1984/02/28Ci~y Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February ~8,, 1984, .10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
SECRETARY: Linde D. Roberts
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Dean Sherer
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Don Leonard, Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc., gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLA24ATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
Wellness Week in Anaheim, March 11-17, 1984.
Week of the Handicapped in Anaheim, March 12-18, 1984.
Women's History Week in Anaheim, March 5-11, 1984.
Ms. Philomena Martin, President of the American Association of University
Women, accepted the Women's History Week proclamation.
119: PRESENTATION: Mayor Roth presented to Mr. Alan Murphy, Assistant
Finance Director, a Certificate of Award for Outstanding Financial Reporting
presented to the City of Anaheim by the California Society of Municipal
Finance Officers. The Certificate was issued in recognition of meeting
professional standards and criteria in reporting, which reflect a high level
of quality in the Annual Financial Statements and in the underlying accounting
system from which the reports were prepared for the Fiscal Year 1982/1983.
The Mayor, on behalf of the Council and the City, commended both the Finance
Director and Mr. Murphy and staff in having again merited the Certificate.
Mr. Alan Murphy accepted the Certificate and commented that it would not have
been possible without support from the City Council and the City Manager's
office, under the guidance and direction of the City Manager, as well as the
efforts of staff and the assistance of Price-Waterhouse.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held February 14, 1984. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
178
City Hall~. An~.h~im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1984, 10:00 ~.M.
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~855,170.53, in accordance
with the 1983-8'4 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the following items were approved in accordance
with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council
Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickier offered
Resolution Nos. 84R-80 through 84R-82, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
A. Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,
Carol/Albert Castro, Insureds, for subrogation rights to claim for
property damages purportedly when a City-owned vehicle rear-ended
insured's automobile on Lemon Street near Helena, on or about November 10,
1983.
2. Claim submitted by Marjoire A. Kaimink for personal injuries
purportedly sustained due to a trip-and-fail accident at the Dad Miller
Golf Course, on or about November 29, 1983.
3. Claim submitted by Lois Hyland for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to slip-and-fail accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or about
December 11, 1983.
4. Claim submitted by Kenneth J. Meunier for personal property damages to
refrigerator and freezer purportedly sustained due to electricity failure
at 617 South Marjan, on or about December 18, 1983.
5. Claim submitted by State Farm Insurance, John Kunig, Insured, for
subrogation rights to claim for property damages to insured's automobile,
purportedly sustained due to an accident caused by malfunctioning traffic
light at Bali Road and Walnut, on or about November 11, 1983.
6. Claim submitted by Farmers Insurance Group, Howard Misamore, Insured,
for property damages to automobile purportedly sustained due to
malfunctioning traffic signal on Lakeview Avenue, on or about November 8,
1983.
7. Claim submitted to Janet Kay Ellis for personal property damages to
automobile purportedly sustained when a police vehicle rear-ended
claimant's car on Bail Road, west of Gilbert Avenue, on or about November
10, 1983.
179
City Hall~ Anaheim.,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Feb.ruary 28,~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
8. Claim submitted by Firemans Fund Insurance Company, Swensen Ice Cream,
Insured, for property damages purportedly sustained due to loss of
electricity at 825-A North Euclid Street, on or about December 25-26, 1983.
9. Claim submitted by Bart Hovland for personal property damages to air
conditioning unit purportedly sustained due to a power outage at 7582
Camino Tampico, on or about January 2, 1984.
10. Claim submitted by Maureen Sweeney for personal property damages to
television set purportedly sustained due to a power surge at 319 North
West Street, on or about November 4, 1983.
11. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell for property damages to underground
cable purportedly sustained due to actions of City contractor in front of
949 South Anaheim Boulevard, on or about November 2, 1983.
12. Claim submitted by James C. Gilman for personal property damages to
vehicle purportedly sustained due to failure to warn of new unmarked
center divider on Fairmont Boulevard, 30 'feet south of Santa Ana Canyon
Road, on or about December 29, 1983.
13. Claim submitted by Linda Nazarian for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to a trip-and-fall accident caused by uneven sidewalk on Old
Lincoln Avenue at Olive Street, on or about December 22, 1983.
