Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/20/2006 B A K E R' S F I E L D Zack Scrivner, Chair Sue Benham David Couch Staff: Alan Christensen SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield / Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor- City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGEND-A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT MAY 16, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Committee recommendation on 2006 Legislative Platform - Christensen 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Review and Committee recommendation on City Annexation Policy - Christensen 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT B A K E R S F I E L ___DDRAFT ~ Zack Scrivner, Chair Sue Benham For: Alan Tandy, Cit~ Manager David Couch AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, May 16, 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 1:03 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Zack Scrivner, Chair; Sue Benham; and David Couch 2. ADOPT APRIL 18, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Mr. Hipolito R. Rocha spoke regarding the City's amplified sound ordinance. He has brought this issue to the Committee before, but continues to have problems with his neighbor's loud home stereo and vehicle amplified sound systems from the drive-in restaurant across the street. He requested changes to the City's ordinance including changing the distance within which noise is considered a nuisance and cost recovery for second response calls by the police. Captain Taylor explained there is an ordinance in place to recover costs for second responses; however, a notice must be issued with a follow-up call. Police Officers have responded to Mr. Rocha's calls in the past and will continue to work with him. As this was not on the agenda, Committee Chair Zack Scrivner referred the amplified sound ordinance to the City Attorney for review of what penalties could apply for the same noise offenders requiring repeated response calls by the police within a 30-day period and report back to the Committee. LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Page 2 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding amendments to Council Reimbursement Resolution/Policy The Council adopted a resolution on February 22, 2006, in order to comply with the new law (AB 1234). The COmmittee had recommended adoption by the Council and referral back to Committee for further refinement on the written policy for reimbursement of certain expenses. City Attorney Ginny Gennaro gave an overview on the changes requested by the Committee at its last meeting in April. Highlights of the changes were: · Subject to the submission of an expense report, the Mayor and City Councilmembers may be reimbursed in advance for actual and necessary expenses in connection with events listed in Exhibit "A." · For events not listed on Exhibit "A" the Mayor and Councilmembers must seek Council approval (prior to or subsequent to the event) before any expenses are reimbursed. · For all City of Bakersfield legislative members except the Mayor and City Council Exhibit "A" does not apply. Expenses shall be reimbursed at the discretion of the City Manager's Office and approved by the City Council at a public meeting, either in advance or subsequent to the event. The Committee reviewed the events listed in Exhibit "A." Committee Member David Couch asked the City Attorney to add the League of California Cities conference for newly elected officials (Mayors and Council Members Academy - Leadership Institute) to Exhibit %., The Committee approved the change. Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen provided a list of reimbursable travel, events, and meals the Mayor incurs as part of his duties. The Committee reviewed the list of mayoral events. Committee Chair Zack Scrivner requested the City Attorney to add the events for the Mayor that were not already included on Exhibit "A." The Committee approved the change. Committee Member Sue Benham made a motion the Committee approve the changes presented by the City Attorney and Committee Members and forward the resolution to the City Council. The Committee unanimously approved .the motion. B, Discussion and Committee recommendation on amending the ordinance regarding parking of vehicles in alleys In response to the complaint regarding parking in .the alleys on Cypress Street, Police Captain Tim Taylor reported they have surveyed the residents on ~:~.~" ii::~;. /':~-"~. "~i ' ~: LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Page 3 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT I .Tuesday, May 16, 2006 Cypress and Beech Streets that share the common alley. With only a couple of exceptions, the residents indicated they have not had preoblems with parked vehicles blocking the alley. The west side of the alley is already posted "No Parking." The Police Department will continue to monitor this section of alley and tow away vehicles if they block vehicle access to garages or the alley. Ralph Huey, Director, Fire Prevention Services, reported staff has gone out and checked the alley. This morning there were two vehicles parked in the alley; however, there was enough reom for a fire truck to have gotten through.' ' City Attorney Ginny Gennaro stated Mr. Brian Holle's request was for the City to amend the current ordinance to prohibit parking in alleys, as some other cities have done. However, if the City's ordinance is changed to prohibit alley parking, in order to enforce the ordinance and have a citation stand up in court, the alleys in the City must be posted "No Parking." The Committee requested the City Attorney to write a letter to Mr. Holle to let him know the Committee has reviewed his request and the Police Department will continue to monitor the alley. The Committee voted unanimously to take no further action on this item. (Committee Member Benham absent.) C, Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding giving away or selling animals in front of businesses Police Captain Tim Taylor explained at the last meeting the Committee reviewed the County's ordinance and the request from the County for the City to change its ordinance to prohibit giving away or selling animals in front of businesses. The Committee requested staff to check with the County on how many calls they have received and how their ordinance is working.. Lt. Gary Moore checked with Kern County Animal Control and to their recollection no one has ever been arrested or cited for this violation. If the City were to receive a call from a business with a complaint regarding persons giving away