showing the exact carry-
over, exact assessed valuation in the City, and a more precise
estimate of other revenues.
Capital Improvement Program 1971-72.
The City Manager reviewed the Capital Improvement Progra~
for 1971-72, stating that there are four major categories contained
in this Capital Program, the first one being Sanitary Sewers and
Storm Drains, for which $198,000 has been budgeted.
Under the Public Buildings and Improvements category,
$2,000,000 has been budgeted for a Police Facilities Building, to
be financed from Bond Funds, also funds are proposed for construc-
tion of the Community Center Building at California Avenue Park,
for this purpose $322,434 is to be financed by a Federal Grant and
$120,913 contributed by the County of Kern.
Under the Transportation and Traffic category, eighteen
projects amounting to a total of $1,073,000 are proposed to be
financed from Gas Tax Funds and T.O.P.I.C.S. Funds.
Under Category IV - Parks, $125,120 has been budgeted
for 1971-72. $13,720 has been proposed for construction of basic
improvements in Centennial Park, $6,700 for Drainfield in P. G. & E.
Easement on South "H" Street and Monitor Street, and $60,000 for a
Drainfield and the acquisition of ten
Road for a Drainfield and Park Site.
developers will dedicate the land for
the
acres at Planz Road and Akers
Mr. Bergen stated that the
the Drainfield, and some of
funds for the acquisition of the park will be recovered from
77
Bakersfield, California, June 15, 1971 - Page 10
City charges for the drainage requirements for the area that con-
tributes. There are no plans for the development of the park at
this time, it is merely to acquire the land for the drainage
facilities. Public Works Department has prepared a proposed sump
plan for the recovery of all funds that the City will be expending,
which will be recovered as soon as
Jing stated that a number of small
this plan.
the area is developed. Mr.
sumps will be eliminated by
Councilman Whittemore took exception to proposed Median
Island Improvements on South Chester Avenue and Truxtun Avenue,
where the replacement of Lawn with Shrubs is scheduled for 1973-76.
Mr. Bergen stated that these improvements are necessary as the
pavement is deteriorating from irrigation water running off the
lawn into the street, which results in maintenance problems.
Mr. Bergen stated that the Council has now completed the
proposed budget as prepared. Councilman Whittemore commented that
they hadn't cut a nickel from the budget. Mr. Bergen stated that
the Administrative Staff isn't trying to play games with the Council
by cutting departmental requests prior to'the Council's consideration
of the budget. They try to cut the budgets when they recognize the
financial picture the City is in, and he feels it is the staff's
responsibility to cut everything that they can. Once the Council
has made its cuts and establishes the level of services, the staff
works within the framework of the budget allocated as efficiently
as possible.
Councilman Heisey moved adoption of the Capital Improve-
ment Program. Councilman Whittemore requested that the motion be
amended to delete the proposed Median Island Improvements scheduled
for 1973-76 as listed on Page 26. This amended motion carried by
the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
78
Bakersfield, California, June 15, 1971 - Page 11
Mr. Bergen stated that he is assuming that the Council
will want to consider curtailing the level of certain City services
prior to establishing the tax rate in August. Councilman Heisey
commented that the GEP Committee's Report has made recommendations
regarding the refuse collection question, the Council has adopted
this report, so he feels it is the Council's intention to give
serious consideration to this matter prior to setting the tax rate
in August. He asked the staff to make a study of the alternate
proposals and submit its recommendations to the Council on this
question and also any other area where services can be safely
reduced.
Councilman Whittemore stated that the Council is seeking
the cooperation of the news media to publicize the fact that the
Council will welcome the opinions of City residents regarding the
proposal to transfer City refuse service to private contractors.
He then moved the adoption of Resolution No. 52-71 of the City
Council of the City of Bakersfield approving and adopting the
budget for the Fiscal Year 1971-72. This motion carried by
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further
upon a motion by Councilman Rees,
10:20 P.M.
the
business to come before the Council,
the meeting was adjourned at
th ~~C tY ' ' ld,
ATTEST:
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 79
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 21, 1971.
The meeting was called to order by Vice-Mayor Whirremote,.
followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend
James Versluys of the Christian Reformed Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: Mayor Hart
Mayor Hart, who was addressing a meeting at the Civic
Auditorium, took his seat in the Council Chambers at 8:30 P.M.
Minutes of the regular meeting of June 7, 1971 and Budget
Hearings of June 14 and June 15, 1971 were approved as presented.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, eleven communications
from students of Roosevelt School objecting to the removal of trees
in front of the school on Verde Street, were received and ordered
placed on file.
City Manager Bergen explained that the school planted
additional trees back of the sidewalk several years ago with the
idea that the trees in the area between the curb and sidewalk will
be removed when the new trees reach sufficient size to furnish
shade. There has been no request made to the City to remove these
trees and no action will be taken until such request is received.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, 26 communications
commending the City Council and two communications censoring the
Council for banning performance of "Hair" at the Civic Auditorium,
were received and ordered placed on file.
Councilman Heisey commented that he had received one
letter and one phone call in opposition to the Council's action,
and has received a great many letters and phone calls commending
the Council for its stand on banning the performance of "Hair" at
the Civic Auditorium. Other members of the Council stated that
they have also received phone calls and letters backing the Council's
stand.
8O
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 19?l - Page 2
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, communication from
Mrs. A. A. Damele commending the behavior of the members of the
Bakersfield Young Peoples Symphony while appearing in San Diego,
and communication from Robert B. Doyle, Jr., Mayor of Mobile Alabama,
concerning Railpax, were received and ordered placed on file.
Council Statements.
Councilman Medders commented as follows:
Editorial writers are certainly entitled to their
opinion on any subject they may choose to use. I
just happen to disagree with these esteemed giants
of the thought process on the Council's action
concerning the use of the Civic Auditorium for the
presentation of theso-called cultural event "Hair".
