HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2006 B AK E R S FI EL D
Zack Scrivner, Chair
Sue Benham
David Couch
Staff: John W. Stinson
MEETING NOTICE
LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE
of the City Council - City of Bakersfield
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
1:00 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201
1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. ADOPT AUGUST 15, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Review and Committee recommendation on citizen's request for an ordinance to
regulate cats - Taylor/Moore
B. Update on Community ProSecutor Program - Gennaro
C. Review and Committee recommendation on restaurant grading ordinance -
Gennaro
5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
6. ADJOURNMENT
B A K E R S F. I E L D
D AFT
~-~ ~ ~ ZackScrivner, Chair
Staff: Alan Christensen Sue Benham
For: Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, August 15, 2006- 1:00 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201
Second Floor- City Hall, '1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA
1. ROLL CALL
Called to Order at '1:00 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Zack Scrivner, Chair; Sue Benham; and David Couch
2. ADOPT JULY 18, 2006AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Adopted as submitted.
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review and 'Committee voting recommendation on the League of
California Cities' annual resolutions
Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen gave a brief overview of the League
resolutions in the packet. None of the resolutions are controversial.
The first two are housekeeping resolutions regarding League Conference
Resolution Voting Procedures and the number of Alternate Voting Delegates.
The third is a Resolution relating to Encouraging Health and Wellness in Cities.
The fourth from the City of Elk Grove is a ReSolution Relating' to Forfeiture ·of
Vehicles Used in Illegal Speed Contests and Exhibitions of Speed.
Committee Member David Couch made a motion to forward the League
Resolutions to the City Council with a Committee recommendation that the
Council approve the Resolutions and give the League Voting Delegate direction
to vote accordingly with the authority to vote differently if the resolutions,change.
LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Page 2
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
B. Review and Committee recommendation on citizen's request for an
ordinance to regulate cats
Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen gave a brief report on issues when
considering regulation of cats.
· There are significant budgetary and staffing impacts as mandatory
licensing 'and/or spaying and neutering would require a large
administrative and enforcement function staffed by the City.
..... · In addition to the cost issu_eL~e_gular enforcementwo_ul~b_e_ chalJe~gi~g
given'the population and size of Bakersfield.
· Although there are areas with cat problems, it does not seem to be
Citywide. There is a question if an ordinance would be favored by the
general population given the 'potential costs to the residents and the
restrictions it would impose.
· A successful cat regulation program would depend on whether the
County would adopt a similar ordinance as many sections of the City are
contiguous to the County, and it would be impossible to tell "city" cats
from "county" cats.
Due to the above 'issues, staff did not favor adopting a cat ordinance and
requested direction from the Committee.
In response to a question, Animal Control Supervisor Tummy Davis explained
City Animal Control does not have the staff to canvas to ensure dogs are
licensed. If a dog is running loose, the dog is picked up and if the owner can be
found, a citation is issued, and vaccination and licensing are required. Animal
Control does go out on complaints of (cat) animal cruelty.
Police Captain Tim Taylor and Lt. Gary Moore responded to questions. Animal
control works on a response to calls basis. Through June of this year animal
control responded to 7,977 calls. For 2005, there were 15,500 calls. There is
one supervisor and three to four staff on weekdays and two on weekends.
Currently, animal control relies on owners to license their dogs. A small survey
was done recently and there was 57% compliance with dog licensing regulations
in the surveyed area. The City no longer goes out to pick up cats. Residents
can trap cats and take them to the County animal shelter.
Bill Descary spoke in favor of regulating cats due to the property damage
caused by cats and cat fights at night.
Max Baldin spoke in favor of regulating cats.
LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Page 3
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Tuesday, August 15, 2006 I~i ~l~ /?~. !;~
Karen Polyniak spoke in favor of having cats regulated and supported having
cats identified either with a collar or a chip, but did not support licensing.
Mike PolYniak spoke in favor of regulating Cats, but not necessarily requiring
cats to be confined indoors.
The Committee Members were in agreement that any Ordinance to regulate cats
would need to be consistent between the County and City.
Committee Member David Couch requested animal control staff to bring back
information to the Committee on the cost to properly implement licensing or
identification of cats, and also include the cost to pick up cats.
Committee Chair Zack Scrivner added he would like to know'how many staff
would be required and the cost to regulate cats in the same way as we now
regulate dogs, with the exception that the City would not be capturing cats as it
does with dogs running loose. He stated licensing cats .would raise some
revenue to offset the costs, but would like to evaluate what the County
recommends on mandatory spaying and neutering before considering that
element.
