Loading...
12-16-1968 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 16, 1968. 0 ---------- i The adjourned regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Leonard S. Gleckman in the West Covina City Hall at 7:30 p.m. The pledge of allegiance was led by Councilman Lloyd. ROLL CALL Present- Councilmen Chappell, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman Also Present: Recreation & Park Commission Commissioners Joan Wilson, Fred Angier, Betty Plesko, H. J. Kaelin, Jr. , and. Chairman R. Nordstrom It George Aia s sa , City Manager Lela Preston, City Clerk Ray Windsor, Administrative Ass't. H. R. Fast, Public Service Director George Wakefield, City Attorney George Zimmerman, Ass't. City Engineer Kirk Wilson, Recreation Supertintendent Leonard Eliot, Controller 1. JOINT MEETING WITH RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT OF GALSTER PARK Mr. Aiassa: On October 28th the staff submitted a schedule to Council and at that time we only went as far as Item 3. Mr. Zimmerman is present tonight and will be able to answer questions after giving a verbal presentation regarding the grading plans and water supply. (Mr.. Zimmerman, Ass't. City Engineer, presented flip sheets explaining the needs described by Mr. Galster as requirements and the time limits on the requirements. Further explained the funding and costs; preliminary estimates without the use of a architect based on the 10� park tax estimated to bring in about $114 , 000. Approximate cost: to meet conditions required by June 1, 1969, - $75, 000 plus another $25, 000 for the requirements extended to June 1, 1970. Total cost of all development in the Park estimated by staff at $250, 000, which includes the present contracts which are largely completed, namely the water to the park and the grading plans and specifications which are before Council tonight for approval.. Staff feels an architect is needed to finalize reviewing of existing ..general plan, design facilities for the first contract to be completed by June 1, 1969; and give cost estimates of remaining facilities for budgeting purposes. Mayor Gleckman: Basically this joint Meeting was called because of the time schedule that was presented to the City Council regarding Galster Park Development. Items 1 - 2 - 3 with a completion date of 11-15-68 - have those three items been completed on schedule? (Discussion followed; Mr. Zimmerman s._tated that these. threeitems''have, been ver:y,recentl, completed but not by the due date) Mayor Gleckman: Actually then we start with Item 4 having to do - 1 - ADJ. C.C. 12-16-68 Page Two TOINT MEETING WITH RECREATION & PARK COMMISSION - Galster Park - Continued with staff determining the scope of architectural work. And my other question of Mr. Zimmerman, - where are we behind? Mr. Zimmerman., The determination report of the scope of work is dated 11-15-68 so we are about one month behind on that and that determines the completion of the work which is not well along now - the toilets in the Girl's Camp area, and the picnic area. It is now doubtful that an architect could be hired and the facilities designed and work done and completed by June 1, 1969. Mayor Gleckman. The appointing of an architect was scheduled for 12-23-68 by Council, and I was curious if the Recreation & Park Commission has had any..discussion on this? Chairman Nordstrom- We have not done anything in that respect since our original discussion which goes back to October, 1968. At that point in time it was brought to the attention of the Commission that members of Council had some questions regarding mainly Items 4 and 7. Since that time we have been, of course, awaiting the moment of this particular joint session. Mayor Gleckman. Thank you. Do any of the members of Council have any questions of staff or Commission? • Councilman Gillum- Mr. Zimmerman quoted a price on the projects of grading and installation of water. Where do we find the money at this time - or when does the 10� park tax start coming into the City? Mr. Aiassa. The first installment is December loth and the second installment is in April. Councilman Nichols: I wonder what the implication is of Mr. Zimmerman's statement that it appears we will not make the June 30th deadline based upon this schedule relative to the pledge of Mr. Galster that certain funds would be forthcoming if certain work were in fact done by that time. I think that seems to be the overriding question. In other words when it became apparent that this schedule was not being met has any subsequent contacts been made with Mr. Galster relative to his pledge of funds? Mr. Zimmerman. We had a meeting Friday with Mr. Galster to get his approval as mentioned in the report, for the grading plans. This aspect of it was not discussed at that meeting because it is really somewhat indeterminate and dependent on the actions of tonight as to when the time will be. It appears we will be very near to making the June date and might make it if we cut corners, but it does become doubtful although it is possible, perhaps. • Councilman Nichols- It is very gratifying to me to hear the report that Mr.. Galster was desirous of pledging additional funds for this program. As we can see on the chart, those funds are not un- substantial and could amount to upwards of $30, 000 in a fiscal year, yet there doesn't seem to be anyway we can pin it down. . Unless I am misunderstanding the pledge, there is nothing legal about a pledge of this sort other than he will. give this money if the City does so and so. Naturally then my concern is if we cannot meet the terms in the letter then we would not be in a very strong position to seek the gift. I am wondering if staff should not meet with Mr.. Galster and try and obtain an extension of time of 30 or 60 days. It is a little difficult to ask Council to pledge certain funds to - 2 - ADJ. C.C. 12-16-68 GALSTER PARK- Continued Page Three gain certain accomplishments based on the assumption of additional funds and not know that the additional funds promised are forthcoming. I would like to see that followed up. Councilman Lloyd-, I would like to direct a question to Mr. Wakefield. I think Councilman Nichols has brought up a very valid point. What is our relationship if any, in the legal sense of the word, as to a contractural relationship with Mr. Galster? Let me say - if we fulfill this I am sure Mr. Galster will fulfill his commitment but is there any legal situation here? Mr. Wakefield-, I think if the City proceeds then the City has accepted his offer and it becomes a binding commitment on his part to fulfill the pledging of the additional funds, Councilman Lloyd-, Mr. Zimmerman - - there seems to be some hesitancy in your commitment with regards to the fulfillment of the requirements set down by Mr. Galster. I get the feeling that if we are able to apply more pressure or more money or more effort that perhaps we can meet the commitments as set down. What would be the requirements in additional effort to fulfill our commitments? Mr. Zimmerman: The problem is mainly one of time. Basically as far as that is concerned it would depend on how busy an • architect was, how rapidly we can get one aboard - in other words how many corners can we cut Councilman Lloyd: We are not facing in this situation any unique or unusual engineering problems, are we? Mr. Zimmerman: Not to my knowledge. Councilman Lloyd: Then we could safely say if we made some decisions here this evening and asked that: staff make all possible haste, that we really do stand a chance to fulfill this by the deadline date. I would recommend to the Council and Commission that serious consideration be given to the fulfillment of the commitment as Mr. Galster originally stated. Councilman Chappell: One thing we want to keep in mind is that we have a commitment to get this done or we are liable to lose the land. We are not only looking at a $30, 000 gift potential, but required to do these things to even keep the land. Councilman Nichols: The other area that I wanted to explore and it has not been explored to my satisfaction; I would like some response from the Commissioner's on it. On the first phase items to be completed by June 1 - • if you look at the areas that are on the list, I am not myself clear as to why, for those things, it is so essential that we bring in an architect before we can move ahead in these