03-05-1973 - Special Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 5, 1973.
• The adjourned special meeting of the Council was called to order
at 7:33 P.M., in the West Covina Council Chambers by
Mayor Robert Young. The Pledge of Allegiance was given.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Young; Councilmen: Shearer, Nichols,
Lloyd, Chappell
Others Present: George Aiassa, City Manager
George Zimmerman, Public Service Director
Richard Munsell, Planning Director
Bert Yamasaki, Community Redev. Coordinator
Leonard Eliot, Controller
George Wakefield, City Attorney
Lela Preston, City Clerk
Ross Bonam , Administrative Assistant
Craig Meacham, Deputy Chief of Police
Mike McDonnell, Staff Reporter - SGVD Tribune
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 14, 1972 Motion by Councilman Shearer, seconded by
February 13, 1973 Councilman Lloyd and carried, to approve
minutes as submitted.
REVIEW OF CITIZENS' Mayor Young: The major purpose of
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA- p
this meeting is to re-
TIONS view the Citizens'
Committee recommendations that have been made
and regarding Revenue Sharing priorities. I should
reiterate once again something that has been
REQUEST FOR APPRO- said by all of us on this Council, and.,as I re-
PRIATION OF REVENUE call probably most eloquently stated by
SHARING FUNDS Councilman Nichols. If I do someone else an
injustice,I apologize. Initially in bringing
this Committee together on Community Priorities
we sought really to play'down-the idea of Revenue Sharing none the
less it had to creep in and perhaps the Revenue Sharing aspect of our
.present posture of City Government had a great deal to do with getting
the Committee underway and a great deal to do with the enthusiasm and
thoroughness in which the Committee worked. In any event this Committee
has worked very diligently and we have before us their report and it
would appear that we have many of the Committeemembers before us in the
audience this evening. (Asked that the Committee members stand up.)
Thank you! This in and of itself is indicative of the interest and
energy you have put into this program.
We have before us your recommendations and we have
before us a substantial amount of material prepared and presented by
• the Staff. Looking at the two together, one with the other, I think
gives some substance to what has been a regret in my own mind from
the beginning that all..this federal money comes flowing in and somehow
or other I prefer for us to muddle along with our problems at the local
level. In any event we are here to go over the report of the
Committee and the recommendations of the Staff and with that I 'would
declare the floor open unless Staff had some preliminary presentation
.they would desire to make - Mr. Aiassa?
Mr. Aiassa:
No, we did not.
- 1 -
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL MEETING
COMMITTEE PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Page.Two
3/5/73
Mayor Young: I would declare the floor open. You have
before you the report of the Committee and I
believe everyone has received a copy of the
minority report at this point, which had not been distributed on an
• earlier occasion and we have.the Staff statements.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I would like to start off and read
something from an editorial that appeared in
the October 1972 "Nations' Cities". It is
rare that I read through it, it just so happened this issue I read
it. While we are not guided by the editorial comments of any .
publication I think it is worth noting this author makes a statement
which I think to me expresses my feeling regarding Revenue Sharing.
"Revenue Sharing should not be treated as a windfall." I think there
is a lot to that statement. If we look at this 1�65 million which is
our Staff's estimate of our income from Revenue Sharing over the next
five years as a windfall, in the sense that some unknown rich aunt
might .die..and leave: us a .fortune and we approach it from that stand-
point, I think we are falling into a trap and I would like to quote
further from this article. "The approval of this Revenue Sharing
said the powerful Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, who
fought the automatic portion of the provision of the bill, has left
no doubt about his intention to prove to Congress by a compilation of
"horror stories" that States and local Governments are incompetent
to manage federal funds without federal strings and other federal
supervision. The future of Revenue Sharing may therefore depend more
upon local stewardship than upon the Congress." Then he goes on to
talk about it should not be treated as a windfall. I think we are
all aware of that but I felt it was appropriate to read.
• Mayor Young: I think we are all in agreement with it. The
thing I kind of resent is the segregation of
funds in terms of terminology - "Federal Funds",
this is something special. Well I happen to know where they got
them and you do too and we all do. They got them from us and I
somehow think some revision of our concept of local State, Federal
taxing procedures is needed - I feel that we could muddle along without
federal funds if the funds weren't taken out of our pockets as
deeply as they are in taxes and then given back to us. It presents
an enormous philosophical problem but we have it and the funds are
here and I doubt that anything we can say or do will change it, so we
grab what we can and we act grateful. It comes from us and it is back
again.