Committee Member Sue Benham stated she respected the input today from the
community on their problems with cats, but expressed concerns about the cost
to implement an ordinance to regulate cats and whether there would be
sufficient revenUe to offset the cost. She requested staff to be very thorough
when calculating the costs. If taxpayer dollars are required, regulating cats
should be evaluated with other needed services the City provides such as Code
Enforcement and Graffiti programs.
Committee Chair Zack Scrivner requested staff to also check with other cities on
how their cat regulation ordinances are working, compliance with their
ordinances, and whether mandatory spaying and neutering is necessary for a
successful licensing program.
5, DEFERRED BUSINESS
A, Review and Committee recommendation on Noise Complaints/Cool
Parents Ordinance
City Attorney Ginny Gennaro gave an overview of the proposed amendments to
the Municipal Code Relating to Loud and Unruly Events. The proposed
ordinance mirrors the County ordinance regarding noise complaints and "Cool
Parents Ordinance." The ordinance provides for a cost recovery service fee up
to $1,000 for second and subsequent police responses to noise complaints
within a 30-day period and for a first response to an unruly event where alcohol
is served to underage person/persons. Where there is underage drinking the
responding Police Officers can also implement state law, which provides ·
~ LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Page 4
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Tuesday, August 15, 2006 ~?~'~ ~.~ ~;
penalties for underage drinking and those providing alcohol to underage
persons or minors.
Committee Member Sue Benham made a motion for the Committee to forward
the amended ordinance to the Council with a Committee recommendation for
first reading and adoption. The Committee unanimously approved the motion.
B. Review and Committee recommendation on City Annexation Policy
Assistant City Manager Alan Chdstensen provided an update on the information
included in the Committee packet. The City's annexation policy (resolution) has
been discussed for several meetings. Staff has recommended changes, which
- were Sh~ ~n 'tCd.-Al,~-ihcTuded was a copy O~-I~tte~-w-ritt~-t~'T_AFCQ~n'CT~
response from LAFCO Executive Officer William Turpin. The response did not
provide information different from what the Committee has previously reviewed.
Becky Kaiser'spoke regarding the pre-annexation process and the time frames
for processing annexations.
Committee Member David Couch explained the only complaints received from
the last two successful annexations were that the process was too slow. He
made a motion the Committee approve and forward a recommendation to the
Council to adopt staffs recommended changes to the City's Annexation
Resolution, Mission Statement and Pre-Application Process for Annexations.
The Committee unanimously approved the motion.
6. COMITTEE COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:14 p.m.
Staff: Assistant City Manager Alan Chdstensen; Assistant City Manager John W.
Stinson; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Police Captain Tim Taylor; City Clerk Pam
McCarthy; Police Lt. Gary Moore; and Animal Control. Supervisor Tammy Davis
Others present:. Barbara J. Fields; Becky Kaiser; DaVid Burger, reporter, The
Bakersfield Californian; Dianne Hardisty, The Bakersfield Californian; Nancy Chaffin;
Sharon Stevens; R. J. Fowler; Joe Williams; Esla J. Williams; Max Baldin; Bill Descary;
Mike Polyniak; Karen Polyniak; Sheryl Mitchell; Christina .Smale; Siemny Chhuon,
KBAK/KBFX; Gene Cooks, KBAK/KBFX; Mark Howell, KUZZ/KCWR; Dante Jackson,
KGET-TV;
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
S;~,C~06 Legislative&Lit/gatio~\LL 06 aug 15 summary,doc
BAKERSFIELD POLICE
MEMORANDUM
August 17, 2006
To: Capt. B. Bivens
From: Lt. G. Moore
Subject: Cat Legislation
As a result of the August Legislation and Litigation meeting staff was requested to
determine a cost for implementation of cat licensing procedures.
Cats are, and historically have been regarded as "free spirits". Attempts to change this
perception and treat them as we do dogs will be very difficult and will come at a great
cost.
Currently, we do not do any pro-active dog licensing as our staffing levels prohibit it.