areas. While the staff is dickering for an architect to move on into the other phases to be completed after June 1, 1969, there are areas that our own staff could get into implementing. Mr. Zimmerman: On the first three items we have the plans completed and are ready to call for bids upon approval. by Council. How- ever, Item 4 involves the design and building of structures and the laying of certain water lines in the Park which we felt, not only from a design - 3 - ADJo Ca Co 12-16-68 Galster Park - Continued Page Four point but to integrate with the other things in the Park, it would be very well necessary to have an architect aboard so proper attention is given to them. • Councilman Nichols: The kind of toilets I have seen around the Parks in West Covina don't bring to mind an architect to me. I don't know if we are going more stylish or there are new types of toilets but I thought we could possibly build some toilets without the need of an architect. Did the Commission discuss this area at all? Chairman Nordstrom: Yes, and it was at that time that it was brought to the attention of the Commission that heretofore there has never been a professional precise plan ever submitted for the development of any park in the City, and it was at" the strong urging and recommenda- tion of our Director of Recreation & Parks to hire an architect that was familiar with the aspect of developing a park for recreation purposes for the needs of several thousand people. We were also made aware that we are not necessarily speaking of facilities for sanitation per se but development of plans for the future with regard to the picnic area, the parking region, making the greatest: utilization of the park land for the needs and desires we would like brought into being for the use of the park. Councilman Nichols: I appreciate that and concur that as you move into the development program I see the value and need but I only wondered if it were feasible to pull out some areas of the June 1 deadline items to get them underway. • Chairman Nordstrom: I don't say that is not possible, and we don't for a moment believe that the staff is not capable of submitting plans and specifications which may be satisfactory to that of any professional, but it was only at the strong urging of our Director of Recreation & Parks that we felt we should go along with the recommendation that there should be retained the services of a park architect. Mr. Wilson, would you have anything to add to the comments I have made? Mr. Wilson: I think, you have covered the points very well. The area of our concern is not putting in the restrooms or designing them as locating them in the development. We more or less would handicap an architect by saying here are the restrooms now design the Girl's Camp area around the restrooms, etc. This was our concern and in putting in water lines up to the restroom as to where they should be located in respect to the general outline of the park. Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Zimmerman, is it possible that we could go ahead and do some of the basic designing of the Boy's Camp and the water system and put in the toilet facilities without hampering the aesthetic values here, so that perhaps an architect could come in at a later date - do we possess the capabilities in-house? • Mr.. Zimmerman: Certainly we would design a water system. My own personal opinion is that it is more in an architectural field and I don't think at our staff level we are fully capable of coming up with the same type of design an architectural park designer would develop. I am sure they could bring in certain expertise that our staff couldn't and we might find troubles later on were we to do it. Councilman Lloyd: Arewe really risking the loss of a commitment on the part of a very publ.icminded citizen in order to achieve some quality which an architect is supposed to bring? And I question seriously whether •that - 4 - ADJ. C.C. 12-16-68 GA LSTER PARK - Continued Page Five quality is to important that we endanger the loss of $30, 000 in a time factor when we can pick this up. I think Councilman. Nichols is in concurrence with me on this question. I see no reason to jeopardize something that we have in hand in order to . have an architect come in and design the facility. The main drive of this park is service to the community and I think the things laid out there are things we can achieve without going out and gilding the lily on. this thing If we mast go out and have architectural design in the future I don't think we are irreparably committed to a.pr-ogram that will be forever doomed if we don't 1have an architect. I th.in.k we should get first things first - which are- do we want the park - we have indicated that; are we willing to accept the man's . offer - we have indicated that, Now let's get on with the business; that is what we are really talking about, isn't it? Mayor Gleckman- I appreciate what has been said but let me sayI talked to'Mr. Galster regarding his offer to the City, not only of the land but also his additional generous offer of adding money to get the job done and Mr. Galster really only wants getting the job done.. .His donation to this City has .gone along now about 5 or 6 years, The progress that was supposed to take place did not, and .I think the reason for the June .1, 1969 date at all had nothing as far as inferring that we would lose all these things as well as his donation, but as of June 1, 1969, .if it isn't completed it had better be pretty near completed. I would suggest in order to -put all the doubts out of everyone's mind regarding.Mr. Galster's intent that we do first things first, There is no •doubt in my mind, but as .long as J am only one vote on this Council - that we make sure beyond any reasonable doubt - but I know that f'f we have to bring in portable •r-oads, portable restrooms, etc, , to meet the deadline that it will be done. , But that wasn't the idea of this joint meeting - we were to decide what type of park and the architect and jointly agree on the scope of work we desired for this park. I don't think we want this to be thirty acres of park - helter-skelter, We want something that will be -attractive enough to attract people to use this park., and that would be the purpose for the architect. As far as grading of the roads, parking lot, picnic area - we have all that on the agenda tonight, And there is no doubt in my mind that most of this will be completed by June 1, 1969 I would suggest that we go ahead and proceed with what is on the ;agenda and then I would further entertain a motion that a joint meeting be set up with the staff, the Chairman of the Recreation & Park Commission, myself and Mr. Galster, to be able to better spell out both to the Commission and the Council the man's original intent without worrying about being bound to a June 1 deadline other than just for the sake of argument - and get the job done. I would entertain a motion regarding the recommendation before us this evening and then go on with the further business of discussing with the Recreation & Park. Commission the scope of the architect's work and whether we want an architect, and whether we set up talks with potential architects with regard to preliminary and final costs, and have a date when that will be brought back to both bodies for finalization, Does Council have anything to add? Councilman Lloyd- I think you have raised a legal question here, Mr. Wakefield, would you enlighten us - - isn't this a contractural • relationship? Mr Wakefield- Yes, it is in the sense Mr. Galster has made an offer to the City which the City will accept by proceeding to do the work indicated at which time his obligation will accrue, Councilman Lloyd: Then in the event if it stands that we do not fulfill that contractural relationship then he may do whatever he wants and if he doesn't want to give the $30, 000 he doesn't have to, does he? - 5 _ A.DJ. C.C. 12-16-68 Page Six GA LSTER -PARK Continued Mr., Wakefield: Again this -depends on whether or not his contractural agreement.is modified, • Councilman Lloyd: It has been raised by the Mayor that this is nothing to worry about and .is of no great concern and in has recommendation, which I agree most heartily with, and if he meets with Mr, Galster and this is clarified - all well and good. But actually the only set of facts available to us now is the statement of Mr , Galster providing we don't do Items 1 - 2 - 3 and 4, he will then take the land and private monies offered on the basis of one to _three so unless he provides something to the contrary I think we have to fulfill. Am.I incorrect? Mr, Wakefield: I think you have correctly stated the matter as it now stands before the Recreation.