The thing that impresses me so much about the
Committee report that we have is the absolute restraint that appears
to be exercised in that report. And consistent with what you read
from the editorial. The largest amount mentioned is the Multi -purpose
auditorium and the Committee conceives of an idea of a half million
expenditure to bring about a multi -purpose auditorium.
Councilman Chappell handed me an envelope this
evening which was delivered to him.today and he felt it should have
been delivered to the Mayor. What it is is a large number of
letters addressed to us regarding the multi -purpose auditorium, the
• letters appear to be from students musically inclined or otherwise,
who would like to see us have a multi -purpose auditorium. I think
no one here can dispute the need for a multi -purpose facility.
The recent Golden Jubilee celebration points it up once again. Thank
goodness for Temple Beth Ami that opened its doors for several events.
The Temple is not built for entertaining purposes per se and leaves
something to be desired but without it we would have nothing so
thanks again for its generousity. Certainly something like this is
needed and it may or may not be feasible.
This may require further study, but I think
we could certainly open discussions with the school authorities in
line with these recommendations. We know from last year's events
2 -
i
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL MEETING Page Three
COMMITTEE PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS 3/5/73
at the School Board level, projecting ahead there..may.become available
facilities that could be converted to this purpose and could work
jointly to the advantage of the School System per se and the City
per se and really it is working towards one thing, for the benefit of
our community which the schools are as much a part of as we are.
• When you take that $500,000 figure out of it
what you have left are a set of very conservative, very fundamental
proposals, gentlemen.
Councilman Nichols: We talk about 1.65 million dollars in Revenue
Sharing and that sounds like a great deal of
money but if we project the municipal budget
out over the same period of time it exceeds fifty million dollars and
the 1.65 million dollars over a five year period then becomes about
3/ of the total budget. So I think we have to exercise some degree of
restraint.
Many of us have seen some of the major needs
that are being expressed both in this report and throughout the
community. The auditorium is one of those. The minority committee
report indicating public works deficiencies in the five year plan is
another one that involves a very great deal of money.
It seems to me that our role here is to look at
the monies that might be available through Revenue Sharing and make
some kind of a reasonable compromise between those things that we
most definitely need and might relate to the concept of capital outlay
and those that might be set upon us in terms of just keeping afloat
as our operational budget.
I have advocated quietly a couple of times the
thought that we should really go back to our voters in our community
and seek support for some of the things that we are told again and
again are needed. I recognize that one of the very fundamental needs
in our community is some sort of a municipal auditorium, some kind
of facility that would meet all the needs of our people - young and
old. Call it a civic center area or a combination facility but
some sort of multi use facility that would meet the needs we are
discussing. Yet I see so many other overwhelming needs that are
actually in deficiency at the present time that I would be very
reticent to see our revenue funds committed in totality to this kind
of expenditure.
First of all I would take the input of the
Committee as verifying the needs in some of these areas. One, the
five year plan of Public Works, another the need for a central
community facility and I would suggest again that probably we should
involve the total community in any commitments in these major
areas and I would hope that the Council might direct Staff to come
in with research data and proposals that would enable the Council
to go to the citizens in the community at the next general election
and ask for: 1 - a bond issue that would enable this community to
maintain its street facilities, which are now beginning to deteriorate
and which we do not have any at hand money to properly care for, and
2 - a second bond issue that would ask our citizens to agree with the
• committee and with the Council that we need some sort of a municipal
facility along the limes of a central auditorium complex, but I
would only caution that we should be very realistic in this. We
should not go to our people and ask for "pie in the skies" - we made
that error before when we went out and asked for four olympic size
swimming pools all -in one shot.
I think when you are talking about millions
and millions of dollars along these lines that we should really
involve all citizens in our community.
MM
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL MEETING
COMMITTEE PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Page Four
3/5/73
What I really would like to see is the
' Council utilize a portion of these funds for some of the critical
items mentioned by this Committee and the balance of the funds be
held in reserve in anticipation of some drier fiscal days yet to
come and indeed they are coming. In other words I think it would
be imprudent of us not to make commitments to any worthwhile capital
. investments with these funds, but I think it would be equally
imprudent to take all of these funds and spend them for a full
range of basic needs. Therefore I would advocate.personally
a compromise position that would use some funds for those priority
items and the balance of the funds held in reserve until we
antitipate better our future revenue flow and that the remainder
of the recommendations of the general committee plus the minority
report be taken by the Council as a mandate to seek advice and
support through the entire elective, whenever it might be
implemented at an appropriate time.