or selling animals in front of their business and refusing to leave, the Police could enforce the City's trespassing ordinance to handle the complaint. The Committee voted unanimously 'to take no further action on this item. (Committee Member Benham absent.) D, Review and Committee recommendation on City Annexation Policy Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen explained staff referred this item in an effort to streamline the current policy to take out duplicate processes that are now (by law) conducted by LAFCO. Annexations are taking far too long for people waiting to be in the City and receive City services. LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Page 4 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Tuesday, May 16, 2006 City Manager Alan Tandy stated when the law was changed and LAFCO was made the lead agency for annexations, LAFCO imposed a series of policies, which have slowed the annexation process down considerably. There are 90+ people (uninhabited land) who are hoping to get their properties annexed and cannot get processed fast enough. The City is working contrary to their interest with the current City policy, which slows the process down even further for people who want to come into the City. Barbara Fowler gave an overview of the changes being proposed in the document submitted by her, Becky Kaiser and Barbara Fields, which was included in the Committee packet. The document includes changes to the City's annexation policy docUments, which they would like the Committee to review and recommend. Becky Kaiser and Barbara Fields also spoke regarding the changes they are proposing. Committee Member David Couch explained there have been two inhabited annexations under the City's current policy. Public meetings were held. The current policy processes worked well and the changes being proposed were all accomplished during those annexations. Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen commented that the City is only pursuing annexations where people are interested and the annexation is being driven by the residents. Some of the changes being suggested are acceptable to staff. However, the changes to the timelines and record keeping are counter to what staff is trying to accomplish. Barbara Fowler stated the proposed changes are in rough-draft form and not their final proposal. Committee Member David Couch made a motion to continue this item to the next meeting. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. (Committee Member Benham absent.) The Committee requested staff to provide a copy of the current policy documents, the changes staff is recommending, and asked Barbara Fowler if · she would provide a final copy of their requested changes 10 days prior to the next meeting so the Committee Members have time to review and compare the proposed policy changes before the Committee meeting. (Committee Member Benham absent.) 5. NEW BUSINESS None. LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Page 5 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT · Tuesday, May 16, 2006 6. COMITTEE COMMENTS None. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. Staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Police Captain Tim Taylor; Development Services Director Stan Grady; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Assistant City Clerk Roberta Gafford; Director Fire Prevention Services Ralph Huey; and Public Works Traffic Engineer Steve Walker Others present: Hipolito R. Rocha; Barbara Fowler; Becky Kaiser; and Barbara J. Fields cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council S:~AC\06 Legislative&Litigation~L 06 may 16 summary.doc B A K E R S F I E L D OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER June 16, 2006 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager/~ SUBJECT: Legislative Platform The Legislative Platform is a policy document outlining legislative priorities for the coming fiscal year. Upon approval by the Legislative and Litigation Committee, the Platform will be forwarded to the full City Council for approval. We're recommending some additional language and removing some that is no longer relevant. We look forward to your input and discussion on the platform. Attachment: 2006 Proposed Legislative Platform S:~AC\05 Legislative&Litigation\Platform Memo.doc CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 2006 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM THE CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD PROVIDES GOVERNMENTAL DECISION MAKING AT THE LEVEL CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE. THEREFORE, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON ITS ELECTED OFFICIALS TO PROVIDE LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP ON ISSUES WHICH POTENTIALLY COULD IMPACT THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD. THE FOLLOWING POLICY STATEMENTS REFLECT THE LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD FOR 2006. GENERAL POLICY STATEMENTS SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES THE CITY'S FISCAL AUTONOMY AND CHARTER CITY STATUS TO ALLOW DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY OVER LOCAL, STATE AND/OR FEDERALLY . MANDATED PROGRAMS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES FOR GOVERNMENTAL DECISION MAKING AT THE LEVEL CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE WHENEVER IT IS MOST LIKELY TO PRODUCE THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT RESULT. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH MAINTAINS AND/OR ENHANCES THE CITY'S LAND USE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH FOSTERS MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE METHODS FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WORK TOGETHER TO SOLVE ISSUES OF LOCAL CONCERN. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH MAINTAINS THE PROVISION OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES (E.G., ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, WATER) IN A COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ENSURES A GOOD~ CLEAN~ HIGH QUALITY WATER SUPPLY. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH ALLOWS STATE OR FEDERAL CONTROL OVER AND USE OF TRADITIONAL MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE SOURCES. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH SHIFTS TO THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER TRADITIONAL MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH DETRIMENTALLY IMPACTS THE LOCAL ECONOMY. OPPOSE LEGISLATION THAT PLACES GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN COMPETITION FOR LIMITED FISCAL RESOURCES OR ENCOURAGES SHIFTING OF SERVICE RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE FUNDING. Page 1 of 3 QUALITY OF LIFE SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROMOTES SAFE, EFFICIENT, COST EFFECTIVE, AND RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS OF ISSUES SUCH AS URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AIR QUALITY, WATER QUALITY, TRANSPORTATION, WASTEWATER TREATMENT, AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH INCREASES CITY PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION IN COUNTY, STATE AND FEDERAL ISSUES OF REGIONAL CONCERN. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES INCREASED FUNDING OF CULTURAL, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PROGRAMS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES APPROPRIATE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD REPRESENTATION ON POLICY-MAKING BODIES WITH INTER JURISDICTIONAL POWERS (E.G., ~ I ~^, A~,~v ~,^T,~, r~,~,,cc,~, THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, AND THE KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY'S IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #4). SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES APPROPRIATE FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR THE PROVISION OF LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ENSURES THAT KERN RIVER WATER REMAINS IN THE AREA, AND OPPOSE EFFORTS TO EXPORT IT OUT OF THE COUNTY OF KERN. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH INCREASES THE COST OF OR ENDANGERS THE CLEAN, RELIABLE SOURCE OF WATER AVAILABLE TO THE CITY FROM THE KERN I~IVER. (~ENERAL (~OVERNMENT SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH EXPANDS THE CITY'S ABILITY TO DEAL ON A STATE LEVEL WITH STATE-MANDATED ISSUES AFFECTING THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE CITY. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES MUNICIPAL CONTROL OVER PROGRAM SCOPE, IMPLEMENTATION, AND FUNDING. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES FOR EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF STATE FUNDS FOR CITY PROGRAMS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH CONSOLIDATES SPECIAL DISTRICTS WITH OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS AND/OR RESPONSIBILITIES WHERE SUCH CONSOLIDATION IS CLEARLY OF BENEFIT TO THE CITY. OPPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH INTRUDES INTO THE CITY'S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS AND RIGHTS. Page 2 of 3 FINANCES SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ADVOCATES RESPONSIBLE AND REASONABLE STATE- MANDATED PROGRAMS IF REVENUES PROVIDED AND SUCH LEGISLATION IS OF CLEAR BENEFIT TO THE CITY. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROMOTES CONTINUED DIVERSIFICATION OF THE LOCAL ECONOMY, · SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH REDUCES THE NEGATIVE FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ON AFFECTED REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH IMPROVES CITY GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO FINANCE DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES THE CITY'S ABILITY TO FUND ITS CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS. SUPPORT LEGISLATION WHICH PROMOTES THE USE OF LOCAL BANKS WHERE POSSIBLE AND LOCAL BRANCHES OF NATIONAL BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR CITY INVESTMENT, OPPOSE THE IMPOSITION OF FEES AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL TO FUND STATE PROGRAMS NOT RELATED TO MUNICIPAL MATTERS. Page 3 of 3 B A K E R S F I E L D OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM June 16,2006 TO: LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE ZACK SCRIVNER, Chair DAVID COUCH SUE BENHAM E~-~. ,~ FROM: VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORN I~ SUBJECT: . ANNEXATION POLICY In 1998, the City annexed areas of the City now commonly known as Palm/Olive. The annexation was challenged in court and ultimately, the areas were de-annexed. Shortly after the City's failed annexation effort, State law was amended and all County LAFCOs obtained full jurisdiction over the annexation process. The City's current annexation policy (Resolution No. 029-02) was in response to the poorly received annexation efforts. At the time, the City Attorney was against the resolution since it required the City to take additional steps in the annexation process and could subject the City to challenge if the exact steps were not followed. Nevertheless, City Council felt the Resolution was a good-faith attempt to mend bridges within the community. Staff is now seeking to amend the Resolution for streamlining purposes. Again, the City Attorney's Office reiterates its positiOn that any policy which the City Council adopts which extends beyond the requirements of State law, affords the potential for litigation should any of the steps be missedwregardless of intent. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office that the Committee repeal Resolution 029-02 in its entirety and not consider any modifications thereto. S:\COUNClL\Committee\Leg & LitV~nnexafion Policy. doc · B A.' K." E R '.S .Fi I E.: Li D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM June 15, 2006 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager/~ SUBJECT: Annexation Policy In July of 2005, staff recommended changes to the City's annexation policies and 'procedures. The change was requested because of the length of time that it took to annex the Froelich Palms area, which was the city's most recent inhabited annexation. City staff's primary reason for the changing the policy was to reduce the time it takes to process inhabited annexations. Since that time, staff has worked with three citizens who are interested in annexation policy to try to find a compromise. Unfortunately, after many months reviewing and discussing different versions of our pOlicy and related documents, the result has not produced anything that staff would recommend. As you will see from the attached documents submitted to us by the citizens, the process they propose would make annexations more cumbersome, bureaucratic, and lengthy. In fact, their version goes contrary to staff's recommendation to streamline, and it would actually lengthen the time it takes to annex. Today staff is recommending policy changes which were presented back in October of 2005. This proposal incorporates many changes first recommended by the citizens. The changes that we made at the time and are still recommending are showing in red. The attached documents show the City's proposal first and the citizen's proposal second. We feel that the version prepared by City staff--in addition to State law which governs all annexations--provides more than adequate protection for property owners with a minimum of unnecessary administrative layers. We recommend that you adopt the City staff's version that has the effect of streamlining the annexation process. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION BY THE CI~: COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AMENDING AND RE-AFFIRMING CITY'S ANNEXATION MISSION STATEMENT AND .ESTABLISHING A PRE,APPLICATION PROCESS FOR ANNEXATIONS. WHEREAS, the City Council for the CitY of Bakersfield adopted an Annexation Mission Statement on February 21, 1996 which outlines several: reaSons why the City pursues annexations and the manner. and outcomes Which are expected to. result: from said annexations; and WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Bakersfield adopted. Resolution 029-02 regarding the City'S Pre-Application Process for Annexations; and WHEREAS, State law requires the annexation procedure to be Under the auspices: of the Local Formation Agency Commission (herein "LAFCO,); and WHEREAS, annexation remainS an identifiable goal of the City .Council, a recommended positive step in the Vision 2020 Plan, and a supported finding .from the 1999,2000 Kern County Grand Jury; and WHEREAS, the. City Council intends to disseminate annexatiOn information pdor' to the involvement of'LAFCO a'nd desires to assure citizens that to the extent annexation.information is provided by the City, that it occurs in an honorable, Courteous, 'informative, honest, and timely manner; and WHEREAS, the City desires~ to re-affirm the goals and pledge of said MiSsion Statement by ,establishing a' pre-APplication process Which will g0vem how City Council and CitY staff handle annexations., prior to the involvement of LAFCO; and WHEREAS, the Pre-Application ProCess Will include a: number of steps, to notify the property owners/occupants within the proposed area one of which shall be a Noticed Hearing before the Bakersfield City Council prior to adoption of the Resolution'of App!ication. NOW THEREFORE, incorporating the above recitals: herein, the City Council for'the City of Bakersfield hereby: 1. Amends and re-affirms the Annexation MiSsion statement adopted by the Bakersfield City Council on February :21, 1996, 'attached hereto .as Exhibit "A'~ and incorporated by reference herein. Adopts the Annexation Pre-APplication process attached hereto as iExhibit "B" and incorporated by reference herein. 3. This Resolution supersedes Resolution 029:02. -oo0oo- S:\! 1EAR INGS~.NN EXkbamex Reso.wpd I. HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ResolUtion 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: COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC CITY.CLERK and Ex'Officio. Clerk of:the Council of.the City of Bakersfield APPROVED:: By: HARVEY L: HALL Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: VIRGINIA GENNARO City .Attorney By: VI RGINIA GENNARO City Attorney :proc S:~HEAI~INGSXANNEXLAnnex Res0 Wpd EXHIBIT "A" ANNEXATION MISSION STATEMENT The purpose of: the City of Bakersfield's annexatiOn effOrts is to prOvide clear consolidated boundaries, which, result in the most effective delivery of .urban services: and in the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. In fulfilling this mission, we, the citY of :Bakersfield. elected officials and staff .pledge the following: :To .deliver services to citizens Within newlY annexed, county areas more efficiently and: with a gl:eater ti~ansfer of benefits as a result of becoming a' part'of the City; and · To provide quality services to citizens ¢in the most efficient, effective :and courteous manner poSsible; and · To encourage current and future :residents to participate 'in determining the.directiOn and spirit :of the City and its :neighborhoods; and · To assure our contact with .citizens .will be in the most honorable, courteous, informative, timely and 'honest manner in our effOrts to encOurage adjacent residents to unite with the City of Bakersfield; and · To make continual efforts, to imprOve the quality of life, the .delivery of services and the community spirit within and around Bakersfield; and · To preserve the integrity of each propertY owner's vote, by not combining nora contiguous areas on the Resolution of Application, unless 100% owner approval is received in writing by the City. EXHIBIT "1" '0 B .A K E R S ~F' 1- E L 'D NOTICE OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION BY THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBY .GIVEN that the Bakersfield City' Council is proposing 'annexation of inhabited territorY to the City of Bakersfield identified as City of Bakersfield ANNEXATION NO. 398, GENERALLY KNOWN AS PANAMA #12. A Resolution of Application will be heard before the City Council of the 'City of Bakersfield at 6;30 P.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard on WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14,r 2001, .in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 . Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California., 93301. The purpose of this actiOn is to initiate proceedings with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The area being.conSidered is generally located north and south of Panama Lane, west of State Route 99 (Freeway 99). iSee the attached map (Exhibit A) that shows the affected territon/~ Th'ese proceedings were 'initiated by the prope.rty owner(s) or .City :(choose ~e) . The reason the has proposed 'this annexation" is The .City Council is interested in your 'written. comments regarding the proposed annexation Comments may be filed bY any oWnedoccupant within the proposed annexation area, by returning the encl'osed, pOstage, paid postcard, Or letter with the City Clerk. at any time .prior to. adoption of the Resolution of Application by the City Council. Final approval of the proposed annexation will be determined by Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Contact LAFCO at (661) 716-1076 for additional information on their proceedings. Dated: Pamela A McCarthyI CMC City Clerk and Ez Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield NOTE: Notice, to be mailed in City of Bakersfieid En,zelope EXHIBIT "B" ANNE~TION PRE-APPLICATION PROCESS The. fo lowing steps are proposed for the City of' Bakersfield prior to applicatiOn fOr annexat on to' LAFCO of territory inhabited by 12 or more resident electors: · Identify .Proposed AnneXation Area Development Services Department - Planning DiviSion will identify the proposed annexation area, based