Loading...
03-18-1968 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA MARCH 18, 1968. The adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Krieger at 7: 30 p.m. , at the West Covina City Hall. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Nichols. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Krieger, Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Gleckman, Snyder (arrived at 7 : 3 3 p.m.) ALSO PRESENT: George Aiassa, City Manager H. R. Fast, Public Services Director. Lela Preston, City Clerk George Zimmerman, Ass't. City Engineer Robert Gingrich, Director of Recreation & Parks Kirk Wilson, Recreation Superintendent RECREATION & PARK DEPARTMENT SUMMER BUDGET • Mayor Krieger: We have a summary of action in the minutes of February, 1968, and also we have a report from the Director dated March 8, 1968. Mr. Aiassa, do you or the Director have anything further to add? Mr. Aiassa: We do have an error - Item 4 is going to raise the figure to $ 7 9 7 . which was omitted from the spread sheet bringing up the total to $46, 930. This amount is still $322. less than the $47,332. appropriation under the 1967 budget. COUNCIL .DISCUSSION Councilman Gleckman: What is the difference in the amount of money than what was authorized last year? Mr. Aiassa: The main thing will be the actual cost of salary changes percentagewise . Councilman Gleckman: In other words the program is the same? Mr. Aiassa: The program is about the same. Mayor Krieger: Mr. Gingrich what was the Department's experience • with this type of a program last year as far as its public acceptance, participation and public satisfaction was concerned? Robert Gingrich As far as the staffs feelings on the budget as it is Director of Rec. & Parks proposed and the program proposed it is identical to City of West Covina last summers program and we felt for the amount of funds available for this type of program, the results - 1 - ADJ. C.C. 3-18-68 Page Two RECREATION & PARK DEPARTMENT SUMMER BUDGET justified it. We did a study last year to determine as to areas, whether they did justify adding to or closing and it was our conclusion after that survey that we were pretty well on mark in the areas throughout the City for the amount of money we had in the programs. I make the point here that this is the summer program for the part= time recreation leaders only and does not use the total program including material and supplies. This is only the part-time leaders. Tentative approval of the Council is always requested at this time of the year so during Easter vacation we will know how many employees will be needed, because the students are home at that time and we do our interviewing so we can fill out staff. Our program actually starts prior to the end of the current fiscal year, the last week of June, so we must have our staff ready and our program rolling before the 1968-69 program actually goes into effect. Mayor Krieger: Did you experience any glaring deficiencies in the program last summer? Mr. Gingrich: No, I don't think we had any glaring deficiencies. I think there are alwaysareas you would like to add but in taking into consideration the fact that we will have some additional items to add later in the year such as the swimming pool, we felt it justified our going ahead with the same amount. Councilman Gillum: Mr. Gingrich - you have leadership for the Youth Center as 65 hours a week - is this in addition? Mr. Gingrich: That is the part-time leadership. We have a full-time Youth Center. Leader on the full-time staff and this is the additional hours needed broken into several people. It is strictly hours above and beyond the full-time person. Councilman Nichols: I have no questions about it. I am certainly totally in favor of the program. The Recreation & Parks Depart- ment gets a tremendous amount of mileage out of the dollars spent. I am certainly aware of and approved the use of the funds during the school year program and this year they reduced where desirable and managed it quite well. I would approve this without any hesitation at all. Councilman Gleckman: As I understand this, we are being asked to recommend preliminary approval which is on the basic idea to give the Recreation and Park Department an opportunity to select the personnel for this program. Mr. Gingrich: That is correct - so we can commit ourselves to the personnel for the summer program prior to the actual budget adoption. Councilman Gleckman: It is possible, that if we should run into some problem at budget time, that this program could possibly be • say 4 or 5 days earlier terminated if necessary in order to save that amount of money? It is flexible enough to do that? Mr. Gingrich: That is correct. In fact it is true at anytime of the year, if we were asked to do it. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City Council give preliminary approval. to the Summer proposed 1968 part-time recreation leadership budget in the amount of $46, 930. Motion carried on roll call as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES: None ABSENT: None - 2 - ADJ. C.C. 3-1.8-68 Page Three TRAFFIC. CONSULTANT Mayor Krieger: We have the report from our City Engineer dated March 8, attached to which is a letter addressed to the Public Services Director over the signature of the Traffic • Consultant delineating the summary of Phase I and the proposals on Phase II. C] (Mr. Aiassa, City Manager, advised Council that Mr. James Kell. and Mr. Don Goodrich of Peat, Marwick, Livingston & Co. , were present and would answer any questions that Council might have. Also that Mr. Zimmerman was present to answer questions.) James Kell- partner in We are here tonight primarily to brief you on Peat,. Marwick, Livingston, & Co. the progress of Phase I and what we plan. to do in Phase II, and then to respond to any questions. (Mayor Krieger asked, for the benefit of the Council, if they would touch on the highlights of Phase.I and Phase II.) Donald Goodrich, Manager Peat:, Marwick, Livingston, & Co. (Briefly summarized orally the information pre- sented to the Council in written form pertaining to Phase I.) Mayor Krieger: Mr. Zimmerman, is there any comment you wished to make at this time? Mr. Zimmerman: I might also mention that Mr. Goodrich has submitted a written report on Phase I of his work now completed, which was a requirement of the contract. The letter is considered as the written report and indicates what: work had been done up to this point. in time. Mayor Krieger: Do you have any information on the staff level that we do not have from the consultants having to do with Phase I? Mr. Zimmerman: No, this written letter is the Phase I report. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilman Gleckman: I have a cotp le of questions of Mr. Goodrich, I think. First of all with the particular streets we are talking about and traffic patterns, there is going to be a particular cost involved in condemnation and methods in which this can be accomplished. When you: give us the type of street pattern you might possibly recommend, are you also going to recommend to us methods to go through condemnation, etc. In other words the costs to the City. You might give us a plan that would be excellent but it would cost millions of dollars to secure and a plan of this type is completely useless to this • community. Can you tell us now that you are going to give us a plan in which we will be able to implement and also methods we will be able to use to implement? Mr. Goodrich: A very good question. The approach we take to accomplish this to come up with a practical plan as well as the ideals for serving traffic, which of course we come up with first, but then the solution is not always that simple. We will work with the City staff and we will test networks or systems and test out roads and then we will come back to the staff and say we need 4 lanes, or 6 lanes, or whatever and it looks to us at first glance that you should put these here and there, etc. , and we ask staff to make rough cost estimates on right of way acquisition, etc. , - 3 - ADJ. C.C. 3-1.8-68 Page Four TRAFFIC CONSULTANT - Continued They will come back and say this is very expensive, not practical, find another way. We then will put this into our overall study and try and find another street to substitute to put this traffic on. So it will be back and forth with staff for cost, • recommendations from us. So when we finish we will know the total cost of that plan in relationship to the City. Councilman Gleckman-, How does this particular study - Phase II, coincide with our General Plan updating and also the Huntington Beach Freeway? If we haven't begun to hold public hearings in regards to the location and in what proximity we would like to recommend to the State Division of Highways, where that Huntington Beach Freeway is going, how can you give us a traffic pattern as to on and off ramps regarding that same Freeway? Mr. Goodrich: Regarding the first part of the question - how does it tie into the land use planning and general plan. Our input to the circulation and the traffic study comes directly from the General Plan. They will say here are so many acres of land for traffic and we convert these many acres into traffic and it will be traffic for the year the plan is for. So it is one and the same. As far as Huntington Beach Freeway, we have a 9 monthtime for completion of this Phase II and I•don't know what your schedule will be on the Huntington Beach Freeway, but what we have found out in talking to the Division of Highways is that the City in general is ahead of the State on this and that is the way it should be and the way they like it. They are very • receptive to receiving the city's input, what the City would like. They look at what the City says and whether it will work in well with the land use of the City. I think whatever the City comes up with and recommends to the State will have a major impact on what you get from the State. Councilman Gleckman: Getting back to the Huntington Beach Freeway, how about engineering decisions such asa submerged freeway or elevated freeway? Wouldn't this definitely have some effect on your traffic pattern and your recommendation and how far can we go on this if you give us a traffic pattern recommendation for an elevated freeway and they come in with a submerged or vice versa? Mr. Goodrich-, This will not in itself effect the work we do, whether it is elevated or submerged, but whether a road crosses the freeway or is cut off at the freeway, does have an effect on our study. We will be making a study on which streets should be kept open and which streets should have access to the freeway and this is about as far in the detail as we have to get into. Councilman Nichols: I am looking at your summary of Phase I study, where you state - ''we recommend, etc..... " I assume by the use of that term you are meaning you are recommending to the General Plan consultants your opinion on these matters as they • relate to the General Plan recommendation. Is that correct? Mr. Goodrich-, Yes. The recommendation would include both to the staff and the City, and the planner. We are working with the planner, our offices are almost next door to the general planner. Councilman Nichols: One of the things you recommend relative to the Huntington Beach Freeway alignment is: 1 - the adoption of just west of Azusa corridor and 2 - Specifically- 8 relocation of some of the interchanges. I believe you are recommending - 4 - ADJ. C.C. 3-18-68 Page Five the placement of an interchange at Merced and Walnut Creek Parkway in lieu of Cameron Avenue and Francisquito . From the standpoint of traffic flow within the community how did you justify in your mind the removal of an interchange at Cameron, which is an east -west road quite heavily used and certainly important in its terms of dimensions in favor of a location say at Merced Avenue, where one- half mile east the street ends? From a traffic flow standpoint rather than putting something down somewhere so you can get one at Walnut Creek Parkway and one someplace else that the State will buy, other than that reason, how could you justify giving. up Cameron interchange for say Merced Avenue or some other? Mr. Goodrich- You.ask_to_separate the two questions; I will have to go back and not separate them. The Division of High- ways, for example - had preliminary thoughts on the location of interchanges such as Cameron . and Francisquito and one of the preliminary things we are looking at is access to the Central Business area, Plaza area, etc. , and this ties in very well with an interchange at Walnut Creek Parkway because this would give us the best access we could get from the south to the C.B.D. area. So we felt an interchange at that area was very important. Once we put one there the Cameron location then became too close and the next would be Merced and of course, not a good spacing along the Freeway. We can just get them so close and they won't work after that. So for the total picture this arrangement we feel will be far superior. Cameron is a slight sacrifice but a minor one in comparison to the overall gains we will get. Essentially we will get 3 interchanges instead of 2. Of course we don't know what may happen to the ea,st.extension .of Merced Avenue. We