Loading...
10-21-1968 - Special 2 Meeting - MinutesADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, 'CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2.1, 1968. The adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by • Mayor Gleckman at 6 p.m. , in the office of the City Manager at the West Covina City Hall. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Chappell,, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman Also Present: George Aiassa, City Manager Lela Preston, City Clerk H. R. Fast, Public Services Director George Wakefield, City Attorney Paul DeGood - Stanford Research Institute Dick Dodge Citizens Blue Ribbon Committee AUDITORIUM STUDY Blue Ribbon Committee Report, and Stanford Research Phase One Report Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor - we have with us Mr. Paul DeGood, who represents Stanford Research Institute; the Institute that made the preliminary report, and have now updated this report, costing • $1500. for Phase I. Phase II will cost about $14, 000. Mr. DeGood is here to review Phase I and discuss the items involved in Phase II. He has also reviewed the Blue Ribbon. Committee report; and we have a representative from the Blue Ribbon Committee - Mr. Dick Dodge, and hewill be glad to answer any questions. Paul DeGood: Let me state that as a matter of fact I did not do the original study in 1964, but I have gone through it quite comprehensively. The major conclusion in the 1964 report was that there was a sufficient market to justify a regional auditorium in the City of West Covina. The second major conclusion was. that the theatre part of such a facility should be postponed until the effect of the Carousel Theatre supplied evidence that the Auditorium and the Carousel Theatre would not be competing. As I understand it, you followed our recommendations and did not go ahead with plans to build the Auditorium until we could see what was happening with the Carousel. In February of this year we were requested to submit a proposal to update the 1964 study and depending upon the conclusions of the updating we would then proceed w ith Phase II. (Read from proposal submitted in written form to Council and explained in detail, mentioning the approach used in updating the Phase I Report, which was simply to update the market support figures used in the November 1964 study.) After reviewing the figures we made some minor changes in the population estimates, but the general conclusion was that sufficient market support still does exist for this facility for the City of West Covina. The population estimate was reduced a,little from the 1964 figures. �. The newer population data available indicates that 450,000 will reside in the East San Gabriel Valley area by 1970 and 700, 000 by 1985. In addition 300, 000 will reside outside of the .East San Gabriel Valley in an 8 mile radius. of West Covina. (Referred to report submitted, citing income levels in the area, educational status, etc.) The Carousel has not provided the competition that the 1964 report indicated it might, primarily in reference to Civic and Community Groups using the facility. The main reasons, the Carousel rental rates are quite high and secondly, the Carousel reserves their prime time for money making events. - 1 - ADJ. C. C. 10-21-68 Page 2 Mayor Gleckman: What would the $14, 000 cover to complete the second gDhase of the report? AUDITORIUM STUDY - Continued Major conclusion of our updating as of August 15, 1968, there is still more than sufficient support to justify a market for the Auditorium. • Mr. DeGood: We would investigate and determine to the extent possible the type of ,events that could be held in this area.. Let's assume that you did go ahead and build, we know you would not be competing with the Music Center, Sports Arena or Forum,' because you do not have the types of events that would utilize such a facility. What we would propose to do is investigate. exactly what types of events would be suitable for such an Auditorium and in so doing we would be able to provide you with attendance estimates so you could get some idea of the capacity needed to accommodate these events. We could give you guidelines regarding size, capacity, events available for use in the Auditorium, etc. (Explained in detail a study Stanford Research just completed in Orlando, Florida.) We would have to know if you are going to try and make it a profit making deal, or a nonprofit. There is a need for these type of facilities for Civic use, but they are, expensive to build and operate. You have to assume that youwould like to make a profit but are you talking about an operating profit or overall profit? Most cities are making enough to cover operating expenses but not enough to pay off the financing of the construction and this is usually done by a bond issue. Again, we would provide you with our best estimate of what the •financial end would be, based on the type of events that could be held and the expected attendance at the various events. (Referred to Page 7 of the report.) There are three main things offered in the Phase II study - events, attendance and the financial aspect. In considering the attendance we would advise