14. Claim submitted by Ora B. Horn for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to a trip-and-fall accident caused by loose cement between
717 and 721 South Anaheim Boulevard, on or about November 1, 1983.
15. Claim submitted by Denylle La Ree Rossman for personal injuries
purportedly sustained due to a trip-and-fall accident on the sidewalk in
front of 3070 Del Monte, on or about December 24, 1983.
B. Claim rejected and referred to Governmental Programs Division/Markel
Services, Inc:
16. Claim submitted by Elaine P. Fife for emoti0nal distress sustained
purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers, October 31, 1983
through February 8, 1984.
2. 123: Waiving the bidding process; authorizing a Purchase and Sale
Agreement with William C. Taormina in the amount of $105,000 for purchase of a
City-owned parcel of land located at 630 North Anaheim Boulevard, C.P. No.
169; authorizing execution of a grant deed therefor; authorizing the opening
of an escrow within 30 days; and pursuant to Charter Section 1222, the City
Council finds and determines that the sale of the municipal property is in the
best interests of the City.
3. 160: Accepting the bid of General Electric Company in the amount of
$73,500.40 for twenty each 75 KVA single-phase subsurface URD switched
transformers, and twenty each 75 KVA single-phase subsurface URD unswitched
transformers, in accordance with Bid No. 4078.
180
City Ha!l., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES-- February 28~ 1984, 10:00 A..M.
4. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to
Shepherd Machinery Company in the amount of $12,608.81 for repair of a
tractor, designated as City Equipment No. 1227.
5. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-80: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (83-15A, to abandon a former Southern California
Edison Company electrical utility easement acquired by the City, as successor,
and portions of two public utility easements dedicated to the City for
electrical purposes located south of La Palma Avenue, west of Grove Street,
public hearing scheduled March 20, 1984, 1:30 p.m.)
6. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-81: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1445 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 74R-43 NULL AND VOID. (to
establish a facility for the treatment and education of pediatric psychiatric
patients on approximately 3.6 acres located north of McKinnon Drive, east of
Lakeview Avenue, as a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2459)
7. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-82: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Erwin
Klann, et ux.; Bruce Goldman, et al.; Pacesetter Homes, Inc.; Country Club
Hotels, Inc.)
8. 175.123: Authorizing a License Agreement with California Services
Corporation for subsurface investigation of groundwater contaminants at 1310
North Tustin Avenue.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickier and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-80 through 84R-82,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION: Appointments to the Youth
Commission to fill terms expiring December 31, 1984 and 1985, respectively,
continued from the meeting of February 14, 1984.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that it would be appropriate to continue
consideration of appointments to the Youth Commission to Tuesday, March 13,
1984, since the application period would expire February 29, 1984.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue appointments to the Youth
Commission to Tuesday, March 13, 1984. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
181
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held February 6, 1984, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. VARIANCE NO. 3353: Submitted by Deusch Real Estate Development, Inc.,
(Practical Sch°ois'), to retain an industrial training center on ML zoned
property located at 1650 East Babbitt Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum
parking space.
Variance No. 3353 was withdrawn by the applicant, and a negative declaration
status was granted by the City Planning Commission.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2529: Submitted by Gregory and Patricia
Villanueva, to permit a 3-story, 53-unit motel on CO zoned property located at
871 South Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-19, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2529, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-16 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2531:
Submitted by Maganbhai Naranbhai Patel, et al, (Hacienda Motel), to consider a
change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, on property located at 2176 South
Harbor Boulevard, to permit a 6-unit addition to a 29-unit motel, with the
following Code waivers: (a) minimum structural setback, and (b) minimum fence
height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC84-20 and PC84-21,
granted Reclassification No. 83-84-16 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2531, and
granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2532: Submitted by Ming-Yuan Huang and Mei-Li
Yen Huang, to permit an automotive body repair and restoration shop on ML
zoned property located at 3421 East La Palma Avenue, with Code waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-22, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2532, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilman Pickler stated he was aware of a parking problem in the area
already and asked staff what they were going to do about the cars parked in
front and also, where the work would be done.