will be looking at that in the study. • Councilman Gillum: As I understand you are proposing an interchange at Walnut Creek Parkway and Merced, and also there will be an interchange in conjunction with the San Bernardino Freeway, Mr. Goodrich: Between freeways. Councilman Gillum: In joining the two freeways that will be a large interchange ? Mr. Goodrich: Yes. Councilman. Gillum: Approximately the distance between Walnut Creek. Parkway and the San Bernardino Freeway is a half mile ? Mr. Goodrich: It is very tight. I discussed it with the Division of Highways before putting this down as feasible and they said they felt it was something they could do. Councilman Gillum: The reason I am questioning this is because in our past negotiations with the Division of Highways on • the San Bernardino Freeway this was brought: out that they no longer like to plan interchanges any closer than a half mile. This is why I am questioning this, you are recommending something that has been my experience in the past - that they are somewhat opposed to. Mr. Goodrich: The difference here is one of the two is a freeway to freeway interchange. You cannot get service from the ground to the freeway to freeway interchange. So part of the reason for the State's opposition in putting interchanges a half a mile apart is that if you have one a half mile away it is not that important to get another ADJ. C.C. 3-18-68 Page Six TRAFFIC CONSULTANT - Continued one within the next half mile. If you are talking, -about service from the ground in both cases it doesn't, but the local person out an extra half mile to get on the freeway doesn't mean that much. In this case you don't get service from the ground so that • the Walnut Creek Parkway interchange is the only ground service in the immediate vicinity. Another thing that will be done is some special arrangements of the ramps from the freeway to freeway where they will put one ramp on top of the other. (�xplained) This can be done in a freeway to freeway but not in local interchanges. Councilman Gillum: The thing that concerns me is we are talking about something possibly 15 years away and what concerns me if we were to buy this proposal and proceed along this line and it comes time to negotiate with the State Division of Highways as to where this interchange is located and we have gone ahead with our core area, etc. , and then find the State will not let us put an interchange at Walnut Creek Parkway: - - I think we have missed the boat someplace. I am not questioning your thinking on it, but it does concern me that the future councils may be faced with a future problem if the State says you can't put them that close. I have found in talking with these people that they admit they did not realize things would develop as quickly as it did in this area and I am wondering now if we are going to run into the same problem. I know you base it on facts and figures given you by the State but I would question this portion of it - moving that interchange that close to the San Bernardino Freeway, from my past experience with the State of California. Mr. Goodrich: I questioned this myself and I hesitated to put the • interchange down as much as I would have liked to have it and until I discussed this with the State and went over the plans with them and we have the word of the staff, of course they can change their mind or get a different staff, but it has been my experience with the Division of Highways designs that you will find freeway to freeway inter- changes this close to access interchanges, and they are building them and I am sure they will be in the future. Councilman Snyder: I have no questions. Mayor Krieger: Mr. Goodrich, I would like to touch on some items in Phase I. You state the Division of Highways will not undertake special data processing for information of this type, this is on computer tabulation for ramps, unless there is an agreement, etc. Would it not be in the mutual advantage,of the County as well as the Cities of the East San Gabriel Valley to try and coordinate such a request of the State Division of Highways to have such a study performed? Mr. Goodrich: I would suggest this kind of an approach be taken but I would guess -it will be a matter of years before the process will be underway. I think it is a good thing to look into but the delay as far as this particular study is concerned - you would have to set it ,away back and get out of base with the General Plan Study and I am afraid it would be too late but it is a good thing to have and you will want to keep • up with things as time goes on. Mayor Krieger: Mr. Aiassa - I would like to see the staff flag that particular recommendation a'nd come to the Council with some specific thoughts as to how we may coordinate this with the County and with other neighboring cities in the East San Gabriel Valley. . Going to the San Bernardino Freeway - you make this statement - ''because of the problem of traffic capacity, etc. , we recommend that - 6 - ADJ. C.C. 3-18-68 TRAFFIC CONSULTANT - Continued Page Seven Gravey Avenue be made etc........ " You have touched a very sensitive point here, could you amplify on that for us, please? • Mr. Goodrich: There is a proposal at this location by the planners for a grade separation where the Garvey frontage road would not intersect with Vincent. `:Is this the touchy point you are speaking of? Mayor Krieger: The whole area is touchy. Basically in our negotiations with the State Division of Highways and I don't know how much of this was input with you people, but we concentrated many months on the concept of retaining the integrity of Garvey Avenue on the south side of the freeway as a continuous internal street. We ran into considerable opposition by the State Division of Highways based upon their expenditure of the existing interchanges and the phenomenal cost, as they put it of trying to maintain the continuity of Garvey Avenue either over or under these interchanges. Mr. Goodrich: Right. This has been related to this separation I mentioned. We are suggesting a grade intersection because I don't feel the financial feasibility of a separation is there. And in that respect I would be agreeing with the State Division of Highways. In other words to continue Garvey Avenue across Vincent by a bridge • structure over the ramps would be extremely expensive. Mayor Krieger: I believe the fee was a million and a half dollars. Mr. Goodrich: That would be probably to cross several ramps, I believe. It probably could be done for less than that if it were brought out a little farther and just over Vincent but it still would be very expensive and the amount of traffic that would use it would not justify it from a cost standpoint. So we are suggesting that since this is so expensive that the frontage road be made continuous but by going through an intersection farther south at Center. We wish the other way were financially feasible, because the Center Street intersection is going to be a heavy one and I am a little afraid to look at what the traffic projection is going to be there and how many lanes we will have to recommend. Mayor Krieger: Are you speaking then of a gross configuration of approximately the same as it is now? Mr. Goodrich: The location - approximately the same as it is now. Mayor Krieger: Then you really ..... in developing the integrity of Garvey Avenue south of the freeway, what did you envisage as it proceeds east of the intersection again? • Mr. Goodrich: From the east, on the plans the planners have been working with, there is continuity possible. I don't expect anyone to actually travel that whole distance in anyone trip because it will be faster to get on the freeway or the future Walnut Creek Parkway;, if that is recommended, but it is very important for a person coming to this area as a regional shopping center and he is not that familiar with the area to know that if he goes up the frontage road area he can make a trip along the freeway and not get lost. It is important to have the continuity and it will be there from Vincent to the east. - 7 - ADJ. C.C. 3-18-68 Page Eight TRAFFIC CONSULTANT - Continued Mayor Krieger-. In other words with the emphasis on the advisability of Walnut Creek Parkway as an internal street, and I am using that street as a general street somewhere • south of the freeway with integrity in a east -west direction, you still do not minimize the importance of maintaining to the extent it is possible to maintain Garvey Avenue in a ea st-west direction? Mr. Goodrich: Right. Mayor Krieger: Your sentence on the core area is that you recommend both Garvey Avenue and Walnut Creek Parkway and the C.B.D. be included to provide traffic circulation and I did not know whether you read into that whether Garvey Avenue should proceed further east fully developed in the same concept and apparently you do. Mr. Goodrich: From the number of lanes standpoint I don't consider Garvey to be a heavy volume carrier in comparison to Walnut Creek Parkway which acts as an important circulator, that people can use to circulate around the shopping area and the C.B.D. area. Mayor Krieger: The final point, : n-y(Yunsentence - accor.ding,to..City staff estimates it may cost one million dollars per quarter mile to relocate the Parkway and this cost • should be weighed against the benefits to be derived by increasing the acreage of the commercial area of the C.B.D. when the Huntington Beach Freeway is constructed perhaps in 15 years it will be necessary to extend Walnut Creek Parkway from the freeway to the C . B . D . area, etc. etc." Now do we relate those two sentences in context that there are some estimates given to you that if it were relocated over the Wash that it would run a million dollars a quarter mile? Mr. Goodrich: Yes. These are based on standard structural costs of bridge type structure that would have to be built over the creek. (Explained) That is the cost we have been given by the staff for that kind of a structure. Mayor Krieger: I am not minimizing the input by the staff, but from your professional standpoint, I am asking you does that cost estimate seem to be realistic? Mr. Goodrich: Yes. I think it does. We haven't at this time doubled back to see if something could be done for less. We don't consider ourselves experts on that aspect which is a construction design, so we would go to another type of consultant for that estimate if we were asked to do it. We are relying on the staff for this type of thing. • MayorKrieger: Well then there actually isn't going to be a further refinement of that in Phase II, is there? You indicate this subject can be reviewed after analyzing the traffic demands which will be estimated as part of Phase II. Phase II of the study might give us input of traffic demand but it will not give us input on a refinement of cost. Mr. Goodrich: It will from the standpoint of the staff, who I assume will keep working with us on cost estimates. They probably don't know it, but there is a man from a culvert company that will be dropping in on the City, at my suggestion, to give an ADJ. C.C. 3-18-68 Page Nine TRAFFIC CONSULTANT - Continued estimate on what he thinks this could be done for. We will keep working back and forth with staff on the cost end of this as well. • Mr. Kell,-__. The traffic estimates will have an impact because they will tell howwide a facility is needed, whether 4 lanes, 6 lanes, or what. Width is a very definite factor in the cost estimates. If it goes over the creek bed there will be a basic structure cost in there and it is pretty expensive, Again the width required is going to have a drastic effect on the cost per quarter mile and the cost per mile. Mayor Krieger: Arid you can't relate the relative cost of using that phrase - "of taking a row of houses" to a creek bed, unless you know the width of the proposed street. Mr. Kell: That is true, but getting back to Councilman Gillum's question before on the location of an interchange at Walnut Creek Parkway - - it is essential that you get an interchange as close as possible to your core area because it will be one of the major generators of traffic for this freeway. And it would be preferable to have the freeway interchange where they can get on close to the core area, rather than to force your core area traffic down through your residential areas to get to an inter- change that is further away from the core area. So from a service access view an interchange within the core area or immediately adjacent to it would be preferable than one further down in the residential neighborhoods. Mayor Krieger: Of course we are much more interested .in fkEEwAy dzegenerating traffic to the k.Q6 9��`� RIr Rke,4 the generating traffic for the �REEWAy Mr. Kell: Alright - the core area rather than be a generator is an attractor then. Councilman Gillum: Mr. Aiassa —what was the cost of Phase I? Mr. Aiassa: The actual cost is $2681.72. Mr. Fast. The figure represented in your report is for their invoice to the end of the month. They are not quite finished, but they did finish within the $3, 000 scope. Mr, Aiassa: The original Phase II, as you remember the motion - we had a figure of $10, 000 to $16, 000 - that was in the minutes of November 27, 1967. We are now up to this point of $14, 800. That was the bridge