Councilman Shearer: Basically I agree with everything
Councilman Nichols has said. I will be a
little more specific. The idea that I had in
mind and I discussed with a couple of members of the Committee with
regard to the auditorium. I think it is sort of a nice thing to
have and.I am not sure I will go along with the statement it is
something we need. Here we are getting into semantics - whether we
need it or it would be something nice to have. There is a fine line
between the two. I would like to see perhaps a proposal made to the
voters somewhat similar to our friends to the north and east of us
with regard to their Civic Center, where we will say to the voters
of this community,.(and I don't know about the cost, I think $500,000
in cost is very conservative, I don't think $500,000 will build an
auditorium or a multi -purpose building that would be satisfactory
• to any one of us that may be sitting here at the time it comes
to that decision) an offer to the voters to put up some revenue
sharing funds, say one-third of whatever we might come up with in
cost. Say we spend one and a half million dollars on a multi-
purpose building, Council will commit one-third out of the revenue
sharing and the voters will agree to tax themselves, and that is
what we are talking about is taxes. We can't create money, the
voters vote to tax themselves a million dollars which I calculated
at one time. based on our current evaluation would be about 10(�
tax to pay off the bonds. If the voters then vote "yes" we have an
auditorium and if they vote "no".... Well I think this is
something that should go to the voters and not the five of us
decide on such a gigantic nicety, not a need. I would like to see
that discussed further.
Also I would like to see tonight a commitment
for $4'3,000 as recommended by Staff to balance the current budget.
This is something we indicated to Staff back in April that we would
come up with in the way of an increased business license which we
did not do. We also committed ourselves last week to $600. And then
take the first two items - the Communications Booster Station and the
Diesel Pumper, both of which have been identified and discussed in the
past, and make commitments on those two items of $143,600 and retaining
the rest as Councilman Nichols indicated, in abeyance untilwe see how
things go in the next year or so with the taxing revenues because of th
• Redevelopment of the Central Business District, plus we are in a very
dry period which was pointed out to us very vividly by the Treasurer
as far as cash flow was concerned and this money could be used during
that period of time as a back-up, and the money would still be there
at some future date to spend on an auditorium if this is what the
voters want.
I would be prepared to make a motion on what I
just said - so this gives you an idea of where I stand.
BEIM
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL MEETING
COMMUNITY PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Page Five
3/5/73
Councilman Chappell: Mr. Mayor, I think when the Oitizens'
Committee was a suggestion and then a final
decision to form this group and come up with
recommendations it was discussed by ourselves at that time that
perhaps the things on their list would not be feasible out of
• revenue sharing money and they were not to use that as a criteria
for the spending of money. We put no lid on them but asked them
to come up with what was the most important things needed in our
community in a list of priorities - which they have done.
I agree with Councilman Nichols and
Councilman Shearer, the only way possible to put.up a multi -purpose
building of any kind would be through a bond issue. In the process
of building a small building now, which is already coming to
$300,000, not myself but a group of people, and we are not getting
anything at all to what we need in a multi -purpose building, the
$500,000 is nowhere near what we would need. So to get a building
that we need - and Councilman Shearer may or may not agree with the
need - but I feel in the community we had a need for a pool and we
finally accomplished it through the cooperation of the School District
and the City Council at that time. I think there is a need for a
multi -purpose building where many things can go on throughout the
year, not only an auditorium type project,but it would have to be
put to a vote of the citizens on a bond issue. We can't use revenue
sharing money, it is not going to last long enough to put up this kind
of a building, or long enough to pay it off.
For those citizens in the audience who have
spent a tremendous amount of time working on these priorities what
I am saying doesn't have one thing to do with the priorities or the
• ideas they came up with, but we are on a steadily declining sales tax
situation. We are already told as of this year we are $43,600 deficit
in our budget and we know that the Plaza will be torn down starting in
April and this figure will continue to rise for a few years. We can't
raise the taxes any more,by SB90 we have been told the only raise
we can possibly give is a cost of living raise plus I am not in the
position where I want to increase taxes any more not after we have done
so for a couple of years.