Licensing is only accomplished by clerks at the finance department and the shelter. Our
calls for service generally include calls for dogs which are vicious, stray, contained,
dead, injured, noisy and those which are traffic hazards. We also handle cases
involving victims of bites and animal cruelty. Before embarking on any additional
animal licensing we will need to add 2 animal control officers for the purpose of
solidifying our dog licensing efforts to make it credible. These two officers would be
involved in neighborhood canvassing to gain license compliance, licensing efforts at
local clinics, as well as handling the ever increasing calls for service. In a recent survey
of 60 city residents we found that 57% of the dogs were reported by the owners as
licensed. We did not confirm the licensing, however, in discussing the issue of dog
licensing with Treasury Supervisor, Cheryl Perkins, she revealed that since the city took
over Animal Control, licensing and revenues have dropped significantly. Revenues have
gone from $238,000.00 in fiscal year 03-04 to $213,000.00 in fiscal year 05-06. When
the city took over animal control from the SPCA .in 2003 27,000 dogs were licensed in
the city, in 2006 we processed only 9,000 licenses. This decline in dog licensing, while
the population of the city increases, reveals that we have a need to first address our
dog licensing problem before attempting to address the licensing of cats. Once this
issue is addressed and adequately solved we can consider if licensing cats would be
Page 1 of 5
feasible.
My research has indicated that there are appreximately 84,500 households in the city
and many additional homes in adjacent county areas. Though the information is dated,
the ASPCA (The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) indicated
that in 1998 there were 70 million cats and 58 million dogs in the country. They
estimate that there are 2.1 cats per household. Using these figures we potentially have
177,450 cats in the city in addition to the cats from the adjacent county homes. If the
ASPCA is correct we have more cats than dogs to deal with. Our enforcement actions
predominantly involve dogs, and we handle over 15,000 calls for service yearly. This
year we are experiencing about a five percent increase in calls for service.
If we were to add laws regarding cats it would trigger the need for additional staff,
equipment and housing for cats. We have identified three areas of concern with regard
to the cat situation: Licensing, Confinement and Spay/Neutering.
Licensing: Currently licensing is accomplished by county employees at the
shelter (one funded by the city) and city clerks at the treasury department. Cheryl
Perkins advises that we would have to add at least one clerk at the treasury
department; and because of the fact that the county does not license cats we
would have to provide another clerk to be housed at the shelter in order to
process city cat licenses. The Treasury Department does not have the space to
house an additional clerk at the 1715 Chester Ave. building, which is an
additional problem which would have to be overcome.
Legislation needs to be enacted which requires owners of cats to pay for the
licensing of all cats they own. Cats can go into heat at four months of age and
can birth two to three litters a year. This birth-fete will trenslate into a greater cost
to the owner as well as the inconvenience of treveling to a licensing facility after
every birthing. An additional concern is that there will be no way to license the
increasing ferel cat population.
Confinement: Additional legislation must be enacted which allows for stray cats
to be seized (Leash Law) and held until a citation is issued or until licensing fees
are paid. Cats are very elusive so their capture will be much more difficult than
dogs and will require additional staffing for calls of this nature. Currently,
approximately 30% of our calls are for stray or injured dogs. Assuming that we
will receive similar calls with regard to cats, our actual time on these calls will
increase because of the elusiveness of cats.
Currently, some residents purchase cat traps, trap problem cats then transport
them to the shelter on their own. If we begin a program of providing cat traps for
the public we will need to purchase traps and add a clerk to the animal control
Page 2 of 5
section for check out, maintenance and tracking. If we are to use our employees
to pick up the trapped cats for transfer to the shelter, we will also need to
increase our animal control officers.
The majority of cats taken to the shelter are euthanized, they are not claimed by
owners nor are they adopted. This will not bode well for cost recovery. Shelter
statistics indicate that about 1,000 cats are euthanized monthly. Any seizure of
cats on our part will bring about an increase in this number.
It will be necessary to provide additional space in the shelter in order to confine
cats brought in to the shelter by animal control officers. Currently the shelter can
house approximately 228 cats and they are at full capacity every day. They do
not allow county animal control officers to bring cats in as they have no room for
them. The current "cat rooms" are consistently at full capacity with cats which
are left at the shelter by citizens on a daily basis. Any laws enacted which would
allow for the seizure of cats by our personnel or which would encourage citizens
to trap and bring cats in for licensing, would cause the number of cats at the
shelter to increase substantially, thus triggering the need for more space for
these cats. This would force the construction of another animal housing facility
by the city. Dave Price, department chief over county animal control efforts, has
indicated that the county is not interested in adding a facility for cats. In fact, he
is not sure that our current agreement is adequately funding the number of dogs
we are sending to the shelter. He is in the process of determining if there is a
need to build another shelter in order to house the increasing number of dogs.