between the $10, 000 to $16, 000 not to exceed. Councilman Gillum: The reason I ask this to be perfectly honest, in my own opinion I am not happy with this type of report. There are many things in here that you gave us an explanation for tonight, but if you were not here I don't think we could have obtained the additional information on how you reached your conclusions. If the Council decides that we should continue with this I hope that the future reports will be much more thorough because there are areas here that: you make statements and questions that we have had to ask and I feel even for $3, 000 that some of the conclusions drawn - 9 - ADJ. C.C. 3-18-68 Page Ten TRAFFIC CONSULTANT - Continued could be based on a little more fact than what is stated in here. Many things you stated we know and many things that you stated will be of help to us, but I for one would like to see in future reports, how these conclusions were drawn. I noticed you have discussed with someone, but you don't say with who, the advantage or disadvantage of continuing Garvey Avenue across Service Avenue interchange, this is in regard to the San Bernardino Freeway. I am not sure who you discussed this with - our staff or the general plan - because when this thing is put together it will be in the future and I think that this council and the next council have an obligation to make sure that all the facts are here, because we ran into this on the San Bernardino Freeway. Questions that were not answered in the past years which we had to find out about now and it was very difficult. . I hope that the future councils will be a little more factual in this area. Mr. Kell: The scope of our PY ase I in our contract was primarily to work with the Planning Consultant and his sketch plan and to identify the details of Phase II, and in our contract we indicated it would be just a letter report and not a formal document and at the end of Phase II we will really present our report. Councilman Gillum: Well what I am saying to you is if you were not here tonight and I read this I would be hard pressed to continue with the program. I would expect a little more in a report than discussion or conclusions. I am just saying this is not as complete as I would have liked to see it and I am happy you are here to answer these questions. Mr. Kell: Well many of the things are still in the discussion stage, they will be finalized when we have definite traffic volumes to assign to streets and to determine what, type of street is needed and the various locations. So we are only conjecturing more or less now until we put all of the land use information into the computer and get out the results and assign to the specific streets. Mayor Krieger: Thank you Mr.. Kell and Mr. Goodrich. Any further comments by Council? We have two distinct recommendations, a motion would be in order on the first recommendation. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that the City Council accept Phase I report from the Traffic Consultant and authorize payment in the amount of $2, 681.72. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES: None ABSENT: None PHASE II . Councilman Gleckman: What type of increments will the $14, 800 be paid? Mr. Kell. The contract is set up for monthly billing - time and material. Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Snyder, that the City Council approve the items of work and cost shown for Phase II in the contract of Peat, Marwick, Livingston, & Company and establish a maximum of $14, 800 to cover these items of work. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Gleckman, Snyder, Mayor Krieger NOES: None ABSENT: None - 10 - ADJ. C.C. 3-18-68 Page Eleven TRAFFIC CONSULTANT - Continued Mayor Krieger: Mr. Kell and Mr. Goodrich we are pleased and gratified that both of you could be with us this evening. There are at least two of us that will. not be sitting on this Council when the second phase comes in. I would like to state to you that .I found your work on Phase I encouraging as to the type of work that I know will be done on. Phase II as to going into the depth of this particular program. All of us on the Council. have placed a great deal of importance as to the consideration and depth of this particular study, so any questions or comments made this evening relative to this was an expression of that interest which I am sure will continue over to the next. Council as this is a dynamic phase of the revitalization of the city's commercial areas as well as the total area, and we don't want to make the same mistakes on the future areas. So thanks again for being with us. ------------- BUSINESS LICENSE AMENDMENT Mayor Krieger. We have the staff report of last week on this. The City Attorney has prepared a reworded proposed Ordinance for introduction this evening; so Council discussion is in order on this matter. Councilman Snyder: I see nothing further to discuss regarding this. I think experience may require some changes in the • future but we are venturing on new ground in some ways. The corrections have been made as to the refund of money and the operating date and I would like to see the Ordinance adopted. Mayor Krieger. I do have :some questions. I am a little bit Lost in the figures, maybe I misread this report: and if I have I will apologize. It says in 1967 the City licensed 561 contractors for a total of $17, 790. Is that right? This is in your report. of March 8, 1968, Mr. Aiassa? At the bottom you state in 1967 the business license revenue totalled $ 17, 790 and then you go on to say the same contractors pay $ 24, 218.20 in building, electrical and plumbing permits. The sum of those two items is approximately $42, 000. Agreed? Mr. Aiassa: I have $41, 922 Mayor Krieger: Now let's go to this proposed. Ordinance., as to the projections of the proposed revenues. If the Ordinance as now proposed had been in effect. the 561 contractors would have paid an estimated $24, 152 in business license and job fees - now are we comparing the same things ? Are you saying in this sentence that our revenues under the proposed Ordinance would be $ 17, 000 or $18, 000 less and if so, I would like to reconsider this matter. Mr. Aiassa: Well there is a slight diminishing revenue. Mayor Krieger: Is the slight diminishing revenue $ 17, 000 or $ 18, 000 less? Mr. Aiassa: No,. $4, 000 less . Councilman Snyder: Initially. Mayor Krieger: We are talking about business licenses and job fees? In 1967 we just agreed - - if plan check fees, are they the same? - 11 - ADJ. C.C. 3-18-68 Page Twelve BUSINESS LICENSE AMENDMENT Councilman Gleckman: Do you mean would that all be included within the