1979/07/1779-778
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1979, 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
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
POLICE CHIEF: George P. Tielsch
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ZONING: Annika Santalahti
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Lieutenant Lawrence G. Hutcheson
PERSONNEL ANALYST: Barbara Kasch
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Detective Mitchell
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: A moment of silence was observed in lieu of Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously
adopted by the City Council and presented to and accepted by Walter J. Skowron,
National President of the 14th Armored Division, on the occasion of the Division's
Fifteenth Annual Reunion, July 25-29, 1979.
119: 25-YEAR SERVICE AWARDS: On behalf of the Council, Mayor Seymour presented
25-year service awards to the following employees: Mr. Treece Johnson, Senior
Electrical Estimator in the Utilities Department, Electrical Engineering Division;
Henry Roger Martinez, Lead Park Maintenance Worker in the Park, Recreation and
Community Services Department. Two other awards also went to Captain Carl D.
Miller, Detective Division of the Police Department and James Betzsold, Electric
Line General Supervisor in the Utilities Department to be presented at a later
date.
119: 10-YEAR SERVICE AWARD: Mayor Seymour presented a 10-year service award
to City Attorney William Hopkins and commended him on his outstanding service
to the Council.
MINUTES: The minutes were deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved'to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
79-779
Citz Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $144,998.77 for the period
ending July 6, 1979; $2,346,357.14 for the period ending July 13, 1979; and
$7,996,091.54 for the period ending July 17, 1979, in accordance with the
1979-80 Budget, were approved.
123: CONSULTING SERVICES FOR A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF ANAHEIM/MDS AGREEMENT:
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-408 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated July 17, 1979 from the City Manager's Office, approving an
agreement with Gottfried Consultants Inc., in an amount not to exceed $36,000
for consulting services for financial analysis of the Anaheim/Municipal Data
Systems (MDS) relationship. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-408: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH GOTTFRIED CONSULTANTS,
INC., FOR FINANCIAL CONSULTING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
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. 79R-408 duly passed and adopted.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman KayWood, it was determined
that the $11,000 shortfall in the cost of the above consulting services would be
absorbed by the Utilities Department. MOTION CARRIED.
177: SECTION 8 MODERATE REHABILITATION APPLICATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Mayor was authorized to execute
a letter endorsing the Anaheim Housing Authority's application for 255 units
of Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation am recommended in memorandum dated July 10,
1979 from the Community Development Department. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Mayor
was authorized to execute a statement certifying that any relocation payments
made as a result of the said program will be funded under the Community Dev-
elopment Block Grant Program. MOTION CARRIED.
123: CONSULTING SERVICES FOR STREET, SEWER, STORM DRAIN WATER IMPROVEMENTS FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA: Councilman Ro'th offered Resolution No. 79R-409
for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated July 9, 1979 from the City
Engineer, William Devitt, approving an amendment to an agreement with Willdan
Associates in an amount not to exceed $4,500 to provide supplemental consulting
services for the above improvements for Redevelopment Project Alpha Refer to
Resolution Book. '
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-409: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH WILLDAN
ASSOCIATES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT
TO AGREEMENT.
79-780
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July .17~ 1979~ !: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 No. 79R-409 duly passed and adopted.
123: GOLF CART MAINTENANCE: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by
Councilman Roth, the Purchasing Agent was authorized to accept the offer of
Taylor-Dunn dated July 5, 1979 to extend the existing Golf Cart Maintenance
Agreement dated July 18, 1976, on a month-to-month basis for a period not to
exceed 90 days, to allow for procurement of new golf carts and maintenance,
and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to execute a letter agreement' therefor,
as recommended in memorandum dated July 10, 1979 from the Purchasing Agent
Richard Jefferis. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - TWO (2.)...0IL CIRCUIT BREAKERS - BID NO. 3541:
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the low bid of
Westinghouse Electric Corporation was accepted and purchase authorized in the
amount of $46,478.88, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent
in his memorandum dated July 9, 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
175: INSURANCE FOR SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - UNITS 2 AND 3:
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-410 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated July 10, 1979 from General Manager of Public Utilities Gordon
Hoyt, appointing Harry Chester Butterfield as an officer of the City for the
sole and express purpose of executing an insurance agreement with Nuclear
Mutual Limited, for insurance at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units
2 and 3. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-410: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DESIGNATING HARRY CHESTER BUTTERFIELD AS AN OFFICER OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR
THE SOLE AND EXPRESS PURPOSE OF EXECUTING THE INSURANCE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
CITY AND NUCLEAR MUTUAL LIMITED.
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. 79R-410 duly passed and adopted.
153: CREATION OF NEW PART-TIME CLASSIFICATION - TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPERVISOR:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-411 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated July 11, 1979 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-411: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-137 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME CLASSIFICATIONS AND CREATING A NEW CLASSIFICATION.
79-781
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979, 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 No. 79R-411 duly passed and adopted.
180: LONG-TERM DISABILITY PLAN MODIFICATION: Councilman Bay offered Resolution
No. 79R-412 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated July 11, 1979 from
Human Resources Director Garry McRae, authorizing him to sign the request to
Standard Insurance Company for Group Policy Amendment, Policy No. 384412 to
amend the Long-Term Disability benefits, to comply with Federal law, effective
January 1, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-412: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S LONG-TERM
DISABILITY POLICY COVERED BY STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT. (POLICY NO. 384412)
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. 79R-412 duly passed and adopted.
175: LEASE OF RIVERDALE PARK: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-413
for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated July 11, 1979 from Deputy City
Manager James Ruth, approving an amendment to an agreement with the County of
Orange dated May 20, 1975, enabling the City to lease 3.5 acres of Riverdale
Park for development of a commercial recreation complex. Refer to Resolution
Book
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-413: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE RELATING TO RIVERDALE PARK AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
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. 79R-413 duly passed and adopted.
150: DISPOSITION OF $1~000 AWARD MONEY FOR WINNING THE NATIONAL GOLD MEDAL:
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the $1,000 award
money presented to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department by
the Sports FoUndation for winning the National Gold Medal for excellence in the
field of Park and Recreation Management was accepted and said amount appropriated
to the Park and Playgrounds Program--Program No. 270. MOTION CARRIED.
79-782
City .Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
156: ORDINANCE NO. 4027 - FALSE BURGLARY/ROBBERY ALARMS: Mayor Seymour referred
to the proposed ordinance and accompanying report from the Chief of Police dated
June 29, 1979, proposing an ordinance that would require permits to be issued for
the installation of alarm systems. Although he appreciated the concern of the
Department as expressed in the report, he did not want to do anything that would
be a deterrent to the installation of alarm~, and if anything, would want to
offer an incentive for people to install alarm systems in their homes. He had
read in a number of articles that if an individual had a burglar alarm system
installed on his property, the chances that robbery or burglary would take
place was reduced many fold.
Lieutenant Lawrence Hutcheson explained that the problem with the situation was
that there were a number of companies circulating throughout the United States
who initially provided alarm systems determined adequate for the protection of
businesses or residences, but subsequently were not around to back-up their
systems. Alarm systems were only as good as the people who manufactured them.
There was a great amount of complacency being developed by people who owned
very sophisticated alarm systems. The Police Department was in favor of alarm
systems and they wanted to have the ability to respond to a residence Or business;
however, the major problem lay in the fact that false alarms were far exceeding
the valid calls, resulting in a 98.2% false alarm rate. They were looking to
protect the alarm buyer, the businessman and the person who installed one in
their residence, but they also had to look at the realistic side of the issue.
He reiterated if the alarm kept going off, a ~omplacency aspect was being
developed.
Further discussion followed between the Mayor, Councilman Roth, Police Chief
George Tielsch and Lieutenant Hutcheson relative to the matter, at the conclusion
of which the Mayor stated that he supported the installation of alarms and
efforts to decrease the number of false alarms. He reemphasized his concern
over placing a deterrent on activity he believed to be a positive attraction
if helpful in preventing crime in the City. Road blocks should not be placed
in the path of that process. He considered the levying of a fee to be a neg-
ative aspect and a penalty which would not encourage citizens to install
alarms. He supported the ordinance but not the $50 processing fee. If money
was going to be saved as a result of the ordinance, he wanted to know if it
was going to save enough so as to do away with what he considered an onerous
deterrent.
Councilman Overholt expressed his concern relative to officers' safety. When it
was known that 98% of the time they were answering false alarms, they could become
complacent and get killed.
Councilman Roth was inclined to agree with the Mayor. He was not opposed to the
penalty fee for repeated false alarms, but to the installation fee which would
discourage the installation of alarm~.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Lieutenant Hutcheson explained that the $50
fee covered the processing of the application of an alarm system which was in
line with other cities who had adopted similar ordinances.
79-783
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood concluded that if the system was then found to be inadequate
or the installation faulty and no permit granted, they would, in actuality, be
saving the owner money.
Lieutenant Hutcheson stated that was one of the points - to prevent the purchase
of faulty or inadequate systems.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to have the proposed Ordinance amended to
eliminate the $50 fee and if the projections were correct that there was going
to be a $60,000 to $70,000 savings from not having to answer false alarms, that
should be more than adequate to handle the administrative costs involved, as well
as Lieutenant Hutcheson's cost in making the system work. If that amount was
not sufficient, he would vote in favor of another $70,000 to support the program.
If it was a deterrent to crime, he would like to have a public relations program
convincing citizens they should install alarms. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that without a fee,
there would be no permit process and thus nothing to prevent the purchaser from
obtaining a faulty system. It would not decrease the number of false alarms.
Councilman Bay stated that he could support the Mayor's motion if he would
agree to amend it by having no fee for six months and at the end of that period,
to have a cost study submitted. If they were losing money, consideration could
then be given to some fee below $50 or perhaps $10, $20 or $25 to pick up the
cost, with a review clause in the ordinance. He then asked Lieutenant Hutcheson
if he had any figure as to how many alarms were installed in the City per year.
Lieutenant Hutcheson answered that they did not have such a figure because there
was no way of checking alarms; Mayor Seymour then questioned how the citizens
would know that an application had to be filled out when purchasing an alarm
system.
Lieutenant Hutcheson indicated that the only way would be through the news media
and the crime prevention program; the Mayor suggested that the Utility billing
system could also be utilized to disseminate such information.
Mayor Seymour reiterated that he would not vote for an ordinance that would
have a dollar deterrent attached to a positive action and he would rather
subsidize it before placing a deterrent on it.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon offered a substitute motion that the fee
be reduced to a nominal $15 amount. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt noted the startling 98.2% false
alarm figure. He agreed with the Mayor and the rest of the Council who spoke
to the advantages of a proper and effective burglar alarm system particularly
in private homes. However, an unknown percentage was not effective and proper.
He also agreed with the Mayor regarding his concern over not wanting to increase
the cost of burglar alarm systems for people willing to install them, but he did
not believe a nominal $15 application fee would have any impact on the price
people would be paying. He considered one of the most important impacts of
79-784
City..Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1979, I:30'P.M.
the ordinance to be to facilitate getting a handle on the burglar alarm system
in the City both in the commercial and residential areas so that it might be
much more effective.
The Mayor stated he would speak against a vote against the motion on the basis
that unless somebody was going to say that alarms were bad and did not reduce
crime, then he could accept some negative deterrent. He repeated that they
should be doing everything possible to see that every citizen in the City had
a satisfactory alarm system on their property. The facts were, there would be
a substantial savings of tax dollars.
Councilman Roth also expressed his opposition for two reasons, (1) the unscrup-
ulous operator did not apply for a permit and, (2) he took a dim view of govern-
ment evaluating things in a free enterprise system; however, he was in support
of the proposed penalty fee.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would support the substitute motion since she
previously indicated it would be a savings to the purchaser in preventing a
faulty installation or an inadequate alarm system.
A vote was taken on the substitute motion amending the proposed $50 permit fee
to $15. Councilmen Roth and Seymour voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4027 for first reading with the permit
fee reduced to $15.
ORDINANCE NO. 4027: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 4.90 TO
TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FALSE ALARMS.
123/156: PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR ENTRY LEVEL POLICE OFFICER APPLICATIONS:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-421 for adoption, as recommended
in joint memorandum dated July 11, 1979 from the Risk Mangement, Human Resources
and Police Department, approving an agreement with Eric W. Gruver, Ph.D. to
conduct psychological evaluation for entry level police officer candidates,
term ending July 31, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-421: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ERIC W. GRUVER, Ph.D.,
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth asked what the total cost per year
would be for the program which he understood would involve new officers coming
on board.