Mayor Young: Neither is Councilman Shearer nor I.
Councilman Chappell: So I would say I have no qualms about the bond
issue idea and also taking the first two
recommendations on this list and starting there
and then later we can always add to it but after it is spent it is
darn hard to come up with and there is no other place to get it from
except property taxes and sales tax revenue and this particular fund
of revenue sharing. And as you know we thought we were going to get
a certain figure in dollars and cents and we have already seen that
shrinking and how much it will shrink over the next three or four
years I don't know. They started out in a direction I didn't
anticipate and the way the President is talking today it could fall
below even further, and for us to earmark these funds for things we
have on this list well we might find ourselves in a very precarious
position in the next two or three years. So my feelings go right
• along with Councilman Shearer and Councilman Nichols in their
thinking.
Councilman Lloyd: Well there always has to be a voice that doesn't
agree with every one else. I think it is an
excellent idea. I think you men are forgetting
just a trifle where this money really came from, you allude to it but
you are forgetting it. This money belongs to the people of this City
and when you say we are going to set it aside and hold it any one that
knows anything about government knows that money will not be there in
five years and anything that you say to the contrary I won't accept.
- 5 -
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL MEETING
COMMITTEE PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Page Six
3/5/73
I know as sure as we are sitting here tonight that if you hold that
money you will have squandered away the opportunity of the people
of this City to have some of these things.
Each of you gentlemen, including myself, were
involved in the appointing of people to work in the area of coming
• up and setting goals, priorities in regard to the revenue sharing
funds. You did that with an open mind, you asked these people to
come in and spend their time, now for goodness sakes let's listen
to them. That is what they are here for, that is what I am here for.
I think these people have put in a good deal of time and have come
up with some recommendations that are not unrealistic. I don't know
that all they have said is true and correct but they are as good as
anything I have in mind on the thing and as far as the $500,000 is
concerned, if I am not mistaken that was intended on a year by year
basis. No person out there - I am sure and correct me Mr. Brammer -
you are not under the impression you are going to get a building
like this for $500,000 - are you?.
Mr. Brammer: The bare building I think you could.
C�
•
Councilman Lloyd: Well then I am wrong, but I think you would
have to look at a good deal more than that,
you are probably looking at something
like one and a half million dollars to two and a half million to
get a project like this underway. But be that as it may. I think
Mr. Payne brought up a very excellent idea. There are buildings
which belong to the schools and which might be used. The taxpayers
are .the very same people who created this money, whether the Federal
Government has properly allocated it back to the people I don't know
but I have to agree with Councilman Young in this case, it makes
me feel a little bit irritated and a little bit frustrated to
think that the Federal Government sets up there in their infinite
wisdom where they work on a deficit budget and expect cities whose
laws provide for a balanced budget, and isn't it regretable that
doesn't apply to the Federal Government. The answer is that they
pontificate on these things and finally we are going to get some
money.
I think that several years ago with regards
to the -swimming pool which I agree with Councilman Nichols, was
injudicious to ask for four swimming pools and everything else but
as it turned out at least 62% of the people - am I correct about
that, Mr. Aiassa?
Mr. Aiassa:
Yes.
Councilman Lloyd: Said they were in favor of that type of thing,
which represents a majority and if we talk
about a bond issue you have to recognize
one thing gentlemen, just as it happened before, it takes two votes
to overcome one vote to the negative. So you may well do without
this and apparently everything is centering on this auditorium or
pavillion or whatever you want to call it and I think you ought to
consider very carefully the ramifications of that. I can't change
the laws although I think they ought to change the laws. I think
it should take one vote instead of two votes against one vote.
I do know one thing, if we take this money as
is recommended by the controller, who told us if I am not mistaken that the 18c,4raise would take care of all our needs this year -
Mr.'Eliot?
Mr. Eliot: That is correct.
Councilman Lloyd: And then apparently some variable have changed
it. So what we are now talking about are some
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL MEETING Page Seven
COMMITTEE PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS 3/5/73
monies that we were not expecting and I think what needs to be done
if you wish to go to the people beyond this group here, which was
one of the reasons for this formation of this Committee, then be my
guest but I think before we go any further into this and before we
make any decisions that are arbitrating and binding along this
• route we have an obligation to go to the people and find out what
they want. I think these letters from the young people are in part
indicative. I think the people in this community want something
like this at least in my talks and communications with the people I
find that to be true. I am favorably disposed to the report sub-
mitted by the Revenue Sharing Committee.