& Park Commission and Council. Councilman Nichols: I would be inclined to believe it would be the position of all of us on the Council and Commission that all of us fully intend that we will meet in fact whatever interpreta- tion is placed upon Mr. Galster-'s commitment to the: City. I think if he said 11on June 1 this must be done" that if all of us had to get out there with pick and shovel - it would be done, . I really think the Mayor has made a valid point, I think first we have .to clarify with'Mr, Galster his intent, and if his intent leaves some leeway beyond June 1, then we are in business, If it doesn't then I think the staff has to take and resolve to Comiission and Council - either pull the toilets out and do it now, etc But I think that is a bridge we will have to cross after this meeting. I would like to offer the motion .that first the Council approve the plans and specifications for grading and parking lots in the picnic area and Girl's Camp area, and authorize the City Engineer to call for bids. Motion seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried. Motion by Councilman Lloyd that the Mayor, staff and the Chairman of the Recreation and Park Commission meet with Mr. (Galster :at .the earliest possible date to ascertain and determine the exact spirit and intent of Mr. Galster's offer so that we can most expeditiously and surely progress in the development of an aesthetic, well designed park, Motion seconded by Councilman .Nichols and carried, Mayor Gleckman: Item 4 - staff to determine the scope of the architectural works Mr. Zimmerman have you done this? Mr. Zimmerman: We briefly outlined the work to be done by the architect, There are many things needed to complete Galster-Park but basically at this point it is the design of the facilities needed by June 1, 1969, and the firming up of the cost estimate prepared by staff, so it would be available for firm budgeting in June, Mayor Gleckman: On the area of the time schedule .- are you then asking • the Recreation & Park Commission and/or City Council whether we have anything to add to the scope of architect duties because you have this scheduled for 11- 15-68 and evidently you have determined the scope of the work? So is this for information and for us to react too? Mr, Zimmerman: This is a starting point and hopefully the minimum that seemed to be required at this point. This does not go any place near the $250, 000 needed for total park development. It is merely the first step .in that direction, - 6 - Page Seven A DJ. C.C. 1-2--i6-68 GALS TER'PAR-K - Continued tin discussion it was determined that neither staff nor the Recreation & Park Com- mission had discussed this with architects, ) Mayor Gleckman: Do any members of the Commission or . Council have anything to add to the scope of the architect's work? If not,. I would ask that a motion be made that the City Council accept the determining of the scope determined by the staff for the architectural. work. Motion made by Coun.cil.man. Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried, Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Aias s a - am I under the impression that these talks with the architects would be strictly a staff matter ? Mr, Aiassa: We would secure estimates and then finalize the bids to probably a group of 5 and then, spread the bids and suggest that the Commission have interviews with them, Mayor Gleckman: What is the time limit on all of this? Mr. Aiassa: Probably completed by the 15th of January , The Commission will have a meeting tomorrow night and we probably could have a list of names to submit to • the Commission tomorrow night and we will attempt to reduce these names to five, Council might have their recommendation by the second meeting in January, faiscussion by Council. Final determination that this matter should come back to Council at their meeting of January 13, 1969, ) Mayor Gleckman: The next thing is for staff to determine.the scope of construction for -1969 - now that isn't scheduled until the 24th of January - will you be able to meet that schedule .Mr, Zimmerman? Mr.,Zimmerman- I think this is something of a misnomer to the extent the scope of construction is determined by the plan, This gets more into the budgeting of future work and I think we have come up with a suggestion toiight as to the needs and anything beyond this would be firmed up by the Council after plans are prepared by the architect, Mayor Gleckman; Item #9 which is a Recreation & Park Commission recommendation for $114, 000 to be spent in. Galster Park, When do you feel you could get the proper information to the Commission so they can make their recommendation to the Council? Mr. Zimmerman: It probably would be at their January meeting, which is the • fourth Tuesday, This w6uld be the very earliest, Mayor Gleckman: Then the only other problem would be the actual construction because we are now up-to-date, Mr, Zimmerman: Basically that is correct, Mayor Gleckman: I would like to get the reaction from members of the Council to these comments, - 7 - A.DJ.. C. C. 12-16-68 Page Eight GALST:ER-:PARK - Continued Councilman Nichols- The offer of $-1 . 00 'out .of _$3, 00 is a very fine offer and it seems ,to me --while there are crying needs in other parks, I--don't--believe .a limitation has been placed on that one out • of .three, . so .I feel in .the next year -or two a considerable amount of money might be donated to the City. My personal feeling is that we should put as much money as possible into this Park during the time when we might receive a donation of funds. Councilman. Lloyd- I concur most heartily with Councilman Nichols and I think this might be considered in. your meeting with. •Mr. Galster, to pursue further. I feel it merits strong consideration because as 1Mr. Nichols has pointed out we have a golden. opportunity and we don't want to let it go by. Mayor Gleckman- Let me say that the City is well aware of the offer of the gift and the City is going to try and get as much money from Mr, Galster as we can and the only way we can, is by spending money of our own. Mr. Zimmerman, you put up a priority list as to capital improvements thattheRecreation & Park Commission has discussed and their priority, feelings. My first question to the Commission would be of this capital improvements outline, how much money was budgeted in the last budget for these things, if any? On your current capital expenditure priority list how much money was alloted to accomplish any of the five or six items on that list? Mr. Aiassa- As .I remember that was a capital improvement outline presented at budget time and all. we have is zero. • Mayor. Gleckman- .I want .that .for the record so the. Commis sion can well understand what the Council is saying - that of the $114, 000 .from the ..park tax, that first of all it would be the recommendation and I would hope, both by the Recreation & Park Commission as well as Council, that we spend as much of that. $114, 000 on Galster -Park for the coming year and then out of that the balance would be distributed amongst the priority items, I state .this now rather than have the Commission come back to us later and say you had $ 114, 000 and we only gave priority improvements of $78, 000. Any comments by the Commissioners? Mrs. Joan Wilson: I would like to see the whole $114, 000 go into Galster Park. Commiss-oner We can make more money that way for the: City, Mr, Fred Angier- I personally.feel I would like to see the $114, 000 for Commissioner Galster but we have other problems besides Galster Park. One of the things in our Parks today are the problems with teenagers and I still think some of those security lights in the Parks would help. I give way to the fact that we would all like to make money on someone donating money and if I were capable I would like to donate the $28, 000 to get security lights. Mrs Betty.Plesko- I too feel it would be very nice to see the entire amount of Commissioner 10� tax go to Galster Park, but