This may well be an area where we will need to invest in the near future.
We currently fund three animal control workers for the county. County Animal
Control Supervisor, Karen Duke, indicates that since working out our current
contract for the newly built shelter, many new requirements have been to the
shelter, thus causing operational costs to rise. She could not provide exact costs
at this time but is confident that any new contract will exceed our current one.
Spay/Neuter: Spaying/neutering is essential and also requires the need for
seizure and confinement to insure that the spaying/neutering is done. There will
be a segment of the populace who will comply with licensing and spay/neuter
laws but many will not comply unless it is a requirement in order to get their
animal back after seizure. We will need legislation enacted which allows the city
to require that a cat which has wandered from its owner's property onto public
land or the property of another, be spayed or neutered. In some cases a citation
can be issued in the field but, in most cases we will not have the owner present
for issuance of the citation, so the cat must be seized, and the owner cited at a
later time. The feral cat population will continue to grow unless a spay/neuter
program is instituted at some level in our community. This is often done by non-
profit community groups.
Page 3 of 5
My research has found Iow cost spay/neutering ranging between $30 and $50. If
the city were to bear this cost it would drive our budget up dramatically. For
instance, spay/neutering half of the 1000 cats euthanizied monthly would cost
between $15,000 and $25,000 monthly. Even if we were to subsidize a portion of
the cost, it would drive our budget up substantially.
Staffing
We currently staff our Animal Control section with one supervisor, one clerk, 4 animal
control officers and 4 trucks. We respond to over 15,000 calls for service each year.
Kern County has recently increased their staffing from 10 to 16 animal control officers
using 21 trucks, and handled. 22,161 calls last year. If we choose to add calls for
service regarding cats I anticipate our calls for service to increase by at least 5,500
calls. To come to this number I mirrored the number of dog calls for service in the areas
of strays, noise, and confined cats. This increase translates into the need for two full
time animal control officers and one additional vehicle.
Business Manager Darrin Branson estimates the cost of adding another shelter for the
housing of cats at $500,000.00 with an additional $255,000.00 of county costs yearly.
However, the county does not desire to staff a cat shelter for us.
Other options
If we choose to provide a licensing option only, it will bring about frustration and anger
on .the part of those citizens who voluntarily license their cats. They will see that though
they made the effort to license their cats, the majority of cats are not being licensed.
Those citizens who currently experience cat related problems will continue to be
frustrated as Animal Control will not have enforceable laws to use as leverage in order
to remove the problem.
If we choose to take steps to solve cat problems we must do it in a comprehensive
manner, not halfheartedly.
Page 4 of 5
Cost Breakdown
2 animal control officers (dog licensing) $81,646.00
2 animal control officers (cat enforcement) $81,646.00
2 Animal control trucks $130,000.00
2 finance clerks $94,000.00
Equipment for finance clerks $9,400.00
Shelter Building $500,000.00
County Sheltering Costs $255,000.00
Cat Cages (100 (~ $50.00) $5,000.00
Clerk for management of cage program $47,000.00
Total 1,203,692.00
Page 5 of 5
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
November 1, 2006
TO: LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE
FROM: VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNEY ,./, .
HELENA R"O, ASSOCIATE CITY ATTORNL~i
SUBJECT: RESTAURANT GRADING ORDINANCE.
In response to Councilmember Couch's referral, staff has prepared
a draft ordinance regulating food establishment businesses in the City.'
PurSuant to City ordinanCe 8.04.020, the CoUnty is charged with all
health inspection functions, powerS and. duties regulating City :restaurants.
Recently, the County modified Chapter 8.58 of its Code to Provide for a letter
grading system for food establishments. In order to allow County staff to post the
letter grades for public viewing in City restaurants, the City must adopt a similar'
°rdinance. According to Matthew .Constantine, the Director of EHSD, it is
preferred that the City adopt Chapter8.58 in its entirety for the sake'of uniformity
and efficiency. ..