Human Resources Director Garry McRae stated they anticipated in the immediate
future approximately 15 such cases and beyond that, depending on turnover in
the Police Department. It would probably not exceed 20 depending on the
growth of the Department. The $250 represented an initial one time only fee.
Councilman Roth stated he supported the program very strongly, but noted that
there was no information as to the total estimated cost to taxpayers over the
year.
79-785
C~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July. 17~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the matter.
Mrs. Josie Montoya, 1542 South Ninth Street, stated that she was a member of the
People for Community Development (PCD) and over the past two months, the PCD
had been trying to meet with Chief Tielsch to present their research and to
discuss their position and that of the Orange County Grand Jury for ongoing
psychological testing for all sworn personnel. Chief Tielsch shocked them
by refusing to meet with them because he said his mind was made up, and he
was opposed to testing. It did not seem to be an intelligent approach on
the Chief's part, nor was it the always-willing-to-meet tradition of former
Chief Bastrup. They did not understand, nor would they tolerate the secrets
of the Department not only in not meeting with them, but also in not making
public the study the Council had before it today. They also wanted to study
it and were open to all views and opinions. They supported psychological
testing for all new personnel, but if everyone seemed to agree to the need
for new personnel to be tested, it also followed logically that officers who
had been admitted to the Department and serving in the Department also be
tested, since they had never been tested previously. If all yet unsworn officers
must be tested, all sworn personnel must be tested. They felt the whole issue
must be discussed in the open and that public hearing be held at night when
the working class of the barrios and the City could attend. They suggested
Tuesday, August 7, 1979 as the date for a public hearing on pyschological
testing for all sworn personnel. If the Council felt they must, regardless
of cost, approve psychological testing for all new personnel today, they urged
them to do so with the understanding they would leave open the question of psy-
chological testing for sworn personnel. She concluded by turning the floor
over to Donna Youngerman, who had some research to present that was conducted
by the PCD which was the same research they tried to discuss with Chief Tielsch.
Ms. Donna Youngerman, 202 East Adeie, stated over the past two weeks, they had
done some research which she felt was important for the Council to hear before
making a decision today. They had talked with the following people about
psychological testing:
Dr. Alice Pittman, a psychologist from Tustin who evaluated candidates for
police officer jobs for several police departments, including Orange. She charged
$80 an hour for services and had performed such testing for 10 years.
it an economical way to protect the City from lawsuits and disability She viewed
payments
to officers who were not suited to the job. She felt that initial screening
plus ongoing availability of a Police psychologist were the best alternatives
for cities to use.
Another is Dr. Charles Galbo, Ph.D. from Newport Beach who had been evaluating
candidates for the San Diego Sheriffs Department for a number of years. Other
cities in which he worked were Anaheim, under Police Chief Stephenson, Huntington
Beach and Newport Beach. He had been conducting such testing for 12 years and
he estimated that 60% of the people interviewed were recommended for hiring and
40% were not recommended. He charged $100 for each evaluation. He believed
that ongoing psychological testing for one to two years would be the best way
to protect the City from disability payments and to protect individual officers
from disability due to stress.
79-786
City .Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Another is Dr. Everett Jacobson of Tustin, a psychologist who used various
tests to determine what type of assistance a person needed. While he had not
worked with the Police, he had done personnel interviews and MMPI's to eval-
uate candidates for Police Officers at a cost between $100 and $300 depending
on how thorough an examination was made. He felt that psychological testing
was a legitimate and useful tool for making certain people well suited to
their jobs.
And still another is Dr. Kenneth Fineman, President of the Orange County Psy-
chological Association, Huntington Beach, who performed general testing of
people to find out how they got along with others, how they would react under
stress and how they would get along with minority people. Although he worked
mostly on an individual basis with police officers, he felt that such testing
was important. Police officers had a lot of authority and it made good sense
to determine if the people hired were capable of exercising that authority
appropriately. He felt the logical thing to do would be to have an initial
evaluation as part of the hiring process, followed up by periodic evaluations
every one to two years with a psychologist or psychiatrist available for those
officers who needed some support.
In concluding, Ms. Youngerman stated that they felt their research should weigh
heavily on the Council's decision today and because they knew the Council regarded
very highly the spending of taxpayers' monies, they hoped the Council would take
their research into consideration.
Mrs. Montoya in summation stated that the members of PCD urged the Council
(1) to call a public hearing on psychological testing for the evening of August 7,
1979; (2) to consider their research and cost study before awarding any contract
to Biddle and Associates and Dr. Gruver; and (3) in the spirit of openness and
intellectual honesty, they requested a copy of the Biddle study which was before
the Council today.
Mayor Seymour explained that they did not have a copy of the study and they had
not seen it. He then asked if any other member of the public wished to address
the matter; there was no response. Subsequently, he asked the Human Resources
Director if he would care to respond since he (Seymour) had an interest in
knowing what information Mr. McRae had of the various doctors named and also how
they went about the recruitment of a psychologist to be used.
Mr. McRae answered in November of 1978, the Council approved an agreement with
Biddle and Associates to develop a psychological evaluation process. They sent
out requests for proposals (RFP) to 20 psychologists in January 1979 and received
five proposals between February and March, but he was not certain of any of the
names on that list, except that Dr. Galbo was one of the respondents. The
interviews that took place in April were between Police Chief Tielsch, Barbara
Kasch of his staff and a member of Biddle and Associates who, in turn, identified
the two top candidates who were reinterviewed with Jack Love, Risk Manager,
Chief Tielsch and Barbara Kasch. On the basis of those interviews, Dr. Gruber
was elected.
They subsequently met with him and determined that he would be the person best
suited to perform the psychological work-up required between job related cri-
teria and the psychological testing dealing with job-related behavior patterns
and personality traits. As part of his initial assignment, Dr. Gruver would
79-787
C__ity Ha~ California _ COUNCIL MINUTES - ~uly 17~ 1979, 1:.30 P.M.
be required to produce a matrix against which the tests would be measured in
a variety of formats. It was the opinion of the people conducting the inter-
views that Dr. Gruver would do the best 'ob
to Psychological testin~ thr~-~ L. 3 for Anaheim. One of his objections
cursory. In today's ~_~_~u~ nne yea~s was that it always appeared to be
...... ~=~paace where they were dealing w th hourly costs of
apProximately $60 an hour, if someone char~ed $80 or $I00 to conduct an e
uation, an extensive evaluation was not gozng to be erform val-
was designed to provide adequate ti . _ P ed The ro
scvred testing system tha~ n~ ~ me for ~n depth testin~ ~ ___P gram
price Dr. G~^ ~ _-i ..... ruver proposed t ....... o ~ w~ a computer
.... ux~ an~ he did not have ~ .... ~ ~. ~e d%d not recall the
~'=u an£ormation presently
Mayor Seymour asked if he could give further testimony or information as to how
deep the selection process was because his concern revolved around the fact that
Dr. Alice Pittman would charge $80 per interview and she contracted with some
police agencies, as well as Dr. Galbo, who was charging $100 an hour. He was of
the opinion that the Council had to have more information.
Police Chief Tielsch stated it was his impression that Dr. Pittman did not
respond to the RFP and Dr. Galbo did. They interviewed the five respondents
and felt that the two best qualified were the ones who would be brought before
a second interview panel and after that interview, they believed the b
person in their opinion to be Dr Gr
Dr. Pittman did ..... ' uver. He (Tiels~ .... est
· ~ ~espon~ and he aske~ ~-~ ..... ~ ~a~ surprised that
Dr. Pittman had a good reputation in Orange County with many of his colleagues.
~ ~=~ara masch about that -
, oecause
ested. He did receive a letter fro
It ~as his u?derstanding that she was contacted, but said she was not
an interest in doin~ ~ .... m Dr. Pittman yester~-. ~ ..... inter-
had sent out RFP's,mb~=t p
vita ha d r n
on file if there was an occasion to use it in the future. They could
e would keep her
only interview the people who responded.
Mayor Seymour stated that the Chief should not take his question as suggesting
that an adequate and complete job was not accomplished, but on the other hand
if the Council was going to be asked to made a decision based on information
they received, $350 per evaluation, and were
p~ople who would perform the testing for $100t°ld that there were competent
or $80, they had to question the
situation in order to concur with the recommendation.
The Mayor continued at first, to answer Mrs. Montoya. He did not feel that they
should be holding an evening public hearing on the matter on August 7, as sug-
gested. They had discussed the matter previously and it was first discussed
when a Council meeting was held at Little People's Park where the Co
they would investigate psycholo ic ·
mendation last November to i ~ al ~s~lng. They took acti u~cil said
nit~ate how ~he~, couTM _ ._ on on that recom-
testing of officers and now the w · ~ ~u probably begin psychological
officers reportin~ =n ...... Y ere ready to make a decision relative to new
o .... ~u, oun not existing officers. There had been some
discussion and questions raised regarding psychological testing on a continuing
basis of existing officers, but that decision had not been made, and he did not
think the Council was prepared to make that decision today and would not until
some time in the future. Therefore, be did not see any merit to holding a
public hearing on that matter presently. On the other hand,
presented information that he felt they should take the time Ms. Youngerman
to review and thus
79-788
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
suggested that the matter be continued for one week and in the meantime to have
Personnel provide the Council with the Biddle Report and a detailed report as
to how the conclusion was reached. He was not saying that the right decision
was not reached, but that they owed it to themselves to review the situation.
Chief Tielsch explained that if the matter were continued, they would not be able
to put a class in the forthcoming academy because Dr. Gruver was going to leave
on vacation and they had been rushing the recruitment effort to accommodate his
vacation. If consideration was continued and Dr. Gruver left, by the time he
returned, it would be too late to put the next class into the academy on September 1,
and he did not know when the next class would be. Testing was being set up
within the next 10 days.
Mr. McRae also explained that the recruits were taking their medical examin-
ations on Friday, yesterday, today and tomorrow and as soon as the evaluations
were completed on the medicals, they would be scheduled for pyschological test-
ing. All 15 must have completed their initial psychological testing prior to
next Wednesday.
Assistant City Manager William P. Hopkins stated that the information could be
provided before the end of today's Council meeting and suggested that it be
continued to later in the agenda.
Councilman Bay asked that when the additional information was provided if in
the $350 quote there were implied hours as to how long it would take to perform
an evaluation. If one psychologist indicated testing would cost $80, that might
imply, for example, one hour and ten minutes, where another at $350 might imply
five to six hours. He was interested in knowing if there was a relative time
and depth of the interview.
The Mayor also asked to see a copy of the Biddle Report.
By general consent, consideration of the psychological evaluation for entry
level police officers was continued until the requested information could be
provided to the Council.
Later in the meeting, Mr. McRae stated that he asked Barbara Kasch, Personnel
Analyst, to review with the Council the hours that Dr. Gruver intended to
spend on a per applicant basis, the tests he intended to perform and the status
of the Biddle agreement and report and when it would be available.
Barbara Kasch, Personnel Analyst, explained that Dr. Gruver's services for the
psychological evaluation process were going to involve approximately six hours
per candidate as follows: one hour, clinical interview; one and a half hours,
test administration; one and a half hours, test scoring; two hours (approximatley)
for a written report plus any consultation with the City that might be necessary.
Included in his fee of $350 per candidate was the cost for computerized scoring
of the three instruments he was going to be administering to each candidate -
the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), the California Personnel
Inventory, 16 Personality Profile - all three were computerized scores. The
fourth instrument would be the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale, the fifth a
schematic aperception, a projective test, the sixth, a Rorschach, also projective,
and the last instrument, the pretest and clinical interview.
79-789
C.i.ty Hal. l., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979~ .1:30 P.M.
The initial phases of the agreement with Biddle involved working with the City
to develop a request for proposal (RFP) which was sent out to the psychologists
and then sitting on the selection committee who interviewed the psychologists.
Once the selection of a doctor was made, Biddle met with her (Kasch) and Dr.
Gruver to begin the psychological evaluation link-up which was in process at
the present time. Once the matrix was completed by Dr. Gruver, it would be
submitted to Biddle and from that would be developed the validation report
which was the final phase and that was anticipated within two to three months.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked, of the five psychologists, did anybody else have
as in-depth a procedure as Dr. Gruver.