I feel that since we are • asking the taxpayers for this additional tax that we will have to spread it around a little bit. I think in our recommendation to the City Council regarding the revenue of the 10� park tax we can state that we hope the major portion would be spent in (Galster'Park but going back to our study of the Blue Ribbon Committee on Recreation &Park facilities while we did agree with the Blue Ribbon Committee in where they state one park should be developed in total we disagreed. We felt the development should take place where it was most needed. I would have to go along with my original thinking that the major part of this tax be spent on.Galster 'Park and the balance be distributed among other park areas. ADJ. C. C. 1.2 _ 1b--68 GALSTER PARK - Continued Page Nine Mr . ,Kaelin, In doing some fast calculations I would like to recommend Commissioner that` -we --keep our first priority of security lights in all our parks and then if you take that $28, 000 away from the • $114, 000 and we recEve a donation of one out of three, we have almost $114, 000 to go into Galster -Park, L� • Mayor Gleckman: The only comment I -would have is the $-114, 000 being realized %. and --being spent, I am pretty sure by the figures of staff you have a $75, 000 cost figure and a $25, 000 cost figure. Would you say that the $2.5, 000 could be spent in the time allotted - that would be almost physically impossible .to push over to June 1 because you have these other construction items .that must be done first, namely the $75, 000 that must be fulfilled in order to comply with the conditions of .the letter, The $25, 000 is the additional commitments we are making to Mr. Gals.ter to be completed by June 1, 1970, It would be almost physically impossible to complete all. the conditions by June 1/69 - am I correct? Mr... Zimmerman: The $25, 000 is only the remainder of .the Deed of Gift requirements and include none of the additional park requirements at all, Mayor Gleckman- But is it physically impossible? Mr. Zimmerman: Well it would all be one contract and it would just mean throwing that much more money and equipment in. I believe it could be done Mayor Gleckman: My point was that if we spend the $75, 000 we would still have the matched money, Councilman Nichols: Unless I am misreading it, it appears that what we have up there in terms of our funds and gift funds - we are talking about no more than an expenditure of a maximum of $100, 000 in this fiscal year, Mr.. Zimmerman: That would seem reasonable, Councilman Nichols: And that would be the City's $75, 000 and a gift of $25, 000 _and that would still leave in theory some $35, 000 of the $1 10, 000 tax revenue money that could be budgeted, Mayor Gleckman: That is exactly right, Does the Commission have anything they would care to discuss with Council? I would thank the Recreation & Park Commission for attending and helping prod through this major accomplishment, which we hope to see completed within all of our terms in office, Chairman Nordstrom: The guidelines you have suggested this evening you can rest assured we will take under consideration, T-HE CHAIR, DECLARED A RECESS AT 8:35 P.M. 8:48 ' P,-M. BUSINESS LICENSE REVISION COUNCIL RECONVENED. AT ORDINANCE .INTRODUCTION The City Attorney presented: "AN .ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL - 9 - A DJ C . C . 12-16--68 Page Ten BUSINESS LICENSE REVISION - Ordinance Introduction - Cont'd. 'OF THE -CITY-OF WEST COVINA, AMENDING -SECTIONS 6209, 6222, 6235. 1, 6235.4, 6235.5 AND 6235.6 OF THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING.TO BUSINESS LICENSES AND DECLARING THE.URGENCY THEREOF TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY." Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, that said Ordinance be introduced. Councilman Gillum: I have some questions of Mr. Wakefield, Under Section 6235. 1 which now includes Mobile Home Parks, the way this reads - we intend to put it on the Mobile Home Park and not the home itself? Mr. Wakefield: That is right - the Park itself. Councilman Gillum: The license would then actually be taken out by the owner of the Park and has nothing to do with the people moving in or out of the Park? Mr. Wakefield: It is based on the number of spaced provided, Councilman .Lloyd: I note that further back in here under the analysis of recommended charges - page 5 (read from report). I am not .really sure the basis of $1, 000 is correct and why that determination was made. My immediate inclination was if we were seeking to give relief to the immediate home owner builder - (read from report). I am not sure that the $1, 000 figure is a correct figure. I would like to ask Mr. Peacock a question. In your studies how did you arrive at -the $1, 000 figure? _ Frankly, I believe it should be in, the neighborhood of $2, 000. Many of the garage type con.str.uct3on.s, which I presume you had in mind, a $1, 000 would not cover. Mr. Peacock: In discussion with the Building Department a $1, 000 is generally the amount given to construction that a person can do without calling in electrical contractors, etc. Councilman Lloyd: In my own estimate I used a two -car garage and I don't believe that it can be done for $1, 000. I am questioning whether it can; and if we are indeed trying to. give relief to these people that do these things, I want to be assured that $1, 000 is the correct figure., Councilman Nichols: I certainly see the problem the staff .is faced with, namely that some individuals take out licenses to do their own work and then bring in contractors. However,.I believe the correction of that problem is enforcement. I don't believe that one should levya license in order to conquer a failure in enforcement. This is a business license ordinance. -The citizens of West. Covina - who lives in his own home and doing work to improve that home Himself, by any stretch of the imagination is not in business and I don't see how you can levy a business license against .this individual, Admittedly we have this problem and admittedly there should be devices to correct the situation o The individual homeowner is required to take out a permit for this type of work; we have Building Inspectors constantly cruising in the City and -that Department has maintained its strength all through this great slump --of" building . overall, az d it is basically their job to find locations where con- tractors are doing work and no business license has been taken out. So I cannot, 10 - A DJo . C. C; 12-16-68 Page Eleven BUSINESS ' LICENSE - Ordinance. Introduction m Continued myself, agree to solve this problem by levying a business license charge against the builder -owner. I believe as long as he certifies .that he is going to do that building himself it is our obligation to accept that statement as one of truth unless it is proved otherwise and he should becontinued to be exempted from -the business license fee. I thin.k.that is a ,problem but I think the great issue here is that by policy on Council we have exempted the owner -builder and. we must continue to do so; plus he •ice not in fact a builder. Coun.c-+loran Lloyd: I concur with Councilman. Nichols. Because it is the intent and spirit to allow to those who by the sweat of .their brow attempt to achieve something more impressive then :they have, and I think this is a very important factor. I think for those that wish .to do this we should make every effort for them to do so, and I don't think we will lose any appreciable amount of revenue by them so doing. -On the other hand those who are in the business of construction are businessmen and just as I am a businessman. ­ we pay our money fora business license because we are in business. I beUeve this is the spirit of the issue., Councilman Gillum-, Mr. Nichols,. do I understand that you are concerned that the homeowner is going to be caught up in this? Councilman Nichols-, I put an addition. on my own home some years ago and came up to City Fall and got a permit, As soon as I do this it is a matter -of record with the City of West Covina O and it would seem to me if there is a problem of enforcement our inspectors should be so cruising the City to locate thatcontractor who is doing that work where the individual has taken out his own permit. -to do the work. That's a different situation if somebody is going to play hanky—panky