The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/14/2006 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 --