Mayor Young: Two things. I think Mr. Eliot it was l81�_ plus
the Business License realization that would
balance the budget. There were three figures
submitted and we came along in between and with the 2(� addition for
Gingrich Park - which incidentally gentlemen I am ready to eat a
little crow now that I know we have matching federal funds, I voted
against Gingrich Park but now I am delighted.
And at this time I would like to recognize
the presence.of a member of the School Board, Mary Lewis - it is nice
to have you here.
My thought is we express ourselves in various
ways on this Council and I don't think we are expressing a real
divergency in point of view. In all of the statements made I am
trying to detect it. Even Councilman Lloyd's forward thrust is not
that divergent from that of the rest of us in my opinion. I am
anxious and I think we are all anxious to do something special
• and significant. I had no idea what this Committee would come up
with, none of us did on the Council. The Committee and all of us
agreed, would work independently of the Council and it certainly
did and to a great extent independently of Staff. If we take all
the comments made it would look like priority items 1 and 2 would
be coming up in the very near future, realized in short order.
In talking to Mr. Aiassa today he advised if
we go on #2 it takes a substantial period of time to achieve it..
after the order is.placed. These are specially built and take a
long time. The sum total of these items you have is $180,000 plus
the public works thing brought up in a minority report. This is
the time to open discussion with the School District hopefully to
get the Schools and City working in the.same direction towards the
future in working on something together. If they are going to
have an excess facility that can be put to good solid public.use,fine.
I.f it requires a bond issue - fine. We would be in that much better
shape to go and get it. We would have two significant bodies, the
School Board and our own Council promoting it. We would have the
thrust of a lot of support -if our energies point in that direction.
And Councilman Lloyd I am really brain washing you, but if they do
point in that direction very likely we would put across a bond issue
to take an existing facility and do the necessary improvements to
that facility to bring it to a reality, this community center that
we all agree we need. I think Councilman Shearer is the least vocal,
he says it would be nice, the rest of us say we need it.
Councilman Shearer: All right I will say we need it.
Mayor Young: That makes us unanimous on that issue. To open
that aspect of the program doesn't require the
expenditure of.one cent now and maybe not next
year, but if we work on it and promote it and view it as a dream that
can come true I think we can make it come true. These other things
are within the realm of our immediate ability to put across. Certainly
one ar two of them. The Communications Booster we need it, it is
- 7 -
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL MEETING Page Eight
COMMITTEE PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS 3/5/73
feasible. The Diesel Pumper is needed and feasible and it is not
immediately upon us as far as an immediate capital outlay is
concerned. Some of these other items such as the Fire Training
Facility we may need further Staff input on and we have another
problem with that in terms of the location. I think essentially
• we are all talking the same language.
Councilman Nichols: I wanted to let the record reflect that the
bond issue on the pools did not pass by
62%, that was a separate bond issue and it
carried by somewhat in the neighborhood of 48%, not a majority.
This City Hall complex passed by 61% which came very close to the
two-thirds.
The letters I think that we have received
well we have to recognize the total package of letters have come
out of one class of one school, where a teacher evidently inspired
the people at that high school to write letters. Hopefully they
do reflect the thinking of more people.
I think that we are all really very close
together in terms of our thinking. What I would like to see us
do is move ahead as has been suggested and direct Staff to place
an order for the Diesel Pumper. It may not be delivered in this
fiscal year, it may be into the next. I think the Communications
Booster Station is of the highest priority and we have to get
going on that. I would really like to see us add this Police
Transportation Van, I understand there is a very critical need
for this piece of equipment .in our Police Department. It is only
$5,000 and I think the Council would be wise to fulfill that need.
• So we are really talking about an immediate
outlay in this current fiscal year of somewhere in the area of
$50,000. I would hope we would go ahead this evening and direct
Staff to begin preparing the preliminary data that would enable
the Council to make an intelligent decision in terms of placing
on the ballot a bond issue in the area of Public Works. We are
getting some critical deficiencies in this area and it is draining
our revenues and I think the community should share with us in the
long term cost of these expenses. As you know most of the major
improvements in streets and public facilities of this nature,
that is the public works facilities, came about through dedication
and early development in the City. They have had a life of
fifteen to twenty years and I don't think it is realistic because
of the unique nature of this community, one that just exploded
from nothing, to try and keep up with the replacement and repara-
tion of these facilities on the basis of current revenue. I think
it should be spread over the next generation, they too should
share in the cost of keeping up with these major facilities in the
community.
