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.