If as the newspapers of our fair City claim the
Council has no right to take away the right of the
individual to see what he wants to see, then does
the Cify have a right in any way to keep a person
from doing what he wants to do. As an example -
if the same nudes that perform in the obscene
production request a permit for a parade to
advertise the attraction, should the permit be
denied? Would we not be denying them the right
to freely do as they wish? On the other hand, we
might well be imposing on the rights of those who
wish to see a nude parade.
I am sure the statement I have just made is exag-
gerated, but my point is that someone has to take
the initiative to try and maintain some semblance
of decency in our community. If it is unpopular
in some circles to take such a stand, I, for one,
am not on this Council to be a part of a popularity
contest. My mail and phone calls from constituents
tell an entirely different story than those printed
in the local paper.
Personally, I believe that parents of today's youth
face the toughest task that any group of parents
has ever faced in trying to produce a productive
citizen of their of£spring. I believe that they
deserve the help of the Council, the newspapers,
and all of the other news media, in removing the
stumbling block that has been placed in the path
of these youths. Most parents are extremely care-
ful to provide as best they can for their children.
Proper diets, good shelter, adequate medical and
dental care, quality education, and in most cases,
spiritual and moral values. The product is the
largest and healthiest American yet produced.
It really doesn't make sense to turn this specimen
over to the peddlers of pornography to pollute his
mind and to do this under the guise of freedom of
choice is even more ridiculous. I am not in favor
of pornography, whether it be presented in an
auditorium owned by private enterprise, or in a
tax-supported building. I feel that we not only
have a right, but also a responsibility, to deny
the use of our City tax-supported auditorium for
certain purposes. Some say "Hair" only contains
words that are acceptable to contemporary society
and that the nude scene is hardly noticeable. If
this is such a good thing, I cannot understand why
it has age restrictions placed on it. My final
point is if we allow this type of production to
be presented in the City, the door is open.
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 3
Reports.
City Attorney Hoagland brought to the attention of the
Council that Mayor Hart had received a number of complainfs relative
to door-to-door solicitors. He stated that the Mayor was informed
that Delano has under consideration an ordinance regulating door-
to-door solicitors, peddlers, etc., without the permission of the
householder, patterned after the "Green River" ordinance which was
upheld by the Supreme Court a number of years ago; however, he
cannot guarantee that it will stand up indefinitely.
Councilman Rees staled that he knows the City Attorney's
office has worked closely with the Better Business Bureau in the
past for the prosecution of violations in connection with soliciting
in the City of Bakersfield. He feels fhat the Council should think:
very carefully about moving too rapidly in an area where civil
liberties are concerned, that is to say, excluding the right of an
individual to make a courteous door-to-door sales presentation. He
feels that close cooperation between the City Attorney's office and
the Better Business Bureau would solve any problems that might arise
and that as long as it is legitimate, the free circulation of sales-
men making their living this way should not be curtailed or pro-
hibited.
Councilman Heisey stated that
salesmen who come into the City, prey on the public, and leave town
in a hurry. He then moved that the matter be referred to the
Business Development and Parking Committee for an in-depth study
with the Mayor and submit a recommendation to the Council at some
future date.
Councilman Rucker agreed with Councilman Rees, stating
that he does not think courteous sales people should be penalized,
that the householder can always decline to purchase, and individuals
who are attempting to make an honest living by door-to-door selling
should not be deprived of this right.
Mayor Hart stated he has received a series of phone calls
about door-to-door solicitors who are intimidating housewives when
they are denied the chance to make their sales talk. People in the
he is aware there are certain
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 19?l - Page 4
community are not having problems where a permit has been issued
by the Board of Charity Appeals, the problem lies with transient
groups who come here soliciting sales who have sanction from the
State to engage in business.
Councilman Whittemore commented that there have been a
number of abuses by door-to-door salesmen, however, this same
problem came up several years ago shortly after he became a member
of the Council. There were so many organizations such as the Camp
Fire Girls, Boy Scouts, and other worthy groups which would be
penalized severely unless special consideration was given, that
the Council decided at that time not to take any action.
After further discussion, vote was taken on Councilman
Heisey's motion to refer the matter to the Business Development
and Parking Committee for study, which carried unanimously.
Consent Calendar.
The.£ollowing items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 4262 to 4485,
inclusive, in amount of $129,473.51.
(b) Application for an Encroachment Permit
from the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph
Company.
(c) Application for an Encroachment Permit
from Sparkle Cleaners.
(d) Street Right of Way Deeds from J. L. Dandy
and Ming Avenue Christian Church for
widening of Ming Avenue between Stine Road
and New Stine Road.
(e) Request from Mrs. Alice Gil to connect
residence at 2313 Akers Road to City
Sewer.
(f) Notice of Completion of Work of Ming Avenue
between Wible Road and Hughes Lane.
(g) Notice of Completion of Work on Ming Avenue
between South H Street and South Chester
Avenue.
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 5 ~3
Councilman Medders moved adoption of Items (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (f), and (g) of the Consent Calendar, including Budget
Transfer in amount of $1,400.00 from Fund No. 11-510-6100 to Fund
No. 11-715-7500 $300.00 and Fund No. 11-715-8300 $1,100.00, for the
purpose of installing a vault door, partitions and burglar alarm
system at the Civic Auditorium. This motion carried by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas,
Noes: None
Absent: None
Whittemore
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, low bid of
Francis & Jacobs Construction Company for the paving and improving
of White Lane between South H Street and Pontiac Street was accepted,
all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, low bid of Kern
Sprinkler Company for automatic sprinkler system at Patriots Park
drainfield was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the
Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Deferred Business.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the Bakersfield Inn
Councilman Whittemore abstained from
Tower Sign was approved.
voting on this motion.
Upon a motion
by Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 1944
New Series of the Council Of the City of Bakersfield adding Section
11.04.796 to the Municipal Code establishing a Speed Limit on White
Lane between Wible and Stine Road was adopted
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
None
None
by the following vote:
Rees, Rucker,
4 Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 6
Upon a motion by CoUncilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 1945
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 11.04.430 of Chapter 11.04, Bakersfield Municipal Code,
increasing the length of Angle Parking Stalls, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 53-71 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
designating certain days as Holidays
for employees of the City of Bakers-
field during the Fiscal Year 1971-72.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No.