One other thing, when we started talking
on this matter of Revenue Sharing we talked about getting the
money from the Federal Government as'being new money, different
money, additional money and we were all over joyed when word
• came through that we were going to get these dollars and then
over a five year period it would come to some one and.a half
million dollars and what we are seeing now is what. -was given
with one hand is in the process of being taken away with the other
hand. What even three months ago we thought of as a further
thrust in terms of revenue to our community is now being diminished
very rapidly in that concept. As an example, a year or so ago
through the PEP program our City was able to hire some thirty more
or less employees to replace employees that actually had been laid
off because of budget stringency a year or two years ago. Now the
most recent word is the Government is going to phase that program
- 8 -
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL MEETING
COMMITTEE PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS Page Nine
3/5/73
out after July 1 and we are now faced with the prospect of terminating
some thirty plus employees of the City. These were employees hired
to replace men we had to lay off because we just didn't have the money.
So part of this revenue money we are talking about is not a plus, only
a new way of getting what we have been getting over two or three years
and there are other grants and programs that will be involved whereby
we are going to have less revenue in all probability beginning the
next fiscal year strictly for the fact of this more recent Revenue
Sharing program.
So I don't think it is
that we should not commit. all these funds in expendituresinjudicious now oonathe
basis that they totally represent new monies or monies that we would
not have had otherwise. I think it is judicious in the extreme to be
a little prudent and talk about moving a step at a time. All we are
saying is that during this current fiscal year we don't feel it is wise
to commit all these funds over a five year projection to new programs.
Certainly if we moved into a multi -purpose auditorium and predicated
the payments over a twenty year span assuming we will regularly get
additional funding from some other source to make those payments would
not be as judicious as to say let's sit tight and feel our way
through a step at a time. And I think all of us are thinking along
this line.
I know Councilman Lloyd is frustrated
because he has a suspicion which is well founded that these monies
have a way of evaporating into other programs, so it would be my
personal feeling that every dollar of these funds should be earmarked
in a Council mandated reserve fund other than the monies we
specifically transfer to the operating budget. They should be held
in a special account where this Council can see the money and
. only movement of those funds out of that account through the direct
authorization of the Council. Then if they do accrue and we see an
opportunity to embark upon further use of these funds in the area of
needs we can do so. If that is the thinking that others of you seem
to share I would like to get the thing going by offering a motion
or two, unless someone else would like to step in and offer some
motions.
Mayor Young: I.would like to ask you a
y question,
Councilman Nichols, which this straight
table'doesn't lend.itself to. I feel
Councilman Lloyd's frustration of sitting here not as a deliberative
body but on the firing line at the moment, but by way of a round
table discussion I would like to know your thinking on instructing
the Staff to proceed with Priority Items Number 1 and 2. In other
words to proceed on those items as items to be accomplished. On
Item 3, the Fire Training Facility, I think that would require more
in the way of some feasibility investigation by Staff as to location,
but I would like to see that get underway, a feasibility study from
two standpoints, location and cost and also what it might do for
us in the underwriting sense, reducing the cost of insurance for our
citizens. Number 4, the Prisoner Transportation Van, that could go
forward now. I haven't been aware of that particular need, this
Committee's report has brought it to my attention and I am highly
persuaded by the report. Item 5, again I think feasibility from
Staff's standpoint is needed. On Item 6, I would like to see and I
don't know just what the protocol is, whether this is a Council to
Board communication, or the City Manager's to Superintendent
communitcation to get it underway, but I think it would require
a great deal of communication between the School District and the
City at some level and I would think at Staff level both ways
before it would come to either governing body.
Councilman Nichols: I share that thinking. On the matter of
pursuing a concept of the potential
- 9 -
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL MEETING
COMMITTEE PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Page Ten
3/5/73
0
0
•
leasing or joint development of a School District facility, I would
certainly think preliminary discussion would be in order. I would
agree with that. I am aware that the probability is that it would
be some months yet, probably October of this year, before the School
District would be in a position to project the likelihood or
probability of a further school closing but in terms of a commitment
or realization, I don't think that it is too early to work in.that
respect. Let me offer a relatively simple motion.