on request by City or Citizens to initiate annexation. · Notify City Council City staff will: notify the Counci, in writing of the annexation .proposal. This notification, by way of memorandum, will be distributed through City Manager's weekly General information Memo, which is available in the City Clerk's Qffice. Send'out "FrequentlY Asked QuestiOns" Frequently asked questions and resPonSes regarding the proposed annexation will be prepared by the StaffI made .available on the' City's website at www,bakersfieldcity.us and provided at informational meetings, Additionally, a copy will be included with the Notice of Propose Annexation and mailed to ail .property owners/occupants within the propose area. Standard questions will appear on all; letters. Some additional questiOns and answers with regard to taxes or other issues speCific to the area may be included. Informational Meetings At least one mandatory .noticed informational meeting .at a Public · facility will be conducted within the proposed .annexation area. The Kern County Supervisor representing the area and County staff will be invited to these meetings. City CounciI .members may wish to also schedule additional informal meetings in the area in order to share information and this .should not be precluded. In all cases, the Councilm'ember will be invlted to any informational meeting~ Efforts will be made :to use pUblic facilities for informational meetings. However, this: does not preclUde the use of resident homes. It is 'the intent of. this section to assure that information is readily, available and shared with citizens. With this in mind, staffwill attemPt':to use the internet to disseminate' annexation information when financ al y feasible. It is imperative that staff be available, to respond to questions by citizens and: share information in 'either a. group or individual setting:. Notification Written notice will be mailed'to all property owners/occupants within the proposed area. The will be a prepaid poSt care included requesting the owner/occupant express their opinion regarding the annexation, by imail or personal delivery. This is an informal request for information and not a form voting procedure. The notice will be prepared and mailed by CitY Clerk Staff no later :than 20 days prior to the ResolUtion of Application. See attached Exhibit'"1" and ,2" · ReSolution of Application A Resolution of Application for Annexation of a proposed area will be brought to the Council for consideration.. The public can address the .Council at this time, Final approval of the proposed annexation will be determined by Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Contact LAFCO at (661) 716-1076 for additional infOrmation on their proceedings. 2 City Clerk's Office 1501 Truxtun Ave, Bakersfield, CA 9330.1 CITY CLERK CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFiELD'CA 93301 NOTICE OF' PROPOSED ANNEXATION A Reso ution of Application is being proposed for the following territory. The City COuncil would like to receive your comments,· priOr to adopting the ResOlution. Please complete this card and return to the City Clerk. This is for information purposes only and not an official vote. Regarding Annexation No. 398, Generally Known as Panama #12 I suppOrt the proposed annexation I oppose·the proposed annexation ~ I' have no Preference' regarding annexation ~ I request additional infOrmatiOn regarding:.. FOr AnnexatiOn Information Contact :' City. Planning @ (661) 326:3733 LAFCQ @·(66 !) 716,1076 Councilmember , ...... @ (66_1) xxx~xxxx ANNEXATION PACKET ITEMS FROM: Barbara Fields, Becky Kaiser, & Barbara Fowler DATE: 5126106 - delivered to City Manager's Office 1. Cover Letter 2. Resolution 3. Annexation Mission Stntement A=I 4. Annexation Process Timeline B-1 5. Notice of Proposed Annexation C-1 6. Annexation Contact Log Requirements D-1 7. Annexation Petition E-1 8. Annexation Survey Postcard G-1 9. Notice of Public Informational Meeting H-1 Missing- to be provided by City Map of Annexation Area I-1 City FAQs F-1 May 25, 2006 City of Bakersfield Legislation and Litigation Committee Zack Scrivner, Chair Sue Benham David Couch Dear Chairman Scrivner and members of the committee, Thank you for the privilege of being a part of efforts toward establishing updated City of Bakersfield guidelines and procedures on annexation. It is our firm belief that what is good and right for the citizens will prove to be a protection for the city, its further growth and reputation. A working partnership between citizens and government, based on honesty and respect, can achieve positive, lasting results. To be productive and consistent requires a planned timeline/schedule that, once easily established, is efficient and cost effective, allowing an orderly process that is unquestionable in its purpose and integrity. It is our desire to put into effect what Can be done rather than what cannot be done! We are proud to submit a can do plan! Sincerely, Barbara Fowler for Barbara Fields & Becky Kaiser Barbara Fowler 393-6326 Barbara Fields 399-1140 Becky Kaiser 589-3898 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AMENDING AND RE-AFFIRMING CITY'S ANNEXATION MISSION STATEMENT AND ESTABLISHING AN ANNEXATION PROCESS TIMELINE. WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Bakersfield adopted an Annexation Mission Statement on February 21, 1996, which outlines some of the reasons the City pursues annexations and the manner and outcomes which are expected to result from said annexations; and WHEREAS, after, and only after, the City Council approves a Resolution of Annexation for a specific area, State law requires the final annexation procedure to be under the auspices of the Local Formation Agency Commission (herein ULAFCo"); and WHEREAS, some annexations remain an identifiable goal of the City Council, a recommended positive step in the Vision 2020 Plan, and a supported finding of the 1999-2000 Kern County Grand Jury; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to disseminate annexation information prior to the involvement of LAFCo and desires to assure citizens that the annexation information provided by the City and its representatives will be shared in an honorable, courteous, informative, timely and honest manner;, and WHEREAS, the City desires to re-affirm the goals and pledge of its amended Mission Statement (Exhibit A-l) by establishing an Annexation Process Timeline (Exhibit B-l), which will govern how City Council and' City staff handle annexations prior to the involvement of LAFCo; and WHEREAS, the City affirms the principles set out in Council Goal #4,1, which requires staff or City representatives, when facilitating annexations, to be sensitive to residents of proposed annexation areas, and which also insists that support for annexation should start with the neighbors, not the City, and WHEREAS, the Annexation Process Timeline (Exhibit B-l) will include a number of required steps to notify and inform the property owners/registered voters within the proposed annexation area, including a noticed opportunity to speak and/or present written comments before the Bakersfield City Council prior to adoption of the Resolution of Application. NOW THEREFORE, incorporating the above recitals herein, the City Council for the City of Bakersfield hereby: 1. Amends and re-affirms the Annexation Mission Statement adopted by the Bakersfield City Council on February 21, 1996, attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 and incorporated by reference herein. 