Dean Sherer, Associate Planner, explained that the applicant indicated that
all auto repair would be done inside the building, and parking would also be
inside and to the rear.
182
City Hall., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
5. VARIANCE NO. 1975 - TERMINATION: Submitted by U-Haul of Orange County,
requesting termination of Variance No. 1975, to expand an existing
non-conforming use to construct a new automobile showroom, on CG zoned
property located at 626 South Anaheim Boulevard, as a condition of approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2515.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-24, terminated
Variance No. 1975.
10. VARIANCE NO. 2118 - TERMINATION: Submitted by U-Haul of Orange County,
requesting termination of Variance No. 2118, to expand an auto sales lot on
C-2 zoned property located at 600 South Anaheim Boulevard, as a condition of
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2515.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-25, terminated
Variance No. 2118.
6. VARIANCE NO. 545 - TERMINATION: Submitted by Chrysler Realty Corporation,
requesting termination of Variance No. 545, to permit sales, service and
regeneration of water conditioning units on CL zoned property located at 1126
South Anaheim Boulevard, as a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit
No. 2509.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-26, terminated
Variance No. 545.
7. VARIANCE NO. 3134 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Duane Hlavnicka,
requesting an extension of time to Variance No. 3134, to permit construction
of a room addition on RM-1200 zoned property located at 2648 Russell Avenue,
with Code waiver of minimum required side yard.
The City Planning Commission appproved an extension of time to Variance No.
3134, to expire February 25, 1985.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1257 - TERMINATION: Submitted by Anaconda Wire
& Cable Co., requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1257, to
establish a private, four-year liberal arts college on b iL zoned property
located on the south side of Crescent Avenue, west of Muller Street, as a
condition of approval of Reclassification No. 83-84-14.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-27, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1257.
9. VARIANCE NO. 3057 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10585) - APPROVAL OF REVISED
PLANS: Submitted by Century American Corporation, requesting approval of
revised plans to construct a 50-unit condominium complex on RM-3000(SC) zoned
property located on the northwest side of Anaheim Hills Road, south of Nohi
Ranch Road.
183
City H~ll~ A~mhei~, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 2.8, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission determined the revised plans to Variance No. 3057
(Tentative Tract No. 10585) are in substantial conformance with previously
approved specific plans by the Planning Commission.
10. VARIANCE NO. 3298 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Eric M. Lederer,
requesting an extension of time to Variance No. 3298, to construct a
single-family residence on RM-1200 zoned property located at 942 North
Claudina Street.
The City Planning Commission appproved an extension of time to Variance No.
3298, to expire October 4, 1984.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if this was the lot that contained a small house of
approximately 800 square feet that was in a dilapidated condition and the
owner wanted to add a second story twice the size on stilts.
Mr. Sherer confirmed that was the property.
Councilwomon Kaywood then asked if they were granting an extension in order
for the owner to build a new house on the property and, if so, were they going
to remove the dilapidated house.
Mr. Sherer answered that they were the same plans the Council looked at before
and it was a time extension on those plans. They were going to remove the
existing house.
No action was taken by the Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the
actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2461: Submitted by Riviera Mobilehome Parks, to
permit two 14-story, 200-foot high office complexes on RS-A-43,000 zoned
property located at 300 West Katella Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-18, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2461; EIR No. 262 was certified and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted by Council at the meeting of January 24,
1984.
Councilman Pickler requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 and, therefore, a public hearing would be
scheduled at a later date.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2252 (READVERTISED): Submitted by Raymond Runo,
(New York Carpets), to amend certain conditions of approval to permit a retail
carpet sales facility on ML zoned property located at 3035 La Mesa Avenue.
The City Planning Commission recommended deletion of Condition No. 6 of
Resolution 81R-494, and a negative declaration status was approved October 27,
1981.
184
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The recommendation by the Planning Commission required that a public hearing
be set before the City Council, the date set being Tuesday, March 20, 1984, at
1:30 p.m.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2533: Submitted by King-Seeley Thermos Co., to
permit a Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitation Center, including a 150-bed men's
residence and treatment center and a work therapy unit, on ML zoned property
located at 1300 South Lewis Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-23, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2533, and granted a negative declaration status.
