Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/16/2006 B AK E R S FI EL D Zack Scrivner, Chair Sue Benham David Couch Staff: Alan Christensen MEETING NOTICE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Tuesday, May 16, 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 APRIL 18, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding amendments to Council Reimbursement Resolution/Policy - Gennaro B. Discussion and Committee recommendation on amending the ordinance regarding parking of vehicles in alleys - Taylor/Rojas C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding giving away or selling animals in front of businesses - Gennaro/Moore D. Review and Committee recommendation on City Annexation Policy - Christensen 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT B A K E R S F I E L D D AF ' ~'" '~ Zack Scrivner, Chair Staff: Alan Christensen Sue Benham For: Alan Tandy, City Manager David Couch AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, April 18, 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 1:02 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Zack Scrivner, Chair; and David Couch Councilmember Sue Benham arrived at 1:25 p.m. 2. ADOPT MARCH '14, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding amendments to Council Reimbursement Resolution/Policy City Attorney Ginny Gennaro gave an update on AB 1234, which went into effect on January 1, 2006. This law requires local legislative bodies to adopt reimbursement policies if the members are reimbursed for expenses. It also requires at least two hours of ethics training every two years, except for those members whose terms expire in the current year. ' The Council adopted a resolution on February 22, 2006, in order to comply with the new law. The Committee had recommended adoption by the Council and referral back to Committee for further refinement. LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Page 2 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Tuesday, April 18, 2006 ' D ~%~FT COmmittee Member Sue Benham suggested the City Attorney be designated to monitor Councilmember compliance with the required ethics training and suggested perhaps a workshop could be held for training. The City Attorney explained she' would be glad to coordinate a two-hour training course or a Council workshop; however, she suggested the City Clerk should be the one to maintain the training records, which are a public record that must be kept for five years. The parameters of the training must be approved by the FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) and the Attorney Generals Office. It would be possible to hire someone to come to the City and put on a training class, until the City Attorney's Office could be certified to do the training in the future. Members of the Planning Commission, Redevelopment Agency, and other City Boards and Commissions would be notified of the workshop/course as they are also required by law to complete the ethics training. This two-hour ethics course will also'be offered to Cou~ncilmembers at the League of California Cities annual meetings. The Committee unanimously approved for the City Attorney to coordinate the training and work with the City Clerk who will be in charge of keePing the required records. In regard to the requirement of Council approval of all reimbursable expenses for Councilmembers, City Attorney Ginny Gennaro explained there could be a list of the usual events attended by Councilmembers. The benefit of a list is that Councilmembers would not be required to obtain prior' approval to attend the event in order to be reimbursed; pre-approval would only be required for events not on the list. As an alternative, a fiat stipend could be set aside for each Councilmember for events that fall under an approved policy. Councilmembers would still be required to report to the Council at the next meeting and expense vouchers would become part of the public record. Having a set stipend would eliminate requiring pre-approval by Council for events not on a set list. The City Attorney explained a combination of the two alternatives could also be used. Council could have a list of pre-approved eVents and then a stipend to cover events not on the list. City Manager Alan Tandy suggested an item be added to cover unexpected · trips, for instance, when a legislator requests a Councilmember to attend a meeting in Sacramento or Washington D.C., and there is not a calendared Council meeting prior to the event. The Committee reviewed a list of regularly attended events, which the Council could approve, so those events would not require pre-approval by the Council. LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Page 3 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Tuesday, April 18, 2006 ~ ~ [~T The Committee requested the City Attorney to prepare and bring back to the Committee the list of events, as discussed by the Committee for pre- approval, and a poliCY for a fiat stipend of $1,000 per Councilmember to cover emergencies when there is a need to travel in order to communicate with representatives of regional, state or national governments on City adopted policy positions for Committee recommendation to the City Council. 