the amount of parking needed. Also we would have to know if you intended to have kitchen facilities, or would there only be catering, when needed. (Referred to Page 8 of the report.) You already have your site, so it is simple to come in and evaluate that site. If you only have 2 acres left in the Civic Center, this obviously is not enough for the Auditorium Parking, so we would evaluate the parking areas now in the Civic Center and determine if they could be used in conjunction with the Auditorium events; what events should be held; what you can expect in the way of financial performance; we get into suggested rental rates; number of employees needed, etc. Mayor Gleckman: Did you meet with any of the citizens of the Blue Ribbon Committee ? Mr. DeGood: No - I have read the report. Councilman Chappell: How can you evaluate a facility not knowing the construction costs ? • Mr. DeGood: We can give you general estimates of the construction costs. We subscribe to a service that is very extensive in that these people provide us with average costs of various type buildings and auditoriums are only one of many. We can give you an idea of approximately what your construction costs would be. We are not architects and do not have them on our staff. Sometimes we subcontract to architectural firms rather than getting into design, criteria. We would provide you with the economic feasibility of an auditorium. - 2- ADJ. C.C. 10-21-68 AUDITORIUM STUDY - Continu•ed Page Three Mayor Gleckman: When this was presented originally we talked about Phase I and Phase II and the Carousel wasn't there. Now they have been there for 3 years and we have the experience of their problems. (Explained) I am not talking now about a situation in some other area but about one that we do have and does apply here. In that respect, from what you said, • I can't see what additional information $14, 000 will bring us when we have so much now. I think the cost of $14, 000 for a study was based on the idea of not having the past experience that we do now have. Councilman Gillum: I go along with you - Mr. Mayor. I am not completely happy with the $1500. worth of information we have from the Phase I report. You haven't told me anything that I couldn't dig up from the Chamber of Commerce. And it bothers me that it is based on what our staff has submitted to you. Mr. DeGood: If you will recall, this was originally submitted at a higher figure and was reduced because of the availability of the staff to do some of the data finding for us. The only thing we have to sell is our time and our knowledge. Councilman Gillum: Maybe I expected too much. What I have doesn't convince me that I should go any further, but maybe I am wrong. Mr. DeGood: The information we used in this last report simply updated the market support figures in the 1964 study. Obviously things can change over a 4 year period. This was one of the reasons •we submitted the proposal that we would update to see if there had been any significant changes, and we found there hasn't. This is all we are saying - that the figures in the 1964 report still indicate there is support for such a facility. Councilman Lloyd: I think the thing we must look at and this is not in rebuttal of what you said Mr. Gillum, but for us to begin in some basic perimeter of departure from what these people have done. The Stanford Research Institute is one of the best known organizations in this consulting field and have this knowledge and for this knowledge we have to pay money. We may not like specifically some of the points in here, but I think we also have to come back and say that the tremendous years of experience and capability they have has been amassed in this organization and that is what we pay the. $1500. for. For them to say that we do have support for such an Auditorium, that is what we paid for. I think as leaders we have a responsibility here. We call ourselves the Headquarters City, and I feel we have to conduct our City along those lines, so I would say let's continue the conversation. Mayor Gleckman: I have some questions of the Citizen's Committee representative. I noticed in the Blue Ribbon report their report parallels the Stanford Research Institute report from 1964 until now. I also notice the Citizens Committee became involved in dollars and cents and I would like to know how they could come up with some figures as to cost. Maybe I missed the shot, but there was no place in the report that told me how we were going to staff or have any • type of affair that would defer the expense. Dick Dodge: When we looked at this we asked - are we looking at it from a profit or nonprofit organization. Mayor Gleckman: Would you define nonprofit to the standpoint of no money except to pay for management? - 3 - ..ADJ. C.C. 10-21-68 Page Four AUDITORIUM STUDY - Continued Dick Dodge: As I remember our interpretation - if it paid for itself it is a profit making organization. (Discussion on profit and nonprofit Auditoriums.) • Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Dodge, were you talking about paying off construction costs as well as management? Dick Dodge: The entire thing other than the buildings. The feeling was that the