Mrs. Kasch answered "no". Of the five, there were two top candidates and those
two were very similar in terms of in-depth procedures; however, the other
psychologist was not involved in the complete analysis of the job so that
his proposal indicated only four hours. They did not have an hour-by-hour
breakdown by Dr. Galbo in terms of what he anticipated for the psychological
evaluation process. He indicated only three basics which involved a pat-
terned interview, an MMPI and also a projective test.
Mayor Seymour asked what experience Dr. Gruver had working with police enforce-
ment agencies.
Mrs. Kasch answered that he had no direct experience working with a police
agency in terms of psychological evaluation, but he had an extensive background
in psychological testing and also personality testing for private industry. She
did not feel that that was a material consideration because the doctor was the
one who defined the psychological constructs working with the job analysis
already completed by Biddle and Associates, defining the critical duties and
tasks of a police officer. Subsequently, the psychologist would use his expertise
to devise psychological evaluation based upon that analysis. Ms. Kasch also
confirmed that Biddle had not given her any written report. The validation
report was the final phase and that would come after the matrix, and therefore,
they did not have a written report at this time.
The Mayor asked Mr. McRae if he had anything to add and also if he had spoken
with Dr. Gruver.
Mr. McRae recommended that they finalize the agreement with Dr. Gruver at this
time. He was a qualified psychologist specializing in test and measurements
with extensive background and experience in the field.
The Mayor then asked Mr. McRae if he could elaborate as to why Biddle would
consider hiring a psychologist to do police testing who had never performed
such testing before.
Mr. McRae felt that Ms. Kasch had addressed herself to that issue. The job
elements were determined through extensive evaluation that had taken place
prior to his being interviewed. It was the opinion of the selection committee
that of those five psychologists who applied for the work and submitted
proposals, that Dr. Gruver's strengths offset whatever experience the others
may have had. That committee included the consultant's, Biddle and Associates,
79-790
City. Hall~ An~heim~ Cal.i.f.qrnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979.~. 1:30 P..M.
Police Chief Tielsch, Jack Love, Risk Manager, and Barbara Kasch, Personnel
Analyst. On the basis of the evaluations, it was their opinion that Dr. Gruver
was the best qualified person to do psychological testing for Anaheim and that
judgment was made after interviewing and determining in general terms the
scope of the testing that they would perform and then in more detail when they
decided what tests would be applicable to the job duties that had been defined.
He suspected that the decision was made outside of the framework of price, and
in the committee's opinion, Dr. Gruver was the best man suited to perform that
important function for the City. That remained to be the opinion of the com-
mittee.
In answer to a line of questioning posed by the Mayor, Ms. Kasch relayed the
following information: the RFP's that were received indicated the number of
tests that the psychologist thought would be relevant,~ and based upon the
committee's interview with the candidates, they indicated what the testing
devices might be. Ail but Dr. Galbo had no previous experience with police
officer applicants. Three of the five candidates, including Dr. Galbo, were
eliminated after the first interview by the selection committee. What the
other three candidates proposed in terms of psychological testing was not as
in-depth as the top two candidates.
Ms. Donna Youngerman reported that when she left the meeting, she called all
the psychologists she had previously mentioned. She asked Dr. Galbo specifically
what tests he performed, how much time was involved and how much he would charge.
Dr. Galbo was presently working with Biddle through 28 other police departments.
The testing would require at least three hours of his time and three hours of
the policeman's time. When Mrs. Kasch indicated six hours per officer for Dr.
Gruver, she was talking about two to three hours of his time and also the same
amount of the officer's time. Thus, for $100, the same amount of time was
involved as the $350 for Dr. Gruver. Dr. Galbo gave eight tests which he
developed through Huntington Beach with Biddle. He was upset because he had
not been recontacted and did not know why he had not received the job. From
the information he relayed, Biddle was also upset that they were going to have
to work with Dr. Gruver because they would have to meet and develop a whole
new program which would cost more money and take more time.
Earlier, some concern was expressed relative to the fact that only one week's
time was available before Dr. Gruver left on vacation. If 15 people had to be
evaluated before next Wednesday, that would total 90 hours and, therefore, it
would be physically impossible to accomplish.
Ms. Youngerman also talked to Dr. Alice Pittman who wanted the job. Her problem
was that she had previously met with former Police Chief Bas trup and he asked
that she take on the psychological testing for the City. When Chief Tielsch
took over, he indicated unless Dr. Pittman would work with Biddle, she could not
have the contract. She had never worked with a non-professional before, so she
could not see fit to work with Biddle but she would very much like the job at
$80 a police officer. She also gave eight tests. When she (Youngerman) told
both of those people about the fee Dr. Gruver was charging, they said $350
was exorbitant and a "rip-off" for the City and more in line with what would
be charged for private patients. Also, when Ms. Kasch spoke about computeri-
zation, they felt it was useless tied as a baseline to ongoing evaluation of
police officers which was very important.
79-791
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Richard Vargas, 411 South Clementine, stated he felt it was inconceivable
for the Council to vote on something when they did not know what they were
voting on. They were promising an end product, but did not know what they
were going to be testing or what they were evaluating. He suggested that they
at least delay their vote until they had additional information. He was also
very unsatisfied that at least a representative from the community, especially
the Mexican-American community was not aBked to participate.
Mayor Seymour stated he was certain there were many members and sectors of the
community who would like to be a part of that process. Relative to the Council
not knowing what they were voting on, that was Mr. Vargas' opinion to which he
was entitled.
At the request of the Mayor, Mr. McRae then responded to some of the statements
made by Ms. Youngerman. He clarified that Dr. Gruver was not going on vacation
until August 12, 1979. What he intended to say or what waB misunderstood, was
that Dr. Gruver must begin to see the applicants by next Wednesday in order
for him to complete the process prior to his leaving on vacation, not that he
would have to complete the 90 hours between now and next Wednesday.
Relative to Dr. Pittman, she was contacted during the initial period and Ms. Kasch
discussed the proposal with her directly. She did not want to be involved in
the validation routine in order to have the job-related documentation that they
felt was essential and which they proposed to the Council in November when the
program was adopted.
Regarding the time involved, the hours Dr. Gruver represented to them were the
hours he intended to spend on the case; he would administer the tests, some of
which were given to groups of people and some to individual people. He per-
ceived somewhere in the magnitude of two hours of his personal time writing
reports and having consultations with the City on each applicant with about a
one-hour clinical interview with each applicant, approximatley one-and-a-half
hours of test administration and that could be with two or three applicants
at the same time. Ail those hours would be based upon the number of policemen
that would come in. They in no way intended to imply that the number of hours
Ms. Kasch was talking about should be divided by two, but they would equal the
Doctor's share and the officer's share.
Ms. Kasch then stated that relative to Dr. Galbo indicating that he was going
to administer eight tests, that was not what he indicated to the committee in
the initial interview.
The Mayor suspected that at the additional interview with the two top candidates,
they did discuss how the testing would be put together, but they could not discuss
that with Dr. Galbo during the initial interview.
Councilman Bay asked for clarification as to what Biddle and Associates were
doing as the City's consultant. If they did not know what the parameters of
the testing were going to before going out to bid he did not know how bids
could be evaluated. '
79-792
C~ty. Hali,...Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 19~9~ 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Ka$ch indicated it was difficult to assess and that was one of the problems.
They were able to get into a discussion in terms of evaluation in the original
interviews with the five candidates. The process was very technical and involved,
and Biddle had the test expertise for validation and job analysis in defining
the important duties and the characteristics. What the psychologist added to
that was how to test for those specific Job-related personality characteristics
or behavior patterns that had been identified as being important for a police
officer, which would occur at the end of the process.
She also clarified for the Mayor that they or the consultant did not develop
any data as to what was normal for a City to pay for psychological testing
of an officer. They had no experience in psychological testing, and Biddle was
not able to indicate a standard fee, because there had been no standard in
the field.
Mr. McRae stated the question she might answer, given the validity of the initial
interviews in the selection of two people for further consideration, it might
be appropriate to talk about the price range that the other doctor discussed
as well.
Ms. Kasch stated that the remaining two candidates had similar price range
fees. The other psychologist indicated a fee of $250 for approximately four
hours' work in terms of testing and evaluation. Dr. Gruver indicated between
$200 and $400 depending on the number of hours and that became defined as
$350 when they got down to the six hours. The psychologist was in the same
range in terms of cost.
At the conclusion of further discussion and questioning, Mayor Seymour stated
he had not been satisfied that the process had been complete enough or at least
he did not have enough information at this time to vote favorably on Dr. Gruver.
If it were proved that the identical tests were available for $100 and they
made a decision at $350 per test and subsequently learned that all other agencies
were spending much less with good reason, he would feel foolish.
Councilman Overholt recognized that Chief Tielsch was present and having been
part of the committee, his recollection would be of assistance.
Police Chief George Tielsch first spoke to Ms. Youngerman's statement wherein
she indicated that Dr. Pittman spoke with former Chief Bastrup who asked her
to come in and perform the testing. Although he could not vouch for the validity
of that statement, he (Tielsch) had never spoken to Dr. Pittman. He did not
know where Ms. Youngerman had obtained the information that he told her (Pittman)
she would have to work with Biddle.
When they went through the selection process, they reviewed five psychologists
and tried to choose the best one. He had employed Dr. Galbo when he was Police
Chief in Garden Grove and frankly, he was more favorably impressed by Dr. Gruver
than Galbo and his choice tonight would still be Dr. Gruver. If Dr. Gruver
presented his credentials to him when he was Chief in Garden Grove, he was
certain at that point in time he would have recommended that he do the psycho-
logical testing for that City. Dr. Gruver's credentials were excellent. He
79-793
City Hal.l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
worked very closely with hospitals in Orange County and he was the type of man
they brought in to look at a problem case, frequently when medical doctors were
not sure of the diagnosis, and he would give that type of psychological diagnosis
to them. He thought that Dr. Gruver was "fantastic".
Relative to the price range, if they paid $350, they would receive that value
in return. One of the people interviewed would have performed the testing at
a lesser amount--it was not Dr. Galbo--but he did not think they would be
getting their money's worth. He supposed they could get somebody to do the
testing for nothing and that was what it would be worth. It involved a
psychological testing of young men and women who were going to be police officers
for the City and he did not feel that money was that big a consideration in
this case. That should be and he was conscious of that aspect, but felt that
Dr. Gruver was the best man for the job and that was why he made the recommendation.
Mayor Seymour stated that he would go along with that strong recommendation and
was willing to support the Police Chief. He presumed they would not be hiring
more than 20 officers and if he did not have $4000 worth of faith in Chief
Tielsch, then he should not be Chief.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution offered by Councilwoman Kaywood,
approving an agreement with Eric W. Gruver, Ph.D., to conduct psychological
evaluation for entry level police officer candidates, term ending July 31, 1980.
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. 79R-421 duly passed and adopted.
175: TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN SONGS UNITS 2 AND 3 TO ANAHEIM AND
RIVERSIDE: Recommendation from the Public Utilities Board in memorandum dated
July 9, 1979 that the Council approve the application for permission to transfer
an ownership interest in San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2
and 3, to the Cities of Anaheim and Riverside and for an amendment to construc-
tion Permits Nos. CPPR-97 and CPPR-98; authorizing the Public Utilities General
Manager to execute the application, including exhibits; restrict availability
to "Restricted Data" as that term is defined in 10 CFR Section 50.2(o); and
authorizing payment of the filing fee in connection with said application, was
submitted.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-414 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-414: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THAT AN APPLICATION BE FILED WITH THE NUCLEAR REGULA-
TORY COMMISSION SEEKING TO OBTAIN PERMISSION FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
COMPANY TO TRANSFER A PARTIAL OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING
STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
79-794
City H~!i., Anah~i.M~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1979~ 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 No. 79R-414 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:05 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1976 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Louis A. and Francis Cannon, to permit an outdoor storage yard
on ML zoned property located on the north side of Miraloma Avenue, west of Red
Gum Street, with Code waivers of minimum required parking maximum wall height
in front setback and permitted encroachment into required setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-98 declared the
subject project exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
since there were no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impact due to this project, and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1976
in part, subject to the following conditions:
1. That street lighting facilities along Miraloma Avenue shall be installed
prior to the final building and zoning inspections unless otherwise approved
by the Director of Public Utilities, and in accordance with specifications on
file in the office of the Director of Public Utilities; and/or that a bond,
certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form
satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee
the installation of the above-mentioned requirements prior to occupancy.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (Ordinance No. 3896), in an amount as determined by the City Council, for
industrial buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. That the proposed storage yard shall comply with all signing requirements
of the ML (industrial, Limited) zoning.