The Planning Commission's action was appealed by Dale F. Kinseila, Attorney
for Kilroy Industries, and therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a
later date.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS.. 8520, 10996~ 10997 .AND. 10998 - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE
GRADING ORDINANCE: Submitted by Hogan, Roy, Partners, requesting waiver of
the requirement of the Hillside Grading Ordinance relating to slope
maintenance responsibilities within Tract Nos. 8520, 10996, 10997 and 10998,
on property located at the southwest and southeast corners of Serrano Avenue
and Hidden Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission recommended denial of waiver of Hillside Grading
Ordinance to Tentative Tract Nos. 8520, 10996, 10997 and 10998.
The recommendation of denial by the City Planning Commission required that a
public hearing be set before the City Council, the date set being Tuesday,
March 20, 1984, at 1:30 p.m.
Subsequently, by letter dated February 27, 1984, the Gunston Hall Company
requested withdrawal of consideration of the waiver of the Hillside Grading
Ordinance on the subject tracts.
Councilman Bay asked if they were saying that they were accepting the denial
and requesting withdrawal of the need for the public hearing; City Clerk
Roberts answered that was correct.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the applicant's withdrawal of
the request for a public hearing. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11158 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Anacal
Engineering, for an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 11158, a 9-lot
RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned subdivision on property located on the south side of
Martella Lane, southeast of Santa Ana Canyon Road, was approved by the
Planning Commission at their meeting of February 22, 1984, to expire March 8,
1985, and was being submitted as a Council informational item only, with no
action required.
185
City Hall, Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MIN~. TES - February 28~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
114/153: DISCUSSION OF MANAGEMENT SALARIES: Councilman Bay stated that the
Council would be going into Closed Session and he assumed that possible action
would pertain to management salaries, since he knew they yet had work to do in
Closed Session on performance evaluations that the Council had to complete.
He wanted to be sure that was the projected action, and that when they
returned from Closed Session, that it would concern management salaries.
After studying the ruling in the San Diego Council case, he came to the
conclusion that the discussion of the dollars and cents of those raises should
take place out in front of the microphone and he assumed it would. He also
interpreted that the ruling also specifically allowed and encouraged
performance evaluations that the Council made to be done in Closed Session.
It confirmed that it was a perfectly legal action within that Closed Session.
Unless someone differed, the actual discussion on dollars and cents should be
discussed in open session. He asked the City Attorney if he was interpreting
correctly.
City Attorney William Hopkins answered, "yes," and also stated that the Brown
Act was amended recently in 1983 to provide that evaluations may be performed
in Closed Sessions.
Councilman Overholt stated that was a partial answer to a complex question.
He asked about Councilman Bay's comment that anything having to do with
dollars would have to be discussed in open session. He asked about general
concepts of compensation adjustment. He wanted the City Attorney to tell them
what they could do.
The City Attorney answered that the San Diego case required that any
discussion of management salaries, the dollar portion of it, be conducted in
open Council. That could be just a mere listing of salaries. As far as the
evaluations, that aspect would be proper for Closed Sessions. They left the
evaluation portion open, but when it came to the actual listing of the
salaries, the court case said it should be done in open session.
Councilman Overholt surmised again that the final action taken by the Council
would have to be done in open session, but would not prohibit them from making
oblique reference in Closed Session; the City Attorney confirmed that was the
exact wording of the court, the oblique reference.
144: PROPOSED DUMP SITE AND JAIL FACILITY: Mayor Roth stated that last night
he met with the leadership of the Hill and Canyon Homeowner Groups relative to
the subject. He reported that they were not letting up and were monitoring
everything, and encouraged the Council to do likewise. The Homeowner Groups
were continuing their own studies and gathering information and they were also
publishing a newsletter for interested citizens to keep them abreast of what
was going on. Further, they were meeting with the aides to Supervisors
Nestande, Clark and Riley on March 7 to continue to explain to them that
Anaheim's Sphere of Influence for the past 20 years had involved that area and
the plans projected for it.
186
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 28.~ 1984,. 10:00 A.M.
Before concluding, the Mayor also reported on Thursday, March 1, 1984, on
Anaheim Edition at 7:00 p.m., Channel 6, Supervisor Ralph Clark was going to
address the matter of the dump site and jail facility in greater depth.