building would not in anyway pay for itself. Our thinking was to provide a facility for the community and if we have to pay for it, then we will have to do so. I would hate to see you as a civic body, tell the community that it is going to pay for itself, for it is not, and I would be the first one to question it, - if this statement were made. Councilman Nichols: I think the intent is a noble .project, but in my judgment, because we have more pressing committments, I couldn't commit the community to an Auditorium at this time, so I would not favor any further exploration into the study. Not for the next 2 or 3 years. Based on our discussion pertaining to the Carousel, in light of that - - any study made now would have to be done over anyway in 2 or 3 years. Councilman Lloyd: I haven't made any definite stand regarding whether we should or should not, other than I would like to see this community have such a facility, if we can reasonably afford it. I believe we should recognize that one of the things that have to come to us is that sometimes we have to make • decisions as a result of timeliness, and I think the time has arrived, as evidenced by the interest displayed by surrounding cities in the Carousel, for usage by other councilmatic organizations. I think , maybe, if we don't do it, somebody else will. And we will be defranchised. Councilman Chappell: Have we any surveys as to what usage would be made? Councilman Gillum: 2 or 3.years ago the Junior Chamber of Commerce ran one. Mr. Aiassa: Yes. This was one reason we took the second preliminary study. (OPEN DISCUSSION.) Dick Dodge: This study, as far as the Blue Ribbon Committee was concerned, was. primarily based on the community needs, not on the dramatic needs of a community. Mayor Gleckman: There is a difference from the point of needs of a community and the desires of a community. . Councilman Lloyd: I think really we have a case for a continuance of this study. And the answers to the questions we are now posing, frankly don't exist in this room. Mayor Gleckman: As Mayor, it is difficult for me to sit still and say we have no bonded indebtedness. I think that is probably the worst statement this City has ever been saddled with, and if there is a problem in the Community it is that we didn't spend the money 20 years ago for some of the things we still now need and will have to spend much more money for. As elected officials we are under the gun, but at the sametime we have to decide exactly how to spend available funds in relation to needs - we did that on the Swimming Pool - 4 - ADJ. C.C. 10-21-68 Page Five AUDITORIUM STUDY - Continued - - is there a need and will it be used? Councilman Gillum: What you are saying is that we, on the Council, given all the facts have to make the final decision on an Auditorium? Mayor Gleckman: Thank you. Not from the standpoint of whether the people that elected us will agree, but from the standpoint that if we had spent the money 10 years ago we would not now be paying more for it, and this thinking projected into the future on matters pending before us - how much more will we be paying for it 10 years from now? Councilman Nichols: I feel personally that for 2 or 3 years we shouldn't make this kind of a committment., based on our discussion pertaining to the Carousel. Councilman Lloyd: I agree with Mr. Nichols - I think his words carry a tremendous impact and are not spoken lightly, but the only thing I say is in view of some of the experiences, surveys and market studies that I have just gone through in our own area as well as San Marino, Fullerton, etc. etc. , that this may not wait for another 2 years. So I only say let's consider it further now. Mr. Aiassa: In fairness to the Stanford Research Institute, their original report recommended we wait 5 years. On their behalf they did .not and afe not pushing the issue now for an Auditorium, they will only tell us whether we can feasibly finance such an institution. • Mayor Gleckman: I would entertain such:.a thought that we are not ready to close the issue out, but will probably consider it in a reasonable length of time, and I believe that is the present thoughts of Council - that we not shut it out but we are not ready at this time to make a decision as to when the right time Would be. Actually we would really only be tabling it. Mr. Aiassa: Mr. DeGood - what is your time element for the second phase? Can we have 3 or 4 months or 6 months to continue Phase II without Phase I going out? Mr. DeGood: There was a lack of time - like 4 years between our first report and our second follow-up. I don't think 6 months will make that much difference. Our Phase II report can be back to you in 2-1/2 months after we are told to go ahead on it. Mayor Gleckman: I would entertain a motion to table this matter for at least 90 days. Motion by Councilman Lloyd that City Council table this item for a period of 90 days. Seconded by Councilman Chappell. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None Upon motion made, seconded and carried, the study session adjourned at 7:30 p.m. to the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council in the Council Chambers. APPROVED: � ��Zj l % � %p MAYOR