5. NEW BUSINESS . A. Discussion and Committee recommendation on amending the ordinance regarding parking of vehicles in alleys (This item heard second) City Attorney Ginny Gennaro provided a brief overview on the City's current ordinance and the City of Tulare's ordinance regarding alley parking. The City of Tulare does not allow parking in alleys. Bakersfield's ordinance is not that restrictive. Basically, it allows parking in residential alleys, but does not allow alley parking in the central district or any business district between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. In this section of the Municipal Code, the Chief of Police is authorized to make studies and surveys to determine whether or not parking may be permitted in certain alleys within the City. Public Works Director Raul Rojas expressed if an alley is only 20 feet wide it is actually a fire lane and parking should not be allowed. Some alleys are posted "No Parking" where neighborhoods have gotten together and requested the signs be put up. Signage is expensive. Mr. Brian Helle, a resident on Cypress Street, spoke regarding parking problems in the alley behind his home. When the alley gets full of parked vehicles, residents cannot get out of their driveways/garages. There are no front driveways on his street. He requested the City change its current ordinance and prohibit parking in alleys. Committee Member Sue Benham explained she has heard from a couple of residents on Cypress Street who want to be able to park in the alley. She further expressed she did not want to support an ordinance change to prohibit alley parking Citywide as there are neighborhoods in her ward where the residents want to keep their alley parking, which works well for them. Committee Chair Zack Scrivner requested Public Works and Police staffs to get together to review available options and to survey the residents on Cypress Street. Committee Member Sue Benham made a motion to table this issue until staff completes the research. The Committee unanimously approved the motion and requested staff to invite Mr. Helle to the meeting when this item is back on the agenda. LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Page 4 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Tuesday, April 18, 2006 B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding giving away or selling animals in front of businesses (This item heard first) City Attorney Ginny Gennaro explained this item was referred to Committee at the Joint City/County meeting in February 2006. Supervisor Don Maben requested' the City amend its ordinance to restrict giving away animals in public places. The section of the County's animal ordinance pertaining to giving away animals in a public place and restricting any person from selling any live animals to a minor without parental consent was reviewed. City Manager Alan Tandy expressed concerns about enforceability and whether response to these types of calls would be timely enough to satisfy the complainant. Police Captain Tim Taylor and Lt. Gary Moore agreed this type of call most likely would be dispatched to animal control but would be considered Iow- priority. High-priority calls are dog bites, loose dogs, or animals in the roadways. The County has a larger animal control staff than the City. In recent memory, the City has not received any complaints regarding puppies or kittens being sold or given away in front of stores. However, store owners already have the right to call the police and request individuals be stopped from selling or giving away pets in front of their stores. Committee Member Sue Benham made a motion to table this item until staff has contacted the County to find out how many of these types of calls are received, how their ordinance is working, and then bring the information back to the Committee. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m. Staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Finance Director Nelson Smith; Police Captain Tim Taylor; Police Lieutenant Gary Moore; Police Lieutenant Jay Borton; City Treasurer Cheryl Perkins; and Andrew Whang, City Attorney's Office Others present: Brian Holle; Barbara Fowler; and Barbara J. Fields cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council S:~AC\06 Legislative&Litigation\LL 06 APR 18 summary.doc RESOLUTION NO. (FINAL) A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AMENDING AND RE-AFFIRMING CITY'S ANNEXATION MISSION STATEMENT AND ESTABLISHING AN PROCESS TIMELINE. 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, 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 prior to the involvement of LAFCo and desires to assure citizens that to the extent annexation information is provided by the City and its representatives, that it occurs in an honorable, courteous, informative, timely and honest manner; and WHEREAS, the City desires to re-affrm the goals and pledge of said 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 affrms 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 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 and incorporated by reference herein. 2. Adopts the Annexation Pre-Application Process attached hereto as Exhibit 'B-l" and incorporated by reference herein. 3. This Resolution supersedes Resolution 029-02. -oo0oo- S :~HEARIN~S~,NNEX'~nnexRoso.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: COUNClLMEMBER 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 ASTO FORM: VIRGINIA GENNARO C~Afforney By: VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attorney :pmc S:~HEARINGS~X~E~eso.~d EXHIBIT "A-'I" 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 benefits as a result of becoming a part of the City; and · To seek to provide quality services to citizens in 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 our contact with citizens or that of our representatives 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 preserve the integrity of each property owner's vote by not combining non- contiguous areas on the Resolution of Application, unless 100% owner approval is received in writing by 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 property owners to be annexed against their will, Exhibit B-1 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 an annexation, and the responsibilities 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 Councilperson or to the Development Services Department (DSD) by citizen(s). 2. The DSD will provide the interested person(s) with an annexation petition, which should be returned to the DSD with valid signatures from at least 25% of property owners/registered voters in the proposed annexation area who favor annexation. ~ 3. If the City Clerk or the DSD determines that the petition signatures are valid and that the level of interest is at least 25% of the proposed area, the .area will be identified 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 office and on the City website: www.bakersfieldcitv.us). No effort will be made to keep the proposed annexation secret. 