with the City Government. But I don't think the solution to that problem is to levy a business license .fee against the private -homeowner and the $1, 000 figure may be a reasonable figure to dcefine the men from the boys; but the issue at hand is that this is a business license ordinance and the man who builds a bathroom to has house on Saturday and Sunday is not in business in the City and I don't believe he should be charged under this Ordinance for a business license. Councilman Gillum-, Do you feel the $1, 000 limitation is too low or too high? Councilman Nichols-, I believe it is .immaterial to my point of view. Do you follow me? Councilman Gillum-, I believe I do, but then I read here - "the staff feels that the $1, 000 exemption would minimize -this type of . , . o .. " Councilman Nichols-, One could debate the whole area as far as cost is concern- ed but you could not add anything significant to your home for $1, 000. So beyond the very minor things, this would in fact say that any homeowner that would want to add anything to his home would have to take out a business license in West Covina, The homeowners are not businessmen and this is an Ordinance for business. licenses, . I think this is a gross error. It states a homeowner builder shall be exempt from any license fee but not from any job fee which is the same thing - unless the valuation of the work undertaken is less than $1, 000. We have had job fees in lieu of license fees structured into this Ordinance and when you levy a job fee against someone it is indeed a business license. Maybe Mr.. Wakefield can counter my argument and say I am incorrect? Mr. Wakefield-, Councilman Nichols is correct that the job fee is in lieu of a license fee charged to the general contractor. The fee is based actually upon the amount of work performed by the m11= A DJ C C. 12m16-6€-. Page Twelve BUSINESS LICENSE -ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION m Continued contractor and this provision that is in the Ordinance -would s.mpl-y mean that the owner -builder would not pay any job fee unless the total amount of work for -which the permit was taken out was over $1, 000. Councilman Nichols: -And he is not now paying any fee, so this puts a fee. on him if it is more than $1, 000. Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. He is not now pay-ng .any fee. Councilman Gillum: I would like -to pursue this further. As Mr. Nichols and Mr. - Wakefield state - we have an area in here that is not proper or .correct and should be changed .to protect the homeowner from such charges and fees. - Is this what you are saying - Mr. Nichols? Councilman Nichols: When. we first discussed :the revising of .the Ordinance .the Council's position was that .the homeowner -builder should be exempt from the fees. The original Ordinance .drafted at 'that time excluded that but the staff has had some unfortunate experiences in that they have .found a number .of homeowners have come in and taken out permits to gain the exemption of owner -builder and -.then hired the work out to be circumventing the business license ordinance. The staff suggests to stop that is to automatically charge a license fee.for anything over $1, 000. The approach in my judgment is an unsatisfactory way to achieve an answer to an admittedly real problem. O Councilman. Gillum: We gave .the homeowner this privilege under -the original Ordinance and the homeowner took advantage and you,are saying that we should send out the Building Inspectors or license en-forcement inspector to go out and check on this. Councilman Nichols: That is what lis job is. Mayor Gleckman: I have always opposed this - I have always felt that the homeowner on his own property can and should with proper permit be able to do any amount of work whether it be a $5, 000 brick wall or build his own swimming pool, . garage or whatever he wants to do with his property that is his prerogative, as long as he does it within the law and gets the proper permits. I would not vote for -any Ordinance that limits the homeowners to put. any improvements on their property providing the homeowner does the work himself, just because we have had some owners that have taken advantage. As prev],ously stated,a loophole in the law is no reason for us to carte-blanc everybody else from doing it. Especially in the area we live in, today and with all due respect to .the contractors who make a living doing this. Following this thought anybody that repairs his own car and it totals $50. would fall under this. Incidentally may I say for the record that I am a man with two lefthands, so I don't come under' any part of :this Ordinance. If it is $25. I have to have the work done by somebody, but -,from the standpoint of what is best for the people living in our community I don't see any advantage. Any further comments on this item? . Councilman Chappell: 6235 - I see in there that we are making a business license charge whether they are benevolent or nonprofit. This Ordinance was originally set up before I was on Council and.I question the fact that we put a charge like this on a hospital that is a nonprofit institution. I have checked into other communities and they are not required to pay tls type of thing, there must have been a background for it which I am not aware of, .but in my mind it looks like something that shouldn't be done. Mayor Gleckman:: Speaking to the question the basic reason why this came into effect was that we found the nonprofit benevolent hospital was in direct competition with the other hospitals, - 12 ADJ. C'oCo 12-16-68 Page Thirteen BUSINESS LICENSE - ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - Continued They were not giving.cheaper rooms, the .charges that came out of .the benevolent hospital was the regular charge thAt came from the hospitals .that were in the business. I don't question, the benevolency but .there is nothing that the nonprofit . benevolent hospital uses .that .the private .hospitals don't use, . there was nothing along the line that shows what ..they contribute back to ,the community in relationship to the private hospital to warrant the exemption. I voted .to include .them in the rate last time for those reasons and because no -one .came before us to speak on"the subject pointing out things they did -and the -other hospitals didn't, whereas the other hospitals contribute to the fixing of streets, sidewalks, etc. -In other words ii .am trying to .look at the breakdown - what makes .them nonprofit and benevolent over the profit mraking .hospital in relationship to the rest of the community. Councilman Nichols: There was some discussion on this .last time regarding several of the institutions that exist in the community and attempting to compare them and as the Mayor said, at that :time it was difficult to differentiate between them in the whole spectrum of their operation. There was one hospital that was considered to be,a nonprofit organization and was doing .quite well. financially and in differentiating between a non- profit and a profit making hospital it was hard to determine, anal as a result of that we said:in those instances were all seemed to be drawing equal services from the City that we would levy this on all in the City. Councilman Lloyd: Unfortunately 1, like Councilman Chappell, came on after the initial ds cussions and I am wondering if we are in anyway penalizing those that do business in our area? Of course if .they are not paying a business license but I don't know what the other cities do - is there any disparity between the hospitals in our City? Mayor Gleckman: When staff investigated did you find any differences.?