Loading...
1980/12/30City H~ll~..Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoy~ ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR - RESOURCES: Ron Rothschild STREET MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: Bill Lewis STADIUM GENERAL MANAGER: Tom Liegler POLICE HELICOPTER SERGEANT: James Webb Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Gerry Schiller, Melodyland Hotline Center gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance co the Flag. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mr. Don Jebens, Ahwahnee District Chairman, Boy Scouts of America. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 14, 1980, subject to typographical corrections. 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 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 ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,366,267.96, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 123: PARTICIPATION IN THE 1981 CHFA HOME OWNERSHIP AND HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: Councilman Overholt moved to approve Parts I, II and III of the 1981 California Housing Finance Agency Local Government Agreement for participation in the 1981 CHGA Home Ownership and Home Improvement Program, as recommended in memorandum dated December 22, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour abstained.. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Seymour explained the reason for his abstention was due to the possibility that in the future his business might participate in the CHFA Program. 80-_~665 City Hal~., Aqa~eim,..C~l~.fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 128/161: FINA/~CIAL AUDIT REPORT FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1980: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Financial Audit Report for Redevelopment Agency for fiscal year ended June 30, 1980 was ordered received and filed, as recommended in memorandum dated December 18, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development. MOTION CARRIED. 177: INCREASE IN MAXIMUM LOAN AMOUNT UNDER CITY DEFERRED PAYMENT LOAN PROGRAM: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an increase in the maximum amount under the City Deferred Payment Loan Program to $15,000 (previously $10,000) for projects without room additions which require emergency repairs, as recommended in memorandum dated December 19, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - TWO THOUSAND FEET OF 15KV URD COPPER CABLE - BID NO. 3725: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the low bid of General Electric Supply, was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $15,791.24 including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in memorandum, dated December 22, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 156/158: LEASE PURCHASE OF TURBINE HELICOPTER: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated December 17, 1980 from the Chief of Police, George Tielsch, recomending solicitation of bids on the Enstrom Helicopter currently owned by the City from interested purchasers, as well as solicitation of bids for the purchase of a used 500C Turbine Helicopter and requesting proposals to finance a lease purchase of said helicopter. Councilwoman Kaywood asked what the guarantee would be on a used helicopter. Sergeant James Webb answered that would be dependent on who they purchased it from. If from a Service Center, there would be some type of warranty. He could not say what that would be until they located a helicopter. He also confirmed for the Mayor that once they did so, they would be back to the Council for approval and be able to indicate at that time what guarantees, if any, would go with it. Councilman Bay asked how the proposal would affect the budget; Mr. Talley answered that he was informed by the Police Department that based upon the price they could get and also the sales price of the present helicopter, they could handle that within the present Police Department allocations. They did not believe additional funds would be required this year. The Council would be informed relative to that aspect at :he time they recommended purchase. Councilman Bay asked that when they did come back, if monies were being taken out of some other funds, such as Neighborhood Crime, he wanted to know about it. Mr. Talley explained that they paid a service company at the present based upon the number of hours the helicopter was in service. Due to the fact that one of the helicopters had not been available meant they had to cut their hours back, and the Chief felt he would get most of the funds from that area. s0-16~6 City ..Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to authorize the Police Deparment to solicit sealed bids from interested purchasers for the sale of the Enstrom Helicopter currently owned by the City and to authorize staff to solicit bids for the pur- chase of a used 500C Turbine Helicopter and to request proposals from financial institutions to finance said helicopter through a lease-purchase contract, as recommended in memorandum dated December 17, 1980 from the Chief of Police. MOTION CARRIED. 150: AWARD OF CONTRACT - PEP, ALTA CANYON PARK PLAY AREA IMPROVEMENT: Account No. 16-805-7103. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-579 for adoption, awarding a contract, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated December 22, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-579: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PER- FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IM- PROVEMENT: PEP, ALTA CANYON PARK AREA DEVELOPMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-805-7103. (Hondo Company, $86,945) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, K~ywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-579 duly passed and adopted. 167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND INTERCONNECT~ CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA~ FEDERAL-AID URBAN PRO3ECT M-3041(74): Account No. 01-795-6325-E5070. Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Manager if he had an opportunity to read letter dated December 29, 1980 sent via messenger from the Law Offices of Gill and Baldwin on behalf of Steiny and Company (the second low bidder) protesting any award to Electrend, Inc., (the first low bidder) and if he had any comment. City Manager Talley deferred to the City Attorney inasmuch as the communication was from a legal firm. However, after having consulted with the City Attorney, it was the opinion that the staff recommendation remain the same, i.e., that the contract be awarded to the lowest and best bidder, Electrend, Inc., in the amount of $565,900. City Attorney Hopkins reported that they reviewed the letter from Gill and Baldwin and felt there was no merit ~o the argument presented. He concurred in the recommendation of the award to Electrend. He also pointed out that an attorney was present from the firm who indicated he might wish to address the Council. Mr. Terrence Coyne, Attorney, Law Offices of Gill and Baldwin, 900 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, representing Steiny and Company, stated that he was the author of the letter delivered today (dated December 29, 1980--five pages-- on file in the City Clerk's office), and he wished to comment on two points in the letter. They felt that the rebidding of the subject project was improper for 80- Qity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M. two reasons: (1) There was an agreement entered into between the City and the second low bidder, at that time Electrend, in the form of an indemnification agreement whereby they essentially promised that upon rebidding the project, its bid would not exceed the then low bid price by Steiny and Company on the original procurement. It was understandable why the City would want to protect itself against the possibility that if rabid, the price might increase. However, the manner in which the City went about doing that was improper. It was a basic principle of public bidding that a public agency should treat all bidders fairly and equally and to enter into some price negotiation, even if a not-to-exceed price only, was improper. No other bidder was afforded any opportunity to dis- cuss price, indemnification agreements or the like. (2) The City gave in exchange for Electrend's promise to indemnify, changes in the specifications in five areas. In his judgment, it was the City's responsibility and not the bidders to determine its needs and develop those specifications. In this instance, the City outside of the presence of other bidders entered into discussions with and ultimately adopted changes in the specifications which were proposed by the bidder. He suggested that for the City to have entered into those discussions and essentially coerced, or in exchange for the indem- nification, forced them to accept the specification changes was improper. The City properly should have made an evaluation and assessment of their needs independent of any of the bidders. Finally, discussions on the two points, indemnification and specifications, took place outside of the presence of other bidders. His client was present at a previous Council meeting and requested the opportunity to be present to hear those discussions and to participate in them, and was expressly excluded from those discussions. Councilman Bay asked Mr. Coyne, if once the specifications were changed, were they supplied that information before they sumitted ~heir bid. Mr. Coyne answered "yes." Mr. Hopkins reported that they had not been able to find any agreement entered into by the City for indemnification and the City Charter provided that the City was not bound by any contract unless it was in writing and signed by the Mayor and the City Clerk. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-580 for adoption, awarding a contract, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated December 22, 1980. R~fer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-580: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PER- FORMI~NG ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IM- PROVEMENT: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND INTERCONNECT CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA FEDERAL-AID URBAN PROJECT M-3041(74) ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-6325-E5070. (Electrend, Incorporated, $565,900) Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked inasmuch as the original bid was public, was there any reason why Steiny and Company could not come in under their original bid on the rebidding. 80-~668 CitZ ~a!l,. Anaheim, C~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Coyne answered that they did so and they were the second low bidder. Also, with respect to the City Attorney's last point, there was no bilateral agreements signed by the City and by Electrend with respect to indemnification. The City did receive from Eiectrend the letter essentially committing to the indemnifi- cation, and those were normally one-party agreements. Mayor Seymour stated he appreciated that and the points Mr. Coyne had made. However, the area he was in was strictly a legal matter, and he was going to follow the advice of the City Attorney. Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney if the oral presentation by Mr. Coyne changed his original advice; Mr. Hopkins answered "no" and still felt the protest had no merit. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-580 duly passed and adopted. 140: GRANT APPLICATION - PUBLIC LIBRARY/EDUCATION SUPPORT EFFORT (PLESE): Councilman Bay moved to authorize the City Manager to submit a grant proposal to fund the Public Library/Education Support Effort (PLESE) in an amount not to exceed $98,500, pursuant to the Library Service and Construction Act (LSCA) of 1981/82, to supplement school library services within the Anaheim Elementary School District, as recommended in memorandum dated December 30, 1980 from City Librarian William Griffith. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that hopefully the grant would be received, but whether or not it was, staff was to be commended for what they have done to coordinate to a greater degree with the elementary and secondary schools in providing library resources to those schools and the City's libraries. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 158/115: LEASE OF PARKING SPACES IN CIVIC CENTER TO 198 ASSOCIATES: Council- woman Kaywood moved to (1) authorize a Memorandum of Lease with 198 Associates for 130 parking spaces in the Civic Center parking structure for use in conjunc- tion with the 45,000-square foot office building to be developed by 198 Associates; and (2) to consent to the assignment of a leasehold interest of 198 Associates to Union Bank, mortgagee of office building under Section 9 of a lease agreement with 198 Associates dated July 3, 1979, as recommended in memorandum dated December 22, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was a possibility of any conflict arising relative to parking when the proposed theatre was completed; Mr. Priest answered "no." 80-16~9 City Hall, Anaheim, C.aliforuia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay asked if he was saying that the 130 parking spaces would not be available during a theatre performance. Mr. Priest answered that they would not be available; those spaces had already been committed to Willdan during work hours. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MDTION CARRIED. 158/161.158: CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - LINCOLN AVENUE BETWEEN ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND PHILADELPHIA STREET: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-581 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 22, 1980 from Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest, conveying land and improvements located on Lincoln Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard and Philadelphia Avenue to the Agency for marketing and development, and execution of grant deed therefor. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-581: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY TO THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH: AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A GRANT DEED THEREFOR. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-581 duly passed and adopted. 128: FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1980: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Financial Statement for the period ended November 30, 1980 was ordered received and filed, as recommended in memorandum dated December 22, 1980 from Director of Finance George Ferrone. MOTION CARRIED. 123/124: 1984 CONVENTION CENTER OLYMPICS EVENTS AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated December 22, 1980 from Stadium, Convention Canter, Golf General Manager Tom Liagler, recommending approval of an agreement in principle with the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee to host an event of the 1984 Olympics at the Anaheim Convention Center arena, for the period of time approximately July 20 to August 14, 1984. Mayor Seymour noted in the subject memorandum a proposed change from the 12% to 10% of the gross receipts usually collected by the City. He could understand the motivation, but he questioned if at the reduced rate they would at least be breaking even. Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium, Convention Center, Golf General Manager, answered that they would be doing more than breaking even. While the prices of tickets had not yet been determined by the Olympics Committee, the Convention Center's normal ticketing bracket was approximately $5 per event and 12½% of that was a certain 80-1670 Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Deqember 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M. amount. He would suggest that the tickee prices for the Olympics was substan- tially higher based upon Olympic events elsewhere and 10% of a higher price would represent more net return. Also to be considered was that normally they did not receive any income for move-in and move-out dates. In this case, they would have an event that would be bringing continuous lease revenue over a long period of time. They also expected a high level of parking, as well as concessions. Thus, the total nee package, dollars to =he Anaheim Visitors and Convention Fund, would be greater than anything they might book during that same period. The true value, in his opinion was very difficult to measure in dollars and cents, that being the value of International coverage and the association of Anaheim, California, throughout the world. Mayor Seymour seated thee he wanted to be sure for the record that even though they might be adjusting the gross percentage from 12%% to 10%, they would not be operating in the red and would at least be breaking even. In other words, for those who would be concerned about the economics of having the Olympics in Anaheim, they could literally promise that it would not cost one cent of taxpayer money, but rather they would more than likely benefit financially from the leasing of the Convention Center facilities, as well as the immeasurable benefits received from the ideneification of Anaheim with one or more events of the Olympics. Mr. Liegler then introduced the Executive Director of the Sports Federation and Commissioners for the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee, Mr. Mike O'Hara. Mr. Mike O'Hara stated that as a representative, he was delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the possibility of bringing the Olympics to Anaheim. Councilman Bay aked if there was a chance they might get something in addition to wrestling and team handball. Mr. O'Hara answered at this point in time it would appear that one of the two events would fit into the Convention Center. They had considered other events, but there was not sufficient room and also partially because the facility was so heavily booked. They were hoping the event would be wrestling. Mayor Seymour stated, on behalf of the Council, they very much appreciated Mr. O'Hara's efforts in working with Mr. Liegler and his staff. He realized that the negotiations had not been easy because the Convention Center was so successful, thus making it difficult =o obtain dates. He also thanked Mr. Leigler and his staff for a superb job. It was truly an accomplishment. Councilwoman Kaywood noted on Page 2, Item 3a, Line 10 of the agreement that it stated, days of "completion," and ~he felt it was meant to be days of "compe- tition;'' Mr. Liegler stated that "competition" was the correct word. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an agreement was authorized in principle with the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee to host an event of the 1984 Olympics at the Anaheim Convention Center arena, for the period of time approximately July 20 to August 14, 1984, as recommended in memorandum dated December 22, 1980 from Mr. Liegler. MOTION CARRIED. 80- :<:,7,1 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 123: PERMIT AGREEMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, renewal of a permit agreement was authorized with the University of California Irvine Medical Center at a monthly fee of $400 per month to provide limited use of a portion of the Anaheim Stadium parking lot, as recommended in memorandum dated December 22, 1980 from Stadium, Convention Center, Golf General Manager Tom Liegler. MOTION CARRIED. 