I would move that the Staff be directed to
proceed immediately toward implementing the development of the
Communications Booster Station and the purchase of the Diesel Pumper
for the Fire Department.
Seconded
on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Shearer, Nichols, Lloyd,
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
by Councilman Lloyd and carried
Chappell, Young
Motion by Councilman Nichols that Items 3 and 5 be referred to Staff
for a feasibility study and a specific recommendation in terms of
precise cost, timing and location, and be returned to the Council.
Seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried.
Motion by Councilman Nichols that the matter of Item 4 be a matter
of Council direction to Staff that specifications be prepared and
bids ordered for a Prisoner Transportation Van. Seconded by
Councilman Shearer. -
Councilman Lloyd: A question. What is the necessity of this?
I read what we have here, could I hear why
we need $5,000 to transport prisoners? I
remember the glowing comments about the facilities we have as far as
the jail is concerned and now we have another problem - who are we
transporting them for?
Mr. Aiassa: As you know we have only retaining cells and
can only be used for twenty-four hours and
will only accommodate a small number. The
van will allow us to take large numbers of prisoners after processed
through our jail to the County facility in Industry. Mr. Meacham is
here and can speak to this.
Councilman Lloyd: . Are we doing this work for the County?
Mr. Aiassa: No, only for our prisoners but we now use
Police vehicles to transport prisoners
from here to the City of Industry and an
officer must go along and we usually can take only two or three at
a time.
Councilman Chappell: And they pull the police vehicles off the
beat and bring them in to take prisoners
to the Sheriff's stall.
Councilman Lloyd: You said "numbers of prisoners'! - how many
do we have?
Mr. Aiassa: One night we had 150. Deputy Chief Meacham
just said we average about 15 people a day.
Deputy Chief Meacham Mr. Mayor and members of Council, we are
Police Department averaging approximately 15 prisoners per
24 hours over a 30 day period. The purpose
of the van is to transport prisoners to the City of Industry
Sheriff's substation, to the County Female Detention facility in
- 10 -
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL MEETING Page Eleven
COMMITTEE PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS 3/5/73
L�
40
Los Angeles, to the Los Angeles County Juvenile Hall in Los Angeles
and to the Metropolitan State Hospital in Norwalk. Currently we
find ourselves in the position several times a week, mostly on
weekends, when our jail is overflowing and we have to move
prisoners out and the most we can accommodate at any one time is
two prisoners to go out and then we have to pull a vehicle off
the beat and put two prisoners in the car and we end up sometimes
making four or five trips.
Councilman Lloyd: How many people will the van haul and how
many trips are you telling us it goes per
day and are there any other uses it will
be used for?
Deputy Chief Meacham: It can be used as a command post in time
of disaster if properly equipped.
Councilman Lloyd: You are not going to have electronis in
the same thing you are transporting
prisoners?
Deputy Chief Meacham: No, we will use radio capabilities in it
but no sophisticated equipment.
Councilman Lloyd: You said you transport 15 a day. How many
will this van transport and how many runs
are you anticipating you will make?
You named the Women's Detention Facility and the Juvenile Hall both
in Los Angeles, and the Sheriff's Station in Industry and then'
the Norwalk Hospital facility - you mean to say you go there every
day to these four places?
Deputy Chief Meacham: Yes, we go to Industry several times a
day. We go downtown to Los Angeles
every time we have a female prisoner,
probably twice a day on the average. Juvenile Hall averages -
well we can take them over to Baldwin Park now up until 11 at
night but after that and on weekends we have to take them to
Los Angeles. We don't keep juveniles here at all nor females.
Councilman Lloyd: So they have to be moved the moment you
bring them in.
DDeputy Chief Meacham: Yes, taken to some other facility.
Councilman Lloyd: How many people will this van hold?
Deputy Chief Meacham: We have not explored it fully.
Councilman Lloyd: Then how did you get the figure of $5,000?
Deputy Chief Meacham: 'They must have talked to Chief Sill, I
don't have that information.
Councilman Shearer: We are talking about $5,000 plus or minus,
do you have any idea how long compared to
the life of a police vehicle this van would
last?
Deputy Chief Meacham: Probably five years.
Councilman Shearer: What do we pay a year for a police car?