_ Mr. Peacock: Yes, there was quite a bit of difference. Covina doesn't charge Inter -Community but does charge other hospitals a $50. fee. Baldwin Park we did not specifically investigate because at the time this came up staff had not made a recommendation one way or the other as to hospitals. The point was brought up by Dr. Snyder and he specifically recommended we include all hospitals. Councilman Chappell: Are all of these hospitals benevolent in our community? Mayor-Gleckman:. West Covina and Lark Ellen do not have an exemption from the. Federal Government. Councilman Chappell: This is where you would draw the line I would think. Councilman Lloyd: Well Mayor Gleckman and Councilman Nichols present- ed it very well - f or if it costs you $45 o a day in one and the same in the other how do you differentiate the . services given by one hospital and another? Councilman Chappell: There are so many things you could bring into this picture of why they are both charging the same, some hospitals when they realize you don't have a dollar they immediately ship you to County. Mayor Gleckman: Might l suggest that if there is a nonprofit benevolent hospital in the area that seeks an exemption that they ask it from this Council and don't put it in the Ordinance. If they feel they deserve an exemption let them put it in a letter yan.d appear before Council. - 13 - A -DJ; C.C. 12-16-68 Page Fourteen BUSINESS- LICENSE --ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - Continued I don't believe we should write an Ordinance and include just certain establishments I believe Council has the right to exclude when good cause is shown, • Council.man Chappell: I can live with something like .that if anyone wants to come in and prove they are nonprofit, etc. , that satisfies my thinking, Councilman Lloyd: I concur, Mayor Gleckman: Is there anything further in this .Ordinance you would care to discuss? Councilman Gillum: I would like to ask a question of Mr. Peacock. This item pertaining to service vehicles and their place of business is not in the City - you have discussed this with General Telephone and resolved our problem regarding franchises? Mr. Aiassa: We have met with all these people, they do not all agree with us. Mayor Gleckman: We received two written letters - are either one of the two gentlemen in the audience this evening? Mr.. Aiassa: I believe we resolved .those - we discussed it with them. • One referred to laundermats and one on washing machines. Mayor Gleckman Is.there anybody present_tho evening that admits to being the author to the two letters received by Counci 12 One was with regard to Coin operated wash machines and the other had to do with, I believe, stamp vending machines. .Audience: I would have written a letter but I was advised over the .telephone by .the City Clerk's .office that if we were present we would have an opportunity to present our case. I represent the Apartment House Owner's Association of Los Angeles County as it relates to fees for the operating of coin operated wash machines in apartment houses. (Mayor Gleckman asked if Council had any objection; Council had none other than stating it was their feeling if these people present were given the opportunity, it probably should be advertised as a Public Hearing so others not present would have the opportunity to speak if they so desired. Mr. Wa:kef ield was asked .for 1-s legal opinion and he advised there was no reason why Council could not hear those present not in the sense of a public hearing but simply to obtain their comments. Mayor Gleckman further stated to those wishing to speak that anything said will have no bearing on wlich way this Ordinance goes and not to go away feeling you have convinced Council for that everything was for naught. • William Bluiaifield, President .Webb Service Company National Association of Coin Laundry Equipment Operators Western Equipment Head Office — West Los Angeles 10930 Santa Monica Boulevard The list passed to you gentlemen is a list of 83 cities that have taxes or. business licenses on washers and dryers that we have no complaint on. If it is a gross receipt city we pay on the gross recdptsy and if it is a flat rate city they charge us a flat rate. a 14 0 -ADJ-0_ CoC. 12-16-68 Page Fifteen BUSINESS LICENSE - ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - Continued (Mentioned several of the cities listed, their charges and cost to the operators; compared the coin operating wash machines in theory with Culligan' s, _ Xerox metered machines; and the rental of refrigerators and stoves. Said everyone of the companies had service in their nrames; stated last year they paid $328, which is the business license fee of a company with 69 employees and they only have one, At the present proposed rate it is completely out of line; pointed out that the property taxes were on an equal basis but this proposed business license fee was not. Were willing to pay a fair business license, etc, ) Jerome Str+tzmyer I am appearing in.a dual role, first as 20219 Shadow Mountain R. a member of the Board of Directors of Walnut the Apartment Douse Association of Los Angeles County and secondly as a property owner in West Covina - 227-229'Bandy Street, I would like to make comments on the proposed license as it relates to apartment house owners. The apartment house owner has laundry equipment in his apartments, it is a necessity. We do it as a convenience for our- tenants. We don't offer it as a convenience to people off the street. It is certainly not a profit making situation. , At best you hope to break even. My property in West Covina is a 24 unit and the income from the washers came to$1.144, 00 last year. However this took into consideration the furnishing of water and heating water, etc, , to take care of this whch ran over. $100. If that room had been available for rental property I would have received well over $300 .to $400 for .that same space. It is not profitable to have laundry equipment .in an apartment house, • Further we pay taxes on the laundry room gust as we would if it were rental space. When you get into the tax area 'you get into a very sensitive subject and I believe it is well recognized that we pay our share, Mr. Homer A. Peterson, Jr. Pertaining to .the comments about the 901 Valley Blvd, homeowner -builder. We have no quarrel President - 13uilding Industry Association with this part of the si.tu'ation_,. The only thing if it is left in and also keeping in the paragraph - (read from business license ordinance) If a man wants to put up a home for $30, 000 and do it all by his own little hands he will be out there 2 or 3 years before completing. There is one on Azusa Avenue now that has been going up for 3 or 4 years and is an eyesore, This $1, 000 figure is a method of policing - as far as your building department, Mr. Fowler knows when a man comes in and takes out a permit for $5, 000 or $6, 000 whether he is going to do it exclusively himself or have somebody come in to do the plumbing, electrical work, etc. Mayor Gleckman: Thank you gentlemenfor appearing this evening, Does Council have any comments on vending machines, including washers - dryers? Councilman Nichols: I would like to comment. It has caused me to give some thought to it. It seems to me ithei°e� sliould..be_.an. area of differentiation between the washing machine established in some public location where it invites the public to that location, and the washing machine located on private premises and is there for the convenience of the residents of those premises. I tHnk there is quite a difference between a washing machine located in the back of an apartment building and those installed for public use. The apartment house owner is charged a license to operate here in the Ordinance as such., and that should be whatever we feel is legitimate, but as long as those washing machines are in back of some area for the people to use only that live on those premises, it in fact is not correct to levy any additional, charge. - 15 A D10 CoC. 12-16-68 Page Sixteen BUSINESS. LICENSE m ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION e Continued Councilman Chappell:. I agree with Councilman Nichols on that part. In fact when reading this over I didn't realize we were talking • about the units in apartment houses but the type that people actually go to and .they are in, business for that purpose. We do charge an. apartment house owner a fee for having his apartments and then charge him again for having a service for his- renters. Councilman G•Illum— The staff says these people do not pay a property tax, that the machines are leased. Is this correct? Mr. Blumfield:' The machines are the property of the company. Councilman Gillum: We have a business and people rent the .machines to put into apartment houses - I am not questi?oning the profit or loss in it, but what concerns me is - and I do agree with you in a sense Councilman Nichols m but I don't t lin.:k we are being fair to the other people that establish businesses and pay a business License fee and pay sales tax; I think