There are two viable options at this time. FirSt, a sectiOn can be
added to our Chapter 8.04 "Transfer of Health FunctionS," which adopts the
County. ordinance by .reference. Since Chapter· 8.04 contains the prOvisions
which transferred public health and sanitation functions to the COunty, it appearS
to·be·the prOper umbrella chapter for this proPosed section. This Would also be
similar to~·paSt practice,' (i.e·See Chapter 8.70, WhiCh allows the· County to
regulate ·the well and water systems in the City), where we have adopted a
COunty ordinanceby reference.. (See Exhibit A)
Alternatively, the City can add a Chapter 8:05, which wOuld add the
language of the County ordinance verbatim. For this option, a stand alone
chapter woUld be ·aPprOpriate since it WoUld require more space in order to add
all 8 sections of the Ordinance. (See Exhibit B)
The City Attorney's Office prefers the firSt option since that method
is the cleanest and presents the least likelihood of conflict in the event the·
County amends its ordinance On the toPic.
S:~COUNCILXCommittee~LEG & Ll'r~06-07~Restaurant Grading.doc
EXHIBIT "A"
REDLINED
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION
8.040.030 TO CHAPTER 8 OF THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
GRADING.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows:
SECTION 1.
8.04.010 City functions terminated.
The department of public health and sanitation and the office of health officer are
abolished.
8.04.020 Transferal to county.
All functions, powers and duties heretofore performed by said department of
public health and sanitation and the health officer of the city shall be exercised by the
county through its department of health, pursuant to contract made between the county
and the city.
Section 8.04.030 is hereby added to read as follows:
8.04.030 Food Establishment Grading.
Pursuant to Section 8.04.020, the Kern County Environmental Health
Services Department performs all functions, powers and duties relating to the
health inspection of City food establishments.
Chapter 8.58 of the Kern County Code requires that all Kern County food
establishments be individually assessed and ranked according to risk factors
developed by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. In order tr~
determine compliance of the full operation; inspections are unannounced and
occur at various times. At the conclusion of each inspection, a letter grade is
conspicuously posted for public viewing at the establishment, reflecting that
establishment's degree of compliance with state law. If the inspection reveals the
presence of critical health and sanitary, violations that pose an immediate risk to
food safety, the establishment is immediately closed until the operator is able to
demonstrate compliance.
Chepter 8.58 of the Kern County Code and all subsequent amendments or
revisions thereto is adopted by reference and shall be applicable to the regulation
of food establishment businesses in the City.
S:\JOHN\Council Committees\06 Legislative&Litigation\8.40.030FoodEstabGradingR-In.doc
-- Page 1 of 3 Pages --
REDLINED
SECTION 2,
This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after
the date of its passage.
.............. O00 ..............
S:\JOHN\Council Committees\06 Legislative&Litigation\8.40.030FoodEstabGradingR-In.doc
-- Page 2 of 3 Pages --
REDLINED
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by
the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on ,
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER
CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED:
By:
HARVEY L. HALL, Mayor
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:
HELENA RHO
Associate City Attorney
HR:dll
S:\JOHN\Council Committees\06 Legislative&Litigation\8.40.030FoodEstabGradingR~ln.doc
-- Page 3 of 3 Pages --
EXHIBIT "B"
REDLINED
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 8.05 TO
CHAPTER 8 OF THE BAKERSFIELD
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FOOD
ESTABLISHMENT GRADING.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows:
SECTION 1.
Section 8.05 is hereby added to read as follows:
8.05.010 Purpose
8.05.020 Definitions
8.05.030 General Requirement-~
8,05.040 Posting Requirements
8.05.050 Inspection Summary Report - Period of Validity
8.05.060 Appeal Process
8,05.070 Re-Score Inspection
8.05.080 Enforcement and Penalties
8.05.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards for the issuance of a
oradino score which represents the compliance of food establishments with ~ocal
ordinances and state law.
8.05.020 Definitions.
As used in this chapter.
A. "Department" shall mean the Kern County Environmental Health
Services Department.
B. "Food Establishment" shall mean a food establishment as defined in
the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law, Section 113780 of the California
Health and Safety Code. These are commonly referred to as restaurants, take-out
fast foods, dells, markets or similar operations.
C. "Director" shall mean the Environmental Health Services Director or
his/her designee.
D.. "~nspection" shall mean an evaluation of the food establishment
conducted on site by the Department.
S:\JOHN\Council Committees\06 Legislative&Litigation\8.05FoodEstabGradingR~ln.doc
-- Page 1 of 5 Pages --
REDLINED
E. "Inspection Report Form" shall mean the written report prepared
and copy issued to a food establishment provided by the Department after
conducting any inspection to determine compliance with all applicable federal,'
state; and local laws and regulations relating to the protection of public health.
