02-05-1975 - Regular Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF WEST COVINA
AND THE
WEST COVINA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD
FEBRUARY 5, 1975
The special joint rx-,eeting of the City Council of West Covina and the West
Covina Unified School District Board was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by
Mayor Shearer in the Board Room of the West Covina Unified School District
Office. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Shearer.
ROLL CALL
Present: City Council of West Covina:
Mayor Shearer,
Councilmen: Browne, Chappell, Miller
Tice
West Covina Unified School. District
Board: Jennings, Lewis, Fleck, Bramer,
Sornborger
Others Present: L. Eliot, City, Controller
M. Miller, City, Planning Director
G. Lirnznerm�a�., City, Public Service
Director
J. Eastman, School District
Mayor Shearer thanked the School Board
for granting the City Council's request to have a joint meeting. The thing that
motivated the Council to request this meeting was to explore the ways which
Sunset School can be made available for recreation and leisure purposes for
the. citizens of West Covina - youths, students, adults, elderly, Sr. Citizens.
The City Council and School Board have
both contracted and have both received appraisals on the fair market value of
the property. The City Council has been unofficially advised that the appraisal
developed by the School Board appraiser is considerably in excess of the one
which the City received and made public. Hopefully, an agreement can be reached
whereby the property can. be made available to the City to develop for a recrea-
tional facility.
As everyone is aware, a.ny time there is
talk about raising money it presents problems - election. tax overrides. So,
the City Council would like to share some ideas and get the School Board's re-
action. The City Council would like to study it from flat out refusal of the matter
to whole -hearted acceptance of the matter. The City Attorney has advised tiat
there are other ways provided in the edu-Cation code that this facility could be
made avilable for development and usage through some cooperati�-e action by
the two bodies; in the past the School District and the City have workeu together
.in this regard. The facility across the street - swimming pool, lighted tennis
court - are a dernonstration of tlae fact that the: two organizations, the two separate
entities, can work togetber to provide rnutually to their mutual benefit.
CITY COUNCIL February 5, 1975
Joint Meeting with School Board Page Two
There will not be any decision this
evening on this particular item, but rather, discussion to see what appeals
• to both of the staffs. The City Attorney has indicated that possibilities are
open and can be utilized subject to unanimous consent if the School Board
elected to give the property to somebody for recreational purposes. That is
at one extreme and the other extreme is to seli.the property at the higher
appraised value. At present, the City Council and School Board must study
the matter to see ii there is another way in between. At this point, the Council
is not rejecting the one extreme any more than the other. extreme as the way to
go.
Some possibilities are: (1) Sale at
other than the appraised value. This requires unanimous vote on the part
of the School Board. (2) Some sort of a long term lease is possible at a
number minimal or fair market value. (3) Some sort of a cooperative effort
might be placed whereby the school provides the lard to the city, and the
facility is utilized by both bodies as needed. The fee title remains in the
name of the School District and at any time the recreational uses are dropped,
the title reverts back and ownership is restored withfhe School District.
Mayor Shearer stated that the City Council
would be interested in exploring these possibilities, but there was no sense in
continuing if the School Board felt only one avenue was open - outright purchase
at the agreed to price.
Mr. Sornborger stated he felt the School
District and the body was interested in reaching agreement with the City; every-
one being interested in a program which would benefit the citizens of the city.
Inasmuch as the School Board appraisal had not been discussed, he felt one of
the first things was to establish a fair makret value, and called upon Mr. Eastman.
Mr. Eastman indicated that on advise
from County ,Counsel the School Board was not in a position to disclose .their
appraisal.
Mr. Sornborger stated the advise of
County Counsel was to establish a fair market value; hence a third appraisal
will be necessary.
Mayor Shearer stated that the City Council
discussed that possibility at their last meeting and it was decided to hold off any
action until this meeting was held and the matter was discussed.
Councilman Tice asked for reactions
from School Board members.
Mr. Brarrier stated that the School
• Board has declared Sunset School as surplus property and according to Counsel,
it was manditory to offer same to the city, state or county, or all three, and
then sell the property at the fair market value.
- 2 -
CITY COUNCIL
Joint Meeting with School Board
February 5, 1975
Page Three
At this point the City has one appraisal
on it, and the School Board has one appraisal on it. Mr. Bramer felt "the only
• starting point was to establish the fair• market value of the property. The means
of finance, which is going to be a problem for the city, or the ways to accom-
plish this, cannot be discussed until the fair market value is established. The
only way he could see this accomplished, would be to have an appraiser come
in, sit with the oth:,r two appraisers, and find out who is in error. It is very
possible that the city appraiser or the school appraiser overlooked something
in the city ordinances.