when we started out with this a year ago and decided .to add a license enforcing officer, it was to see .that everyone paid an equal share whether ,their office or business was in our City.or they came in from other cities. I think some provisions have to be made so that the people doing business within our city equally share in the necessary taxes. Councilman Nichols: At .this poi.nt.. am not sure what .l could accept. Enough of • a question has been raised - for example let's say the Culligan man..comesand installs a soft water system in each apartment..... I don°t know all of .the answers but it seems to me there is still somehow a difference between, that piece of equipment put on private property not accessible to the public and if we don't make that differentiation I can think of a number of other areas such as coin operated TV's do we tax every coin operated TV set in the City? A new avenue has been opened here that I think we should look at more carefully. Councilman Gillum: Mr.. Blumfieid - where do you pay your property tax? Mr.. Peterson: At the present time a gentleman from Phil Watson's office is in our- office and he will be there about 2 weeks going over our entire books and every machine in every city is co -anted and we pay for exactly the amount of dollars in machines in each City and it goes to each City. (Discussion on the assessed value m Mr. Aiassa pointing out that a washing machine is not what is called improved property, it is assessed as a household furnishing.) Councilman Lloyd: I would have to question rather strongly the wisdom of what we are trying to do here. I feel a little bit in.line with the rest of you that we really have to look at thi s. 10 They have brought up some valid points and they have opened my mind to the fact there seems to be some inequity here. I pay in my office on the basis of myself and my personnel and then I turn around and ask him to pay on the number of units he has. It seems to me if you charge me on the basis of apples then you have to charge him on the basis of apples, and if you are going to charge him on the basis of oranges and I am paying on the basis of apples this is unfair. We have a very fine staff and these recommendations are based on their investigation and is the work of some honest effort and I am not one who. is prone to throw out automatically the work of the staff, but I do feel there have been some statements presented in the area of the vending .machines that I believe we should look into. We should determine that what we do in West Covina is no different than what is done in Whittier, La Puente or Santa Monica. We want equity for the people doing business in our City. 16 - ADJ. CoCo 12-16-68 Page Seventeen BUSINESS --LICENSE —ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - Continued Mr, -Wakefield* To clear up a point m the present Ordinance provides for a flat $2.00 per -machine license fee on coin operated washers and dryers. The proposal reduces that charge • to $1, 00 and attempts to recognize .the fact that the small operator may have a fewer number -of machines so it places a -minimum charge of $1. 00 per machine up to a maximum of 30-machines and from that point on the larger -operator pays for over 30 machines. The proposal attempts to do two things* to cut the present license charge in half and .to recognize the fact -there was some inequity" as far as the smaller operator was concerned. It doesn't go to the point made by Council as to whether this charge be made on a machine basis was proper for apartment owners. Mayor -Gle.ckman* ..Mr.....Str.itzmyer ® .how many machines do you have in your apartments? (Answer* 2 washers and 1 dryer) Those 3 machines have to do with -the .144 units you mentioned? (Answer-. They service the apartments.) Those 3 machines would cost the Webb Company $3.00 for a year? Mr. Wakefield* They would pay the basic rate of $40. 00 plus $3. 00 for each machine over 30. Mayor Gleckman* - There is a $40. 00 fee for the Company and a $1. 00 charge for every machine over 30, so if he has 200 machines he pays $40, 00 plus $170, 00 or $210. 00. • Councilman Gillum* What concerns me is we all have areas we question. Let me propose for discussion, that we go ahead with 'the Ordinance and these areas thtLt we have discussed we amend at a later date. - Since it is important that thi s be on the books as of. January 1 that we continue with this and during the year as these problems are brought to us we can amend the Ordinance. Councilman Nichols* I would be inclined to go along with Councilman Gillum's recommendation. I would like to see tlris reviewed again. I believe enough points have been raised this evening over the entire area of coin operated machines and I would like to see at least that one area reviewed, Therefore, I could agree that I would accept the position of implementing the Ordinance at this time and giving direction to the staff to review the -entire area of coin operated devices and bring this matter back before the Council ' amply in time to determine before another year goes by; and delete the $1, 000 figure and.exclude the homeowner -builder from it providing the work be done by himself. I would offera motion on that one area. Mayor Gleckman* Is there any further discussion desired on the Ordinance Introduction? Motion carried on roll call vote as follows* AXES; Coimncilmen Chappell, . Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd,, Mayor Gleckman • NOES-. None ABSENT: None Motion by Councilman Nichols. that the Council amend the proposed amendment to the Business....Lic.ens.e.:.Ordinance to wit* Section 6235.5 be -mended to withdraw that paragraph indicated.therein,.as No, 2. with the exception that all work be performed by the owner "builder, but not from the payment of any job fee unless the valuation of the work by owner -builder is less than $1, 000. Motion seconded by Councilman Gillum. Motion carried. 17 ADJ'0 C,Co. 12-16-68 Page Eighteen BUSINESS-, LICENSE - ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION - Continued Motion by Councilman.Nichols that Council direct .the staff to pr.o.ceed with reasonable haste to revie--w that section of the Business ..Licens.e-Ordinance pertaining to coin operated devices and reschedule for Council discussion at an appropriate time. • Motion seconded by Councilman. Chappell, Councilman,Lloyd: What would staff consider as a reasonable period of time in this case? Mr; Aiassa: About 30 to 60 days Mayor Gleckman: How about 30 days - Mr, Aiassa? Mr, Aiassa: We will try. Motion. carried, THE CHAIR DECLARED A RECESS AT 9:55 P,M, COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10:02 P. M, ORDINANCE _INTRODUCTION The City -Attorney presented: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ADDING CHAPTER 4.5 TO ARTICLE II • OF THE .WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE .RELATING TO EMPLOYEE RELATIONS," Mayor-Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of the body of said Ordinance. Motion by, Councilman Lloyd,. seconded by Councilman Chappell, and carried, that said Ordinance be introduced. CAR -LEASING --OR PURCHASING PROPOSAL Mr. Aiassa: I have nothing to add to the report, Mr., Eliot is present to answer any questions, Councilman. Lloyd: I believe the report is a-nore than adequate. Councilman Nichols: I think it .is one of the best reports I have ever seen. Motion by Councilman Lloyd that the City Council authorize the City Manager to con- clude a. Lease arrangement with'Haefner Leasing Corporation for the use of police cars for the period of February 15, 1969 through February 14, 1970, at a cost to the City of $197.50 per month per vehicle, plus sales tax, Such leasing contract shall be approved as to form by the. City Attorney, and the Council hereby authorizes said document to be executed by the City Clerk and the Mayor. Seconded by Council- man Gillum., _Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell,, Nichols, Gillum, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None STAFF REPORT ON SCIENTOLOGY Mayor Gleckman: Anything to add to the report - Mrs. Preston? (Answer: No.) Mr. - Wakefield!$ is it within our realm to call these A DJo. C.C. 12-16-68 Page Nineteen STAFF -REPORT `ON .SCIENTOLOGY -- Continued people before this Council to give cause as to why they should not have their business license revoked? • Mr. Wakefield: If there is any basis for initiating proceedings to revoke the license it may be done. Under the Ordinance there are several causes specified which constitute a basis for a revocation of a license. (Explained) Mayor Gleckman: How about a business that may have .tendencies toward doing harm .to a individual or the general public. Just what type of action would be necessary to have these people appear before this Council with the information I particularly might seek? Mr. Wakefield: If. the Council has doubt as to the manner the business is being -conducted or any other .concerns about the operation you .can always invite the licensee to appear before Council and explain the manner in which he is conducting his business. . You would give notice to the licensee and fix a -time and place for the public hearing m when he would come in and justify the continued operation of his business. Councilman Chappell: What exact type of license did we issue this organization a license to do what? Mr. Wakefield: A license .to carry on .the business - it is not a specified kind of business. It comes under the general category of business license which no particular kind of business is specified.. Councilman Chappell: I would like to figure out someway to eliminate this orgarization if what I read about it is true and I believe we shomld try and ascertain that somehow. Mr. Wakefield: There are several approaches that can be taken to this particular problem. This is a kind of business on which the Council should reserve the right to review the applica- tion before the license is actually issued. We may desire to -add another section or two to the Ordinance before this kind of a business license is issued. Councilman Gillum: What kind of a business is it? Mr. Wakefield: -I don't know. Mayor Gleckman: I think it would fall under the basis of a cult. Councilman Gillum: Is a cult a religion? Mayor Gleckman: I am not certain what it is - I have also done some 0 investigation on my own. U . . Motion by Councilman Lloyd that the business license of the organization known as Scientology be reviewed by staff and in this case by our legal consultant, with specific investigation as to the legal ramification of the revocation of the business license and this organization be invited to appear before City Council to show why their license should not be reviewed for revocation. Seconded by Councilman Gillum. Councilman Nichols: I am in favor of part of your motion, but before inviting their appearance I would rather -await an opinion from the 19 A.DJo'.COCo 12-16-68 SCIENTOLOGY Continued .Page Twenty City Attorney as to whether or not there would be any legal basis or prospect for revoking the license.. • Councilman Lloyd: Fine, I accept that as an amendment. Councilman Gillum:- T will accept it also. Mayor Gleckman: I have one piece of advice to the staff and that is to make .long distance .:call to .-Las Vegas and get in touch with the newspapers there. • I was -there .last weekend when over their TV stations came news of the investigation into Scientology in that area. I am sure they would have ,a complete and detailed information as to what it is, etc. Motion carried. --POLICE .MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and carried, that a new agreement be ,executed with .the City of Sierra Madre. REQUEST FOR ADDIT•IONAL.FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT • OF $36.70 for DEPARTMENT HEAD CHRISTMAS -LUNCHEON Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, .that Council approve the additional funds of $36.. 7.0 for -the Department Head luncheon. . Motion carried on roll call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell, . Nichols, Gillum, , Lloyd, . Mayor Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: . None LEAVE OF ABSENCE .REQUEST Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, that the leave of absence be granted to Vera Clark as per the recommendation . -Motion carried on roll -call vote as follows: AYES: Councilmen Chappell,. Nichols,. Gillum, Lloyd,. Mayor -Gleckman NOES: None ABSENT: None MAYOR'S:REPORTS Mayor Gleckman: I have a letter that I.would like to have sent with the • Mayor's signature and .I am seeking Council's permission. A letter, compo s ed by staff and sent to the 7 / 11 Stores in the City of West Covina as to their obligation and responsibility and control with regard to the teenage problem they are so often calling sour -Police. Department on. This is, as far as I am concerned, something created by them and should be disciplined by them. I would like to send a letter to the head office of 7/ 11 saying these are not the type -of- operations the City.of West Covina has funding for and if they cannot take the proper means of controlling we may have to take some stronger steps.. In explanation, we have .had many phone calls from the 7/ 11 asking us to remove teenagers from hanging around the stores and smoking and congregating. My feeling is that these stores attract these people and they themselves should be prepared to police it and not be an additional expense to the City of West. Covina.. 20 - A -DJ. C;C, 12-16-68 MAYOR°S -REPORTS Continued Page Twenty-one Councilman, Lloyd: Did you intend to send the letter to the home -office? Mayor Gleckman: Both -...to .let .them know we have --this problem. .Maybe • they have this problem all over the State. Councilman., Lloyd: I concur_:in.the action but why don't we notify the people in .the City _fir st..and, if ..the action .is not -immediately forthcoming we can still send a letter to the home office. I would prefer not to air our "dirty wash:" (Mayor Gleckman concurred.) Councilman Nichols: The chair will recall I brought up .the problem of litter created by .these various markets sometime ago and the dropping and dumping of these car -tons up and down the sidewalks. I think .the same :things hold true in that area. They sell these items to attract youngsters and then they complain because youngsters are at their premises .- this .is. a little bit incongruous. Mr. Aiassa: Also .the staff has been striving hard to have them maintain the landscaping the little bit they have put in, and we have nothing but static. Mayor Gleckman: Can't we revoke the business license if they don't comply? Mr. Wakefield: It is a zoning requirement. Mayor Gleckman: But our Ordinance specifically saysl'naintain"..... COUNCIL. COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilman Lloyd: I have an apology to. the Council. It was suggested by City Manager as a.result of the meeting this morning with Mr; Frank Bonelli, that I inform the Council ahead of time of the results of that meeting. Unfortunately my business called me away and I didn't get back until 6 p.m. and was unable to inform Council. This pertains to the investigation and review of the possibility of placing a metroport somewhere in the area of the City of West Covina. Mr. Bonelli, was receptive, he listened and pointed out until such time as the City took specific action he could have no cognizance of the plan. We were unable to carry further -any specifiers, because we have none. I We do not have a location nor the money. All we presented was the concept of a stol-port metroport operation. He said - fine, would we go back and do the basic work and he would review it when it was .officially presented. Councilman Gillum: I.have a question - you say "we" - who -attended the meeting with , you ? Councilman. Lloyd: The City Manager. Mayor Gleckman: I had suggested if we are going to have our next meeting at 6:30 p.m. that we do not have dinner here, eat at home and be prepared to work. If you desire dinner, let your - 2'l — e ADJ..C;C; 12-16-68 ADJOURNMENT desires be known and we will vote on it. Page Twenty-two (Council discussed) Motion by Councilman Gillum that since Council is coming in at that.:.time, that they come in at 6 p.m. -and be served "Bob's" hamburgers and make it an eating - working session. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd...Motion carried on roll call vote as follows; AYES; Councilmen. Chappell, Gillum, ,Lloyd NOES; Councilman Nichols, .Mayor Gleckman ABSENT; None Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Chappell, .and carried, that at 10:25 p.m. this meeting adjourn to 6 p.m. on the 23rd of December, 1968. of ATTEST; • CITY. CLERK APPROVED; j3. /9�/ MAYOR -22-