2. Adopts the Annexation Process Timeline attached hereto as Exhibit B-1 and incorporated by reference herein, which includes Notice of Proposed Annexation (Exhibit C-1), Annexation Contact Log (Exhibit D-l), Annexation Petition (Exhibit E-l), Frequently Asked Questions (Exhibit F-l), Annexation Survey Postcard (Exhibit G-l), and Notice of Public Meeting (Exhibit H-l). 3. This Resolution supersedes Resolution 029-02. -oo0oo- S :~IEARINGSg~.NNEX~nncxRcso.wpd I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution 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: COUNCIl. MEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER PAMELA A. McCARTHY, CMC CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: By: HARVEY L. HALL Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: VIRGINIA GENNARO. City Attorney By: VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attorney :pmc S :~HEARINGS~.NN'EX~OmnexReso.wpd EXHIBIT A-1 ANNEXATION MISSION STATEMENT The purpose of the City of Bakersfield's annexation efforts is to provide clear, consolidated boundaries which result in the most effective delivery of urban services and the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. In fulfilling this mission, we, the city of Bakersfield elected officials and staff pledge the following: To deliver services to citizens within newly annexed unincorporated areas more efficiently and with a greater transfer of benef~s as a result of becoming a part of the City; and To seek to provide quality services to citizens in as an efficient, effective and courteous manner possible; and · To encourage future residents to participate in determining the direction and spirit of the City and its neighborhoods; and To assure that our and our representatives' contact with citizens will be in the most honorable, courteous, informative, timely and honest manner possible to encourage adjacent residents to unite with the City of Bakersfield; and · To preserve the integrity of each property owner's vote, by not combining or bundling non-contiguous areas on the Resolution of Application, unless 100% owner approval is received in writing by the City; and To follow City Council goals and principles by treating with sensitivity the citizens of the neighborhoods we wish to annex, and to insist that support for annexation begin with the citizens, not the City; and · To honor the individual's right of self determination and to insure that all new citizens of Bakersfield unite with the City by choice, the City Will not force them to be annexed against their will. Exhibit B-I ANNEXATION PROCESS TIMELINE The purpose of. this document is to. inform citizens of unincOrporated areas with 12 or more· registered voterS of the steps required for the annexation.of their property, and of the responsibilities..the'City of Bakersfield accepts in that process. Listings in bold denote a City of Bakersfield obligation 1. An inquiry, about annexation is made:to a City Councilmernber, theCity Clerk, or to the City of Bakersfield, s Development Serviees Department (DSD)by citizen(s). 2. The DSD will provide the interested person(s) with an Annexation'PetitiOn (Exhibit E-l), which Should be returned to the DSD within' a period of 30. days, with-valid signatures from at least 25%.of the'registered'voters/property owners in. the proposed annexation area who favor annexation. 3. If the City Clerk' or .DSD determine that the ~petifion signers.do reside and are registered:to vote in the proposed annexation area or own property in · the proposed annexation area~ and'determine that the levelof positive interest iS' at. least 25%, and that the signatures' are valid, the'area will - beidentified.and numbered. · 4. The DSD will .notifY the: City. Council of the.propOsed annexation :in writing, using the City Manager's weekly General .Information Memo(available to .the'pUblic at'the. City Clerk's off.ICe.and on the City website: at ww'w. bakers~e~c~Y. US). No effort =~l: be made to ikeep the:annexation.secret, 5. TheDSD will.mail.infOrmational packetsto all:prOperty owners/registered voters.in the.. proposed annexation: areai using:the most current: contact information from the ASsessor,s ~ce and the Department of. EleCtions.. This packet wiltbe mailedin an official City.of Bakersfield envelope and.clearly · marked. "COntains Information about the possible Annexati°n/of Your:proPerty." The packets will include: e: Notice ofproposedAnnexation(Exhibit C-l) · ~exation.Area Map(Exhibit · AnnexatiOn. Process Timeline (ExhibitB,1) + Annexation Mission Statement:(EXhibit A- 1) · ' Current Frequently Asked Questions Document (Exhibit F-l) · Annexation SurveY Postcard ~x~bit G-l) · NotiCe of Public lnformationMeefmg (E~bit H' 1)~ which will include contact information for: City Clerk Development Services Department (DSD) City Council member affected by the annexation Board of Supervisors member affected by the annexation LAFCo. Kern County website's annexation link 6. The CitY Clerk will be responsible for maintaining and updating an Annexation Contact Log (Exhibit D-l), which will make a record of all telephone calls received from registered voters/property owners in the proposed annexation area regarding the annexation. All opinions communicated by telephone, letter, email, fax, and in person will also be logged and saved. The opinions noted .in these logs and all other communications will be tabulated, shared with the CitY Council, and used to determine to what extent the neighborhood favors or opposes annexation. The logs and correspondence will become public documents. The City Clerk will also keep a similar log of all contacts made by DSD, affected City Counciimember, City staff or City representatives on the proposed annexation; these logs and any information transmitted will become public documents. 