5. Tha subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
the adopted Council Policy No. 526 regarding metal buildings.
6. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
No. 1, provided, however, that the use of the front fifty-(50) foot setback
shall be limited to landscaping and parking, in accordance with the ML Zone
regulations.
7. That Condition Nos. 2, 5 and 6, above mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
8. That the proposed use is hereby granted for a period of five (5) years,
subject to review by the Planning Commission for possible extensions of time
if it is determined that the use has not had an adverse impact on nearby
industrial uses.
79-795
City.Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 19797 1:30 P.M.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Kent Phillips, General
Manager of Apache Plastics Corporation, and public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission. She also explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that
the proposed building must comply with the Building Division standards relative
to enamaling, and it was required to be coated and under City Council Policy if
they wanted to deviate from those standards, they would have to request it.
Councilman Bay noted in the Planning Commission hearing, the Commission denied
the setback variances and also the 6-foot high fence. A letter from the appli-
cant dated June 7, 1979 stated that they were going to erect a 12-foot high
chain link fence with wood slats if approval was given on the waivers. Miss
Santalahti mentioned 6 feet which was denied and now their appeal was stating
12 feet.
Miss Santalahti stated she was not aware of the change in plans.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Kent Phillips, Apache Plastics, then described the purpose of the yard and
explained that they had a number of manufacturing and distribution facilities
in the southwestern states, one of which was in Santa Ana. It was for the
plant in Santa Ana that they were obtaining the storage property in Anaheim
to be used exclusively for the purpose of storing manufactured plastic pipe
made in Santa Ana for distribution to their customers. He emphasized that
it was strictly a distribution point for their own trucks with a very limited
number of customer will-calls and that was the reason why they did not need
parking spaces other than for employees. Since it was strictly an outdoor
storage yard, the permitted use in the setback area was for either parking or
landscaping. The parking portion was totally useless for their purposes. In
his letter of appeal, he cited two instances where the same variances had been
granted in Anaheim, the primary one being the Ganahl Lumber property on Ball
Road, which was identical, where there was a 12-foot high chain link fence and
also another across the street from the property they were proposing to use.
He was asking for a compromise or equal treatment.
Councilman Roth questioned the need for the high fence since 2½ feet was permitted
and the applicant first asked for 6 feet and now 12 feet.
Mr. Phillips stated they thought a 6-foot fence was adequate for their needs, but
when he attended the Planning Commission meeting, they found out the fence had to
be as high as anything they wanted to store outside and thus, the reason for the
amendment to 12 feet. The 2½-foot fence in the front would be acceptable to
them, but not to the City. There was a 10-foot setback that was mandatory and
then another 40 feet in which there had to be either landscaping or parking.
It was that extra 40 feet they wanted to take advantage of, all or any part of
it, and it was the same as Ganahl Lumber; Miss Santalahti confirmed that it
was the same, and she elaborated upon the similarities.
79-796
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979.~. 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was concerned when Mr. Phillips was speaking
in terms of the parking where 79 spaces were required, and they were requesting
only six. If they were to sell the business and leave, whoever would take
over the facility would not have any parking.
Mr. Phillips stated that, in effect, the whole yard offered parking because
they were not putting anything on the approximate 20,000 square feet of property,
except a 4000-square foot building, the balance was bare land, except for a fence
on the perimeter and landscaping around the outside.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the Conditional Use
Permit.
Mr. Bill Kozad, owner of 2840 and 2842, directly across the street from the subject
property, stated he had not heard about any previous hearing on the matter and
continued that he could sympathize with the applicant relative to setbacks. He
purchased his property in 1972 and had to go back 50 feet and he did not need
the parking at the time, but he did now. He did not propose to let them use
his parking lot when there were more people on the subject property. He had
to install all the landscaping and was not allowed to have a chain link or
wooden fence at the time. He had to install a block wall all around his property
and since none of his neighbors wanted the block wall, he had to pay for it
himself. Since he was located across the street, he did not want to look at
a 12-foot wall on the applicant's property.
Miss Carol Feeney, Chapin Medical Company, located adjacent to the proposed site
stated they were also in protest because they felt the proposal would detract
from the looks of their office facilities.
In summation, Mr. Phillips referred to the photograph of the Ganahl Lumber pro-
perty, which he submitted along with his letter of appeal, and stated that was
the same type of treatment they proposed for their landscaping with a low berm
in the front, grass and trees and possibly some other bushes. It would not be
an eyesore and would comply with the City requirements, except for the fact that
it would be in the front setback area. As to the property across the street,
they would not be using any of their parking area and that would be the farthest
thing imaginable and nothing would be outside at all.
There being no futher persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that there would
be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to
the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan des-
ignates the subject property for general industrial land uses commensurate with
the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no sig-
nificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, there-
fore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
79-797
City ttail, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1.979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour then stated that in this particular case they would be best advised
to follow the advice of the Planning Commission. Although he was sensitive to
Mr. Phillips and at this time he may perceive that he did not have need for
additional parking in the front setback area, he did not see any guarantees that
they were going to be at that location forever. The next user could need that
type of setback for parking. They also had expressed testimony from the neigh-
bors and although they did not have rights to control the applicant's property,
they had a'right to appeal to the elected officials in upholding the standards
the elected officials created.
With that as a basis and in accordance with the findings of the Planning Com-
mission, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-415 for adoption, granting
a waiver of minimum required parking, denying the requests for waiver of max-
imum wall height in front setback and permitted encroachment into required set-
back, thereby upholding the decision of the City Planning Commission. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-415: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1976. (IN PART)
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he was concerned over the argument
put forth by the applicant on the basis of precedent. He had heard for years
that conditional use permits were granted on individual merits of each case sub-
mitted. They did not create precedents and on that basic principle, he agreed
with the resolution of denial. He had been concerned with the implied precedents
that went with conditional use permits approved in the canyon industrial area,
and that was the last thing he wanted to hear or to convey.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted page 9(c) of the staff report, item 15, "the Planning
Commission may wish to consider if a 3-inch deep layer of packed, decomposed
granite is an adequate surface for the proposed storage yard." She asked Miss
Santalahti's opinion on how that surface would hold up.
Miss Santalahti answered that the Commission had approved that type of surface
before. The Code did not require paving but that the surface be treated. She
did not believe there had been any specific concern of that item. If there was
dust and they were not maintaining the surface, City staff would visit the site
and remind them of the Conditional Use Permit provisions.
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. 79R-415 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 78-19A: In accordance with application
filed by Hunco Development Company, public hearing was held on proposed Abandon-
ment of an existing underground electrical easement located at the northeast
79-798
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
corner of La Mesa Street and Kraemer Place, pursuant to Resolution No. 79R-380,
duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notice thereof posted in accordance
with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated June 11, 1979 and a recommendation by the
Planning Commission were submitted, recommending approval of said Abandonment.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file and EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-416 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-416: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (78-19A)
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. 79R-416 duly passed and adopted~
163/150: FREMONT JR. HIGH SCHOOL - USE AS CENTER FOR CULTURE AND THE ARTS:
Mr. Bernie Smith, President of the Anaheim Foundation for Culture and the Arts,
reported that the Foundation was presently moving rapidly towards requesting
from the School Board a disposition of the Fremont Jr. High School, the building
itself, the entertainment center, as a center for culture and the arts. They
were presently soliciting approval from the public and from various interested
individuals and hopefully would have a signed petition. They also hoped they
could secure a motion or a letter to the same effect from the City Council.
This would envision a program parallel to that which had proven successful at
the Horace Mann School.
Mayor Seymour stated he was sensitive to Mr. Smith's request and would like to
be able to tell him today to move ahead. If they could set the economic questions
aside, he would be prepared to offer that motion presently. He was supportive
of the concept that had worked so well, thus far, at the Horace Mann School and
he asked that Mr. Smith carry that message to the School Board in displaying
their sincere interest in achieving such an activity. He was speaking only of
the school facility itself and not the additional real estate on the property.
On the other hand, neither he nor the Council wanted to mislead Mr. Smith and
the School Board since there were financial questions attached to such an
activity and they would have to take a hard look in the redevelopment and/or
79-799
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
City Treasury to see on what basis they could accomplish it. If that were
possible, he would like to have some assurance from the Cultural Arts Foundation,
if they were going to be the supervising and operating entity, that operations
of the facility once it had been rehabilitated were solely self-sufficient
through the Foundation. In that regard, one possibility would be the estab-
lishment on the part of the Foundation of a trust from which the interest
earned would be sufficient in perpetuity to insure the taxpayers that it
would never become an ongoing burden to them. Conceptually, that was his position
and he was supportive of Fremont Jr. High School being converted and rehabili-
tated into a structure that would not only offer additional culture and arts
facilities, but also something that the City badly needed, a performing arts
theatre. Not a theatre of the type under discussion in the redevelopment area,
but for the types of activities that took place in the performing arts through
the Foundation throughout the City. He concluded that (1) they had to determine
whether or not they had the financial capability, and (2) he wanted a response
from the Foundation's Board of Directors as to how they felt about a commitment
creating a perpetual trust fund with interest earned accruing to that trust to
be used to operate the Center.
Mr. Smith stated that he understood the Mayor's reservations and they all had
a similar challenge before them which the Foundation had answered affirmatively.
Unfortunately, the manner in which the property was conveyed was not clear. If
it were leased to the City as is, it would require approximately one-half million
dollars to put it into a rehabilitated condition. There were foundations with
whom they were in contact now who could furnish that kind of money, but who
were not willing to furnish ongoing programs. If they obtained funding for
rehabilitation from various capital funds throughout the County such as Kresge's
or the Irvine Foundation, then the City participating groups could and should
be able to easily support it. If, on the other hand, there was a need to fund
up front a million dollar foundation, they would not be able to rehabilitate
the school. They could do one or the other and it would be whichever one the
School Board chose.
Mayor Seymour stated, as he understood, they were not looking for anything
specific today, but merely an expression of the City Council as to whether or
not they felt it was worthwhile to pursue such interest in the Fremont School,
subject to, and contingent upon, all financial details to be validated and accep-
table to them; Mr. Smith confirmed that the Mayor's understanding was correct.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to approve the concept that Fremont
Jr. High School be converted and rehabilitated to a structure that would offer
additional facilities for culture and the arts dependent upon financial contingen-
cies, and the City Clerk directed to send a letter to the School Board relaying
same. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood explained that she was at the
recent meeting of the Cultural Arts Needs Study Committee and what they would
be looking for was an approval of the concept that Fremont, before it was offered
to anyone else, should be looked upon as a community resource for culture and
the arts. The size was large enough to encompass everything now in the Horace
Mann School building, plus a performing arts theatre and room for all the groups
79-800
Cit~..Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17.~..1979~. 1:30 P.M.
that the Foundation was now having to turn down. There was no spirit lacking.
Furthermore, Proposition 13 had turned a great deal of money back to businesses
within the community and those who would want to be a part of it could participate
by donating. The feeling was that the money would be available, but number one,
they had to know that the building would go to the City or the Foundation. She
expressed the fact that they could not be looking to the City for financing
because of Proposition 13.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Smith if they were considering the main building
of Fremont or the entire campus.
Mr. Smith answered that he did not think the entire campus could be used and
there were some drawbacks such as minimal parking and many things that needed
to be done physically to correct those drawbacks.
Councilman Overholt asked what the big pluses of the auditorium were; he had
heard it was very well equipped, had a good stage and there was not an aud-
itorium or facility around that was as good.
Mr. Smith answered it was the best he had seen and the probably the best thing
in the City.
Councilman Overholt recounted that he had the privilege of going through the
negotiations for the Horace Mann School. He stated if the High School District
looked upon the situation as an opportunity to participate in the Cultural Center
by some kind of lease arrangement with a nominal consideration, such as the Anaheim
City School District arrangement with the Horace Mann School, that would be a
very good start. He knew at the time that the ACSD was pleased to enter into
the arrangement because they felt it was a service to the community, as well as
children of elementary age.