Deputy Chief Meacham: $327. per month times 12 per car, plus
tires, gas and insurance.
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL MEETING Page Twelve
COMMITTEE PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS 3/5/73
Councilman Shearer: So we may spend upwards of four to five
thousand per year for a patrol car. So if
we can get a van for five thousand dollars
,that would last five years, it would.seem to me it is a wise
investment of money. If we can use a cheaper van to transport people
• rather than a high powered, high priced, high speed police vehicle
it seems that would be a wise expenditure.
Mayor Young: Is there further discussion? If not,
the question is called for and this motion
is for Staff to obtain specifications and
go to bid.
(Council discussed the fact the motion directed Staff to "go to bid".)
Councilman Nichols: I think we have to obtain specifications
and if the figure exceeds $5,000 we will
have to reconsider it. The motion was
to obtain specifications and go to bid, but that final procedure
routinely has to come before the Council.
Motion carried, all voting in favor.
Motion by Councilman Nichols that Council direct Staff to make pre-
liminary contacts with the West Covina Unified School District at
Staff levels to explore the feasibility and the possibility of the
development of a multi -purpose facility on existing school district
property. Seconded by Councilman Shearer and carried, all voting
in favor.
• Motion by Councilman Nichols that Council authorize the transfer of
$43,600 from Federal Revenue Sharing funds to the General Funds, of
the City. Seconded by Councilman Lloyd and carried on roll call vote
as follows:
AYES: Shearer, Nichols, Lloyd, Chappell, Young
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Councilman Chappell: What is the present amount of the Revenue
Sharing fund?
Mayor Young: Well the tab for expenditure is $143,600
at the moment - I don't know what is left
out of that?
Mr. Eliot: There is a total of $330,000 in the bank
and you directed the spending of $143, 600
and there will be another appropriation
by July 1. So cash at present in the bank after the expenditure
would be $186,400. Appropriations are received quarterly and the
next appropriation would be in April and it amounts to approxi-
mately $82,000.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Wakefield - there was some question
whether or not we would be authorized to
• expend the money -.have we in anyway
tonight in our discussions even alluded to anything which would
run contrary to the Revenue Sharing situation?
Mr. Wakefield: No sir.
Councilman Lloyd: We are not on unfirm ground whether talk-
ing recreational areas or anything else
that we discussed - is that correct?
Mr. Wakefield: That is correct.
- 12 -
CITY COUNCIL ADJ. SPECIAL MEETING Page Thirteen
COMMITTEE PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS 3/5/73
Mayor Young: I would like to say it is very fine to
see a substantial majority of the Committee
members here this evening. I think Council has given a lot of
thought to the actions taken this evening. We have all had a hand in
appointing this Committee and we all waited expectantly for what you
• did and what you did obviously is in the area of feasibility and I
think our action this evening demonstrates our feelings towards you
and towards your work. I would like to say "thank you" on behalf
of the Council and I think you can see the."thank you" in action.
Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to say - and this
doesn't have anything to do with the
Committee - if I am in order to bring it
up at this time? Just in case our Secretary of our Baseball League
forgets to get the letters out to you I want to encourage you to
mark on your calendar March 17th at 9:30 A.M. Walmerado Park and
March 24th at 11 at Maverick Field - opening dates for Baseball
Leagues. Your attendance would be desirable.
Councilman Chappell: Before adjournment Mr. Mayor, I have
something I would like to have you pro-
claim. Our West Covina Rotary Club is
celebrating their 20th Birthday and it would be nice to give them
some sort of a recognition. I don't happen to belong to that
organization but they are a bunch of fine men. I think it would
be the Mayor's prerogative to issue a proclamation.
Mayor Young: The West Covina Rotary Club has contri-
buted much to the City over the years,
specifically and generally, and hearing
• no objections I will proclaim the month of March as West Covina
Rotary Recognition Month in honor of its 20th Anniversay and if we
may have an appropriate Resolution I will be happy to sign it.
Lela Preston:
City.Clerk
if there was going to be
we start on the billing?
Mayor Young:
ADJOURNMENT
•
Mr. Mayor, a question. July 1 is coming
up fast and we have to bill on the
Business License Tax. I wanted to know
any changes at all in the Ordinance before
I don't think we would be prepared to
discuss that tonight.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by
Councilman Shearer and carried to
adjourn meeting at 8:45 P.M.
- 13 -