53-71 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield designating certain
days as holidays for employees of the City of Bakersfield during
the Fiscal Year 1971-72, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Title 7 of the Municipal
Code by changing Section 7.52.270
(b, h, i, j,) and adding to Section
7.52.270 (k and 1,) providing for
the regulation of Taxi Drivers in
the City of Bakersfield.
First reading was considered given to an Ordinance of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Title 7 of the
Municipal Code by changing Section 7.52.270 (b, h, i, j.) and
adding to Section 7.52.270 (k and 12 providing for the regulation
of Taxi Drivers in the City of Bakersfield.
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Title 14 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Bakersfield by
allowing burning when permitted by
the Chief of the Fire Department.
This was considered first reading of an Ordinance of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Title 14 of the
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 7
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by allowing burning when
permitted by the Chief of the Fire Department.
Councilman Whittemore asked Fire Marshal Reed, who was
in the audience, to furnish the Council with the specifics on when
permission would be granted to burn, before it votes to adopt this
Ordinance next week. This is a real serious issue with /he com-
munity as far as air pollution is concerned. He stated it would
have to be something very exceptional before he would consider
resorting to burning.
Councilman Bleecker asked that the information be submitted
in writing and sent out with the agenda for the perusal of the
Council before next Monday night.
Approval of Agreement with Sam Polios
for Concession Stand at Beale Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Agreement with Sam
Polios for Concession Stand at Beale Park was approved, and the
Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1946 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.
Councilman Rucker moved adoption of Ordinance No. 1946
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.
Councilman Heisey stated he was not going to be able to
support the proposed ordinance. He can't see that anything has
changed since the matter was discussed the night of the Budget
Hearing when he attempted to substitute an effective date of
September 1st. Until such time as a source of revenue to pay this
increase is found, he will have to vote "no" on the ordinance.
Councilman Bleecker commented that since this in effect
raises the salary schedule 5% for all employees and 1
7~% for two
other categories and will cost the City in the neighborhood of
$500,000, he had moved at the Budget Hearing that the salary
increase not be granted unless the Council went on record in
86
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 8
support of adopting a Minute Order that these funds be found in the
proposed City budget in a way other than raising the property tax.
His position has not changed and it is his intention to vote "no"
on the ordinance.
Vote was taken on Councilman Rucker's motion to adopt
Ordinance No. 1946 New Series amending Section 3.18.060 (Salary
Schedule) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, which
carried as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
faction of all members
gave him assistance in
here tonight.
Councilmen Rees, Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders
None
Adoption of Resolution No. 54-71 of the
City Council of the City of Bakersfield
requesting HUD to defer further 235 and
236 Projects in Urban Bakersfield until
such time as public hearing may be held.
Councilman Whittemore moved adoption of Resolution No.
54-71 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield requesting
HUD to defer further 235 and 236 Projects in Urban Bakersfield
until such time as public hearings may be held. Mayor Hart read
the Resolution into the record in its entirety.
Councilman Rucker commented that when this proposed
Resolution was discussed at a previous meeting, he requested that
it not be extended to cover the whole City, but that it be restricted
to the particular area that had voiced objections to 235 and 236
Projects being built, which he recalled was the southwest part of
Bakersfield in the Seventh Ward. He was under the impression thai
this would be done and voted for the City Attorney to draw up the
Resolution. He is thinking of the citizens in the low income
bracket who reside in his Ward and who need this type of housing.
He suggested boundaries which he feels should be set up for this
purpose which would not affect the people who really want to pro-
hibit this type of housing.
City Attorney Hoagland reminded Councilman Rucker thai he
had expressed doubt about drawing up this resolution to the satis-
of the Council and the Council subsequently
drafting the proposed resolution presented
Rucker expressing his
Councilman Rees commented that he recalled Councilman
desire that the resolution be limited to
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 9
87
certain areas and he also recalled thinking that this would be
highly impractical and probably be unfair. He subscribes thoroughly
to having a public hearing for anything of this nature. He questioned
the paragraph in the Resolution which states "there appears to be
serious questions respecting the t. ype of construction and workman-
ship in the homes. constructed in 235 and 236 Projects", stating that
certainly these homes will be required to conform to the same building
codes as other dwellings in the City of Bakersfield, and suggestin~
that this paragraph be deleted.
Councilman Whittemore pointed out to Councilman Rucker
that the intent of the Resolution is to request HUD to consider
the needs and wants of the community instead of indiscriminately
locating projects in certain areas. Undoubtedly there are areas
where this type of housing will be suitable and desired, but the
least the Council can do is to support the people in the areas
voicing their objections to housing of this kind. He does not feel
that there is anything objectionable in the Resolution which would
stop any future projects after a survey had been made and a hearing
held. These hearings do not have to take an extended period of
time, he is sure that with HUD's extensive staff, they can arrange
to schedule a requested hearing in the
Councilman Thomas stated that
Rucker's reasoning, and would hope that
immediate future.
he supports Councilman
the Council could be swayed
into inserting the designation "southwest Urban Bakersfield area"
in the Resolution. There is some housing in the southeast part of
town which could be improved by a 235 or 236 Housing Project.
Councilman Bleecker stated that in his opinion this
Resolution calls for HUD to notify the people of the City of Bakers-
field when the Federal Government decides to contract with a private
contractor to build what would ostensibly be public housing. This
City is not consulted or notified of the proposed construction of
dwellings of this type even though there is a Housing Authority in
this County. He stated he would oppose any motion to change this
Resolution to refer to any pa.rticular part. of the City because he
believes it concerns every citizen in the City of Bakersfield.
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 10
Councilman Heisey stated that in his
thing is probably an exercise in futility,
Resolution is really going to mean much as
It is probably something they will receive
with their established policies. However,
opinion the whole
he doesn't. believe the
far as HUD is concerned.
and file and continue
the Council can hope
thai it will impress someone in the organization.