132: SANITATION CHARGES FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND STREET CLEAN- ING AND AGREEMENT WITH JAYCOX DISPOSAL COMPANY: City Manager Talley first briefed the Council on three memorandums dated December 29, 1980: (1) proposed solid waste and street cleaning rate adjustments; (2) proposed revisions to sanitation charges for residential solid waste collection and street cleaning and, (3) pro- posed agreement with Jaycox Disposal Company, Inc. He continued that staff had analyzed the agreement they had currently and rec- ommended that an overall increase of 7.13% be granted to Jaycox. The amount was approximately $265,000 and would be raised in the ten-month period beginning December 1, 1980 and continuing through September 30,~ 1981. However, when analyzing the books of Jaycox, they found on a cost-of-service basis, by in- creasing all accounts approximately 7.1%, while they would generate the $265,000, it would distort a situation that had existed for a number of years. They wanted to call that to the Council's attention. What occurred at the present time was that the single-family residents paid a refuse fee of $2.50 per month to Jaycox and in addition, multiple-dwellings paid $2.25. Further there was also the bin rental fee currently at $13.50 per month, escalating from there depending upon the number of times per week the bin was collected. When computing the cost for the bin rental fee, together with the multiple-unit residential fee, they found that Jaycox was collecting substantially more money than was required for that area of service, compared to what they were collecting in single-family residences. They were recommending that the Council consider what they might wish to do with respect to that situation. In his opinion, there were two choices--(1) increase all categories, single-family and multiple-family residential approximately 7% or (2) increase only the single-family residential and leave the others the way they were at present which would narrow the differential or possibly some other alternative. They were asking that the Council ad,pt a new fee schedule of sanitation charges, but were recommending that the increase to Jaycox be 7.13%, or $265,000, and for the Council to deter- mine how they wanted that distributed. In addition, they were also recommending that new fee schedules be adopted for residential street cleaning, for commercial and industrial street cleaning, delinquency in payment of the annual sewer main- tenance charges for non-utility customers located outside of the City boundaries, and also an increase in the maximum compensation for the emergency or interim use of all of the contractor's equipment and facilities in a bankruptcy or de- fault situation from $2,600 to $3,100 per day. Councilman Bay asked for an explanation relative to the 5¢ the City added in 1979 and the 5¢ in 1980 to recover its costs and now the need to add another 50¢ in addition to the solid waste collection fee. In answer, Mr. Talley referred to Schedule B--recovery of City costs (an attach- ment to memorandum dated December 29, 1980 from City Manager--Proposed Solid City Ha~l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Waste and Street Cleaning Rate Adjsutment) and briefed the Council on the figures contained therein. After Mr. Talley concluded, Councilman Bay asked the interest rate used on the use of General Fund money. Mr. Talley answered it was approximately 14% at present but it was done on a month-by-month basis. Whatever the deficit, they figured was the interest rate and charged the fund with that amount. Council could waive the interest requirements, but that would be money the General Fund would otherwise earn if it did not have to loan the fund the money. As of July 1, 1980, the fund was $135,000 in the red and unless some correction was made, by September 30 1981, it was going to be $262,000 in the red. Mayor Seymour wanted to know how they were in a position of running a negative fund' balance. Mr. Talley answered, by not collecting the revenues estimated and having the expenses remain roughly at what was computed. Probably the most predominant one was, when someone filed for an increase, by the time a staff report was written, Council considered it, it was approved, and instituted in the billing process, 90 to 120 days had elapsed, thus creating a shortfall. That was also why they were requesting more of an increase than justified from Jaycox. They filed for an increase after the fiscal year closed in October and staff analyzed it for about 60 days through the months of late October to early December. It required a great deal of negotiation and obviously what they had requested and what staff recommended were two different things. By the time the increase went into effect, some of the people did not pay those new fees until March. Mayor Seymour stated it could be said then they were now charging citizens interest on their trash service because they did not get new rates set soon enough. Mr. Talley answered "yes". They were saying the people using trash service were being charged interest because the General Fund loaned them money. Mayor Seymour felt that to be a totally unreasonable approach to the situation. He suggested that they merely back the system up so ~hat when a contract expired, or 60 days before, they had already reviewed Jaycox's books to make sure their. rate increases were in order and that as a City Council they had taken action to implement whatever reasonable request for increase had taken place, incor- porate that into the billing procedure and thus they would no longer find themselves in the present position. Mr. Talley stated he felt that could be done, but they preferred to work with an audited financial period because the contractor was self-supporting his request for fees based upon his costs. They had discussed rather strongly some major areas particularly in the contractor's equipment purchase and re- placement fund where there were significant amounts that they felt should be reserved for depreciation and on which he believed they now were in agreement. Mayor Seymour stated if the audit was performed specifically for the purposes of establishing a fair contract rate with the City, he did not know why that had to be tied to the end of the contractor's fiscal year. 80-I 97 3 City Hall, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Talley stated if they made the new rates effective every January 1, it would tie together because by the time the contractor's fiscal year ended September 30, he could get his audit out, the City could review it, and they would then be recommending on the basis of totally audited figures. The Mayor noted, however, that by the time the contract expired in September, the Council acted in January and when the billing would start to return the new rate increase, five months would be lost. He questioned who was going to pay for those five months. Mr. Talley stated they could make a rate increase prospectively which would include a higher than substantiating cost to mitigate that situation. Mayor Seymour then asked Mr. Raul Rangel, President of Jaycox, if there was some reason why the audit had to tie to September 30 of each year and asked if it could not tie into June 1 of every year, thereby beginning negotiations in June and having those complete and approved by the Council with new rates established, so that the City would start to correct the new rates as of the expiration date of the contract. Mr. Raul Rangel answered that it could be done and at the last hour with staff, they came to an agreement and he believed either blt. Lewis, Smith or Piersall could elaborate. They came up with an October 1 date which would give ample time to submit their packet to the City. The Mayor stated he was not happy with the interest figures and he was not going to vote for something where the citizens were going to have to pay interest for three months as a result. Mr. Talley stated they could make a recommendation in June and implement it in July or August and do it prospectively, but they would be anticipating the results of the contractor's operating statement. The Mayor stated he could not understand why it had to be done prospectively. If August 1 were the day, they could take the operating statement from August 1, 1980 through July 31, 1981, thereby providing what was needed. Mr. Talley agreed but in that case they would be performing the audit in order to bring a recommendation to the Council; the Mayor stated, however, that the contractor was paying for the audit. Mr. Talley stated that he did not pay the City for the audit. The City went in and looked after the contractor closed his books. Mr. Rangel explained that they had an independent auditor who audited the books and their normal year end was September 30, but for the purpose of the rate adjustment, they audited their books yearly and presented it to the City some- time in August. They could do their audit at the end of every month to present to the Council to fit in the City's time period. They had to do it anyway to produce the facts and figures for staff to audit. He reiterated, whatever target date the Council decided, they would stick to it. The Mayor stated that they needed to. set up a system whereby at ~he expiration of the contract, the new rates were already in effect, so that they City was receiving those funds as of ~he first day of the new contract to preclude any 80-~IL74 City Ha~$, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M. negative cash flow problem and the need to charge interest. Ail they were in the trash business was (1) a referee to insure that the trash contractors were not charging unreasonable rates and (2) they provided the collection function; Mr. Talley added, and an inspection function. The Mayor stated he could not in clear conscience charge the additional plus 5¢ type fees to the citizens and customers of the service. He reiterated they ought to revamp the system. Councilwoman Kaywood stated if the rate, for example, were $2.50 for something costing $3.00 and they tried to adjust that retroactively in order to take care of the negative cash flow, in the meantime, the citizens and users would have been paying less than cost. Mayor Seymour countered and stated if he as a consumer were going to be charged 14% interest, he would want to know it beforehand, so that he could have the alternative of paying whatever he owed. Councilman Bay stated ~hat he was in agreement with the Mayor on the 14% inter- est and could not see adding that cost. He had no problem with the 7.13% increase which was relative to inflation factors in business. However, he could not go along with making up a negative cash flow by charging citizens 14% interest. When they decided what they were going ~o do, he guessed they were going to have to take some loss. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know where ~ha~ would be made up; Mayor Seymour answered if this were the same as they had seen in recent years, they were going to find that they were probably doing better on interest rate earnings on General Fund manies than they had projected. That was where the money would come from and hopefully, with the system change, they would not have to be faced with this type of dilemma in the future. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the City Manager be directed to require the necessary audit from the trash contractor in sufficient time so that any changes in rates could be effected and collected, beginning no later than one day after the expiration of the previous year's contract. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Talley stated he was interpreting the motion that they would want then to start billing on September 1, 1981 because it took 60 days. The Mayor asked if that would require an interest charge; Mr. Talley answered "no". He assumed they would be billing on the first and collecting money starting the 5th, 6th or 7th of September and if that required any fine tuning, they would be back ko the Council before that time. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the 7.13% increase recommended across the board resulting in a single-family residential collection rate of $2.69 per month, a multiple-family rate of $2.44 per month and an increase of $1 to the monthly bin rental. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. 80- iG-~ City Hall, Anabgim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked the City Manager if included in that rate was the recovery of City costs. Mr. Talley answered "no." This was the amount that would be paid to Jaycox and by the motion, they were going to raise everything, single-family, multiple- family and the bin rate by approximately 7%. That would be an estimated increase in receipts to Jaycox of $265,971 for the current period. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Talley stated they still had to deal with approximately $230,000 worth of deficit and they had addressed about $100,000 of it with approximately $135,000 remaining that the fund was out of balance on July 1. Staff was recommending that Council take some action to build that fund balance up again. They suggested that multiple-family be increased 24¢ and single-family 50¢. If they wanted to do it another way, they could Just increase everybody a certain amount. They felt that the Council should increase the amount being charged for solid waste collection because customers had been underpaying through the late start- up time on the billing. They had collected $135,000 less than they paid out as of July 1. They used $31,000 in addition to that for interest. The fund deficit as of July 1, 1980 was $135,000 with $102,000 deficit of service pro- vided at less than cost. Councilman Bay asked approximately what they needed across the board to make up the $102,000. Mr. Rom Rothschild, Assistant Finance Director--Resources, stated if the increase were equally distributed for the remaining nine months, it would be an additional 29¢ per unit for both single and multiple-family. The Mayor felt since they just passed an increase of 7.1% across the board, perhaps the same should prevail on the $200,000 deficit. Mr. Rothschild confirmed that it should exclude the bins because those were billed directly by Jaycox. Mr. Talley confirmed that each user would then have to pay 29¢ a month for the next nine months to get the fund into balance, excluding the interest. He also asked that when the Council made its determination, that they not take any action for approximately 45 minutes to allow them to run the figures so that when he introduced the resolutions, they would have all the necessary information. Councilman Bay noted Chat the proposed increases would still result in a rate less than $3.00 for single-family and something less than $2.75 for multiple based on the 29¢. That did not sound unreasonable to him. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved, in order to build up the fund balance, that both multiple-family and single-family solid waste collection rates be increased equally at 29¢ per month for the next nine months. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Talley then briefed the Council on additional actions to be taken relative to residential and commercial/industrial street cleaning rates, the penalty clause of $5 per month for delinquency and payment of annual residential sewer maintenance City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M. charges for non-utility customers located outside the City boundaries, and an increase in the maximum compensation for the emergency or interim use of the contractor's equipment and facility in the event of bankruptcy or default. Councilman Bay noted that the proposed increase in street cleaning was 45¢ to 55¢ per resident per month to also cover a projected deficiency. The penalty on the out-of-town users did not concern him, but what did was the street cleaning increase. He understood the reason they had to increase those was due to the fact that ticket fines were not being realized per the projection in the budget as earlier explained by the City Manager. Mr. Talley explained that their analysis revealed that they were not collecting as much in ticket revenue as anticipated. Also in their original analysis, it was anticipated that tickets would be valued at $5, but the court had set that rate instead at $10. They found (1) that they were not writing as many tickets and (2) inasmuch as the tickets were written to the vehicle itself, they were experiencing a much higher incidence of delinquency. Councilman Bay surmised if they were writing fewer tickets, it meant there were fewer cars in the street and thus there should be more efficiency in the street cleaning program. Mr. Bill Lewis, Street Maintenance Superintendent, stated that the cost for street cleaning would remain the same whether there was a car in the street or not. Revenue from parking citations was down. Their collection rate was down and running at 60%. The Mayor then asked Mr. Lewis why it was necessary to have one or two vehicles following the street sweeper to write tickets. A hotline complaint questioned why someone could not write down license numbers and issue tickets accordingly. Mr. Lewis explained that the choices they saw when they adopted the program were (1) having the sweeper operator write the tickets and (2) having a citation issuer or parking checker follow the sweeper to issue the actual citation. In order for the courts to accept a citation or fine against a vehicle, it had to be filled out in a certain way--date, location, license number, name of the person issuing the ticket, in order to be recognized by the court. It was true that at times one or two vehicles did follow the sweeper, but at different times of the day in various geographical locations of the City. There was a back-up or roving person who assisted at those locations. It was a variable situation designed to be adjustable in relationship to the supervision of the program. Councilman Bay emphasized that he did not like to see a budget based on how many tickets were going to be written and how much revenue was going to be collected from those tickets as was projected in the budget. When he saw the figures of how many tickets they expected to write, he thought there must be something wrong with the program. He felt that next year they had better take a new look at the street cleaning budget based on something better than that. He was wondering if any ideas were proposed in discussions of the street sweeping program to increase the effectiveness of the program or to cut its cost. He had not seen anything of that in the report submitted. City E~ll, Anaheim,.. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay continued that there were areas in Anaheim where no off-street parking was available. In reading many of the ho~line complaints received regarding parking tickets as a result of the street sweeping program, he felt it was time that the Council took a look at the program and exempt some areas of the City from it on the basis that there was not adequate off-street parking in order to accomplish street sweeping. Perhaps the program could be brought to a point where it was continued only in areas where off-street parking was available and in that way, cut the cost of the overall program. Discussion then followed between the Mayor, Councilmen Roth and Bay and Mr. Talley relative to Councilman Bay's oomments and also to the suggestion ~hat in those problem areas that there be alternate day parking in order to accomplish street sweeping. At the conclusion of discussion, the Mayor noted that there were apartment house areas in the City as well as older residential areas where it was not possible for residents to remove their cars from the street. He ques- tioned Mr. Lewis as to why he had not moved more aggressively to solve those types of problems or brought them to the Council's attention because he felt they could be solved, however, at a higher expense. His recommendation was that they sweep one side of the street of those neighborhoods one day and come back another day and sweep the other side. They also realized that was more expen- sive, but he, for one, would be willing to accept that in neighborhoods without adequate off-street parking. Mr. Lewis reported that they had given the matter a great deal of serious consideration. They had individually on a case-by-case basis gone to those areas and addressed the problem to determine how many cars were present when the sweepers were present, how much parking was available, and was it possible to get the cars off the street or not. Driving those areas in the evening, it was obvious that it was not possible to do so, but in the daytime, during street sweeping hours when people were away at work, they found without excep- tion all of the cars would be off the street at any given time. They had yet to find an area where it would be impossible to accomplish. Mayor Seymour thereupon asked for a report, listing those problem areas, i.e., where no off-street parking was available, so that the Council could drive through those neighborhoods to ascertain if the street cleaning program was a reasonable one in those locations. If they were being unreasonable, they ought to take some action such as alternate day parking; Councilman Bay stated he would prefer the latter program. Mr. Lewis confirmed for both the Mayor and Councilman Bay that they ran a study relative to alternate day parking and it proved out to be double the cost. Councilman Overholt stated his understanding was that as the program was im- plemented, Mr. Lewis was monitoring it. He felt it would be helpful when they received calls to know what he (Lewis) had done in the local communities to solve the problems. With a program the extent of the street sweeping pro- gram, the expense involved, and the goal, they had to decide whether it was worth it or not. The only way to know that was for the people to decide through the Council if it was worth it. The program had been implemented for approximately 13 months and if they had not had ongoing monitoring to assess it and to make adjustment~ accordingly, perhaps the time was now. He would also be interested in knowing what happened to the 40% of those who did not pay their parking tickets. 80-1678 City Hgll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood noted those areas with insufficient parking were the areas where street sweeping was needed most. Councilman Roth stated that most of the complaints he received were relative to the fact that signing was limited in some areas so that people were not informed of the street sweeping hours. He asked Mr. Lewis if he had investigated to see if there was an adequate amount of signing. Mr. Lewis explained that they went into the program on a minimum signing basis. As they proceeded in the program and received complaints, as Councilman Roth mentioned, they did go to the area to review the signing as appropriate. They were addressing the question and supplementing the signing requirement. The posting they instituted was still in the courts. As well, when a new area was added to the program, they had gone door to door and also notified the people in the area with written communication. Councilman Bay then broached another situation brought to his attention where, for example, four cars and two trucks were parked in the street on sweeping day and subsequently only one of the vehicles was issued citations and the others were not. He wanted to know why that occurred; Mr. Lewis stated he would want to know that as well, because it was totally contrary to their policy. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to increase the charge for residential street cleaning from 45¢ to 55¢ per residence per month; increase the charge for commercial and industrial street cleaning from $1 to $1.22 per establishment and adding a penalty clause of $5 per month for delinquency in payment of annual residential sewer maintenance charges for non-utility customers located outside of the City boundaries. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. MOITON: Councilman Seymour moved to waive the interest charges on trash service. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-583 for adoption, approving an agreement with Jaycox Disposal Company Agreement increasing in unit price for single-family residential collection to $2.69 per month and multiple-family to $2.44 per unit per month, bankruptcy or default maximum compensation in- creased from $2,000 to $3,100 per day. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-582: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND JAYCOX DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-582 duly passed and adopted. City H_a!l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Later in the meeting, Councilman Roth offered Resolution. No. 80R-583 for adop- tion, adopting a new fee schedule of sanitation charges and repealing Resolution No. 80R-287. New rates: single-family residential, $2.99 per month; multiple- family, $2.74 per unit per month; street cleaning--residential, 55¢ per resi- dence; commercial and industrial, $1..22 per establishment per month; multiple- dollar ($5.00) penalty per month for delinquent payment residential sewer main- tenance charges for non-utility customers located outside of City boundaries. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-583: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE OF SANITATION CHARGES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-287. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-583 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:25 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:35 P.M.) 108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD - TIFFANY'S FEMININE WAY: Request submitted by William N. Walker, Attorney, on behalf of Tiffany's Feminine Way, 2060 West Lincoln Avenue, for an extension of time to the period of abatement pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment (continued from the meeting of December 16, 1980). City Attorney William Hopkins reported that Mr. Walker did submit the.documen- tation requested at the meeting of December 16, 1980 (see mintues that date). The document now before the Council consisted of escrow instructions indicating that the transfer =o the applicant was in the amount of $35,000, a store lease showing a term of three years from January 1, 1978 to December 31, 1981 at $100 a month, invoices for building improvements, labor and materials totalling $5,313.15, invoices for operating expenses totalling $1,701, a number of mis- cellaneous checks and letter from Mr. Walker listing the items submitted. Councilman Roth stated, relative Co the invoices for building improvements, labor and materials totaling $5,313.15, remarks from the Council at the meeting of December 16, 1980 were chat a breakdown be provided of those items. He wanted to know if that, in fact, had been provided. Mr. William Walker, attorney, stated he believed in the receipts provided there was some $1,500 utilized for the purpose of recarpeting, approximately $750 or a little more for air conditioning and reconditioning of the interior of the building, an additional $600 or $700 for panelling and other interior improve- ments, $1,200 or $1,500 for carpenters' labor and approximately $200 for the cost of signs and maintenance of the outside of the building. He went through 80-1680 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M. all the checks and invoices that were presented to him by the owners and the total figure was based on the items he could identify from the invoices. There were a number of checks written for materials but they failed to indicate jsut what they were for and thus they were eliminated from the computation. He believed that the interior of the building, signs, carpeting, air conditioning and paneling represented essentially the work done by way of improvements. Councilman Roth stated that perhaps he had not made himself clear at the last meeting (see minutes that date), but he wanted a list giving a breakdown of the improvements and their cost, one particular list and not a verbal report. Mr. Walker then proceeded to enumerate the expenses by explaining what each of the checks and/or invoices submitted covered. After a period of time, Councilman Roth interjected and stated that he (Walker) need not go through all of those checks for his benefit. He reiterated that he did not ask for checks and invoices, but an itemized readable list to enable the Council to determine if undue hardship existed. Subsequently, as the attorney for the massage parlor, he could then cer:ify that what was listed was actually the amount of improvements that had been made. He felt that Mr. Walker had done a poor job in providing such evidence. Mr. Walker countered and stated that he submitted a letter at the outset showing that $5,313.15 had been expended by his client for the period of time in question. He had also submitted checks and invoices in support of those improvements and attempted to read what the individual invoices covered. If there was something more Councilman Roth wished, he would like to know and he would provide it. Councilman Overholt then questioned the trust deed as he did at the previous meeting; Mr. Walker explained that documents in connection with that had been submitted with the lease agreement. The second trust deed was on the family home; Mr. Walker's client, Lanh Thi, explained that $3,000 was still owing on the trust deed. Councilman Overholt noted that according to the escrow instructions, apparently the buyers obtained the assignment with ~he consent of the landlord of the existing lease and that they took possession in November of 1978. According to the lease submitted, it was da~ed July 10, 1979. He wanted to know what they received in the way of a lease when they bought the business. Mr. Walker stated tha~ he understood the lessor wanted the improvements that they had been talking about, for example, air conditioning and the carpeting, accomplished first. The discussion following the performance of the work by the lessees resulted in the lessor holding on to the lease and not executing it until 1979 when the lessor was satisfied that all the work he requested be done was completed. Councilman Overholt asked if the consideration for the purchase of the business from Claudine Levins had been paid in full; Mr. Walker answered that was correct but the lease was not executed at the time. Councilman Overholt asked if he had refused to execute a new lease, what would have been the position of his clients. 