F. "Inspection Summary. Report" shall mean a card that is posted at the
conclusion in the inspection which is based on the results from the Inspection
Report form. The Inspection summary Report will indicate a ~etter grade or
numeric score.
G. "Re-Score Inspection" shall mean an evaluation of the food
establishment conducted by the Department at the request of the permittee to
reassess compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
8.05.030 General Requirements.
All food establishments shall be inspected and graded uniformly using an,
Inspection Report Form. The grade of each food establishment shall be
determined by the Director using the scoring method provided on the form. The
Inspection Summary report of each food establishment shall be posted.
A. The letter "A" shall indicate a final score of 90% or higher.
B. The letter "B" shall indicate a final score of less than 90% but not
less than 80%.
C. The letter "C" shall indicate a final score of less than 80% but not
less than 75%.
D. A numeric score shall be indicated for a final score of ~ess than 75%.
Establishments that score below 75% will be required to close immediately and
the Environmental Health Permit will be suspended.
E. The Inspection Summary Report shall be posted at a food
establishment by the Director upon completion of an inspection.
8.05.040 Posting Requirements.
A. The Inspection Summary. Report shall be posted at or near each
entrance of the food establishment used by its patrons or in a conspicuous place
selected by the Director.
B. The Inspection Summary Report sha~l not be defaced, marred,
camouflaged, hidden or removed. It shall be unlawful to operate a food
establishment unless the ~nspection Summary Report is posted.
S:\JOHN\Council Committees\06 Legislative&Litigation\8.05FoodEstabGradingR-In.doc
-- Page 2 of 5 Pages --
REDLINED
8.05.050 Inspection S~Jmmary Report - Period of Validity.
An Inspection Summary Report shall remain valid until the director
completes the next inspection of the food establishment.
8.05.060 Appeal Process.
If, after completion of an inspection, the permittee disaqrees with the
inspection findings or the resulting Inspection Summa~ Report, the permittee
may re(~uest an aooeal.
A. The permittee shall submit a written request for an appeal on a
standardized form as determined by the Department within five business days
followinq the inspection.
B. The appeal shall be heard within three business days followin(~ the
written appea~ request.
C. The appeal shall be heard by the Director at which time the appeal
shall be considered and a final determination issued within one business day.
D. The previously issued Inspection Summary Report shall remain
posted until the fina~ resolution is obtained through the appeal process. After
resolution of the appeal process the new Inspection Summary Report shall be
posted within one business day.
8.05.070 Re-Score Inspection.
At the discretion of the permittee, a Re-Score Inspection may be requested
to reassess compliance.
A. A Re-Score Inspection must be requested by the permittee on a
standardized form as determined by the Department within seven days of the
original inspection. Only one Re-Score Inspection may be requested within, each
fiscal year.
B. The Director shall conduct a Re-Score Inspection within seven days
of receiving the request and submission of the inspection fee by the permittee.
C. At the conclusion of the Re-Score Inspection, the Inspection
Summary Report shall be issued based upon the scoring method set forth in this
chapter.
D. A requested Re-Score Inspection is separate and independent of all
inspections as determined by the Director.
S:\JOHN\Council Committees\06 Legislative&Litigation\8.05FoodEstabGradingR-In.doc
-- Page 3 of 5 Pages --
REDLINED
8.05.080 Enforcement and Penalties.
Removal of the Inspection Summary_ Report is a violation of this chapter
and may result in the suspension or revocation of the Environmental Health
Permit. Any person who violated any provision of this chapter is guilty of a
misdemeanor and subject to the provisions as specified in Chapter 8.54 of Title 8
of the Kern County Code.
SECTION 3.
This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after
the date of its passage.
---oo0oo---
S:\JOHN\Council Committees\06 Legislative&Litigation\8.05FoodEstabGradingR-In.doc
-- Page 4 of 5 Pages --
REDLINED
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by
the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on .,
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH HANSON, SULLIVAN, SCRIVNER
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER
CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED:
By:
HARVEY L. HALL, Mayor
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:
HELENA RHO
Associate City Attorney
HR:dll
S:\JOHN\Council Committees\06 Legislative&Litigation\8.05FoodEstabGradingR-In.doc
-- Page 5 of 5 Pages --