licenses ? • Mayor Krieger: Would that all be included within the $24, 152? Councilman Gleckman: No. Mayor. Krieger: Well then is there a difference between plan check fees and job fees? Mr. Aiassa: Plan check fees are special permits for the designing of construction. The building permit includes all electrical, ,and everything else. Mayor Krieger: Was everything in 1967 $41,900? Is everything you project for 1968 under the proposed Ordinance $24, 152? Councilman Snyder: If I may interject - the permit fees will remain the same. They will pay a license fee equal to the. permit fee. Mayor Krieger: I am merely trying to find out what the revenues will be. Mr. Piassa: I think the comparison is on the second page. (Read from report) Mayor Krieger: Alright. The sum of those items is approximately $42, 000. Now is the sum of these two items under the proposed Ordinance $ 24, 152 ? Mr. Aiassa: I think the way Mr. Peacock has placed this - actually if you adopt the Ordinance as it is proposed it will be a diminishing revenue of $4, 173. Mayor Krieger: This what I don't follow, I don't see it in this report. Councilman Gleckman: Take that $21,482 off of $28,000 - compare it that way. Mayor Krieger: I want to compare it with what we received in 1967, because that is a fixed figure. You don't have to do any estimating for 1967. Mr. Aiassa: Oh yes. You are using a different type of measurement. If we take the 1967 basic fees and our revenue received it would be $ 17, 790, but if we used the pro- posed Ordinance and used the 1967 figures it would bring the revenue figures to $28,395. Mayor Krieger: Okay. Let's compare $42, 000 with $28, 000. That shows me we are receiving $14, 000 less . ....... I believe in equity but not when it begins to cost the City $14, 000 or $17, 000 and if this is what it is going to cost us I think something is wrong with the formula. Councilman Gleckman: What you are doing, you are adding two figures that - 12 - ADJ. C.C. 3-18-68 Page Thirteen C� 40 BUSINESS LICENSE AMENDMENT - Continued they are telling you to subtract. They are telling you to subtract $17, 790 from $24,218.20 and you are adding them. Mayor Krieger: Why should we subtract them, when in fact as I understand these are receipt items. Councilman Gleckman: No- - they paid $17, 790 and if we had this in effect they would have paid $24,218.20. Mayor Krieger: That isn't what it says. It says in 1967 the city licensed 561 contractors for a total amount of $ 17, 790. Income Item? Yes. The same contractors paid $24,218.20 in building, electrical and plumbing permits. Income Item? Yes. Councilman Snyder: But that is proposed. Councilman Gleckman: On the following page they give you the breakdown and show you that is his intention - read the whole report Mr. Mayor. Mayor Krieger: I have read the report, a number of times and it seems to be in basic English and I am using fifth grade arithmetic and I can't see where these fail to be two income items - and you add income items. Councilman Gleckman: Well turn the next page of the report and see that they are two income items proposed in a different manner. Mayor Krieger: Then someone answer for me. In 1967 - that year ended? Councilman Gleckman: Right. Mayor Krieger: What did we receive in business license revenue? Councilman Gleckman: $17, 790. Mayor Krieger: And in 1967 what did we receive in building, plumbing and electrical? Councilman Snyder:- $24-, 000 s-omething..: The point he is making is that under the new ordinance you would still receive the permit fees but you would receive an equal amount in license fees. Councilman Gleckman: I agree with the Mayor, it was worded very badly, but if you read the second page. Mayor Krieger: Let's go through with your interpretation. If under the proposed Ordinance we are going to get $24, 152 based on last year, are we also going to get $24, 218? Councilman Gleckman: Had the proposed change been in effect in 1967 we would have taken in $ 24, 152. In other words our revenue would have increased $6, 362. Mayor Krieger: That figure is perfectly clear. - 13 - ADJ. C.C. 3-18-68 Page Fourteen r� U • U BUSINESS LICENSE AMENDMENT - Continued Councilman Snyder: However the $17, 000 would have gone down. Mayor Krieger: Under the actual revenue and the proposed change. But nowhere again do I see the sum addition of these two items $24, 218.20 projected into 1968 at all under the proposed Ordinance. Councilman Snyder: I don't think you can throw the permit fees in as part of your license revenue. Mayor Krieger: Well then why was it thrown into the report to begin with ? Councilman Gleckman: Because I think they pay job fees with subcontractors against a proposed flat rate. Mayor Krieger: Alright. In this Ordinance it talks about general contractors and all other contractors shall pay $25.00 per year. Now is that $25. per year going to raise $24, 152? Councilman Snyder: No. Councilman Gleckman: You are talking about a 1968 proposed change on 1967 figures. Now what do you want to know? If we do the same amount of business in 1968 as we did in 1967 - yes. Councilman Snyder: That's what it says right here. Mayor Krieger: It doesn't say any such a thing. Councilman Gleckman: In 1968 - proposed change estimate $24, 152. 1967 - actual revenue $17, 790. Mayor Krieger: Well let's compare likes and likes first of all. You have 561 contractor's in this report licensed in 1967 - agreed ? In the Ordinance you have general contractors and all other contractors $25. per year, right? Councilman Gleckman: That includes subcontractors and not general contractors. Mayor Krieger: That doesn't say it either. This figure 561 does that mean all contractors and general contractors and sub- contractors ? And if it is - if you want to multiply 25 times 561 I don't come out with that figure. Mr. Aiassa: No - the Council set a fee of $ 100 for general contractors and $50. for subcontractors. Mayor Krieger: And did you license 561 ? Councilman Snyder: They are not all general contractors. (Some Council open discussion.) Mayor Krieger: If you gentlemen understand the report and you are ready to vote on it, that's fine because I will abstain, 14 - ADJ. C.C. 3-18-68 Page Fifteen BUSINESS LICENSE AMENDMENT - Continued because 'I don't and I am not. I think Mr-. Peacock ought to get us some additional information. • Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that Council hold the Ordinance Introduction over until our next regular meeting and at that time to make sure within our mail is a detailed explanation of what we are trying to do, and the amount of revenue we would increase or decrease in adopting this Ordinance. E n LJ Councilman Snyder: However, this information is difficult for him to get because the 561 contractors include both general contractors and subcontractors and also includes part year payments, so it is very difficult for him to estimate what it will be under the new agreement. Councilman Gleckman: We have a very competent staff and I would be,willing to allow them to put the explanation into print. Councilman Snyder: I am only saying it is impossible for him in this length of time to compile this information. Mayor Krieger: The motion has been made and seconded - discussion on the motion? Councilman Nichols: What would be wrong Mr. Mayor - with introducing this Ordinance tonight? Mayor Krieger: Absolutely nothing. But the motion is to hold over. Is there further discussion on the motion? Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman,. Mayor Krieger NOES: Councilmen Nichols,_ Snyder ABSENT: None Mayor Krieger: The motion carries, the matter is held over. Mr. Aiassa, I would :req'ues.t and suggest that we have Mr. Peacock here when we discuss this next time. Councilman Nichols: I would make a motion that the Council reconsider its prior action. Seconded by Councilman Snyder. Motion failed on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Nichols, Snyder NOES. Councilmen Gillum, Gleckman, Mayor Krieger ABSENT: None Mayor Krieger: The motion to reconsider actually was completely out of order. A motion to reconsider can only be made by one who has voted in favor. Councilman Nichols: Well why didn't you correct me at the time? - 15 - ADJ. C.C. 3-1.8-68 Page Sixteen BUSINESS LICENSE AMENDMENT - Continued Mayor Krieger: Because I wanted the record to be - replete on our discussion on this matter so there would be no question about it. Councilman Nichols: Well it seems to me awfully strange that we need to delay the introduction of an Ordinance for some explanatory material. Mayor. Krieger: This discussion is out of order. Councilman Nichols: What discussion is out of order Mr. Mayor? Mayor Krieger: The discussion as to whether or not we should hold over a matter because we are requesting additional information. This discussion comes up under the discussion to hold over, it doesn't come up after we voted on the motion to hold over. The only point you were making, as I understand, was that. Councilman Nichols: That's correct. MAYOR'S REPORTS • INTERIOR DESIGN AUCTION AGENDA ITEM ADDITION Mayor Krieger: I received a communication from the City Clerk having to do with a request to conduct an auction. The date is March 24th which is the day before the next regular meeting. Does the Council have any objection to adding this matter to the agenda? It is for Interior Designs at 2526 East Workman. (No objections - item added to agenda.) There is an application and a check filed with the City Clerk to hold an auction at Interior Designs on Sunday, March 24th, 1968, and as I understand it they need a permit. Lela Preston, City Clerk: That is one of the restricted items that has to have Council permission. Councilman. Gleckman: Do we have a normal application period - a waiting period? Is there any particular time element such as 30 days prior to holding? Lela Preston: Not on this. Councilman Gleckman: How long is the auction for? Mayor Krieger: One day. • Motion by Councilman Gleckman, seconded by Councilman Snyder, and carried, that City Council grant permission to hold an auction at Interior Designs for the period of one day on March 24, 1968. CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS Mayor Krieger: I received a communication from the City Clerk this evening. It has to do with canvass of election returns. "I would appreciate receiving the Council's preference - 16 - ADJ. C.C. 3-18-68 Page Seventeen is MAYOR'S REPORTS - Canvass of Election Returns - Continued relative to the attached code Section 229A5 - Canvass of Returns. So if it is decided upon, a Resolution can be prepared for adoption either on March 25th or April 8th. " The question is whether or not the Council desires to canvass returns itself or delegate the responsibility to the City Clerk. Councilman Gleckman: The normal procedure is to canvass by the Council? Lela Preston: You havealways done that but there was an amendment to the statute in 1965 which added the second section, that it could be done by the City Clerk if the Council desires and that was the reason I brought it up. Councilman Snyder: May I suggest that is the best way of doing it. Since f':n the past canvassing by the Council has been merely ritual, at the most. It takes time up here and I don't see that it. is necessary. Lela Preston: This has been something that the Council has done but because this second section was added in 1965, I bring it to your attention. Mayor Krieger: What is your preference on this ? Councilman Nichols: I would prefer to have the City Clerk handle the matter. Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Gillum, that the City Council direct the City Clerk to prepare a Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to conduct the official canvass of the 1968 Municipal election results prior to the City Council meeting on the first Tuesday after the election. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilman Gillum, NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilman Snyder: Mayor Krieger: Nichols, Gleckman, Snyder, lVayor Krieger When does the new Council take office? Mrs. Preston? Lela Preston, City Clerk: The new Council is sworn in on the Tuesday following the election and at that time the City Clerk. will present certification as to the canvass of the votes and the new officers will be sworn in and take their seat at that time and that will be on April 16th . AWARDS Mayor Krieger: I have a communication from the Governor's office and I would like to know if the Council has any thoughts on this or not? (Read communication.) We have made awards from the City Council to certain young people in this community who have assisted Police Officers. I don't know whether they qualify under the age requirement or not, but it might be well, particularly with the emphasis these days on law enforcement, to determine the eligibility for this consideration. - 17 - Is U • ADJ. C.C. 3-18-68 Page Eighteen AWARDS - Continued Councilman Gleckman: I would like to see that done and I would so move. Seconded by Councilman Gillum. Mayor Krieger: Moved and seconded, are there any objections? None, so ordered. This would be directed to the Police Chief through the City Manager for a report back to the Conncil . Councilman Gleckman: Right. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Nichols: I wanted to bring up something that was brought up a little while ago, if it is not out of order. Seriously but with no real degree of perturbment I wanted to clarify something.A s the Chair relates to the rest of the Council because I am a little bit perplexed on the observation that was made. A motion was made by a Councilman, seconded by a Councilman and carried. Subsequently another Council- man offered a motion that the Council reconsider the subject, it was seconded and voted down and then the Chair ruled the motion to reconsider was out of order. On what basis under Parlimentary Law is a Councilman forbidden from bringing up an issue for reconsideration after action? Is it the matter of the timing of that or the improper :na!ture of the motion? It seems to me a Councilman should at some point be able to bring it before the Council and ask for it to be considered again. When is it out of order and when is it in? Mayor Krieger: I have operated for the last two years under a guide of Legislative Procedures in California Cities that was promulgated by the League of California Cities and which I assume is official. It was prepared by the Mayors and Councilmen's Institute and circulated in 1964. I was really out of turn when I made the comment afterwards and sflorzld have ..properly ruled it out of order to begin with, but I wanted it on the record. The ruling properly was that the motion was out of order because a motion for reconsideration may only be made by a person who voted on the prevailing side. And the vote on the motion was 3 to 2 and the men who voted on the prevailing side were Gillum, Gleckman and myself. So only one of the three of us could make a motion to reconsider, but because I had been antagonist.on the whole question I felt that I best let the matter lie and get a vote on it. Councilman Nichols: One final point - would it be on any issue that might come up where a councilman is on the losing end of the vote? Would it no longer be im- proper at some subsequent Council meeting for that Councilman to move that an action be entertained that would in effect countermand the Council action? Mayor Krieger: I understand this ruling of the Chair and the League is only a form applicable to the meeting .where the voting had taken place. Councilman Snyder: This comment - I hope this Legislative procedure guide is within Robert's Rules of Order, because our Ordinance says we shall follow Robert's Rules of Order. Mayor Krieger: I have never found anything contrary. ADJ. C.C. -18-68 Page Nineteen COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS - Continued Councilman Snyder: I would like to ask the staff - the alley on the east side of Sunset north of Workman, is that city owned? Some people complained about trash in the alley and I drove • through and there appeared to be a little bit of trash but not as much as they complained about. Mr. Aiassa: We will check it out. Councilman Snyder-, Secondly, do crossing guards receive any training? Mr„ Aiassa: Yes they do. Councilman Gleckman: Mr. Aiassa I would like to check into the matter of the Highway Patrol, patrolling our city streets. I noticed they stopped several cars on Vali.nda between Glendora and Service Avenue, and I would like to know why our own police officers can't patrol and if it is such a hazardous area? This is the fourth or fifth night that I have seen the Highway Patrol, particularly motorcycle between Glendora and Service, that little niche behind the Capri Theatre. One of the other things I would like to bring to the attention of the Council is that the Edgewood School has a group that is going to make a trip to Oregon, and I would like to do a little more investigation and if we have money available Mr. Aiassa, and they qualify, I would like to see some of that money channeled to have them represent the City of West Covina on their trip and not just Edgewood High. Mayor Krieger: We had agreed last week to adjourn this meeting tonight to a meeting tomorrow night for the purpose of the Civic Center furnishings. I would like to poll the Council as to how many are going to be present tomorrow night. Councilman Gillum: Yes. Councilman Nichols: I am embarrassed to say that after espousing the night a week ago I found I was obviously booked. Councilman Snyder: I am not sure I can make it but I will try. Councilman Gleckman: I will be there. Mayor Krieger: I am in the same quandary. I had accepted an invitation from the American Legion to be present at their Boy Scout dinner and I forgot about it. So it looks like you have two councilmen for certain and one possible. The reason I bring up the point there is a • possibility at least of your not having a quorum present. I am trying to define this now whether we are going to adjourn to a meeting tomorrow night or just adjourn.. Councilman Snyder: I would rather we changed the night. Mayor Krieger: The information that was going to be imparted tomorrow night by Mr. Sata and the representatives of the United Desk - did the staff contemplate that steps were going to be taken following those reports tomorrow night? Mr. Aiassa: Yes. - 19 - ADJ. C.C. 3-18-68 Page Twenty COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS - Continued Mayor Krieger: As far as the two councilmen being present', not being a quorum by definition, would the staff prefer to schedule another night or would they prefer to go ahead with the scheduling, recognizing • that you are not going to have a quorum of the Council to undertake the recommendations in your staff report? Councilman Snyder: They could bring back a report. Mayor Krieger: That is true, but I am trying to find out if the staff has any pre- ference. Mr. Aiassa: We would prefer to have as many Councilmen present as possible because we will try to establish the level of furniture and the amount of the various types of furniture to be used. Mayor Krieger: Recognizing the fact that you will not have a full Council would you prefer to reschedule or would you prefer to go ahead? Mr. Aiassa: We figure we should at least take the two that are going. We may be able to catch the other three later on. If these two gentlemen come back with a very favorable report would the other three Councilmen go along with this ? Councilman Gleckman: So moved. Mayor Krieger: I expressed myself when we discussed this item last week about a "lame duck" councilman picking this out. So alright - a motion just to adjourn is in order. Motion by Councilman Snyder, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that the City Council adjourn at 9 P.M. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: G Mayor - 20 -