Loading...
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 -