7. The CitY of Bakersfield will host a mandatory noticed Public Informational Meeting at a public facilitY within or near the proposed annexation area on a date that is least 30 and not more than 45 days after the mailing of the informational packets. All property owners/registered voters in the proposed annexation area, affected CitY Councilmember, CitY staff, affected Board of Supervisors member,, and County of Kern staff will be invited. 8. Registered voters/property owners in the proposed annexation area will thoughtfully consider the annexation issue, gather additional facts as needed, and communicate with the City Clerk, DSD, or the affected Councilmember of their approval or disapproval of the annexation. They may be assured that all their communications with the City will be reviewed and logged, whether made by telephone, letter, emall, fax, or in person. They may also plan to speak at the City Council meeting when the Resolution of AppliCation will be considered, knowing that the Council wishes to be fully informed on the matter. 9. Registered voters/property owners will return All Annexation Survey Postcards (Exhibit G-l) by mail or personal delivery to the City Clerk at 1501 Truxttm Avenue, Bakersfield, 93301, no later than 5 calendar days before the council meeting when the Resolution of Application will be considered. 10. The DSD will review the Annexation Survey Postcards (Exhibit G-l) and tabulate the results, creating a public document which will be given to the City Council for consideration. The document will list: ~ The number of property owners/registered voters in the area ~ The number of responders who favor the annexation ~ The number of responders who oppose it ~ The number of responders who are undecided ~ The number of responders who have no opinion v~ The reasons given in favor and opposition to the annexation Each responder can "vote" just once in each category (registered voter/property owner) unless he/she owns multiple properties in the proposed area. The original Annexation Survey Postcards will be retained for at least one year. 11. If the DSD determines that the level of support for the annexation by registered voters/property owners is more than 50%, a Resolution of Application will be placed on the City Council agenda for the Council consideration. The Resolution of Application for an inhabited annexation will always be a non-consent agenda item. 12. Affected registered voters/property owners may address the City Council at the Council meeting at which the Resolution of Application for Annexation is considered. The Public Speech portion is held at the beginning of the meeting (a Speakers Card must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting). 13. The City Clerk will accept all written comments regarding the proposed annexation received prior to the start of the Council meeting, whether hand delivered, mailed, emailed, faxed, or made in person. All communications will become a part of the public record. 14. Before voting on the Resolution of Application, the City Council members will be charged with learning the actual feelings of the registered voters/property owners regarding this proposed annexation, not relying solely on staff summary memos. Each Councilmember will become familiar with all communications from the affected citizens by thoughtfully reviewing all telephoned opinions of the registered voters/property owners in the proposed annexation area which the city has received and logged. Each will also be familiar with all the registered voters/property owners' logged opinions made by letter, email, fax, and in person. Each Councilmember will also listen carefully to any comments made by the affected citizens who speak at the City Council meeting. 15. If each Councilmember is satisfied that a verified 50% or more of the registered voters/property owners of the proposed area are truly in favor of the annexation, he/she may vote to approve the Resolution of Application. If the Resolution is aPproved .by a majority of the City Council, it will be forwarded to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for consideration. 16..Following LAFCo guidelines as set by state law, including noticing by LAFCo and holding a formal protest hearing if 100% written landowner consent was not obtained by the City of Bakersfield, the LAFCo commissioners will review the proposed annexation and approve or terminate it. 17. If LAFCo approves the annexation, it becomes fmal upon satisfaction of all state requirements. IfLAFCo rejects the annexation, the City of Bakersfield will not reinifiate its process for this territory or any part of it for a period of at least one (1) year. EXHIBIT.C-1 B A K E R .$ r I E LD NO~ROPOSED· AN'N'ExATIO. · BY THE CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD' NOTiCE.iS HEREBY GIVEN that the' Bakersfield City Council' .is proposing .annexation of inhabited territory to .the' City of .Bakersfield identified as City of Bakersfield ANNEXA?IoN'NO,' 398, GENERALLY KNOWN As PANAMA #12 A :Resolution of Application will. be 'heard before the City Council of the City of Bakersfield at 6':30. p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER t4, 200fl, .in the Council Chambers, City. Hail, 1501 Truxtun' Avenue, Bakersfield, Califomia, .93301'. The purpose of this.action is to initiate proCeedings With the .Local. Agency Formation CommissiOn (LAFCo). Approvaii. of this · Resolution of Application .for Annexation is the.first Step in the process of annexation, of your propertY into the ~City: of.Bakersfield. The:ama being considered is generally located:north .and south of Panama Lane, .west of State Route 99 (FreeWay 99)? See the'attached map (Exhibit 1,1).that ShoWS the affected territory. These proceedings were initiated: by.the property owner~). The reason'this annexation has been proposed is The City Council is interested in your written-and verbal comments regarding the propOSed annexation. Comments .may be filed .by any. property owner/registered voter Within the proposed annexation area bY .returning the enclosed anonymous postage paid postcard to ithe City Clerk no later, than 5 calendar days before the meeting, to insure adequate time for. tabulation. 'You may also' send a 'letter, fax, or email to the City Clerk at: any time prior to adOptiOn of.the ResolUtion of AppliCation by' the City Council (1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California .93301 or www..w~..bakersfieldcity.us)~ and your opinion. Will be Iogged~ Telephoned comments will alSo be accepted'at any time. prior to the meeting. Ail opinions on the proposed annexation you. share will be logged and .made available to the City 'Council consideration. The .City Council is also interested .in-hearing your comments regarding 'the PropoSed annexation at the.above referenced City CounCil .meeting. You may address the City Council during the Public speech portion of the meeting (for informatiOn about the procedure, contact the City Clerk'S office at (661) 326,3767). If the City CounCil approves this' ResolUtion of Annexation, it is forwarded to the Local Agency Formation Commission '(LAFCo). Depending on specific circumstances, LAFCo will hold a formal protest headng, approve the annexation, or terminate the annexation. The final approval or disapproval of the proposed annexation will be determined by LAFCo according to state guidelines. For more information on their proceedings, you may contact LAFCo at (661)716-1076. ^ general information guide on annexation is also available online (www. co. kem.ca.us/lafcolannexationguide.asp). Dated: Pamela A. McCarthy, CMC City Clerk and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield NOTE: Notice to be mailed in City of Bakersfield Envelope EXHIBIT D-1 ANNEXATION CONTACT LOG REQUIREMENTS All communications to and from the City of Bakersfield on a proposed annexation must be logged and records retained and made available to the Council and the public for review. INCOMING TELEPHONE LOG MUST LIST: Caller's Name Caller's Address (canf'wm that caller lives or owns property in the annexation al~a) · Address of the Property subject to annexation · Caller's Telephone # · If caller is a Registered Voter or a Property Owner (or both) · Which Proposed Annexation the call is regarding · Caller's opinion on the Annexation · Additional Information the caller requests · Date and Time of the call · Name of person receiving the call INCOMING EMAIL, LETTERS, FAXES PERSONAL CONTACTS WILL ALL BE LOGGED AND RETAINED. A TOP SHEET FOR EACH MUST LIST: · Sender's Name · Sender's Address (confirm that the sender lives' or owns property in the annexation area) · Address of the property subject to annexation · Sender's Telephone 0, if given · If sender is a Registered Voter or a Property Owner · Which annexation the communication is regarding · Sender's opinion on the annexation · Additional Information the sender requests · Date communication was received · Name of person logging the communication OUTGOING TELEPHONE, EMAIL, LETTER or FAX LOG SHOULD CONTAIN: · City Staffer or City Representative who placed the call or sent the fax, email or letter · Person Called, emailed, faxed or written · Which Proposed Annexation is the communication regarding · Date of contact · Time of contact · Address (if person was emailed or faxed) · Telephone # ( if person was called) · Subject of call (be specific) EXHIBIT E-1 ANNEXATION PETITION The City Clerk and Development Services Department (DSD) will have petition forms readily available for those who wish, by circulating a petition, to determine the level of interest in their neighborhood in annexation into the City of Bakersfield. THE PETITION MUST CONTAIN: * Name#f the circulator of the petition Address of the circulator of the petition Telephone # of the circulator the petition The connection the circulator has with the City of Bakersfield and the neighborhood ~ City employees or their spouses or relatives will always immediately declare their connection · Annexation Area described . . Map of Annexation Area . Columns for: Printed Name of Person signing Signature of Signer Address of Signer Address of the property subject to annexation Telephone # of Signer If the Signer is a Registered Voter, Property Owner, or both Date Petition is signed e A Statement like ',We, the undersigned, do hereby affirm that we are property owners or registered voters in the specified unincorporated area referenced above and wish to be annexed into the City of Bakersfield:" ~ EXHIBIT G-1 '~'~'-':'~' -~'-~-*~':-:~-~'""~"~ Post Paid City Clerk's Office 1501 Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 CITY CLERK CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1501 TRUXTUN AVE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 ANONYMOUS ANNEXATION SURVEY CARD The City of Bakersfield is considering the annexation of your property. The City Council would like to receive your comments about this action. Your comments will help determine whether the City will continue or discontinue annexation plans for your neighborhood. For your opinion to count in this survey, this postage paid card must be returned to the City Clerk by (date), which is 5 calendar days before the Resolution of Application will be considered by the Council during the City Council meeting. ANNEXATION NO. XXX, GENERALLY KNOWN AS ~ I support the proposed annexation I oppose the proposed annexation I have no preference regarding annexation I request additional information regarding annexati°n i(this will require your name and address) Comments: For Annexation Information Contact: Development Services Department ~ 661-326-xxxx City Clerk's Office ~ 661-326-xxxx Clerk of the Board, County of Kern ~ 661-858- LAFCo ~ 661-716-1076 YOUR RESPONSE IS NOT AN OFFICIAL OR FINAL VOTE BUT PROVIDES IMPORTANT ADVISORY INFORMATION EXHIBIT H -1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING WHY? Your neighborhood is under consideration for annexation into the City of Bakersfield, as ANNEXATION NO , generally known as } WHAT? A casual neighborhood meeting to assist you in making an informed decision regarding the annexation of your home } WHO IS THE HOST? The City of Bakersfield is the official host } WHEN? The meeting will take place on (day of the week), (month), (date), (year) This date will be at least 30 days and not more than 45 days after the mailing of ~4nnexation Information Packets } WHERE? __.(location) The location will be at a public facility in or near the proposed annexation area } WI~AT TIME? At (time)pm ~ WHO IS INVITED? Every registered voter who resides in this area and every person who owns property in the area is invited, as listed in the latest Department of Elections and Assessor's records. ~ WHO ELSE IS INVITED? ~ , Councilmember who would represent the area if annexed,, (name) , Board of Supervisors member who represents your area, City of Bakersfield staff and County of Kern staff ~ WHAT ELSE DO I NEED TO KNOW? Bring your questions and list of concerns. No reservations are required. } WHO CAN I CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION? Call the City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield at (661)326-3767 or the Development Services. Department at (661)326-3733 SEE YOU THERE!