Councilman Chappell felt that to spend
another sum of money for a third appraisal would not be in line, since the
City might not be able to pay $619, 000 (their appraised figure). This meeting'
was set up to see if there wasn't some other way to get together to avoid paying
even $619, 000. The Brown Act forbids certain elections. There might be another
way to go to provide the funds for this property, such as when the City built the
swimming pool at Edgewood.
Even if the appraisers get together and
agree on the City's figure, Councilman Chappell could not see the public, at
this time, supporting a bond issue of a sizable sum. It would mean a tax increase
again. The City increased taxes last year and the School Board increased taxes
last year. This would be taxation for a facility that is already owned by the
citizens (in the broad term the school district owns it, basically with the exception
of county). The same people paid for this property plus appreciation values which
have gone along with it throughout the years.
Councilman Chappell felt ten individuals
could get together, talk it over, and have a community effort by two elected
boards working toward the same goal. The City would contribute to remodel
the facility to make it a recreational center to serve all of the citizens - from
the youth through the Sr. Citizens. This would be just another opportunity to
have the City and School Board come together and do something for the people.
Mr. Bramer stated there is a lot of
difference between agreements reached on.the swimming pool, which was a
small portion of the school site, versus the entire school site. The members
of the School Board are extremely anxious to work with the city, but they also
have a commitment to the people within the school district. He took exception
to the comment that the citizens have already paid for this property, because,
in fact, the School District of the West Covina Unified Schools only takes in
approximately 50 to 60 percent of the City of West Covina. The additional area
is taken in by the La Puente School District.
Councilman Chappell agreed there are
five school districts, in the city, with the exception of county.
Mr. Bramer explained that the money
derived from the sale of a property is placed in a very limited fund. It does
not go into a general fund ,to pay salaries or pay for maintenance. The monies
.may only utilized for major improvements for buildings, vvithin the district.
�w
CITY COUNCIL
Joint Meeting with School Board
February 5, 1975
Page Four
Mr. Eastman clarified the monies may
be used for building equipment,not replacement and not maintenance.
SMr. Bramer stated there are a lot.of
things in this district that are going to have to be done in the near future. This
money has got to come from somewhere and it is going to come from the people
one way or the other.. The School Board can give the City the property and tax
the people for the improvements needed or the -School Board can arrive at a
realistic figure if sale is the way to go. He did not feel he had a closed mind
to this approach.
Mayor Shearer pointed out that some
government documents spell out the disposal of surplus school property in the
manner that Mr. Bramer indicated - based on a fair market value as provided
by appraisal. However, other sections of the codes, namely the educational
code 1665-64, provide other methods for property, which is owned by a school
district, to be made available to another agency (in this case the City) to be
used for recreational purposes. There are some 35 'sections of codes which
allow different rules, different sets of regulations to be followed. The base
on fair market value is only one of several possible ways in which this can
be done.
Mr. Eastman agreed with Mayor Shearer.
There are other ways of disposing of property. There are provisions in the
educational code, which the School Board discussed the other evening, relative
to disposing of the property. But, here again, a value has to be established.
Normally, the value is established by a professional appraiser. The other way
which Mr. Eastman was aware of was a method whereby the School Board goes
into the recreational business with the City to provide facilities, partial, in
total, or whatever.
Ms. Lewis stated she wanted to have
it clear, because there would be no point in disucssing alternatives if there
are no alternatives. The City feels they have the funds to do remodeling that
would be required with the building, and perhaps pay the lease figure for the
property as an alternative, too. She understood that even'the appraisal figure
the City received was more than the City was able to spend.
Councilman Chappell stated it was more
than he anticipated. The two bodies could go to the county to work out some
sort of a lease arrangement. The City would, probably not be able to remodel
the facility to the depth desired in one year, but spread over three years, it
would probably be possible. The City is not trying to be stingy or to save a
buck and keep i—in their back pocket; the funds are not available. He noted
he would vote to talk the matter over to reach a realistic compromise and
objected to spending another Burn of money ($2400) to get a third appraisal.
• Mr. Fleck did not feel the School Board
should give the property away if a fair market value could not be established.
Councilman Chappell explained that the
City Council could float a bond issue to pay for the facility 65 percent of the
people in West Covina could vote in. favor of a bond issue for the million dollars
to buy the site and remodel; 35 percent could vote no; and, the issue would not
pass because it requires a two-thirds vote.
- 4 -
CITY COUNCIL February 5, 1975
Joint Meeting with School Board Page Five
It was Councilman Chappell's feeling
that a third appraisal would result in a figure somewhere in the middle of
• the two appraisals already secured. For the City to fund, that would in all
probability require going to the electorate for -either the bond issue or tax
override. Right now the City of West Covina is taxing at maximum rate
possible, SP90. The City cannot go out and raise the taxes another "ten cents,
which might raise another $150, 000 a year less payments or whatever. The
City cannot raise it one cent more than the present tax .rate without going to
the vote of the people, so it would probably take an election.