Councilman Whirremote stated the proposed Resolution
doesn't preclude the building of any housing in any particular
area, the Council is merely requesting that HUD hold a hearing
and conduct a survey that it is supposedly required by law to do.
It does give the right to those people who are already established
in a neighborhood to require a hearing, express their viewpoint,
and require that the surveys be conducted for the neighborhood and
the school system. He asked that copies of the Resolution be mailed
to Senators Cranston and Tunney and included that in his motion to
adopt the Resolution.
Councilman Rees offered a substitute motion to delete
paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Resolution. Councilman Whirremote
explained why he would be opposed to deleting these two paragraphs,
and Councilman Rees withdrew his substitute motion.
After additional discussion, the Resolution was adopted
in its entirety by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Whirremote
Noes: Councilman Rucker, Thomas
Absent: None
Approval of Reassignment of Lease on
City-owned property at 1115 - 22nd
Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, reassignment of
Lease on City owner property at 1115 - 22nd Street to Woodrow W.
Mecham was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the
lease, subject to the provisions suggested by the City Attorney.
In response to a question from Councilman Rucker as to
whether the price offered to lease the property is a fair one, Mr.
Bergen stated than an appraisal was made by a local realtor who
indicated that this was a fair price. Also, this lease is subject
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 11
to cancellation upon thirty days notice. On the basis that it is
a fair price, the staff is recommending that the lease be trans-
ferred under the same conditions.
Finance Director authorized to write
off Uncollectible Accounts Receivables
from the City books and initiate any
further collection efforts deemed
necessary.
Councilman Heisey commented that the City Attorney is to
be commended for keeping down the loss rate on these accounts, and
moved that the Finance Director be authorized to write off uncol-
lectible Accounts Receivables from the City books and initiate any
further collection efforts deemed necessary by turning them over
to a reputable collection agency. This motion carried unanimously.
Approval of appointment of a Citizens
Advisory Committee to qualify Kern COG
with HUD requirements.
Councilman Whittemore stated that in order to qualify
Kern COG with HUD requirements, Kern COG has asked each City and
County to appoint a Citizens Advisory Committee representing a
broad range of citizens interest, to assist it in carrying Out
its purposes in multi-city and county cooperation and regional
planning problems.
He recommended that the Citizens Committee be composed
of seventeen citizens, two appointed by each Councilman and three
by the Mayor, plus a representative from the Planning Commission,
Redevelopment Agency, the Director of Public Works, Chief Building
Inspector, Auditorium-Recreation Director, the Planning Director
and one member from the
members. He asked that
submit the names of the
as this is one of the few cities that has
Advisory Committee.
Councilman Whirremote explained
Council to serve as non-voting ex-officio
the Mayor and the members of'the Council
persons they wish to serve on this committee
not as yet appointed an
that each of the eleven
incorporated cities and the County of Kern can appoint its own
Advisory Committee made up of as many members as they wish who are
familiar with local problems, however, each City will have only
one vote regardless of the number appointed to the Committee.
9O
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 12
ment to
Meeting,
that this City has appointed its committee.
unanimously.
City Manager Bergen commented that
Councilman Bleecker commented that he is prepared to
make his nominations right now, and nominated former Vice-Mayor
Dr. Richard Stiern and Mr. Keith McCormac to serve on Kern COG
Citizens Advisory Committee.
The City Manager pointed out that one of the advantages
of the Committee suggested by Councilman Whittemore is that with
the addition of four members of the staff to serve as non-voting
ex-officio members, staff assistance and secretarial services will
be provided to the Citizens Committee without requiring an additional
budget for this Committee.
Councilman Whittemore moved that the names for appoint-
this Committee be submitted by next Monday's Council
so that he can report at the Kern COG meeting of June 29th,
This motion carried
he would assume a
Resolution should be placed on the agenda for the next meeting
establishing this Citizens Advisory Committee.
First reading of an Ordinance initiated
by the Planning Commission to add Sec-
tions 17.25.024 and 17.25.026 to Chapter
17.25, to add Sections 17.27.024 and
17.27.026 to Chapter 17.27 and adding
Section 17.40.024 to Chapter 17.40 of
Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code
providing further regulations for C-l,
C-2 and "P" Zones.
First reading was considered given to an Ordinance
initiated by the Planning Commission to add Sections 17.25.024 and
17.25.026 to Chapter 17.25, to add Sections 17.27.024 and 17.27.026
to Chapter 17.27 and adding Section 17.40.024 to Chapter 17.40 of
Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code providing further regulations
for C-l, C-2 and "P" Zones.
Approval of Map of Tract No. 3537,
Unit "A", 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. 3537, Unit "A" be, and the same is hereby
91
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 13
approved, that all easements shown upon said map and thereof
offered for dedication be, and the same are hereby accepted for
the purpose for which the same are offered for dedication. Also,
the Street 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
of the following:
NAME
California Water Service Company
The Clerk of this
hereby waives the requirement of signatures
NATURE OF INTEREST
Easement Holder by Instru-
ment recorded August 17,
1964 in Book 3756, Page 327,
O. R.
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 the
improvements in said Tract No. 3537.
~ Approval of Cooperative Agreement
between the City of Bakersfield and
Sears, Roebuck and Co., for~installa-
tion of Traffic Signals at Ming Avenue
and 99 Freeway Off Ramp.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Cooperative Agreement
between the City of Bakersfield and Sears, Roebuck and Company for
installation of Traffic Signals at Ming Avenue and 99 Freeway Off
Ramp was. approved, and the Mayor was authorized. to execute the
Agreement.
Acceptance of Grant Deed From Stock-
dale Development Corporation for an
8~ acre park site located at,the
southwest corner of the Montalvo
Drive-Kroll Way intersection.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Grant Deed from Stock.-
dale Development Corporation for 8½ acre park site located at the
southwest corner of the Montalvo Drive-Kroll Way intersection was
accepted. Acceptance of this park site will not condition the City
to developing recreational facilities until needs are shown and
funds available.