The Mayor also asked that a letter be sent to Mr. Fred Harper at the
Sanitation District inquiring as to the effect a dump site and jail facility
would have on the infrastructure planned for the Canyon area over the last 20
years, that area being in Anaheim's Sphere of Influence, and planned for an
anticipated number of dwelling units. He wanted to know the effect on the
infrastructure from the Coal Canyon area down to Fountain Valley with regard
to sewer lines if they added a 6,000- or 7,000-bed jail facility.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations, personnel matters and litigation with action
anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss
litigation and potential litigation with action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:40 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:18 p.m.)
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed
Session. (2:18 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:10 p.m.)
112: CLOWERS VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the
City Attorney and Ruston & Nance to settle Orange County Superior Court Case
No. 32-90-31, Ciowers vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed $10,000.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
153: COMPENSATION - SUPPORT AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT, EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT
AND ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT: Mayor Roth announced that there were three
proposed resolutions relative to the subject. He thereupon offered the first
for adoption, Resolution No. 84R-83, establishing rates of compensation for
classes designated as support and supervisory management. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-83: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-387 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS SUPPORT AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT.
Before a vote was taken, he asked if there was any discussion on the proposed
resolution.
187
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February. 2.8~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay answered "yes," and stated he would preface his "No" vote by
stating that the entire package for management personnel totalled an
approximate $970,000 increase. What he was most concerned about was that the
last four years looking at the total increases from a base in 1980 for an
approximate 274 management employees, the average earnings across that base
was approximately ~27,000 a year, and the total payroll across the group was
$7,479,000. Looking back to where they were when they started the actions
that were culminating today through 1983, using the figures of an average
count of 334 employees, with average earnings of approximately $34,500,
totalled a payroll figure of $11,525,000. Adding the management packages that
had also been given to those groups over the past four years and before today,
that was an additional seven percent of ~806,774, or approximately $12.3
million.
The action they were taking today, using roughly the same ratio and same 334
figure, which was not necessarily the true figure within that management
range, would make the average earnings across those salaries ~36,750, base
salary. Adding the one percent management package also included in the
increases, and they were talking about an increase of six percent in the
Pay-for-Performance Plan, equaling approximately 6.5 percent in dollars across
that total payroll. Thus, the total package using those same approximate
figures would end up costing on an annual basis about $13.2 million a year.
That was an increase in cost to the taxpayers across those four years of 77.2
percent, and it averaged out about 19.3 percent across those years. Today,
basically they would add approximately 6.5 percent plus the one percent
management package. He had worked out a number of other figures and had more
to say about the matter, but he did not think tonight was the time to take the
time to do so. He would have more to say about it at the next regular
meeting. These were the overall figures he was concerned about and the reason
why he was not going to support the resolutions.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the resolution offered was relative to Support
and Supervisory Management compensation, and what Councilman Bay was referring
to was also Executive and Administrative Management, which represented the
entire package, and she wanted to make it clear he was speaking of more than
one segment.
Councilman Roth asked the City Manager to respond relative to the percentages
they were talking about, particularly with regard to Councilman Bay's remarks
and comparing those to what they did with the bargaining unit.
City Manager William Talley stated the recommendations and resolutions before
the Council provided that they would be awarding a base performance amount of
six percent for management performances for Fiscal Year 1982-83. They would
also be authorizing an increase in the management package by one percent. All
of the amounts were effective December 2, 1983. The bargaining unit
settlements were effective October 9, 1983, or approximately two months
prior. The amount of money they would be paying would be equal to a single
settlement or a single award to management of six percent for the remainder of
the fiscal year, or for the salary year, October to October. It was slightly
188
City Hal%, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
less than the average bargaining unit settlement for the year. As he recalled
they settled for somewhere between 6.1 percent and 6.2 percent, which was the
average, and there were several adjustments considerably in excess of that for
individual classifications.
Councilman Overholt asked the City Manager if he was able to verify the
figures and mathematics that Councilman Bay just announced. This was the
first time these figures had been available, and he did not know whether they
were right or wrong.