. As determined through a Citizens'
Committee and the Recreation and Park Commission, this is the most desirable
piece of property for a park site that we have in lNest Covina. It is centrally
located, access roads are all good, and it is large enough to accommodate the
community.
Councilman Tice asked if the School Board
would proceed without athird appraisal.
Mr. Bramer stated that the School Board
had been working under the opinion that the City was desirous of purchasing the
property from the School District. He now understood the City is not in a position
to purchase the school property. He felt sale and purchase would probably be
the cleanest and most efficient way to handle the matter.
Councilni.an Tice agreed.
Mr. Bramer did not think the School
Board was in a hurry to sell the property. The county program can be continued
for at least another year. The School Board does not want to put undue hard-
ships on the City.
. Councilman Chappell stated that the City
appraisal figure came as a surprise to him. He had in mind a figure more like
$250, 00 to $300,000, although, if the School Board agreed to sell at that figure,
he was not ready to write a check. So, in those terms, Councilman Chappell
stated that the City is interested in buying.
The City still wants, not necessarily to
own the property, (he does not care whether the city owns it, or the school
district owns it, or a private enterprise owns it), but to make the facility
available to be used for recreational and leisure purposes for the citizens.
It may appear that the City has shifted gears, but it has been prompted by
coming to grips with financial figures that are about 50% on the low side of the
most conservative estimate. So, rather than throwing up our arms and saying
the City cannot aford it, the Council would like to explore if there would be
some other way.
Ms. Lewis felt there would not be an
advantage to the educational program in a sharing sort of arrangement such
as with the swimming pool. The school uses the pool regularly for swim
classes. Sharing Sunset School would not enhance the school program, but it
is something that she felt a need for in this community for a long time. She
- 5 -
•
CITY COUNCIL
Joint Meeting with School Board
February 5, 1975
Page Six
hoped something could be worked out and asked if it was the City's intention
to build an auditorium.
{
Mayor Shearer explained the City had
a multipurpose building in mind. The City hired an architect to start designing
it, unrealistically thinking the price would be around $250, 000. The City has
stopped the designing work pending further study of the issues. This is a prime
location, prime size, and it is big enough. It has three youth baseball fields
on it. • It has lights for junior football practice. It is utilized right now in large
respect by the youth of the community through the good graces of the school.
There is no argument about that the School Board is already participating in
that area.
Mayor Shearer noted he would hate to
see the site be used for something else - another medical facility, office building
or something like that, when it is something that could be worked out.
Mayor Shearer stated that 11vir. Sata
estimated $12, 000 to prepare a plan considering (not the phase two project,
but phase one) what would be necessary to remodel or upgrade the existing
facility for use by Sr. Citizens, youth and the community in general.
Mr. Sornborger referenced the comments
of Mr. Bramer. These are not new buildings; the newest building is approximately
ten years old. The School Board has to consider maintenance and other things
that would go with the building. There are some improvements the School Board
has not been able to do. Because the Scho,cl Board is locl:cd in with SP92 they
cannot make improvements with money budgeted in the general fund but the City
has a larger tax base than the School District. If the School Board had to work
on their own buildings and make needed improvements, they would have to go to
the voters and ask for an increase for the tax rate for the district, which would
be a higher rate for the citizens within the school district than it would be on
a city basis. Mr. Sornborger felt the ramifications were such that the Board
would have to consider it from another point of view if they were to enter into
some sort of agreement with the City where there would be no actual exchange
of money. It was his impression that the City was interested in purchasing.
Perhaps from a financial point of view, the two bodies could discuss various
ways that the City pay for the site; it could be done over an extended period of
time. The School Board is not in any rush; the buildings are leased at the present
time. So, the School Board is in a dilemma too. The School Board is not the
least bit interested in asking for a tax increase because that would not stand any
more of a chance than a bond election, the only difference would be that the
school issue would go by a simple majority and the other would have to go by
a two-thirds vote.
Councilman Chappell noted that if the
City were to buy it over a 20 year period, then the School Board still wouldn't
• have that money to spend on new developments (capital outlay).
Mr. Sornborger explained there are some
facilities within the district, perhaps the intermediate schools, that should have
been developed some time ago. There are many implications. The School Board
will have to discuss the situation with Dr. Thyberg.
CITY COUNCIL.
Joint Meeting with School Board
February 5, 1975
Page Seven
Councilman Chappell agreed that both
bodies have to be realistic. SP90 looked pretty good, and then a year later
the School Board had to come up with a $1. 00 or so tax raise. It was sizable
in comparison. The City understands and is not out to get something for nothing.
He reiterated his feeling that he felt a compromise should be studied before
another appraisal is authorized.
Mr. Fleck felt if the City could not pay
the $619, 000, there was absolutely no reason for spending the additional money.
He asked if the City would consider a year pay-off - perhaps 20 years to pay off
the agreed upon appraisal figure.
Councilman Chappell indicated that could
be a possibility.
Mayor Shearer felt that the Council
had accomplished their purpose and asked for, at an early date, an expression
of the Board with regard to the discussion. If the School Board would not be
willing to hire another appraiser, then negotiations must advance from this
point. If the two bodies reach an agreed price, then there is a degree of hope
that maybe some sort of payment could be worked out that would be agreeable
to both bodies. In other words, if the School District does not have to have
the money right now, perhaps a solution can be Found. But, if it is the School
Board'sfeeling that without another appraisal we are not even in the ball game
to discu6s anything, then the Council may .be in a position to re-evauiate their
previous vote on the $1400. 00 - which is our half of the appraisal.
Councilman Browne agreed with the
Mayor. He felt that the School District should .take their legal advise in respect
to the third appraisal. Both bodies are confronted with the same problem of
going to the same tax payers basically, one way or the other, to ask for increased
monies, whether the School District has to improve their properties or if the City
wishes to purchase the property. It's whether the city or the district is playing
a taxing role. If County Counsel, in so far as the School District is concerned,
figures that legally a third appraisal is necessary he. would be in total agreement
of putting forth the City's share. However, the alternatives have been explored
at this meeting - he hoped that the Board Members would take into consideration
the long range purchase program. The City could sit down and commit to that
payment for a period of 15 or 20 years. The valuations placed upon the properties
are so diverse and so different in both areas, that he thought a third appraisal
would be required. Now a seed has been planted and both parties can go forth
and study it, and probably come to a meeting of the minds as to what the School
District can bear as well as what the City can bear.
Mr. Sornborger agreed that a third -
appraisal would be required. Both bodies are in need of the program, and the
people have to bear the. burden. Both legislative bodies have an overall
responsibility to the people to try to come up with what is best for the City
and for the School and the total population.
-7-
i
CITY COUNCIL
Joint Meeting with School Board
February 5, 1975
Page Eight
Councilman Browne stated, with due
respect to saving of time, he felt that Mr. Eastman was probably more legally
advised of what the District could do andcould not do. By the fact that the
School Board would not devulge, on advise of the County Counsel, what their
valuations were, it was very apparent that a third appraisal would be necessary.
Under those circumstances, to expedite the efforts of both bodies, Councilman
Miller stated he would make a motion before the Council to approve the City's
share of the expense of a third appraisal.
Motion made by Councilman Browne,
seconded by Councilman Tice to approve $1400, the City's portion of $2800, for a
third appraisal of the Sunset School site. This amount to be allotted to Whitley
and Associates. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Browne, Tice, Shearer
NOES: Chappell, Miller
ABSENT: None
. Mr. Sornborger stated his impression
was that the Board felt they should go along with the County Counsel's advise
and hire a third appraiser (their share being $1400).
Mr. Fleck indicated he did not believe
it was manditory.:
Mr. Sornborger agreed it was not
manditory and asked for Board discussion.
Mr. Fleck felt that if the City could not
pay $619, 000, any appraisal number above that, is futile.
Mayor Shearer did not feel the City had
indicated they could not pay it. Obviously, stated Mayor Shearer, the City
cannot go down to the bank and write a check today, but it all boils down to
once a firm price is established, .then a decision can be reached. The City
has tried to say it is going to be tough to do, but a lot of tough things have
been accomplished. Basically, we go to the people and the majority rules - if
the majority says no, then we can't aford it; if they say yes, they are willing
to pay for it, then we will be able to raise the funds.
Motion made by Ms. Lewis, seconded
bk Mr. Bramer to employ Whitley and Associates jointly with the City of West
Covina for a third appraisal on the Sunset School site. Motion_ carried on roll
call vote as follows:
AYES: Bramer, Jennings, Lewis, Sornborger
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Fleck
ABSENT: None
r
CITY COUNCIL February 5, 1975
Joint Meeting with School Board Page Nine
Mr. Jennings stated that at this meeting
all persons present have seen enough light at ttie end of the tunnel to consider
this in a positive way. There is definitely a possibility of a meeting of the
minds.
Mr. Sor' nborger agreed with Mr. Jennings
one hundred percent and called for any questions. There were no questions.
Motion made by Mayor Shearer, seconded
by Councilman Chappell to adjourn the meeting until February. 10, 1975. Motion
carried.
Mayor Shearer thanked the School Board
for the opportunity to have the meeting.