Mr. Smith stated there was a very valuable piece of property surrounding the
entire area which would be enhanced by a good Cultural Center.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Smith if he wanted a letter he could take to the
School Board; Mr. Smith stated that would be very helpful.
The Mayor asked the City Clerk to put the essence of the motion in a letter to
the School Board for his signature.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Appointments to Boards and
Commissions due to expiration of terms, terms ending June 30th of the following
year.
Planning Commission: Councilman Seymour nominated Charlene Barnes, renewing her
term as Planning Commissioner on the City Planning Commission, term expiring
1983. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the nomination. Councilwoman Kaywood moved
to close nominations. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The term of Charlene Barnes as Planning Commissioner was renewed to 1983.
79-801
City ~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Library Board: Councilman Seymour nominated Irving Pickler, for reappointment
to the Library Board, term expiring 1983. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to close
nominations. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Irving Pickler was reappointed to the Library Board for the term ending 1983.
Housing Commission: Councilman Seymour nominated Dr. James Cummins, Robert L.
Gasio and Edward Gardner for an additional term on the Housing Commission,
terms expiring 1983 for Messrs. Cummins and Gasio, and term ending 1981 for
Mr. Gardner as a Tenant Commissioner.
Councilman Seymour moved to close nominations. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Messrs. Cummins, Gasio and Gardner were reappointed to the HouSing Commission
accordingly.
Community Services Board: The Mayor noted that there were four seats to be filled
on the Community Services Board (CSB). Currently filling those seats were
Shirley Moss, Steve Jimenez, Norberto Mendoza and Joan Dean. Councilman Seymour
thereupon nominated all four for reappointment.
Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Frances Scherman.
The Mayor then indicated that it would require a roll call vote on each person
nominated, concluding with Frances Scherman.
A roll call vote was then taken on the nomination of Shirley Moss.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Shirley Moss was reappointed to the CSB, term expiring 1983.
A roll call vote was taken on the nomination of Steve Jimenez.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Steve Jimenez was reappointed to the CSB, term expiring in 1983.
A roll call vote was then taken on the nomination of Norberto Mendoza.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Norberto Mendoza was reappointed to the CSB, term expiring in 1983.
79-802
City H~, 11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1,979~ 1:30 P.M.
A roll call vote was taken on the nomination of Joan Dean.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
Joan Dean was reappointed to the CSB, term expiring 1983.
The Mayor announced that the four seats had been filled and, therefore, there
was no necessity to vote on Frances Scherman.
Public Utilities Board: Mayor Seymour announced that two terms had expired on
the Public Utilities Board (PUB) on June 30, 1979, that of Carl Keifer and Joe
White. He thereupon nominated Mr. Keifer and Joe White for reappointment to the
PUB, terms ending 1983.
Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Ian Skidmore and asked to make a statement.
Councilman Overholt moved to close nominations to the PUB. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that to be appointed to any board or commission
was an honor and a privilege that should be awarded to the best qualified people.
It was the Council's duty to appoint the best possible people or to remove those
who were not performing. Any person who would not be tolerated as a City employee,
she felt should certainly not be an appointee, and anyone who was left over frDm
someone who was not acting in the City's best interest should not be carried
forward, Just because. The Council should insist on efficiency and economy in govern~
ment, and she did not feel they should allow waste and disruption through appointments.
Mayor Seymour stated as discussed a week prior, the Council wanted to give Council-
man Overholt an opportunity to give some thought as to whether or not he had a
particular opinion one way or another on any of the seats that were vacant and
that was the reason for not taking action on June 30, 1979. During that period,
he indicated he talked to each Council Member individually to get their feelings
and attempt to get some unanimity relative to the appointments. He had concluded
that process and Councilwoman Kaywood felt strongly on a number of appointments
and he was certain she was going to rightfully express herself today and was
encouraged to do so. On the other hand, in his opinion, he had not seen nor heard
any evidence that had convinced him that the particular vote on the PUB seat,
which he believed was to remove Joe White, to indicate that Mr. White was not
performing well on the Commission. He had spoken with a number of his (White's)
fellow Commissioners who had not indicated that Mr. White was serving unsatis-
factorily. There was little doubt that Mr. White had adopted positions and
votes from time to time that were contrary to the majority of the members of
the PUB. He saw nothing wrong with that and felt that the role Mr. White
fulfilled was a healty one when they were faced with a very serious decision
of investing millions of taxpayers' dollars. He supported the renomination of
Mr. White for another term on that basis because he preferred to have the
other side of very serious questions raised, discussed and debated in the open,
so that all viewpoints would be heard. It was also his personal feeling that
if Councilwoman Kaywood's feelings relative to Mr. White and others were
political in nature, it would be unfortunate for the City and the Council to
make the same mistake that a previous Council made, of which he was a member
79-803
City.i.Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
and admittedly he had made a mistake before. To continue political vendettas
could not in any way contribute to a positive environment in which the City
could move ahead. He could not find any justice or morality in denying those
people a right to serve because of their previous political connections, and
he could not participate in that process.
Councilwoman Kaywood answered that she would continue to discuss the matter on
the basis that the Mayor made it political. If he wanted to say that she ob-
jected to Bill Thom having a political pipeline in both directions with his
input and system of receiving information, he was correct. She objected stren-
uously as the people who had called and spoken to her also objected. He (Thom)
did not serve the Council and did a lot of destruction while he served and
people resented his holdovers being on commissions. Her concern with Joe White
was that he had served for four years, the same as all other members who started
at the same time, and he continually abstained for two reasons - either he did
not have enough information to vote, or he had too much information and there-
fore could not vote. It was a continual process and on item l(b) on the Council
agenda today, he abstained again because he said he did not have enough time to
read all the material and yet everyone else voted and they had the time. She was
very concerned with the amount of time wasted in continually having to re-explain
to him, and a direct quote from someone on the Board was, "everyone else under-
stands, he does not." She did not feel he was qualified and would vote against
him.
Further discussion and debate followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood
on the matter in the course of which, Councilwoman Kaywood requested a verbatim
transcript of the proceedings of this particular portion of the meeting. (A
verbatim transcript of the proceedings is on file in the City Clerk's office).
Councilman Overholt stated that he felt he should consult with other members of the
PUB, as well as staff, because Mr. White from time to time had been a controversial
person in the City, but he believed Mr. White liked to be controversial. However,
he wanted to find out what kind of Commissioner Mr. White was on the Board. With
due regard to Councilwoman Kaywood's feelings and as he had discussed with her
privately, at the present time, he was convinced that Mr. White was serving the
City well as a member of the Board. Thus, if he was serving the City on the
Commission, then he (Overholt) felt Mr. White deserved his support for another
four-year term, and he would support the nomination.
Councilman Overholt explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that he had spoken to
one Commissioner and one staff member, as he previously discussed with her;
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had spoken to the majority of the Board and
with one voice, they all told her he was not fit. Mayor Seymour stated he
also spoken with a majority, and he did not find that to be consistent.
A roll call vote was then taken on the nomination of Carl Keifer to the PUB.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
Mr. Keifer was reappointed to the PUB, term expiring 1983.
79-804
City H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July .17, 1979, 1.:30 P.M.
A roll call vote was taken on the nomination of Joe White who was thereupon
reappointed to the PUB, term expiring 1983, by the following vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
Mayor Seymour stated there was no need to vote on Ian Skidmore since the vacant
seats had been filled. He added however, that he felt Mr. Skidmore would be a
very qualified candidate and would hope that someday in the future he would be
provided with an opportunity to serve.
Project Area Committee: Mayor Seymour stated it was his understanding the seats
of Robert Law and Barry Lind were now vacant and, in fact, Mr. Law and Mr. Lind
no longer met the requirements for being a member of that committee because they
no longer lived in and/or had a business or belonged to an organization within
the project area. Therefore, he nominated Mr. Paul Wimer and Mrs. Martha Robinson
to fill those two seats including the reseating of Mr. Warren Hunziker for the
terms expiring 1981.
Councilman Bay moved to close nominations. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Wimer, Mrs. Robinson and Mr. Hunziker were thereupon appointed to the Project
Area Committee for the term ending in 1981.
Both the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the City Clerk relative to
their understanding concerning recommendations made by PAC on the filling of
the vacancies on their committee and asked that she clarify their understanding
as articulated.
Community Redevelopment Commission: Councilman Seymour nominated Mary Dinndorf
for reappointment to the Community Redevelopment Commission, term expiring in
1983. Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Mr. Doug Renner and indicated that she
wanted to make a statement.
Councilman Roth moved to close the nominations. Councilm~n Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated at the time Bill Thom appointed Mary Dinndorf, she
(Kaywood) felt she was not qualified, but Mr. Thom said that it was a political
pay-off and it was time to wise up. She was sorry that she had not spoken against
the appointment at that time and she simply remained silent. She (Dinndorf)
wanted something for money and that was all she wanted. Councilwoman Kaywood
continued that she had seen nothing marvelous that Mrs. Dinndorf had done on
the Commission and felt she should be replaced.
Mayor Seymour stated again, taking the other side of the issue, no one Council
Member names any person to a board or commission since it required a vote;
Councilwoman Kaywood attempted to counter that point however, the Mayor continued
that, secondly, Councilwoman Kaywood voted Mrs. Dinndorf in and if she was telling
the publ%c that she did so because she agreed with Mr. Thom that it was a political
79-805
City Hal~, Anahe.i~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
pay-off, he suggested that she check her standards for placing those people in
office. He looked to whether appointees were serving in a competent fashion
and in discussions, he found no comment relative to Mrs. Dinndorf's competency.
If that was lacking or he could be convinced that she was not competent and not
serving the City well, he, for one, would join Councilwoman Kaywood in her action.
Without that as a basis, to merely make political "mince meat" of the process,
he felt was incorrect.
Councilwoman Kmywood countered that she felt political "mince meat" was made
with Mrs. Dinndorf's paper in April of 1978 which smeared the entire City and
every good person in it and wound up by saying only vote Mary Dinndorf and
John Seymour. She did not vote someone as a political pay-off, but fought
against it and he was the one who said "do not vote out loud against
Mary Dinndorf." '
Further debate followed as to whether or not Councilwoman Kaywood voted for
Mrs. Dinndorf; Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she remained silent, she did
not say "no" or "yes" and she did not abstain. Councilman Roth stated he
believed he was the one who voted "no"; Mayor Seymour emphasized that he (Roth)
was the only one who voted "no".
The following roll call vote was then taken on the nomination for reappointment
of Mary Dinndorf to the Community Redevelopment Commission for the term expiring
1983:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roh and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Mary Dinndorf was reappointed to the Community Redevelopment Commission, term
ending 1983.
123/173: BUS SHELTER PROGRAM: (Continued from July 3 and July 10, 1979)
Assistant City Manager William Hopkins briefed the Council on joint memorandum
from the City Attorney and City Engineer dated July 11, 1979, recommending
(1) that a resolution be adopted approving the proposed license agreement with
Convenience and Safety (C&S) of Los Angeles for the installation and mainten-
ance of bus shelters and (2) a motion approving the consolidated bus shelter
permit procedure and resolution establishing the permit fee of $100 per shelter.
Mr. Hopkins continued that bus shelter personnel had also questioned an item not
covered in the staff recommendations regarding electrical costs which were nor-
mally handled through the installation process involving a $25 installation charge
as with any other homeowner or individual. The City would meter the cost to
each bus shelter based on the installation of the electrical meter. C&S wanted
to know if it was possible to have one fee for all units. He had consulted with
the Utilities and in order to do so, it would require special consideration
which would open the door to others asking for the same thing. The simplest
method would be to continue the existing fee basis for metering electricity.
79-806
City Hall.~ Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES-July 17.~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated he understood there had been some correspondence relative
to the electrical meters and hook-ups, but he did not receive that information
in his agenda packet; Councilwoman Kaywood reported that she had not received
that information as well.
Councilman Roth wanted to know if someone had researched the possibility of
whether or not a flat fee could be charged instead of installing a meter in
every shelter.
Mr. Hopkins explained that they did check into the matter and the only way
they could provide service to each shelter was by metering each one, otherwise,
a flat rate would require another action by the Council to change the present
means of metering. Staff recommendation was to continue with the existing
policy that the meter be installed in each shelter at the $25 dollar installation
fee and each would pay for the use of electricity based upon the meter readings.