5. The DSD will mail informational packets to aH property owners/registered voters in the proposed annexation area, using the most current information from the Assessor's Office and the Department of Elections. The packets will include the Notice Of Proposed Annexation, a map of the annexation area, the Annexation ProCess Timeline (Exhibit B-l), the City of Bakersfield Annexation Mission Statement (Exhibit A-l), a Frequently Asked Questions document, Annexation Survey Cards, the date and location of a public information meeting to be held in the area, the contact information of the DSD, City Clerk, affected Council member, LAFCo, affected Board of Supervisors member, and the date, time, and location of the City Council meeting at which public comments may be made about the annexation and written comments received. 6. The City Clerk will be responsible for maintaining and updating a telephone log of afl calls received by property owners/registered voters in the proposed annexation area, and will and also keep a similar log of all calls made by the DSD, City staff, or City representatives on the proposed annexation. The City Clerk will also keep copies of incoming and outgoing emails, faxes, and letters received or sent on the proposed annexation. The logs and the correspondence will be public documents. 7. The City of Bakersfield will host a noticed informational meeting at a public facility within or near the proposed annexation area by (date) . . , (this date will be at least 39 days but e~o more than 60 days prior after the mailing of the informational packets, to which will be invited all property owners/registered voters in the area, the appropriate City Council member, City Staff, the appropriate Board of Supervisors member, and County of Kern staff. 7. All Annexation Survey Cards must be returned by mail or by personal delivery to the City Clerk by 5::00 pm on (date) 9. The DSD will review the'survey postcards and tabulate the results, creating a public 'docuiment which lists the number of property owners/registered voters responding to the survey, the number of people eligible to participate in the survey, .the number who favor the a~anexation, the number who oppose the annexation, the number undecided or who have no opinion, and which lists all the reasons given in favor of and in opposition to the annexation. Each respondent can "vote" only once in each Category (property owner or registered voter).The Survey Cards shall be retained for at least one year. 10. If the DSD determines the level of support is more than 50%, a Resolution of Application for Annexation will be brought to the Council for consideration on (date). . Property owners/registered voters may address the Council at this time. All written comments (hand delivered, mailed, emailed, or faxed) received prior to the end of the consideration period will be accepted by the City Council and will become available for public review. 11. If the Resolution of Application is approved by a majority of the Council, it will be forwarded to the Local Agency Formation CommissiOn (LAFCo) for consideration. 12. Following LAFCo guidelines as set by state law, including noticing by LAFCo and holding a protest hearing if written opposition is between 25% and 50°/6, the LAFCo commissioners will review the proposed annexation and approve or reject it. 13. IfLAFCo approves the annexation, it becomes final in days. IfLAFCo rejects the annexation, the City will not resubmit it or any part of it for a period of one (1) year.] EXHIBIT "C-1" B A K E R S F I 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, 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). See the attached map (Exhibit M) that shows the affected territory. These proceedings were initiated by the property owner(s). The reason this annexation has been proposed is The City Council is interested in your written and verbal comments regarding the propoSe(] annexation. Comments may be filed by any owner/registered voter within the proposed annexation area by returning the enclosed anonymous postage paid postcard, Or by le~[ter, fax, or email with the City Clerk at any time prior to adoption of the Resolution of Application by the City Council. Phone calls will also be accepted and your opinion logged. If the Ci~ty Council approves this annexation, it is forwarded to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). Final approval or disapproval of the proposed annexation will be determined by LAFCo according to State guidelines. (Contact LAFCo at ((~61) 71(~-1076 for additional information on their proceedings). 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 ANNEXATION CONTACT LOGS All communications to and from the City of Bakersfield on a proposed annexation will be logged and the record kept for public review. SAMPLE INCOMINGTELEPHONE LOG SHOULD CONTAIN: Caller Name, Address, Telephone #, If a .Registered Voter or Property Owner, Which Proposed Annexation, Opinion of the 'Annexation, Additional Information requested, Date and Time of the call, and Who received the Call OUTGOING TELEPHONE/EMAIL. LETTER or FAX LOG SHOULD CONTAIN: City Staffer or City Representative who place the call or sent the fax, email or letter, Person Called, emailed, faxed or written, Which Proposed Annexation, Date and Time of Contact, Address (email or fax), Telephone # ff called, Subject of call (be specific). ANNEXATION PETITION The Development Services Department shall have petition forms readily available for those who wish to determine the level of interest in annexation by their neighbors by circulating a petition. THE PETITION SHOULD CONTAIN: Name, Address, and Telephone # of person circulating the petition, Annexation Area described, Map of Area, Columns for Name of Person (printed), Signature of Person, Address, Telephone #, if Person is a Registered Voter, Property Owner or both, and a phrase, like "We, the undersigned, do hereby affirm that we are property owners or registered voters in the specified unincorporated area who wish to be annexed .into the City of Bakersfield:"