Mr. Talley answered that he did not take any of the numbers down and he could
not at this time comment on them, one way or the other. If he had them before
him, he would have someone in Human Resources tomorrow or the next day verify
them, but he could not comment on them tonight at all.
Councilman Overholt asked if Councilman Bay intended to make the figures
available to the rest of the Council or to management, so that they could be
verified; Councilman Bay stated he would do so the Friday before the next
meeting. They were mixed with a lot of other numbers, but the rationale was
straightforward.
Councilman Pickler made an analogy between the cost of a house in 1980 and one
in 1984, the difference in price being an approximate 60 percent increase.
They had to weigh the increases in perspective relative to increases generally
that had taken place, and also the fact that the City was growing.
Councilwoman Kaywood also requested that they see the figures and asked that
those same numbers as given to the press be given to the City Manager's
office, so that the full Council could receive a full report before the next
meeting.
Councilman Overholt complimented the Chamber Committee that made some
recommendations, and also Councilman Bay for being the pusher on the Council
to develop the Pay-For-Performance Plan. He also complimented management and
the Council for sticking to the Plan. Hopefully, they had started something
this year that was going to result in great benefits for the taxpayers.
Councilman Bay added that he was not a disbeliever in Pay-for-Performance, but
when that Plan was finally presented before the Council for a vote, he voted
against it and stated his reasons clearly then. The scales were heavily
weighed to major and much larger cities in the State. He disagreed basically
not with the system, but with the "ruler" that was used to set up the ranges.
Now what they would see by using the six percent in the center block was
climbing and more increases. In looking back over his figures, he was amazed
to find in 1982, for example, he recalled clearly in the 1982-83 fiscal year,
the Council voted for a three percent salary increase and a three percent PERS
increase. Using the figures supplied to him in a letter from Human Resources
Director Garry McRae, where he started with ail the basic figures, in that
year the actual impact on the payroll across the dollars was a 7.7 percent
increase from the previous year, without regard to PERS. It seemed odd to him
189
City Hall, Anaheim., Ca~i.fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~ !984, 10:00 A.M.
when the Council approved three plus three percent, or six percent, it ended
up, according to the figures, a 7.7 percent increase over the previous year,
without even talking about PERS. Adding the seven percent PERS to that, what
was astounding was the fantastic percentage of growth in the dollar costs. He
was not talking about burden cost or other associated costs, but the averages
across the payroll dollars, plus the management package only. He was talking
about earnings and the management package.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like Mr. McRae present when the matter
was going to be discussed. As she recalled, when the consultant made his
comparisons, they found that salaries of several department heads were
completely out of line and they did get a much larger increase, and that would
be what pulled the average up. She did not think it was a fair statement to
say that three percent became 7.5 percent.
Councilman Overholt, speaking to the City Manager, stated that he felt they
ought to have the response of Sibson and Company also to Councilman Bay's
concerns, since they were the consultants who designed the Pay-for-Performance
Plan; Councilman Bay stated that he could not agree more. He felt it should
be an agendized item at the next regular scheduled meeting.
City Manager Talley stated that some of the numbers he heard Councilman Bay
mention, the Human Resources Director provided them with certain information
as requested, and he prefaced that information by saying he had basically
pulled some numbers off the totals, but that unless they wanted to authorize
literally hundreds of hours of staff time, it would be impossible to examine
them in detail in order to get anything in-depth, but if the Council made a
request, he would do so. When Council approved a three percent salary
increase, it was three percent, not seven percent, five percent or two
percent, but three percent. If the numbers two years later came up with a
different basis, they could go back if Council wanted to authorize the
expenditure, and do so, and the same was true if there was something they
would like Sibson and Company to address as well. What they needed was to
have direction from the Council as to what they would like them to do. They
could either produce the Human Resources Director and the consultant, or they
could give an estimate of the time it would take, or they could do the work.
Without specificity, it was difficult to ask them to talk "on their feet" as
opposed to looking at the numbers and then getting a request. He could tell
them that for this year, they were asking the Council to pass a six percent
base performance award. Council had been told that it would average somewhere
a little over 6.5 percent, because they had an inordinate amount of managers
in the lower one-third of the schedules. They could take them one-by-one if
they wanted them to do so. Also, if they wanted to go back to whatever year
it was and confirm the three percent, if they wanted to pay for it, staff
would do so and show where everybody received three percent and not 7.1
percent. He could tell them right now that was what happened.