That would involve one bill for each shelter based on one meter, and each would
be a separate item.
Mr. Bruce Williams, President, C&S, stated that he did not want to bring up the
question of metering today since they had some proposals they wanted to make
to the PUB. The response was strictly one of aesthetics and not of fees or
anything else. They might have 75 to 125 shelters throughout the City in time,
and each one would have attached thereto, or remotely associated thereto, a unit
which would be approximately a minimum of 30"X8"X4". He reiterated they had
several suggestions to make to the PUB, such as attaching meters to only a
certain number of units and that the average meter reading of those units be
prorated over all the units; they would be happy to meter the longest night
time period of the year, December 21, and pay that as if it were the fee for
every day of the year, and finally if the meters had to be installed in every
unit, that they be placed in the ceiling unit so as not to detract from the
aesthetic design of the shelter. They would bring these to the Public Utilities
Board, and he did not think the matter was going to be discussed today.
As to the lack of information in Councilman Roth's and Councilwoman Kaywood's
packet, Mr. Williams stated he must be the responsible factor because he did
not deliver such information to them, but would be happy to do so.
Councilman Roth commented that Mr. Williams did not give that information to
the Council Members who voted "no" when, in fact, he was willing to assist Mr.
Williams because he believed there was merit in using a flat rate. He suggested
that Mr. Williams should therefore have sent him the information.
Mr. Williams stated they would be more than happy to work out a payment system
that would be far in excees over what would actually be metered. The basic
reason behind the meter was that in the City's indenture agreements to bond-
holders, the City was precluded from selling unmetered energy, therefore, blocking
the loss of revenue to the City.
Assistant City Manager Hopkins confirmed for the Mayor that the recommendations
before the Council today were separate from the electrical metering matter.
79-807
City Ha~l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17,.1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Before closing, Mr. Williams explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the manu-
facturing process had already begun on the shelters, and it was his expectation
the first installations in the City, meaning the first 25 shelters, would be
installed between the second week of September and the second week of October
1979 and be finished by that time.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-417 for adoption, as recommended
in joint memborandum dated July 11, 1979 from the City Attorney and City
Engineer, approving a license agreement with Convenience and Safety Corporation
for the installation and maintenance of bus shelters. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-417: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AND CONVENIENCE & SAFETY CORP. OF LOS ANGELES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
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. 79R-417 duly passed and adopted.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the consolidated
bus shelter permit procedure was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-418 for adoption, establishing
a consolidated bus shelter fee in the amount of $100 per bus shelter. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-418: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING A CONSOLIDATED PERMIT FEE FOR BUS SHELTERS.
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. 79R-418 duly passed and adopted.
123/115: NEW TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR THE CITY: (Continued frOm July 10, 1979) -
(see minutes that date) Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated that following
the Council's instruction to meet with representatives of the Telephone Company,
they met at great length with Mr. McClusky and Mr. Horalak and reviewed each
of the questions posed in great detail. As a result, they came up with approx-
imately seven questions on which they needed further information before reaching
any final understanding or conclusion, and they met again Thursday to review
the additional questions. Subsequently, arithmetical errors were corrected;
insurance rates were confirmed at 30¢ per thousand based on present insurance
coverage; questions regarding maintenance charges were clarified and electrical
costs found to be $4106 per year not contained in the original item presented.
79-808
City ~all.,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Staff also indicated they were not in a position to change any of the specifi-
cations since they were a part of the bid process and they were simply following
Council's instruction in trying to obtain answers or to respond to questions.
They received final data at 5:00 P.M. yesterday and tried to supply the Council
with that information as rapidly as possible. Submitted were a series of
communications from Pacific Telephone and Telegraph ('PT&T) relating to the initial
questions provided at the July 10, 1979 meeting. As staff viewed the situation,
there were several main issues: (1) comparison of like services - the bid
specifications called for a future service based on a central office concept as
opposed to the current system. The actual cost used by the consultant was 5%;
the Telephone Company, 3%. Staff took exception to that on the basis that the
3% related to the current system and not future. (2) Administrative costs -
attached to Pacific Telephone's July 16, 1979 communication, attachment, page
2, they indicated administrative costs to the City of $1,797,879 for ten years
or approximately $11,673 per month. Staff review could not determine the
administrative costs the Telephone Company was addressing. It was staff's con-
tention that there were no additional administrative costs in bringing in the
new system. They did not believe there would be a necessity for adding
new positions as did Pacific Telephone. It would require two new operators
in the Civic Center, but the Maintenance Supervisor indicated he felt he could
absorb those in his current budget. Further regarding maintenance costs,
Northern Telecom would supply the first-year maintenance free, the second year
$28,000 with the cost of living factors to be added thereafter. Staff did not
consider this to be an item of concern. If the costs escalated appreciably,
City people would have to be used to keep costs down. (3) Li~e of the equipment-
Pacific Telephone felt that a 20-year life cycle was more extensive than the
life of the equipment itself, and that a 10-year cycle was not appropo. The
current system in Anaheim was still working and it was 12 years old. The
consultant felt that a 10-year life cycle on the equipment was not unreasonable,
but even 10 years based on calculations, the City would still save money as
opposed to the Pacific Telephone proposal. (4) Sales tax - the bid encompassed
hardware which was taxable, as well as software which was not taxable. In addition,
the Bell System installation charge used in the specification was a one-time
charge of $9,215 and on the last document they submitted, they used.a $21,215
figure.
Mr. Hopkins concluded, based on Pacific Telephone's figures and after reviewing
the figures where they were in contention, staff's figures still reflected a
savings to the City over ten years of $1,327,642.14 relating that to the items
just presented to the Council. They did not agree or disagree with the infor-
mation provided by PT&T but basically staff still felt that the criteria submitted
when the bids were sent out were clearly and succinctly stated and there was no
protest by anyone at the time the bids were received. As well, the questions
asked by Pacific Telephone served to substantiate the analysis that the proposed
recommended vendor would provide a substantial savings to the City over the life
of the agreement of $1,327,642.14. On the consultant's analysis, using likes
with likes over the ten year span, the savings totalled $1,223,567. The differences
were a different method of calculating cost factors and savings.
Northern Telecom, as well as Pacific Telephone, had a fine standing in the industry
and were well established. The benefit to the taxpayers by awarding the bid to
Northern Telecom in looking at the consultant's comparison were, for a ten-year
period, $1,223,567, over a 15-year period, $2,845,046, and for a ten-year period
79-809
~ Anaheim,_California _ COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul 17 1979 1:30 P.M.
with the corrected figures submitted to the Council, $4,914,251. The consultant
did not address in any great detail some of the basic questions that had been
left unanswered at the time of the Thursday meeting and the Council had received
a report from the consultant dated July 17, 1979 addressing administrative costs,
operator costs, evaluation of bids, moves and changes and cost of electricity
(on file in the City Clerk's office).
Mr. Hopkins stated the situation was such that they did not believe that the
differences were of any significant cost to the City. The staff, as well as
the consultant, were of the opinion that there was no validity in changing the
basis for the recommendation of Northern Telecom.
Mr. Gordon McClusky, Pacific Telephone Company, 500 South Main Street, Orange,
confirmed that the major issue they were addressing was the fact that there
may be additional personnel costs which represented the greatest portion of
the administrative costs. They had achieved their first goal, that being to
evaluate the facts that needed to be evaluated before the City made a decision.
Based upon the number of console positions--two at the Civic Center, two at
the Police Department and one at the Convention Center--they were talking
about nine positions as a communications expense. He also called a Mr. Ed
Messinger who until three months ago was the Director of Communications for
the County of Los Angeles, and he had a great deal of experience operating his
own systems as a consultant. He was not a consultant for Pacific Telephone.
He thereupon asked Mr. Messinger to address the assumptions of validity of
some of the questions.
Mr. Edmund Messinger, Jr., stated he was President of a one-man firm called
Messinger Consultants Company. He then proceeded to qualify himself before
the Council and relayed his long and extensive experience and expertise in
the field of communications. Today he wanted to address himself to some of
the important points relative to the matter at hand, because he had operated
and designed major systems and performed certain judiciary responsiblities
with regard to whether or not such systems should be purchased or leased, and
he had done both in his career.
There were administrative costs to the City on owning its own system which, in
effect, meant that they were going into the telephone business and they were
going to have to replace all the functions that the company now performed
under its current rate structure. He then spoke about station moves and changes,
station installation, recordkeeping, etc., and the large pool of people devoted
to the maintenance of systems which were all hidden-type costs and a part of
PT&T's rate structure. Billing was another factor and the City would have to
produce that billing. Perhaps the vendor would do it to some extent, but the
City would have to prorate it and match it with the Bell bill and set-up the
record systems and forms to do that work, which represented real costs. If
the City was furnishing and being furnished five telephone operator positions
and was only going to staff two, it raised an issue in his mind as to what
the other three were for. As well, good technicians were very difficult to
find and there were a lot of hidden costs with having in-house employees taking
over if the vendor became too expensive. There were replacement costs training
costs, support costs etc., that had to be considered. '
79-810
City Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Messinger then touched upon technology in the field and in looking at the
history and cost of communications in the country, they had not increased any-
where near the rate of inflation primarily because of technology. The communi-
cations business was a computer business and the City was buying a computer-
controlled electronic switching system which they would be involved with for
10 or 20 years. The risk with the Telephone Company he believed was $60,000
to install the system and $20,000 a month. There would be very few termination
charges and if it was not satisfactory, there were many avenues of recourse.
He also raised the issue of compatibility and whether or not the equipment they
were going to purchase now was going to be compatible with what would be avail-
able tomorrow. He also emphasized that it was very important when owning your
own system to have an in-house expert on staff. He had looked through the bid
specifications and could not find any acceptance criteria by which the City
would accept the $1 million worth of equipment, and it was something they should
look into and address.
Mr. Messinger then answered a line of questioning posed by the Council and
in so doing relayed the following information:
He believed there were two very distinct positions on which there had not been
agreement and difficulty in reconciling between staff and the Telephone Company.
These were administrative costs, sales costs and operator costs as well as moves,
changes and stations. He also stressed the fact that acceptance criteria about
which he spoke was a key issue. He also expanded upon the increase in telephone
billing costs which had been kept to two or three percent as a result of advanced
technology. As well, per unit costs were going down with regard to manufacturing
and transmission and in many other areas, while the City was going to be locked
in 10 to 20 years, and it was important that they looked at the risk-reward ratio.
Another cost to be considered was that which would occur when changing from one
system to another relative to dislocation. It would cost money and time and
cause disruption - dollar factors which were not included. They would also be
a loss of property tax revenue because the City would own its own equipment.
Relative to maintenance cost, he had not looked at any maintenance contract,
and $28,000 a year for maintenance might or might not be reasonable. He would
have to review the City's past experience. As he understood, the bid specifi-
cations did not address a number of factors, such as administrative costs and
the movement of stations. Operating maintenance and administrative cost factors
needed to be looked at in depth. It was not possible to make a decision on a
piece of the system, but on the whole system, the equipment and the people
involved. He felt it would take some time to reach agreement on all the factors
and for every area to be considered, and there should be a minority and a majority
report. He believed it would take a 30-, 60-/or a 90-day period and he would not
make a million dollar decision in any less time, having thoroughly analyzed and
priced out on both sides exactly what it was going to cost.
Mayor Seymour noted that the consultant in the figures presented claimed that
in 10 years, the proposed PT&T system would cost $3,113,557 and PT&T was saying
it would cost $2,977,249. Also, the consultant was saying that after 10 years,
the system would cost $1,842,440 and Pacific Telephone was saying it would cost
$3,820,192 and that was the disparity.
79-811
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ju~y 17~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Messinger stated with the information he provided Mr. Hopkins, there were two
disparities, and he wanted to clear up the first. Mr. Hopkins mentioned a recent
rate increase of 5% on the system proposed. It was 1974 when they got their
last rate increase for a Centrex system and the other had just now come into
effect which amounted to exactly 3% over the last five years or 6/10 of a percent
increase per year. Over the last 10 years, that same type of equipment had
gone up 29%. That was where the difference was in the basic bottom line. Using
the figures that they used, including the amount for the operators, they showed
the bottom line in their favor of $800,000. The major item revolved around
whether or not they identified an operator or personnel cost and, if so, how
accurately. That was his major contention.