Approval of Agreement with Stockdale
Development Corporation for construc-
tion of Drainfield Sprinkler SyStem
in the proposed park at the southwest
corner of the Montalvo Drive-Kroll Way
intersection.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Agreement with Stock-
dale Development Corporation for construction of Drainfield Sprinkler
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 14
System in the proposed park at the southwest corner of the Montalvo
Drive-Kroll Way intersection was approved and the Mayor was authori-
zed to executesame.
Acceptance of Grant Deed from Stock-
dale Development Corporation for an
8½ acre park site located at the
northwest corner of the White Lane-
Grissom Street intersection.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, Grant Deed from Stock-
dale Development Corporation for an 8~ acre park site located at
the northwest corner of the White Lane-Grissom Street intersection:,
was accepted. Acceptance of the park site will not commit the City
to development until needs are demonstrated and funds are available.
Approval of Agreement with the Stock-
dale Development Corporation for con-
struction of Drainfield Sprinkler
System in the proposed park at the
northwest corner of the White Lane-
Grissom Street intersection.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Agreement with
the Stockdale Development Corporation for construction of Drain-
field Sprinkler System in the proposed park at the northwest corner
of the White Lane-Grissom Street intersection was approved, and
the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Hearings.
This is the time set for continued public hearing before
the Council on proposal to change the rate of additional tax for a
Business License for all businesses conducting their activities in
the Business Promotion District as established pursuant to Chapter
6.50 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield. This matter
was referred back to the Business Development and Parking Committee
for further study and report to the Council at meeting of June 21st.
Councilman Bleecker, Chairman, read the following report
from the Business Development and Parking Committee on the subject
of the Downtown Business Promotion District:
The Business Development and Parking Committee of the
Council has met separately and collectively in private and in
public with members of the Board of Directors of the Downtown
Business Promotion District and with numerous concerned individual
members of that district, regarding the increased Promotion District
Tax as proposed by the Board of Directors of the District. Matters
93
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 15
concerning general allocation of funds, promotion by projects and
procedures, licensee categories, district boundaries, and whether
or not the district should be continued, have been brought to the
attention of the Committee.
The enhancement of business activity in downtown Bakers-
field and how this can best be accomplished is a serious concern
to all of us. The equity of taxation, the use of tax-derived funds;
and evidence of accomplishment, are also of serious concern.
The pros and cons have been forceful, and both sides
deserve additional consideration.
In our perusal of the enabling legislation, i.e.,
Ordinance No. 1741 New Series, under Section 6.50.030 "Purpose,
Intent and Use of Revenue", we call your attention to part (f).
The City Council shall have sole discretion as to how the money
derived from this tax is to be used within the scope of the above
purposes; however, the City Council may appoint existing advisory
boards or commissions to make recommendations as to its use."
Therefore, this Committee recommends to the Council that
the Downtown Business Promotion District submit an annual budget
to be formally approved by this Council and that the Promotion
District should not indebt itself in any continuing way, from
budget to budget, without prior approval of this Council.
Since the Board of Directors of the Downtown Business
Association also serves as the Board of Directors of the Downtown
Promotion District and since roughly two-thirds of the Promotion
District licensees do not belong to the Downtown Business Association,
this Committee recommends that equity and fairness would be served
by providing some means for non DBA members to be represented on
the Promotion District Board of Directors.
The primary concern of those opposed to the Promotion
District's request for increased assessments has been in the amount
of increase according to categories. This Committee recommends
that the Promotion District's request be denied at this time until
your Committee has had the opportunity for further evaluation. It
is our intention to accomplish this re-evaluation in the very near
future.
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 16
Finally, we would recommend that Promotion.District
levies be continued at their current rate until such time as the
aforementioned re-evaluations have been made.
Councilman Bleecker then moved adoption of the Report.
Councilman Whirremote commended Councilman Bleecker for
his report, stating that he knows a lot of work and thought went
into it. In the last paragraph it is recommended that the Promotion
District levies be continued at their current rate until such time
as re-evaluations have been made, and he would think that takes
care of the matter at the present time.
Mr. Hoagland stated that the increased billings for the
Promotion District should be mailed out at the same time as the
regular annual Business License. Finance Director Haynes told
the Council that the Business Licenses are due and payable on
July 1st. They are paid annually so this levy must be collected
with the regular Business License. His office has been awaiting
a decision on the tax for the Promotion District in order to mail
these statements out with the 1971-72 Business License Tax billings.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he was not aware that
the City was required by law to mail out the Promotion District
levy at the same time as the Business License notices. Mr. Hoagland
reiterated that it was required by enabling legislation that they
be mailed out at the same time.
Councilman Heisey remarked that it would appear to him
the Promotion District is locked in at the old rate, if the report
is adopted as submitted.
Councilman Bleecker stated that
a very sincere effort to work out what it
this Committee has made
thought was an equitable
solution to the problem of trying to help the merchants of down-
town Bakersfield help themselves. There is a possibility that
within the next 30 days this Committee can report back to the
Council on what it feels is a fair distribution of the promotion
tax levy. He would hate to suggest that the City violate the law
of the State of California, but he would think there ought to be
some way that the Council can recommend to the Finance Director
that he bill the levy later.
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 17
95
Mr. Hoagland stated that the basic License Ordinance can
be changed to make licenses due and payable a couple of months
later, however, he doesn't know what effect this would have on the
City's financial picture. Mr. Haynes stated that there could be
some far reaching effects by having the tax collected other than
at the beginning of the fiscal year and suggested that perhaps the
delinquency date might be extended for thirty days to August 31st.
The license statements could
statements could be sent out
issue.
instruct
be mailed out and the Promotion District
following the Council's action on this
Councilman Bleecker stated that it could be illegal to
the Finance Director to hold up mailing out the bills for
a couple of weeks until his Committee can come back with a recom-
mendation, but with that in mind, he would again move to adopt the
report.
After additional discussion, vote was taken on Councilman
Bleecker's motion, which carried as follows:
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 the initiated action by the Planning Commission to amend the
Zoning Boundaries from a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural Design)
Zone to an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) or more restrictive,
Zone, of that certain property that lies on the easterly side of
Alta Vista Drive between Freeway 178 and Monterey Street on the
south.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and no
written protests have been filed in the City Clerk's office.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests Or objections being received, and no one
speaking in favor of the rezoning, the public hearing was closed
for Council deliberation and action.
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 18
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Ordinance No. 1947
New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code by
changing the Land Use Zoning of that. certain property that lies
on the easterly side of Alta Vista Drive .between Freeway 178 and
Monterey Street on the south, 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 CounciL1
on the initiated action by the Planning Commission to amend the
zoning boundaries from a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural Design)
Zone and from an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone to an
R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone, or more restrictive,
Zone, of that certain property located 800 feet southerly of Ming
Avenue on the west side of
This hearing has
written protests have been
Stine Road.
been duly advertised and posted and no
filed in the City Clerk's office. The
property owner has submitted a tentative subdivision map on subject
property and intends to construct apartments. Accordingly, the
Planning Commission initiated this proposed zone change to R-3 to
protect the new use.
Councilman Thomas stated that the property owners in
this area are very opposed to this proposed rezoning. He has
talked to Mr. Sceales about it and was informed that notice of the
hearing was sent to all property owners within three hundred feet
of the exterior boundaries of the property proposed to be rezoned
and as he recalls it, there is no one living within three hundred
feet. The developer, J. L. Dandy, has promised the adjacent property
owners that the zoning would remain as R-1 with an R-2 buffer, and
he would like to see it remain as an R-2 zone. Councilman Thomas
therefore moved that the hearing be continued for one week for
further study. Councilman Bleecker seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
97
Bakersfield, California, June 21, 1971 - Page 19
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on appeal of James F. Flinn from decision of the City Manager
granting Harvey L. Hall a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity to operate an ambulance service within the City of Bakers-
field.
This hearing has been duly posted and notices sent to
affected parties. The Attorney for Harvey L. Hall has requested
that this hearing be continued until June 28th. This date was not
convenient to Attorney for James Flinn, therefore, agreement has
been reached to continue the hearing until July 12th meeting.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, the hearing was con-
tinued until July 12th.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
ty of ~Bake~sfleld,
ATTEST:
C~ ~.'~ a lclo Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Calif.
Bakersfield, California~ June 28, 1971
Minutes of
City of Bakersfield, California,
the City Hall at eight o'clock P.
The meeting was called
the regular meeting of the Council of the
held in the Council Chambers of
M., June 28, 1971.
to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman Walter
Heisey.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilman Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whittemore
Absenl: Councilman Medders
Minutes of the regular meeting of June 21~ 1971 were
approved as submitted.
Service Pin Award.
Director of Public Works William Jing, who completed 25
years service with the City of Bakersfield on June 18~ 1971, was
presented with a 25 year Service Pin Award by City Clerk Marian
Irvin.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Councilman Thomas asked permission for Mr. Richard Tatum
to address the Council on the subject of the Bakersfield Sanitation
Department.
Mr. Richard Tatum~ Executive Secretary of the Kern, Inyo
and Mono Counties Central Labor Council, stated that he was present
to ask the Council to find alternate means of balancing the City
budget besides eliminating refuse collection service, as he feels
that such a move would be false economy. Refuse collection is a
service performed by the City and it should continue to do so.
Eliminating the service and giving it to private collectors would
place an unfair and aggresive tax on the homeowner. Many residents
of the City cannot afford to pay for private collection, would not
use it, but would start dumping their trash and garbage wherever
they could find room for it~ thus creating a health hazard in the
City, not to mention the unsightliness of trash piling up along
99
Bakersfield, California, June 28, 1971 - Page 2
the roadside and in vacant lots. Law enforcement officers would
find it necessary to redouble their efforts to prevent littering,
which would be an additional expense to the taxpayers.
He stated that if given a choice, City residents would
pay taxes for having their refuse collected and are satisfied with
the present service. He commended the Council for holding the tax
rate for the past decade, however, he pointed out that every city
in the nation is faced with declining revenues and it is not right
to balance the budget by decreasing-the services which the City
residents have come to expect. He asked that when the Council
deliberates on the problem to give his presentation consideration.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Tatum if he was familiar
with the fact that in the Greater Bakersfield area right now over
two-thirds of the refuse is being collected by private contractors.
Also, that Bakersfield is one of only two cities in California
with tax-supported refuse collection service. He stated that some-
times government cannot perform services as efficiently or as
cheaply as private enterprise, and it has been the consensus of
the whole Council that as often as possible the City should hire
such things as repairs to streets, curbs, gutters, etc. done by
private contractors in order to save money. Another thing to be
considered is that the City is collecting trash for government
entities, such as the Federal Government, the State of California,
the County of Kern, the school systems located in the City, all at
the taxpayers expense. Therefore, in his opinion there are some
very good reasons for transferring the refuse collection to private
contractors.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, communication from
the United States General Accounting Office stating that it is
initiating a review of the operations of the Kern County Economic
Opportunity Corporation and will endeavor to complete it as soon
as possible, was received and ordered placed on file.
100
Bakersfield, California, June 28, 1971 - Page 3
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, communication
from Mr. David J. Stewart calling attention to an alleged traffic
hazard that exists at the corner of Dank Street and "A" Street,
wA~ r'e~ce'iYe~ ~n~ ordered placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, communication from
Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District stating that it is
encouraged by the action of the City in favoring the construction
of a facility to transport supplemental water to the urban area to
reduce the draft on the groundwater basin, was received and ordered
placed on file. " : ......
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, communication from the
Regional Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, stating
that he plans to visit the office of the Kern County Economic
Opportunity Council on Wednesday, July 7th, and would welcome an
opportunity to meet with the members of the City Council as a
follow-up to its request for an investigation of this agency, was'
received and ordered placed on file.
Councilman Rucker asked if the Council wished to meet
with Mr. Betts, Regional Director. Mayor Hart stated that if he
is contacted by Mr. Betts, he will pass the information along to
the members of the Council if they should wish to schedule a
meeting with him.
Councilman Bleecker commented that perhaps Mr. Betts is
not familiar with the Brown Act which would make it impossible for
him to meet with the entire Council unless it is a formally advertised
meeting.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, communications
from the Downtown Business Association Board of Directors and Mr.
Gerald Striker of Rose Yardage, relative to the request for an
increase in the Downtown Promotion Tax, were received and ordered
placed on file.
Bakersfield, California, June 28, 1971 - Page 4
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 4485 to 4541,
inclusive, in amount of $31,857.39.
(b)
Acceptance of Work and Notice of Com-
pletion for Construction of Median
Island Irrigafion System on Panorama
Drive and Columbus 'Street under COntract:
No. 38-71.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Items (a) and (b)
of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Medders
Action on Bids.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker,
low bid of Kern Sprinkler Company, Inc. for construction of Auto-
matic Sprinkler System in drainage sump between Tracts 3096, 2667
and 3269 was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor
was authorized to execute the contract.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1948 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Title 14 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakers-
field by allowing burning when permitted
by the Chief of the Fire Department.
The City Clerk read the following justification'fdr
amending Title 14, Section 27.01, of the Municipal Code of the
City of Bakersfield as submitted to the Council by C. C. Haggard,
Acting Fire Chief:
There has been in the past, and surely will be
in the future, certain conditions which consti-
tute an extremely hazardous situation from the
standpoint of fire. When dealing with such
conditions, time is of the essence and the
least possible delay in abating such hazards
is mandatory if community life and property
safety is to be preserved.
Our prohibition of burning has also affected
our Fire Prevention Education Program in that
fire is necessary for effective training in
the proper use of first aid fire appliances.
These classes have been eonducted at all
Bakersfield hospitals, convalescent hospitals,
Bakersfield, California, June 28, 1971 - Page 5
nurses training classes at Bakersfield College,
Bakersfield City Schools, and at many commercial
~n.d.industrial businesses throughout the City
of Bakersfield. Fires set for training exercises
consist of both wood and oil to give the trainee
experience in handling extinguishers designed
for use on both Class A and Class B fires.
There are also occasions in our Fire Department
training program when actual fires are necessary
in providing Firemen a first hand opportunity to
extinguish such fires outside of an actual emer-
gency fire call, which allows the Firemen to
become and remain familiar with the tools of the
trade, so to speak. An example of such fire
would be a mattress set on fire in the drill
tower of Station #1, which gives Firemen
experience in extinguishing extremely smoky
fires, and also proves the benefit of breathing
apparatus which has been provided for use on
such fires.
All burning shall be done in strict conformity
with Air Pollution Control rules and regulations.
Councilman Bleecker asked Fire Marshal Reed to explain
the conditions which constitute an extremely hazardous situation
from the standpoint of fire. Mr. Reed cited several examples of
emergency situations requiring controlled burning by the Fire
Department.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 1948
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Title
14 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by allowing
burning when permitted by the Chief of the Fire Department, was
adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Medders
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1949 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 7.52.270
(b, h, i, j) and adding Section 7.52.270
k and 1, providing for the regulation
of Taxi Drivers in the City of Bakers-
field.
Councilman Rees asked the staff to give him a brief
summary of the intent and purpose of the proposed Ordinance pro-
riding for the regulation of Taxi Drivers in the City of Bakers-
field. City Attorney Hoagland stated that the County of Kern
adopted a taxicab ordinance and because of the inter-relationship
Bakersfield, California, June 28, 1971 - Page 6
103
of taxicab use within the uninco~Dorated area and.~k~ City of
Bakersfield, and because the ordinances should be reasonably uni-
form, it was thought desirable to have the same regulations,
including standardizing of permit fees.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Ordinance No. 1949
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 7.52.270 ( b, h, i, j) and adding Section 7.52.270 k and
the City of
l, providing for the regulation of Taxi Drivers in
Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker,
Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Thomas,
None
Councilman Medders
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1950 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield adding Sections 17.25.024
and 17.25.026 to Chapter 17.25, adding
Sections 17.27.024 and 17.27.026 to
Chapter 17.27, and adding Section
17.40.024 to Chapter 17.40 of Title
17 of the Municipal Code providing
further regulations for C-1 Zone,
C-2 Zone and P-Zone.
The City Clerk read a communication from the Bakersfield
Tool Rental requesting the Council to add the open storage of rental
tools and equipment to the proposed new uses under Section 17.27.026.
Councilman Whittemore asked the Planning Director if the
Planning Commission had reviewed the Ordinance. Mr. Sceales stated
the Commission had reviewed the Ordinance, he was familiar with
the request from Bakersfield Tool Rental, and there would be no
objection to including the use of tool rental and equipment under
Uses Permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit, as each use can
be evaluated acqording to its relationship to adjacent property
and the particular type of operation proposed. Therefore, he feels
it would be justified to include this use in a C-2 Zone.
Councilman Whittemore moved adoption of Ordinance No. 1950
New Series adding Section 17.25.024 and 17.25.026 to Chapter 17.25,
adding Sections 17.27.024 and 17.27.026 to Chapter 17.27, and adding
104
Bakersfield, California, June 28, 1971 - Page 7
Section 17.40.024 to Chapter 17.40 of Title 17 of the Municipal
Code providing further regulations for C-1 Zone, C-2 Zone and
P-Zone, with the addition of Tool Rental and Equipment. to Section
17.27.026 - Uses Permitted Subject to Conditional Use Permit.
This motion
Ayes:
carried by the following roll call vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker,
Whittemore
Noes:
Absent:
Thomas,
None
Councilman Medders
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Chapter 11.04 of the Municipal
Code by adding Section 11.04.739,
Traffic Restrictions on Service Roads
adjacent to South Chester Avenue.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Chapter 11.04 of the
Municipal Code by adding Section 11.04.739, Traffic Restrictions
and Service Roads adjacent to South Chester Avenue.
Adoption of Resolution No. 55-71 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
fixing a time and place for hearing
protests by persons owning real pro-
perty within territory designated as
"Airpark No. 1," proposed to be
annexed to the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 55-71
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield fixing eight o'clock
P. M., August 9, 1971, 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 "Airpark No. 1," proposed
to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Medders
Bakersfield, California, June 28, 1971 - Page 8
105
Adoption of Resolution No. 56-?1 of
Intention to include within the
Greater Bakersfield Separation of
Grade District a portion of certain
territory designated as "Airpark No.
1," and setting the time and place
for hearing objections to the in-
clusion of said territory within
said District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 56-71
o£ I~tention to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation
of Grade District a portion of certain territory designated as
"Airpark No. 1," and fixing eight o'clock P.M., August 9, 1971,
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, Rees~ Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Medders
Adoption of Resolution No. 57-71 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field creating a Citizens' Advisory
Committee to Kern COG and appointments.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Resolution No. 57-71
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield creating a Citizens'
Advisory Committee to Kern COG and appointments, was adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees~ Rucker~ Thomas~
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Medders
Councilman Bleecker commented that according to the
Minutes of a recent meeting, there seems to be some confusion in
Kern COG itself as to what its purpose is. Councilman Whittemore
explained that this Agency was established under State Enabling
Legislation to serve as a regional clearing house and reviewing
agency for planning grant applications for federal assistance as
well as other long range study programs, and establishes priorities
for such grants. There is an Advisory Committee in each of the 11
incorporated cities and in the County of Kern. One member from
each Advisory Committee will serve on a steering committee and
106
Bakersfield, California, June 28, 1971 - Page 9
will act as the recommending body. to. Kern COG. The Advisory Com-
mittee is concerned only with problems in Bakersfield and is not
a policy making committee.
Mr. Hoagland stated that the creation o£ Kern COG was a
requirement of HUD and is a retention of local government, as prior
to the establishment of this agency, decisions were made by the
Federal Government without local review. He pointed out that the
members of the Citizens' Advisory Committee, as other City committees,
should be residents of the City of Bakersfield.
Mayor Hart stated that he was prepared to submit the names
of his appointees to this Committee. Appointments as made by Mayor
Hart and members
Mayor Hart
Councilman Thomas
Councilman Rucker
Councilman Rees
Councilman Whirremote
Councilman Heisey
Councilman Bleecker
Councilman Medders
of the Council are as follows
Alfred Leon
Lacy Henry
Young Chinn
William Hendricks
Mrs. Johnie Mae Parker
Samuel J. Goodloe
Mrs. Alberta Dillard
Mrs. George Viles
Joseph Fambrough
Donald R. Vollmar
Randall .Dickow
To be made next week
Dr. Richard Stiern
Keith McCormac
Mrs. Ray Allen
James C. Burrow
1028 "Q" Street
1617 E. 11th Street
4011 Niles Street
1713 Montgomery Ave.
214 S. Owens Street
414 - 11th Street
137 E. Street
2506 Noble Avenue
924 - 2nd Street
2708 E1Berrendo Ave.
1004 E1 Rancho Drive
2905 Brundage Lane
315 Oleander Avenue
3013 South "I" St.
3324 Wenatchee St.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, seconded by Councilman
Bleecker, Councilman Robert Whirremote was re-appointed as the
Council's representative on Kern COG. Councilman Whirremote
abstained from voting on this motion.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, seconded by Council-
man Thomas, Councilman Bleecker was re-appointed as the Council's
alternate representative to serve on Kern COG.
Both of the above appointments to Kern COG are to serve
until such time as a new regular Council is elected in two years.
107
Bakersfield, California, June 28, 1971 - Page 10
Claim for damages from Michael Gonzalez
Denny aka Michael Gonzalez Calvillo to
the City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Claim for Damages
from Michael Gonzalez Denny aka Michael Gonzalez Calvillo was
re£erred to the City Attorney.
Acceptance of Sewer, Storm Drain and
Public Utilities Easement from Guy
Timothy Gannon, Inc. to serve Tract
3481.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Storm Drain and
Public Utilities Easement was accepted from Guy Timothy Gannon,
Inc. to serve Tract 3481.
Approval of request from Strait &
Fambrough to connect eight two bed-
room apartments at 600 Real Road to
the City Sewers subject to certain
conditions.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, request from Strait
& Fambrough to connect eight two bedroom apartments at 600 Real
Road to City Sewers was granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Work to be constructed to City specifications.
2. Plans to be submitted for City's review and
approval.
3. Enter into Suburban Sewer Rental Agreement.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on the initiated action by the Planning Commission to
amend the zoning boundaries from a C-2-D (Commercial - Architectural
Design) Zone and £rom an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling)
Zone to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone or more
restrictive, Zone, of that certain property located 800 feet
southerly of Ming Avenue on the west side of Stine Road.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices were sent to 12 property owners as required by law. No
written protests have been filed in the City Clerk's office.
The property owner has submitted a tentative subdivision
map on subject property and intends to construct apartments.
108
Bakersfield, California, June 28, 1971 - Page 11
Accordingly,
change to R-3 to protect the new use.
This hearing was continued upon request
Thomas.
the Planning Commission initiated this proposed zone
of Councilman
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
No protests or objections were received. Mr. James F.
pat ion.
Dandy, President of James L. Dandy Company, stated that he is in
favor of the change initiated by the Planning Commission. Council-.
man Thomas stated that he has talked to the residents in the area
and he has been able to remove their objections to rezoning from
a C-2 to an R-3 zone. However, there have been dust control
problems and he asked Mr. Dandy to explain his intentions regarding
paving of the roads in the subdivision. Mr. Dandy stated they
would pave the roads as the area is developed, but they have no
plans to open a road without paving it as quickly as they can.
After additional discussion, the public hearing was closed
for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman
Thomas Ordinance No. 1951 New Series amending Title 17 of the
Municipal Code by changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain
property located 800 feet southerly of Ming Avenue on the west
side of Stine Road, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Medders
Adjournment.
There being no further business to~ome before the
Council,upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, ~he n~ing was
adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
MAYOR City o'f Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
o Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California