Mayor Roth stated he felt the Council should have that explanation by staff,
whatever it was going to take, because he considered it a serious charge when
talking about three percent and ending up as seven percent. He, for one,
definitely wanted an explanation of those numbers.
190
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - F~br.u~r~ 28, i984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Talley stated when he returned from Washington, D.C., he would have the
numbers analyzed and would provide some response and seek further direction
from the Council.
Councilman Bay stated he would then give a starting point so the City Manager
knew what he worked from. In a memorandum dated February 14, 1984, from Mr.
McRae, given to the City Manager and Council at his request, he had requested
to see some trend data of the average earnings across this particular salary
group from 1980 to current, i.e., what were the changes across the years. In
that memo under 1982, they used the number of 329 employees and the average
earnings were $31,931, and on the right side, percentage of increase of the
previous year, 7.7 percent. Those were payroll dollars and he asked Mr. McRae
to be sure he (Bay) understood, if he could take the number used for the
number of employees times the average and get the total payroll dollar figure
for that calendar year and the answer was "yes." He did that and worked from
that base, using the figures from 1980 through 1984. He then took the figures
of the base that were given and they were told that if they used six percent,
then the actual cost would run around 6.5 percent of payroll, and he used that
for today's raises. That was where he got his numbers. None of the numbers
included any City-paid PERS and across the last four years it was three
percent one year and four percent the other, now at seven percent. Today,
adding one percent more would be eight percent. Taking the base earnings and
a management package or PERS, or whatever they wanted to call it, this
automatically added eight percent to it to get the yearly cost.
City Manager Talley stated that as they were aware, Mr. McRae was out of town
until Monday, but when he returned he would direct him to listen to the tape
and try on March 13 to have at least a response to the Council, trying to
satisfy some of the inquiries and posing whatever directional questions they
might think appropriate to give the Council the answers they wanted. They
were not going to spend a lot of money without Council telling them to, if
they thought it was going to cost that to get the information, but would do so
if they were so directed.
A vote was then taken on Resolution No. 84R-83, relative to Support and
Supervisory Management.
Roi1 Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-83 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-84 for adoption, amending
Resolution No. 83R-385 which established rates of compensation for classes
designated as Executive Management. Refer to Resolution Book.
191
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28~. 1984, 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-84: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-385 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT.
Roil Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-84 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-85 for adoption, amending
Resolution No. 83R-386 which established rates of compensation for classes
designated as Administrative Management. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-85: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-386 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Pickier and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-85 duly passed and adopted.
City Manager Talley then referred to his memorandum dated February 28, i984,
recommending (1) that the City Council authorize management merit pool funds
to provide a base performance award of 6.0 percent for performance year
1982-83, and authorize increasing the management package by one percent, both
effective December 2, 1983, and (2) that the City Council approve the City
staff proceeding with implementing a Flexible Spending Account Plan (Section
125 Internal Revenue Code). Relative to the third item listed, no Council
action was required, but for Council information purposes, Mr. Taliey stated
that the option of permitting management employees to be compensated for up to
one week of vacation accrued but not taken, be continued and made an ongoing
part of the management compensation plan.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize the first and second
recommendations as indicated above. Councilman Pickier seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay then inquired as to the third item; Mr. Tailey reiterated that
no action was required on that unless the Council wanted to direct that they
not do that. Otherwise, no motion was required.
Councilman Bay stated he wanted to voice his opposition to it, because he did
not agree with it.
192
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 28, .~984, 10:00 A.M.
After a brief discussion, it was determined no additional actions were
required at this time.
Before concluding, the Mayor announced that due to the fact that several
members of the Council would be attending the National League of Cities
Conference in Washington, D.C., on March 3 through March 6, 1984, that a
quorum was not anticipated for March 6, 1984, and, therefore, that meeting
would be adjourned to the next regular meeting to be held March 13, 1984, at
10:00 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickier seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:35 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
193