Mr. Louis Malouf, Branch Manager, Los Angeles and Orange County Northern Telecom,
explained that his company was offered an opportunity to respond to a very lengthy
RFP which was a combination of a great deal of work on the part of the City's
communications department, the City Attorney's office, City Manager's office and
the consultant himself. At the time it was released, none of the vendors,
Northern Telecom, Pacific Telephone or the others who responded took exception
to the criteria of the RFP. He emphasized that Northern Telecom was not a
fly-by-night organization and they had been in telecommunications for 100
years. They were almost a $2 billion organization and had been involved in
software controlled computerized telephone systems for 12 years. One of
Northern Telecom's arms was Bell Northern Reseamch, t~e largest private
industrial research and development organization in Canada with their own
right arm in Palo Alto, California, Bell Northern Research, in the United
States. The factory that was going to build the switch was located in Santa
Clara, and it was expanding another 190,000 square feet to support the orders.
The installation office and service base were located in Los Al~i~os and that
was also his office. Their name in telecommunications was recognized around
the world and they were an international company.
Mr. Malouf than commented or elaborated upon further aspects of Mr. Messinger's
presentation, the essence of which was as follows, more directly relating to the
issue at hand: all the service records of all their customers were on a com-
puter at Los Alamitos office and they would be able to provide computer print-
out of such records. They also had remote maintenance capability. Every SL
system installed, which was the system under consideration, had a remote terminal,
allowing them to provide traffic reports and to correct maintenance problems.
Moves and changes or what they called administrative commands could be accomplished
remotely without ever having to come to the City physically.
Mr. Malouf then introduced a Mr. Derek Gardner from the audience who was his
Branch Manager and each of their branches had an individual like Mr. Gardner
to serve the customer, which was part of the contract. Annex IV of the service
contract specified exactly what was covered in the maintenance of the system
including communications consulting which he was certain they would find as
part of the hidden administrative costs of Pacific Telephone. It included on-
going training of staff, the station user, operators, a guaranteed response
time and in Section 14, the testing procedure. Section 13 of the contract
outlined the way the system would be tested in their factory and that the
customer would receive written results of such tests on request. As well, they
would test the system on premises, and the L~y wo~ld also have an opportunity to
79-812
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
do so before they cut the system into service. Their system had a memory which
could be changed and thus the features were software controlled. As long as it
was possible to continue to add memory and to continue to add software generic
packages to update, obsolence did not exist. However, even if the system became
obsolete in 10 years and the City at that time discarded it, the City would still
be saving in excess of $1.2 million. That only related to $10,000 a month and
if the bill today from Pacific Telephone was $20,000 a month that would be a
50% savings and the taxpayers would be happy to see such a savings. Relative
to the termination charges, he disagreed with the statement that the only ex-
penditure with Pacific Telephone was a $60,000 or $70,000 installation charge,
plus the first month's rental of $20,000. He questioned the basic termination
charge or the contract termination liability--how long was it and for how
many months. Most Centrex systems carried anywhere from a 12-month termination
charge, meaning 12 times the monthly rate, and that should be a point of review.
The main thing Mr. Messinger alluded to was the administrative costs, and he
believed they had a real differential in that area. The system Bell proposed
was the Centrex, direct inward dialing, much as the system the City had today.
The system Northern Telecom proposed was not direct inward dialing--it used
operators. A simple modification to the trunk cards made the SL-1 system a
digital storage program direct inward dialing system, and they could do that
today. The SL-1 product was the mainstay of Bell Canada and their number one
product, and there were almost 1,000 installed in the United States at present,
hardwired directly to the network. Thus, the fear of non-compatibility in the
future should not and could not exist with the system like the SL-1.
Relative to billing problems, what Pacific Telephone failed to recognize after
they reviewed the Northern Telecom proposal, was that the City on the advice
of their consultant purchased what was called a detail recording, meaning that
everytime anybody in the City connected to the phone system picked up their
phone for any reason including watts lines, tie lines, etc., that was recorded
and processed by a very simple method and billed back accordingly. It also
contained a feature called automatic word selection which would not allow the
user to misdial.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (5:25 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (5:35 P.M.)
In concluding, Mr. Malouf stated that they had 52 plants all over the world in
the Northern Telecom operation with over 32,000 employees and one out of every
nine employees was either an engineer or involved in research and development.
Last May, they announced the first integrated voice data switching with the
SL-1 system, the same system to be installed by the City. If some of the things
brought up by Mr. Messinger relative to the Northern Telecom product and private
vendors were true, he questioned why PT&T specifically had become the number one
customer of Northern Telecom's Pulse 80 and Pulse 120 system where almost 7,000
of the systems for the 100 station users had been purchased by PT&T for long-
term commitment to their customers. Also, why had General Telephone purchased
a number of SL-1 systems, long-range, for their particular users. To ask for a
delay of 30, 60 or 90 days was not going to surface anything new. It was
interesting for them to find that no matter how the City Manager "cut the pie",
79-813
City Hal.l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
it still came out to approximately $1.2 million in ten years, escalating from
there. The key issue was--could Northern Telecom provide the City with its
communication needs including ongoing service, engineering and consulting
expertise that they needed, without the City incurring any additional personnel.
Any additional personnel meant that they would not take the people responsible
for watts communications today in the City and put them out in the street. Those
people were still going to be there to interface with Northern Telecom with the
private system and with the Bell through Northern Telecom for the support of
the lines, trunks, service and the like. Northern Telecom could provide the
system the City needed and today was the time to decide to call for a vote. They
would be happy to work with the City's legal counsel in negotiating the contract
terms that would provide the protection that was needed.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Malouf what, if any, provision was made in the contract
relative to escalation of maintenance costs.
Mr. Malouf answered that the first year was totally under warranty, parts and
labor; the second year was $28,000. The annual inflation rate based on that
dollar figure would be tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase in the
Los Angeles-Orange County-Anaheim area. He had with him figures from the
base year of 1967 for the CPI of all goods. He thereupon relayed those figures
for the Mayor from 1967 through 1978, for which the aggregate total over that
period of time was just under 5%. The consultant had used a 5% inflationary
figure as well.
The Mayor noted that in the last six years when inflation was high, it appeared
to be approximately 7 to 7½%; Mr. Malouf acknowledged that 1974 (11.9%) and 1975
(9.1%) reflected a very high inflation rate that Northern Telecom would be happy
to take the average of the last five years CPI and use that percentage, whatever
it might be, as the inflationary factor for a ten-year cost savings, provided it
was applied across all inflationary items both on the Bell system and Northern
Telecom's side.
The Mayor stated he was just interested in the maintenance contract and asked
if Mr. Malouf would be willing to take the average of the CPI that he stated
and fix it in the contract.
Mr. Malouf answered "no", because that would not necessarily be in the City's
best interest. The consultant used a 5% inflationary figure on anything and
everything inflationary. For example, he did not take into consideration that
the Bell Centrex just increased by 40%. He would tie the contract to the CPI
index in the Los Angeles, Orange County and Santa Ana area.
After further discussion on that issue between the Mayor and Mr. Malouf, the
Mayor concluded that he did not want to lead the taxpayers to believe that
after five years, the Northern Telecom system had a price tag on it of $1,448,573
when it would be somewhat higher than that, if the maintenance service contract
escalated at a higher rate than 5%.
Mr. Malouf conceded that the Mayor was correct but at the same time he was
certain that the public would understand that they had absolutely no guarantee
relative to hardware, software parts or labor with Pacific Telephone Company
or any public utility. They would be at the mercy of the bottom line and it
was the only enterprise in America that was allowed to work from the bottom
up.
79-814
.City Ha~.l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Donald Bushor, Consultant, 23843 Minnequa, Diamond Bar, owner of COM
Consultants, then referred to some of the major points he was asked to review
in the past week and some of the answers to the significant questions asked
about those points:
First, he did not care whether the City of Anaheim decided to install Pacific
Telephone's system, a Northern Telecom system or any of the many private systems
that were available. His task was to design a telephone system, write specifi-
cations for that system, analyze the bids and report back to the Council in
terms of those bid specifications. They spent seven and a half hours with
Pacific Telephone, one of six vendors, over the last nine days and no time with
other vendors and there was still a few factors where they did not agree with
Pacific Telephone. They were as follows:
Administrative Costs: At present, the City was spending a tremendous amount
of time and money on administrative costs and would continue to do so with any
of the systems. There were people who were spending their time now working with
and on the telephone system. Those people were working under the supervision
and direction of John Roche and accomplishing those administrative jobs. The
same people under the same budget for the same number of dollars would be
accomplishing administrative costs in the future. No matter what system was
chosen, there was nothing budgeted for additional people for administration.
Operator Costs: At present, there were 19 people in the City functioning as
operators, meaning that they were answering positions in each of the buildings
spread throughout the City. They were spending 50% of their time passing on
wrong number calls to the proper department and were "begging" to have some
method devised in the City communications system to eliminate the problem of
misdialing where citizens were calling the wrong department. He felt that
the specifications had solved that problem, and he then elaborated upon specific
steps that would be taken to do so. Those were the reasons why in their partic-
ular analysis they did not add factors for administrative costs and for operator
costs. They were very real--they existed right now, but there were no additional
people or hours or dollars budgeted to handle those factors. They would be
handled with the present staff and he had the concurrence of City staff that
it would work.
One of the major points was that PT&T did not agree with COM Consultants' specifi-
cations for the evaluation of bids. If he were the vendor and were given the
opportunity to write his own evaluation, he would write a program that was in
his favor. The City did not want the numbers to come out in favor of one
particular vendor, but in favor of the City of Anaheim. As well, the factor
could have been more than 5%, it could have been 7% or 8%. The fact remained
however, that it was the same for all vendors on all variable costs. After
he read over one of the reports from PT&T, he decided to give them the benefit
of the doubt and merely for reference purposes, he ran a cost comparison using
their figure of 2½% and then 5% for everybody else. It still came out to a
million dollar savings for the City over 15 years and a three million dollar
savings over 20 years. The only vendor given special consideration was Pacific
Telephone.
Moves and Changes: Through new technology, Northern Telecom developed a system
where many items could be handled by remote maintenance. They had computer
tie-in with each of their switches in the City and from their office via their
79-815
~ity Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
engineers, could put through any requested change without anyone visiting the
premises and that made a difference in maintenance costs. He then explained
the new technology involved in changing or upgrading existing telephone in-
struments without the necessity for making any physical changes to the wiring
or to the basic instrument which was offered by Northern Telecom. At best,
moves and changes were going to be a wash, if not a savings for the City.
Cost of Electricity: It was true the $4,106 figure was not included in the bid
specifications or in the analysis for a good reason. The Pacific Telephone system
utilized key cabinets containing the electronics, whereas the Northern Telecom
system did not. Instead the lights, intercom lights, etc., would be powered by
the switch itself and all for under $4,000. It was decided that it was not a
large enough factor to make much difference to the City in their cost structure.
In concluding, Mr. Bushor stated they wrote an evaluation which might not be
perfect in terms of what was going to happen to escalation or the cost of
living over the next five years, but the figures were fair to all vendors.
The bottom line of the evaluation was that there would be a considerable savings
in going to the Northern Telecom system, the minimum being $1 million in ten
years.
In answer to questions posed by the Council, Mr. Bu~hor relayed the following
information for purposes of clarification: the percentage factor used was
exactly the same for all vendors and they did not vary one item that was in
the original bid specification when the evaluation was performed, even though
they were asked to make changes in the bidding evaluation from Pacific Telephone;
Northern Telecom could not guarantee 5%, nor could Pacific Telephone; checking
past history with users of the Northern Telecom system would show that their
rate stayed the same for the last two years. Thus, no more than the cost of
living index in any one-year period was a safeguard, but it did not mean that
the rates were going to go up by the cost of living, and he hoped they did not
because it would affect all the bids. He reiterated it did not make any differ-
ence to him who surfaced as number one in the evaluation; his analysis showed
there was a $1.3 million advantage using all of the same factors, but there were
no guarantees; the factors that would affect that $1.3 million figure were the
rate of inflation and the number of years involved and the rate factor should
be the same for all vendors; in his professional opinion, the worst the City
could do, based upon the re-analysis that he did, giving Pacific TelePhone
a 2½% factor and giving all othar vendors a 5% factor, the result was still
a million dollars over ten years in favor of the City; he felt he had answered
Pacific Telephone's questions to the best of his ability as of the present time;
relative to acceptance of the system, they asked that all vendors include those
requirements in their contract and they did receive contracts from each of the
vendors showing the acceptance procedure. If the City did not accept the system,
Northern Telecom would be out $1 million and thus it was in their best interest
to have that written into their contract; any delay could give rise to all kinds
of information, but the information they might come up with would be of no
significance in terms of the present decision or comparison.
Mr. Bushor then gave his qualifications as a consultant, as requested by the
Mayor, and also enumerated on some of the accounts where he had been employed
as a consultant since 1972, which included four other cities.
79-816
City .Hall~ ~naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Bushor if after installation of the Northern Telecom
system, they found they had made a mistake and wanted to revert back to the
Centrex, what the possible cost of that action would be.
From the Chamber audience, Mr. Bowman of Northern Telecom answered that 140
trunks would be involved at $100 a trunk or a total of $14,000.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Bushor the savings that would be realized over
20 years with the Northern Telecom system if savings over ten years were pro-
jected to be $1.3 million.
Mr. Bushor answered that the savings would be almost $5 million on the original
bid specifications. Giving Pacific Telephone the benefit of the doubt, it would
be $3 million if they used different information for them than for the other
vendors.
Mr. McClusky in summation then submitted data taken from the proposal provided
to the Consultant and the City which showed that when they went into the bid
specification, they had a rate increase pending for Centrex. The rate had been
resolved and today they were under the impact of a proposed increase of 3%.
They had no quarrel with Northern Telecom and they did buy a great deal of
equipment from them and it was good equipment. As well, both companies did
meet the bid specifications. Under the new rates presently enforced, there was
no longer a five-year basic termination charge for the Centrex equipment, but
there was a $1,400 basic termination charge for the touch-tone equipment that
they were asked to supply in the bid specifications. When they first addressed
the Council, their purpose was to make certain that all facts were evaluated and
he believed they succeeded in that. In their first meetings with staff, they
talked about the fact that there would be absolutely no operators required. Yet,
Mr. Roche and Mr. Hopkins stated there might have to be two operators in the Civic
Center. In their opinion, the difference in cost was due to operator and personnel
costs. If everybody involved was in agreement that no new operators would be
needed, then Pacific Telephone would submit that the private vendor would be less
expensive than Pacific Telephone. If the City chose to go to the private system,
Pacific Telephone would still be their vendor, and they looked forward to working
with the City.
Mr. Messinger stated they had to deal with real life today and there were two
things to consider. Relative to percentages, it was necessary to use real
figures, and they could never say everybody was at 5%. He did not know the
differentials they were dealing with in eliminating the telephone operators,
although Mr. McClusky indicated to him around $230,000. It was necessary to
evaluate risk vs. the reward for going into a private system and all that it
entailed. He also clarified for the Mayor that he had no reason to dispute
the $140 per trunk line figure if they wanted to revert back to the Centrex,
but there would also be additional Phone Company costs for such service.
Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated, having heard all sides, staff recommend-
ation remained the same that the Council accept the bid submitted by Northern
Telecom for the purchase and installation of a new phone system.
79-817
City .Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-419 and 79R-420 for adoption,
the first accepting the bid submitted by Northern Telecom in the amount of
$996,061 for the purchase and installation of a new phone system for the City
and the latter approving an agreement with COM Consultants in the amount of
$12,000 for assistance in implementing the proposed system. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-419: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE INSTALL-
ATION OF A TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO NORTHERN TELECOM.
ACCOUNT NO. 48-984-6325-7115.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-420: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH DONALD J. BUSHOR DOING
BUSINESS AS COM CONSULTANTS, TO FURNISH SERVICES FOR A NEW TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR
CITY FACILITIES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREE-
MENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he felt the dollar figures over
the 10- or 20-year period would be a great deal more than indicated, but that
it would be so with any vendor and thus, he would support the resolutions.
Councilman Overholt complimented everyone involved on the efforts they put forth,
and particularly the consultant who was trying to objectively adopt a plan best
suited for the City. He was going to support both resolutions.
Mayor Seymour also complimented Mr. Bushor, as well as Mr. Messinger,~ on their
presentations. He felt comfortable in supporting the resolutions and in believing
the purchase of the system represented a savings to the City's taxpayers of
$1 million over the 10-year period. If they agreed it was obsolete at the end
of 10 years and they discarded the system and started all over with Pacific
Telephone, they should be able to say to the taxpayers they believed sincerely
that the City had saved $1 million. On that basis, he would support the
resolutions.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
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. 79R-419 and 79R-420 duly passed and adopted.
A verbatim transcript taken from a tape recording of the foregoing proceedings
is on file in the City Clerk's office as provided by Pacific Telephone Company.
.1.49: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF "NO pARKING" SIGNS AT 1855 SOUTH WEST STREET:
Request by Mrs. Dolores Moore for removal of the "No Parking" signs from in
front of her residence at the subject address, was submitted.
79-818
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979., 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour explained he met with Mrs. Moore and visited her property. She
had a concern which he could not satisfy and suggested that she approach the
Council with it.
Mrs. Dolores Moore, 1855 South ~est Street stated, she had lived at that residence
for six years and they used to have parking in front of their homes and there
was no problem. The neighbors initiated a petition to have "No Parking" because
of people parking there from the Convention Center. She did not sign that
petition because she was the only one who did not have a circular driveway.
There were four cars in her family and her son was not able to bring his car
home because there was no place to park, and they were now unable to park at
the motel next door. She emphasized how critical it was to have street parking
restored for the family's needs and also no one would visit with her any longer
because of the lack of parking.
The Mayor explained what he suggested to Mrs. Moore after reading a report
prepared by staff, if they removed the signs, because of people's unwillingness
to spend the money for parking, she would not have parking in front of her
house in any case and may have the sad experience of having her driveway blocked.
In answer, Mrs. Moore told him she would not complain. He would support taking
the signs down with the understanding by Mrs. Moore that if experience indicated
problems with such an arrangement, the sign would be installed again; Mrs. Moore
stated they would not hear her complain, and she promised she would not.
Councilman Bay then posed several questions to Mrs. Moore as well as suggesting
other alternatives for parking on her property.
In answer, Mrs. Moore explained that one car was parked in the garage since
there was no room for two because of storage, and hers was parked in the drive-
way. Although two cars could be parked in the driveway, cars would have to
be shifted around in order to get out, and it was a dangerous spot to back in
and out. She conceded that it would be inconvenient but possible to park two
cars in the garage and two in the driveway.
Councilman Roth stated if they removed the "No Parking" signs from in front
of Mrs. Moore's residence, they would have to remove all of the "No Parking"
signs on the west side of West Street. He was concerned over the people who
presented petitions to have the signs installed. He did not want them all
removed because the neighbors would subsequently be protesting to the Council.
The Mayor explained that he.pursued that in his meeting with Mrs. Moore, but she
was only interested in having the signs removed from in front of her home.
Mrs. Moore confirmed for Councilman Roth that she only wanted two signs stating,
"End No Parking" - "Start No Parking", thus enabling her to park in front of her
home.
The Mayor clarified if the Council supported Mrs. Moore's request, it would be
with the understanding that if it did not work out, they would restore the
"No Parking" signs.
79-819
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay contended if the "No Parking" sign in front of one house on a
block was removed and they granted Mrs. Moore's request, that there would be
many such requests received from residents in the rest of the City asking for
the identical thing. There was also the problem of street sweeping.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to grant the subject request on a trial basis
with the understanding if the neighbors complained or were opposed, the "No
Parking" signs would be reinstalled in front of Mrs. Moore's residence. Council-
man Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood recognized Lieutenant Mitchell,
who was present to speak on the subject and who had indicated that it was
a dangerous area.
Mrs. Moore interjected and stated that she had parked her car in front of her
home for five years with not so much as receiving a scratch on it.
Lieutenant Mitchell stated although he appreciated what Mrs. Moore was trying'to
accomplish, West Street was a fast boulevard and the road made a slight jog at
that location. If her car had not been hit, it had to be because of an unusual
set of circumstances, and he felt it was only a matter of time. As well, there
was a controversy in that neighborhood and at this time the Planning Department
had drafted a letter to be sent to homeowners in that general vicinity relative
to conducting a study to be completed by January 1980, and there would probably
be some parking restrictions with the expansion of the Convention Center and
with the hotel to be constructed.
City Engineer William Devitt stated that Engineering and the Traffic Engineer
concurred with Lieutenant Mitchell in that a hazard would be created by granting
the request.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion to approve the request and it failed
to carry by the following vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Seymour
Kaywood, Bay and Roth
None
Mayor Seymour left the Council Chamber. (7:15 P.M.)
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt assUmed Chairmanship of the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood, 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 and the Application for Leave to Present
Late Claim was denied:
a. Claim submitted by Armandina Garcia for vehicle damage purportedly sustained
as a result of object left in road by road repair crew (La Palma Avenue) on or
about June 15, 1979.
79-820
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July !7~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
b. Claim submitted by Mary Louise Cunningham for personal injury damages pur-
portedly sustained as a result of fall into unmarked excavation at the corner
of Miller and La Palma, on or about March 27, 1979.
c. Claim submitted by Ricky Otto Davis for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about June 1, 1979.
d. Claim submitted by Charles K. Manning for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of accident on Anaheim Civic Center jobsite on or about
April 13, 1979.
e. Claim submitted by Nancy Rose Talley for personal injuries and damages
purportedly sustained as a result of collision with Southern Pacific Transpor-
tation Company train at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Santa Aha
Street, caused by obstruction of railroad crossing sign, on or about March 27,
1979.
f. Claim submitted by Cheryl Ann Loucks for personal injuries and damages
purportedly sustained as a result of collision with Southern Pacific Transpor-
tation Company train at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Santa Aha
Street, caused by obstruction of railroad crossing sign, or or about March 27,
1979.
g. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim submitted by Betty L. Logelin
for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of accident at Anaheim
Hills Golf Course on or about August 2, 1978.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 173: Before the Public Utilities Commission, application of Commuter Bus
Lines, for fare increase in connection with operating a bus route through the
City of Anaheim.
b. 173: Before the Public Utilities Commission, application of Michael A.
Kadletz, an individual, dba Goodtime Tours Company, .to sell and Jeanne Mollica,
an individaul, for authority to acquire.
c. 105: Park and Recreation Commission - Minutes of May 23, 1979.
d. 107: Planning Department, Building Division - Monthly Report for June 1979.
e. 156: Police Department - Monthly Report for June 1979.
f. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of June 7, 1979.
g. 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of May 10, 1979.
h. 144: Orange County Grand Jury Final Report for 1978-79.
3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
79-821
~ity Hal. it Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
a. PL, blic Dance Permit, submitted by Sociedad Progresista Mexicana, for a public
dance to be held August 4, 1979, 9:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., at Carpenters Hall, 608
West Vermont Avenue. (Concha C. Flores, applicant)
b. Public Dance Permit, submitted by Empresa Frias, for a public dance to be
held July 28, 1979, 6:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., at the Anaheim Convention Center.
(Cruz Munoz Frias, applicant)
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 79R-422
and 79R-423, both inclusive, 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.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-422: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Anaheim Business
Center, a General Partnership; and Business Properties Partnership No. 29)
103: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-423: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN
AND DESIGNATED AS MOHLER DRIVE NO. 7 ANNEXATION. (uninhabited S/o Santa Ana
Canyon Road, E/o Mohler Drive) '
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-422 and 79R-423 both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted. '
147: ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT: Councilman Roth reported on the Wednesday,
July 11, 1979 meeting of the Orange County Sanitation District meeting. Council-
man Don Fox of Brea was elected Chairman of the Joint Board and Bill Vardoulis
Irvine, was re-elected as Vice-Chairman. '
RECESS--EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into
Executive Session. (7:25 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor Pro Tem called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilman Seymour.. (8:03 P.M.)
112: PANDICK PRESS VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM STADIUM~ INC,~ CITY OF ANAHEIM, ET AL:
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by 'Councilman Roth, the City Attorney
was authorized to tender a defense to the Anaheim Stadium, Inc., in the case of
Pandick Press vs. City of Anaheim Stadium, Inc., City of Anaheim, et al, (U.S.
District Court #79-02182 MRP) and to employ attorneys for that purpose. Council-
man Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
79-822
City Hal. l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 17~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 8: 04 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK