Loading...
05-26-1958 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA May 26, 1958 The meeting wa.s/Called to order by Mayor Mottinger at 7.40 P. M. in the West Covina, City Hall. Councilman Heath led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flat, Inv*oca,- tion was given by the Rev. Lauran I. Egdahl of the Mounty Calvary Lutheran Church. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Mottinger, Councilmen Heath, Pittenger, Barnes Others Present: Acting City Ma.nager,.Deputy City Clerk, City Attorney, City Engineer, Planning Commission Secretary, Administrative Assistant Absent: Councilman Brown, City Clerk, City Treasurer, City Manager 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES May'5, 1958 The Minutes of this meeting were approved as corrected as follows: Page 1 - Last paragraph, line 8 should read 'finance officer' instead of 'finance officials' as shown. Page 5 - The heading on the third item and the last line of the item should read -'Metes and Bounds' instead of 'Meets and Bounds' as shown. Page 6 - The heading on the first item and the la.st line of the item should read tRoseway Street' instead of 'Roseways Street' and 'Roseways' as shown. May 12, 1958 - Approval held over pending r echecking and correcting, Mayor Mottinger- I believe that Councilman Pittenger presented the invocation at this meeting and not Councilman Barnes as has been indicated. I also noticed a number of places in the latter part of the Agenda. where the action taken by Council was not actually shown. On Page 41, under the first item, a motion was made by Councilman Brown but there was no second or action indicated, although it actually occurred. C. C. 5-26-58 Page Two There are numerous other places in these Minutes which this occurs, such as two instances on Pages No. 43 and No. 44, etc. I would suggest that the City Clerk check these Minutes to see that not only the second is'shown but also that the motions were duly passed. Councilman Pittenger: Were such matters indicated in the rough draft of the!Minutes?. Deputy City Clerk: No, I do not believe so. We had some diffi- culty with the Minutes and received them back very late and it was difficult to make a thorough check in order to get them before Council at this meet- ing. Mayor Mottinger: I believeithese Minutes should be checked and that they be held for approval until rewritten and corrected accordingly. May 13, 1958 - The Minutes were approved as corrected. April 28, 1958 Approved as amended in relation to the following: Deputly,,,City Clerk: There is 'a. minor change -in that there were two (2) Resolutions that received the same number. The ­first Resolution numbered 1345 should be changed to Resolution No-.�1344-A and the'�;ecohd.Resolu­� tion numbered 1345 will retain that number. PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT SANITARY SEWER Mr. Pontow, City Engineer, presented and INSPECTION AND read a report in answer to a protest petition CONNECTION RATE submitted at last meeting of Council in re- lation to the $5.00 connection rate and $15.00 Inspection Fee on backfill of Cesspools. The Deputy City Clerk reread the petition of protest -'submitted at last meeting of -Council. Councilman Pittenger: In the comparison of fees,as noted in the report, many cities do not require backfill of cesspools and I think that it is import- ant to have this done and to.have them inspected to see that it has been properly done. I do not think the sewer connection fee is out of line., Five Dollars is reasonably close to the average cost in nearby cities. 4f C. C. 5-26-58 Page -Three The only question in my mind is whether or not we are out of line in the charge we are making for inspecting the backfill. I spoke to one of the men in the lobby tonight and he tells me that in many cases he must go back two or three times to see that the backfill is properly done and which may be true in some cases, but in this case of Rosewa-y they are anxious to hook up so that these matters can probably be inspected real fast and inspection may be made instantaneously. However, this may not be true in all areas. It possibly would cost us $15.00 in some cases.to make proper in- spe-clion but lots of times we may be also able to get many housps in one area on one trip. I would suggest that if possible we give this further study with the view to reducing this (backfill) fee. Frankly I think a more practical fee -would be a -bout $5.00, in addition to the hook-up fee, because I certainly feel that we want to inspect backfill. Councilman Heath: I would go along with the Councilman's thinking. Maybe it might be possible to work out a solution where if the Inspector is called back a second or a third time there be some kind of extra fee charged, but forget it for the first (inspection) time. One thing worries me, however, is that the petition requests this be retroactive. If that is done it will 'kick our financial situa,- tion for a loop'. Mayor Mottinger: I think that this situation has arisen due to the fact we now have mahy 1911 Act sewer installations being made. It is probably entirely possible that the $15.00 fee is an adequate fee where the inspector has to go out and check one cesspool, but if he has a whole district I wonder if it would be practical, and I direct this -question to Mr. Johnson, to char 'ge it against the 1911 Act pro- ceedings on any one district as to the actual inspection costs? That way it would be distributed among the home owners who are actually concerned. Mr. Johnson: I would rather have the City Attorney answer that as it is a legal question. City Engineer: The inspection of backfills of cesspools has nothing to do with the 1911 Act.pro- cedure except to crelate'"the.need'that cess- pools must be backfilled. The cesspools are on private property and all of the projects and negoti ' ations for 1911-Act projects are conducted in public right-of-way so you can't charge any inspec- 40 tion fund for work done on private property to the 1911*Act on public streets. City Attorney: That explanation is pretty adequate, C. C. 5--26-58 Page.Four Councilman Barnes: I feel that Councilman Pittenger has put the situation pretty well and I feel that the $5.00 connection fee is adequate and think perhaps if we had a fee of possibly adding so much for every trip for inspection it would probably expedite these backfillings so as to get a good first inspection and thus only.dne trip would have to be made. I would say $5.00 for connection and $5.00 per inspection. If these were backfilled properly I think perhaps a good job would be done the first time and it would not need a second or thikd.inspec- tion. From the Floor: The Inspector is on salary but we still have to pay such an additional fee. A man is on salary and we are paying taxes for wages, transportation, etc. yet we still have to pay inspection fee and that sounds ridiculous to us. Mayor Mottinger: We need more help to do these inspection functions. This is additional work per- formed by the City Hall. From the Floor: How come then that it is not included in 0 the budget which we get taxed for? Councilman Pittenger: This is an improvement to your property, so why should someone, say in this section of town who doesn't have this particular prob- lem,,pay to improve your property on the other side of town. This is individual properties. From the Floor: We have to have (cesspool) filled anyway but you soak us $15.00 to have them filled. I can't see where it is in line with the man on salary and it is his job to be an inspector. Councilman Pittenger: If you do not have the 1911 Act going we would not have such a man and he would not be on salary. He is working on the 1911 Act which is to improve property and sewer connecting is an improve- ment. If we did not have sewers you would not need cesspool filled. From the Floor: It is a. stipulation that these (cesspools) be filled and we are charged for that fill then the inspector comes around and 'nicks' us some more. Mayor Mottinger: Sewers are connected and operating before backfilling and that takes additional in- spection and this man is not on payroll he is being charged to the 1911 Act or this particular job of inspect- ing for you. This is a different situation than if it was something covered for th e whole city.