80-1681 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Walker answered it was his understanding that he did not refuse but he simply would not execute it. Councilman 0verholt noted again that the lease was dated July 10, 1979. The term commenced'on the first day of January 1978 and ended the 31st of December, 1981. He was wondering if there was an error in the lease or some confusion. Mr. Walker answered that apparently the length of time was extended on the lease by virtue of perhaps the delay in executing it. He did not have an answer as to how the time was computed. Councilman 0verholt asked if his understanding was that the lease was good until December 31, 1981; Mr. Walker answered, that was correct. Councilman 0verholt asked the hours of operation; Mr. Walker's clients, answered 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., six days a week, closed Sundays. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Walker if he would reco-~,end to his cleint that if the Council wers to grant an extension that it operate between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and would he advise them to agree to such a condition of extension. Mr. Walker answered "yes". Councilman 0verhol: also asked if he would advise them to agree in =he event of a conviction of a prostitution-reia=ed offense involving their place of business that they would a~ree that the extension would terminate forthwith. Mr. Walker answered that he would and he had read to them from those sections of the Code already. He also explained =o them, as he presently understood the ordinance to read, that it not only meant pros=itution or solicitation of prostitution, but also any offense of a related ha=ute or that might result from a reduction of the charge ~r otherwise in some subsequent court action and would result in the closing of their business forthwi=h by virtue of the stipu- lation. Councilman 0verhol~ asked if he would stipulate that such an agreement would be freely given by them; Mr. Walker answered "yes". Councilman Overholt moved to extend the period of abatement pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult En=er:ainment for Tiffany's Feminine Way forthe full two-year period expiring December 20, 1982 (later in the meeting Councilman Overholt stated that the intent of his motion was to grant the extension of December 31, 1981, the apparent termination date of the present lease on the business). The extension was subject to the stipulations that (1) if during that time there was a conviction of a prostitution related offense, the extension would terminate, and (2) that hours of operation will be from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, closed Sundays. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Councilman Seymour reoffered the same motion as articulated by Councilman Overholt granting an extension of =he abatement period to December 31, 1981, subj- j ect to the two stipulations indicated above. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. 80-1682 qity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked if there was a stipulation by his client agreeing to what was contained in the motion offered; Mr. Walker answered "so stipulated". He then explained the import of the motion to his client who also agreed to the stipulation. Councilman Roth stated he was going to support the motion with great reluctance. The ordinance stated that a serious problem and hardship had to be shown. He was not convinced that had been shown in this case except for the lease itself which had been interpreted would expire on December 31, 1981. He would thus support the motion. Councilman Overholt stated that he felt undue hardship had been shown, that an investment had been made in a then unrestricted business of $35,000 by way of cash or a note which was not even paid off as yet. He felt the showing had been made and that they had expended approximately $5,300 in improvements which he considered an investment to be recouped over the period of the lease. If there was an inequity, it was in the fact that somebody sold the business to the present owners for that kind of money and they had not had an opportunity to recoup that investment. They should be entitled to run to the end of their existing lease or December 31, 1981. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Kaywood and Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 175: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY (SCPPA) STUDIES - PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION (PVNDS): Proposed participation in the study by the SCPPA of acquiring a 5.51 percent interest (210MW) in the PVNGS from the Arizona Public Service Company (APSC) and that $5,000 be appropriated from Electric Revenue Bond funds to finance the City's share of the study; proposed participation in the SCPPA project to acquire an ownership interest in the PVNGS Units I, II, and III and that $20,000 be appropriated from Electric Revenue Bond funds to finance the City's share of the study--recommended in memorandum dated December 19, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Bay first stated that new information on natural gas was that it could be a form of cheap energy in the future. He'asked the Public Utilities General Manager if they had started looking at a review of the City's energy objectives wi~h the possibility of using more natural gas. .Mr. Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager, answered "no". He believed that the price of natural gas was going to rise and become quite competitive with coal and oil and that it was artificially low at present. Their plans did not contemplate natural gas because at the moment, their last priority was to burn natural gas in the boilers to make electricity. Councilman Bay stated that his concern when initiating any project was that they. not lock their objectives in concrete. He wanted to know what options they would have if cheap natural gas became available or if it did tufa out that nuclear research was being heavily subsidized and when those subsidies ended, if nuclear power was going to cost more than gas produced electricity. Mr. Hoyt explained it was his understanding that there had been an enormous subsidy of the nuclear industry including weapons technology. If those costs were spread among weapons and peaceful uses, there would be a very large amount 80-1683 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980~ i:30. P.M. of federal research money probably attributed to nuclear plant construction. However, he was not aware that there was a continuing subsidy that would make nuclear energy more expensiveif removed. Councilman Bay asked if the $25,000 covering both proposals would tell them whether they were going to go or not go on the projects or if more study would be needed thereafter. Mr. Hoyt stated that the R. W. Beck study (Item 3 of December 19, 1980 report from the PUB) would cost approximately $7,500 and that would tell them whether or not to go forward. He did not anticipate that the rest of the money in the Salt River acquisition would be spent, but it would be available in case some- thing happened. The project was going to go forward with or without Anaheim and the reason he was present as the representative of Anaheim on the SCPPA was that he voted to go forward with the studies. If they were not going to do so, he wanted to be able to tell them very quickly by mid-1981. Discussion and questioning then followed between the Mayor and Mr. Hoyt relative to questions posed by the Mayor as to why the Arizona Public Service Company would want to sell their interest in the project, as well as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's involvement in the project. The Mayor then asked what kind of financial commitment were they likely to be asked to make in June or July of 1981. Mr. Hoyt stated they would be asked to execute power sales contract similar to the IPP contract which would commit them to approximately 18MW of the project. The amount of bonds to be issued which they would be paying back over the life of the project would be somewhere in the order of $30 or $40 million. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if money would be coming out of the previous $150 million bond issue. Mr. Hoyt answered "no". It would be a purchase of power and it would show up on the profit and loss statement as an operating expense. He was not certain how it would show up on the books. The Mayor asked if he (Hoyt) had in mind to come to the Council and make a recommendation for a public election to determine whether or not they would invest the $30 to $40 million in 1980-81. Mr. Hoyt answered that he would follow the Council's direction in that matter. He had explained to the City's partners in SCPPA that there was a strong possi- bility that Anaheim would go to an election. He was watching the Governor to see what he might do relative to the Peripheral Canal and there was a movement afoot to bring that matter to an early vote. If go, the City Attorney informed him that he had checked with the Registrar of Voters for Orange County and found that there was a mechanism whereby they could consolidate with them and put the measure on the ballot. Thus, that option was available. If not, another option would be a special election either at the end of May or June. The Mayor asked if that would be sufficient time for them to participate; Mr. Hoyt stated he believed so. He would ask their partners if Anaheim held an 80-1684 ~ity Hall, .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. election and it failed, if :hey would pick up the City's share and if everybody would be willing to go forward on that basis. If not, that would present another problem. Mayor Seymour stated it seemed to him if they had a go or no go decision to make in July and if they had a special election or could piggy-back an election on the Peripheral Canal in early June, assuming a positive vote, they should be afforded the opportunity to participate. Mr. Hoyt stated that would also be a good time to bring their refunding measures back to the voters as well. He wanted to do so at the soonest possible time, although he was not sure he wanted too many issues proposed together. Mayor Seymour asked what might be the lead time necessary to establish the question of whether or not. they would hold a special election in June or consolidate with the Peripheral Canal election. Mr. Hoyt stated he believed it was approximately 60 days. If there was a special election in April, they would need to have everything done by February. The Mayor asked if the study data would be back in sufficient time so that it could be disseminated to the public? Mr. Hoyt answered "yes". The only study they were concerned with was the R. W. Beck data. Assuming that the recommendation was approved today, he would tell Beck to get started and get the contract going. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to (1) authorize the City's participation in the study by the Southern California Public Power Authority of acquiring a 5.51 percent interest (210MW) in the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station from Arizona Public Service Company, and that $5,000 be appropriated from Electric Revenue Bond funds to finance the City's share of the study; (2) authorize the City's participation in the Southern California Public Power Authority Study of acquiring a 5.91 percent interest in the Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station, Anaheim's percent entitlement in the SCPPA purchase of 225 554 would be 8 percent, or approximately 18 MW; appropriating $20,000 from Electric Revenue Bond proceeds to pay the cost of the study; and authorizing employment of R. W. Beck and Associates to study economic feasibility of the project and render a report thereon to the City, as recommended in memorandums dated December 19, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated he would like to amend the motion to reflect the thinking of the City Council relativm to the public's right to par- ticipate in a decision to go ahead, assuming the Council was ready to proceed upon receipt of the study information. Thus, he would amend the motion to indicate in the event Council should ultimately choose to proceed with either of the proposed projects after receipt of the study data, that they will hold a special election. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood sta~ed if it should turn out that it would very clearly be a big savings of money to participate and it could be shown immediately in the savings from the purchase of a like amount from Southern California 80-1685 City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 19.80, 1:30 P...M. Edison, it may be at that time the decision would be not to hold a special elec- tion. Every election held on the purchase of power for a larger amount than Edison ihad been passed by an overwhelming margin. Possibly it would be determined at the time that there would be no need for a special election. Councilman Roth stated he thought the Council had gone on record that they would go to the people for a vote on any huge capital improvement. That would be a reversal of the policies established by the Council. Councilman Overholt stated that the Council had gone on record in putting such matters to the vote of the people and that was why he asked, if what the Mayor added was an amendment, that Councilman Bay merely adopt that as part of his motion. If so, he would also adopt it as the second to the motion. Councilman Bay stated =hat he would accept it as part of the motion. Mayor Seymour thereupon withdrew his motion to amend. The reason he broached the matter was purely because of what Councilwoman Kaywood had said. In her mind, there may be conditions on which she would not feel it necessary to go to the voters and that concerned him greatly. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the Mayor not put words in her mouth. Mayor Seymour stated he was explaining what he understood of her position when she said there may not be a reason to go to the voters. He had to conclude that there were certain circumstances where she may say "no." If that was an expression of the majority of the Council, he wanted to know up front so that he could oppose the expenditure of one dime. He, for one, and he was also glad to hear from Council Members Overholt, Roth and Bay, believed there were no conditions under which he would find acceptable the commitment of $30 to $40 million without the approval of the voters. Councilman Bay felt it was a good idea that the matter be brought forward so that Mr. Hoyt would know what he had to deal with and also to reiterate the Council's majority opinion. He did not believe there had been any doubt in that regard up to now. Mayor Seymour stated he would remind =he Council that he had asked the City. Attorney to draw some alternatives to handle the question as it came up from time to time and perhaps they ought to be setting a time table for discussing those alternatives. If they went to an election, this ~ime they may also want to consider putting that question on the ballot which would mean a Charter amendment and there would not be the necessity, assuming a favorable passage, to raise the question on a continuing basis. We suggested if Mr. ~oyt wished to do so, that he run that through his Department, as well as the Public Utilities Board, so that they could deal with both matters at the same time. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Bay including the amendment as articulated by =he Mayor. MOTION CARRIED. 175: ELECTRICAL WHOLESALE RATE INCREASE FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON AND NON-LIFELINE ELECTRICAL RATE INCREASE: Mr. Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager, announced that Southern California Edison filed a wholesale 80-1686 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M. rate increase during Christmas week and they were still evaluating that to see what its effect was going to be on Anaheim. It was very complex, having two parts, one effective February 15, 1981 and the other to become effective as soon as San Onofre Generating Unit No. II went into commercial operation and rate base. They were, therefore, looking at two substantial increases. Later in the meeting, Mr. Hoyt also announced that there would be an electrical rate increase effective January 1, 1981 of .615% per K~ for non-lifeline usage. He commented, however, that they were still below Edison dependent upon usage. 123: AGREEMENT FOR LOW AND MODERATE COST CONDOMINIUMS AT 950 SOUTH CITRON STREET: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, a proposed revised agreement and memorandum of agreement was authorized between the City and St. James Court, a partnership, to limit maximum sales price for an 86-unit condo- minium project located at 950 South Citron Street (formerly Citron Park), as recommended in memorandum dated December 17, 1980 from the City Attorney's office. MOTION CARRIED. 109: URGING LEGISLATION - AB9 - PERIPHERAL CANAL: Urging the support of Assembly Bill No. 9, calling for election of the voters of the State of California to determine the desire of the electorate on the Peripheral Canal (continued from the meeting of December 16, 1980--see minutes that date--in order to receive further information from the Intergovernmental Relations Office). Councilman Seymour moved to postpone any action on the subject until further information was available and the Metropolitan Water District adopted a position, as recommended in memorandum dated December 22, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager. Councilman Bay seconded ~he motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that ~he Orange County Division of the League of Cities meeting was to be held January 8, 1981. If there was any further information, she suggested tha~ they receive it quickly so that they could ask the local League to join with Anaheim if they decided to act on it. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 105: RESIGNATION FOR THE GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: Mayor Seymour stated that they had all received a letter from Lorene Zibell tendering her resignation from the Golf Course Advisory Commission. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved Co accept the resingation of Lorene Zibell from the Golf Course Advisory Commission and that the vacancy created by the resignation be posted accordingly. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CA~AIED. 123: REQUEST FROM..ANAHEIM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL TO ASSIGN A PORTION OF THE LEASED PROPERTY TO THE ORANGE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY: Councilman Roth moved to approve the reques: of James D. Tregurtha, Anaheim Memorial Hospital, pursuant to Section IX of the lease agreement between the City and Anaheim Memorial Hospital, of the use of. a portion of the premises located on Swan Street by the Orange County Human Services Agency for employee parking purposes, as recommended in memorandum dated December 24, 1980 from the City Attorney's office. MOTION CARRIED. 80-1687 City H~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator: a. Claim submitted by Sidney W. Sanders for personal injury and vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident involving City-owned Utility truck, Unit No. 1173, on Lincoln Avenue, west of Sunkist Street, on or about August 27, 1980. b. Claim submitted by William George and Mary Lou Mahrley, Jacqueline and Kimberly Mahrley, their minor daughters, for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police during arrest of Mr. and Mrs. Mahrley, on or about September 28, 1980. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of November 12, 1980. b. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Service Division--Monthly Report for November 1980. c. 105: Anaheim You~h Commission--Minutes of December 10, 1980. d. 105: Anaheim Public Library Board--Minutes of October 15 and November 19, 1980. Councilwoman Kaywood noted the Library Board minutes indicated, based on a newspaper article, they were going to write Congress to protest an IR~ rulinR on books. Such incidents had come up before and they did ask that the various boards and commissions go through the Council before writing on a policy matter of any kind. Councilman Overholt was the liaison to the Library Board and she suggested perhaps a letter be written to the Board. Councilman Overholt stated that he would be glad to handle the matter by telephone and perhaps the referred to letter had not been sent. e. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Monthly Statistical Report for November 1980. f. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes o£ November 12 and December 10, 1980. 3. 108: APPLICATIONS: In accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police, the following applications were approved: a. Amusement Devices Permit Application: Mia Taco, 2801 East Lincoln Avenue, for various amusement devices. (Michael A. Pinkus, applicant) b. Amusement Devices Permit Application: Jenny's Liquor Store, 1679 West Katella Avenue, for one video game. (John Shandra and Mark Finch, applicant) c. Amusement Devices permit Application: Lucky 7 Market, 3268 West Lincoln Avenue, for various amusement devices. (Stephan T. West, applicant) 80-1688 City Hali~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. d. Amusement Devices Permit Application: Londondale Fish & Chips, i061 North State College Boulevard, for various amusement devices. (Stephan T. West, applicant) e. Amusement Devices Permit Application: Pizza Rosa, 2825 East Lincoln Avenue, for one video game. (Stephan T. West, applicant) 4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11030: Submitted by Gerard F. and Joyce M. Warde, to establish a one-lot, il-unit condominium subdivision on proposed RM-3000 zoned property located at 2032 West Katella Avenue. (Submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 80-81-20 and Variance No. 3182 which will appear on the January 6, 1981 agenda under Planning Commission Consent Calendar) The City Planning Commission denied Tentative Tract No. 11030 and granted a negative declaration status. 5. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11053: Submitted by Mary S. Nelson, Administrator for Ida M. Rannow Estate, c/o Weinfeld.& Mixon~ A=:or~eys at Law, to establish a 5-lot, 220-unit condominium subdivision (25 percent affordable) on proposed RM-3000 zoned property located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Street. ~Submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 80-81-13 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2119 which will appear on the January 6, 1981 agenda under Planning Commission Consent Calendar) The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11053, and granted a negative declaration status. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-584 and 80R-585, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-584: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SCOUT TRAIL STREET IMPROVEMENT, N/O NOHL RANCH ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-904-6325; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICA- TIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC I.F%PRQVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (.Bids to be opened on January 29, 1981, at 2:00 P.M.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-585: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LA PALMA AVENUE FEDERAL AID URBAN PROJECT - STREET & STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT - FAU NO. M-L073(i1), IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 13-793-6325-E3230 & 51-6329- 25610-34320; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICA- TIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened February 5, 1981, at 2:00 P.M.) 80-1689 City H~i, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-584 and 80R-585, duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4202: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4203 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4202: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHE~ MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-50, RM-3000, Tract No. 10437) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4203 duly ~assed and adopted. 153: 11% SALARY INCREASES TO MANAGEMENT: Councilman Bay stated that he had read numerous newspaper articles on the raises the Council voted in for manage- ment at the last Council meeting. He felt if they wanted the best in management, and he believed they had it, they should be given the benefits of working for the City. He did not consider an 11% raise even close to the changes in the cost of living. He reiterated the City wanted the best and wanted to keep the best, he would speak for that 11% raise. Before recessing into Executive Session, the Council Mambers wished one and all a Happy 1981. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive Session. (5:12 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:40 P.M.) 153: DETERMINING THE DISABILITY RETIREMENT OF STEVEN KOERNER: Councilman Roth offerered Resolution No. 80R-586 for adoption, finding and determining that Steven Koerner is disabled within the meaning of the public Employees' Retire- ment Law for the performance of his duties in the position of Police Officer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-586: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT STEVEN KOERNER IS DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER. 80-1690 City .Hall~ Anaheim~ Cali.f. ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBE~: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-586 duly passed and adopted. 153: DISABILITY RETIREMENT STATUS REPORT: Councilman Seymour moved to direct the City Manager to prepare on an annual basis a report showing the status of all disability retirements. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 153: EFFECTIVE DATE OF WAGES OF CERTAIN CITY EMPLOYEES: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-587 for adoption, pertaining to effective date of wages of certain employees of ~he City of Anaheim (applies to Utility Depart- ment employees, any wage settlement concurred with by February 12, 1981, effec- tive date shall be October 10, 1980). Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-587: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PERTAINING TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF WAGES OF CERTAIN gMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Nome The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-587 duly passed and adopted. 153: AMENDMENT TO PERSONNEL RULE 17: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-588 for adoption, amending Personnel Rule 17, Sick Leave, and amending Resolution No. 76R-182. (Applies ~o units and groups that have concurred with the sick leave package) Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-588: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING PERSONNEL RULE 17, SICK LEAVE, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-182. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-588 duly passed and adopted. 112: EL TO~D WATER DISTRICT VS. MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY~ ETC.: Councilman Seymour moved to approve a mutual compromise and release in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 31-67-00 (El Toro Water District, etc. vs. Municipal Water District of Orange County, etc.) and authorizing execution thereof by the Utilities Department General Manager and the City Attorney. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 80-1691 City H~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 30, 198.0, 1:30 P.M. 123: DIEMER FILTRATION PLANT/SANTIAGO AQUEDUCT INTERTIE: Councilman Seymour moved to approve the third amendment to the agreement for construction, opera- tion and maintenance of pipeline, and to enter into a sublease concerning the Diemer Filtration Plant/Santiago Aqueduct Intertie and authorizing execution thereof by the Utilities Department General Manager and the City Attorney. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adourn. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:43 P.M.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK