1983/06/14City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -~ June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, O~,crholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Tailey
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Philip Gram~atica
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND AUDIT MANAGER: R~ nald Rothschild
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
CIVIL ENGINEER: Jay Titus
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Sa.~talahti
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend Tom Favreau, Hotline Help Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
Councilman Overholt left the Council Chambers. (1(:04 a.m.)
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations ~ re issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
Flag Day in Anaheim, June 14, 1983.
Honor America, Flag Day through Independence Day, June 14-July 4, 1983.
National Tennis Week in Anaheim, June 18-26, 1983.
Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, accepted
the National Tennis Week proclamation.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held May 10, 1983. Councilman Bay seco~ ~ed the motion. Councilman
Overholt was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIEL~
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (10:07 a.m.)
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolt~tions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by ali Council Members, unless aft~'r reading of the title,
specific request is made by a Council Member foc the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Co:ncilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,495,695.92, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approve~.
496
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and.recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 83R-239 through 83R-245, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Ellen R. Stohl for personal injury damages
purportedly sustained due to actions of Anaheim paramedics, at the 57
Freeway approximately 796 feet south of Miraloma Overcrossing, on or about
January 19, 1983.
2. Claim submitted by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for
subrogation rights for personal property damages to claimant's insured's
car purportedly sustained due to an uncovered manhole at East Ball Road
and Nutwood, on or about March 1, 1983.
B. Claims rejected and referred to Government Programs Division, Markel
Services, Inc.:
3. Claim submitted by Marie Shanholtzer for monetary loss purportedly
sustained due to actions of Anaheim Police Department at 108 North
Claudina, on or about April 26, 1983.
4. Claim submitted by Rolland Hornbacher for personal injury damages
purportedly sustained due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers at 324
South Brookhurst Street, on or about February 4, 1983.
5. Claim submitted by Nicki Russell Nicks for personal injury damages
purportedly sustained due to an accident caused by a malfunctioning
traffic signal at the intersection of Gilbert Street and Lincoln Avenue,
on or about April 18, 1983.
C. Applications for Leave to Present a Late Claim rejected:
6. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim submitted by Obdee
Wilson for personal property damages to car purportedly sustained due to
an accident involving a vehicle owned by the Anaheim Union High School
District at Spurgeon and First Streets, Santa Ana, on or about January 21,
1983.
7. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim submitted by Paul Leon
Castillo for personal injury damages purportedly sustained due to actions
of an Anaheim Police Officer near the intersection of West Locust Street
and Aspen Street, on or about December 4, 1982.
497
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of May 26, 1983.
b. 107:
1983.
c. 105:
Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for May
Youth Commission--Minutes of March 23 and May 11, 1983.
3. 123: Authorizing the First Amendment to the Operations Agreement dated
December 26, 1979, with The Los Angeles Rams Football Company clarifying a
cleaning surcharge for any box suite, retroactive to the 1980 season, and
authorizing the Second Amendment to the Exhibition Agreement dated
November 21, 1978, with The Los Angeles Rams Football Company to provide 27
seats in front of box suites 101-A and 101-B for all Angel exhibition and
official American League home games, with the City providing 200 complimentary
preferred parking credentials for Rams; and further, equally sharing the cost
for installation and removal of foul poles.
4. 123: Authorizing a lease agreement with Storer Cable T.V. in the amount
of $500 a year for three years, and thereafter the rate to be adjusted by the
Consumer Price Index Indicator, for placement of a microwave receiving station
on the roof of Anaheim Stadium over Gate One, for a term of fifteen years.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Hugo A. Vazquez to provide for three
units of affordable rental housing for a period of five years in accordance
with the conditions of approval of Variance No. 3329, RM-1200 zoned property
located at 129 South Olive Street.
6. 160: Accepting the low bid of Mills Ford in the amount of 515,027.13 for
one conventional cab/chassis, in accordance with Bid No. 3972.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-239: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ROMNEYA
DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENT, WEST OF HARBOR BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 25-793-6325-E3660. (Bids to be opened July 7, 1983, 2:00 p.m.)
165: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-240: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CENTER
STREET PARKING STRUCTURE, 235 EAST CENTER STREET, IN THE CITY oF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 82-362-6325. (Bids to be opened July 21, 1983, 2:00 p.m.)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-241: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE NEW PRESSURE REGULATING STATION 19, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 53-611-6329-17290-34360. (Macco Constructors,
Inc., 5171,435)
498
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
165: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-242: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LINCOLN
AVENUE CROSSWALK RESURFACING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
46-793-6325-E3670. (Coefficient Coatings, Inc., contractor)
174: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-243: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND FILE AN
APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS PURSUANT TO THE JOBS
BILL OF 1983. (3842,000)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-244: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-506 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS SUPPORT AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT.
(to add the class of Safety Manager, Schedule No. X1688 A-E, effective
June 17, 1983)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-245: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (California
Castles, Inc.; Daniel Kuwada, et al.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-239 through 83R-245,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
123/125/175: CONTRACT PROGRAMMING SERVICE: Submitted was a report dated June
14, 1983, from the Data Processing Director, Philip Grammatica, recommending
that the Council authorize contract programing service agreements with
Computer Systems & Applications of California, TRES Services, Inc., John
Cappelletti Associates, and DPCS, Inc.
City Manager William Talley first stated they were removing the contract for
TILES Services under this item, since TRES had not.returned their contract
signed.
Councilman Bay asked if there was something urgent involved that all the
proposed consulting agreements had to be approved prior to City budget
approval.
City Manager Talley explained that most, if not every one of the agreements,
related to the continuation of the existing work. Unless Council contemplated
stopping Data Processing Services, normally they would go out for bid on
499
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
contract programing. The Computer Systems and Applications effort continued
the maintenance of the Utility billing system and the others represented work
that had been approved.
Councilman Bay wanted to know what progress had been made to be independent of
the original consultant on the assembly program and if the Department had
learned enough to maintain the system.
Mr. Philip Grammatica, Data processing Director, stated that with regard to
the TRES System application in the City, they had in the past spent many
dollars with vendors to support that system in a maintenance mode. For his
budget presentation next week, he had prepared a chart illustrating that the
amount of moneys .being spent in maintenance of that system had decreased
dramatically over the last two years.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an agreement with Computer
Systems and Applications of California in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for
data processing contracting program services for the Utility Billing System
Effort, commencing July 1, 1983 and ending June 30, 1984, and authorizing
agreements with Systems Support Consultants, Inc., John Cappelletti
Associates, and DPCS, Inc., in amounts not to exceed ~200,000, ~250,000 and
~70,000 respectively, for data processing contracting services for the City's
General Systems Effort, commencing July 1, 1983 and ending June 30, 1984, as
recommended in memorandum dated June 14, 1983, from the Data Processing
Director. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Bay voted "No."
MOTION CARRIED.
128: MONTHLY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - TEN MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 1983:
Councilman Bay posed a line of questioning relative to specific aspects of the
financial analysis which were answered by both City Manager Talley and Ronald
Rothschild, Program Development and Audit Manager.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to receive and file the monthly financial
analysis for the ten months ended April 30, 1983. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
000/159: ENGINEERING DIVISION - FILING, SERVICE AND PERMIT FEES: Mayor Roth
noted in staff report dated May 25, 1983, from the City Engineer, recommending
revision oF the subject Fees, there wa~ no information indicating why the fee~
were increasing. Last year the fees were increased in May. Re preferred any
such changes taking place in June after they received the City budget. They
should also be looking at what cities of comparable size were charging. He
needed information to justify the proposed increases. Further, the fee
schedule should be submitted to the Building Industry Association (BIA) with
support information, so that input could be received from them.
City Engineer William Devitt reported that they reviewed their hourly rates
and costs annually and the fees were revised on the basis of actual costs.
They also submitted them to the Orange County Chapter of the BIA under letter
of May 25, 1983, and no response was received, either this year or last,
5OO
City Hall,' Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
thereby indicating acceptance of the revised schedule. They also made a
comparison with other cities doing comparable work, such as Fullerton, Orange
and San Clemente, since their activity was involved with hillside grading.
The fees were not increased on an annual schedule, but on the basis of labor
costs. If labor costs decreased, the fees would drop accordingly.
Councilman Overholt stated he would support a motion to continue the matter
one week, so that they could have the benefit of seeing comparative fee
schedules from other cities; Mr. Devitt pointed out that such information was
contained in his report and further, each city approached their fees
differently.
Mr. Jay Titus, Civil Engineer, explained that it was difficult to compare fee
schedules per se. Anaheim charged hourly fees based on the number of hours it
took to complete a job. All other cities within the County that he was
familiar with charged fees based on the percentage of the cost of the on-site
improvements. They felt Anaheim's procedure in charging an hourly rate was
more fair to the developer then taking a fixed percentage.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-246 for adoption, establishing
fees to be charged by the Engineering Division for filing, service and permit
fees. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-246: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING FEES TO BE CHARGED BY THE ENGINEERING DIVISION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-246 duly passed and adopted.
174: NINTH-YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION: Submitted was
a report dated June 7, 1983, from the Community Development Director
recommending approval and authorizing the City Manager to execute and file an
application for a Community Development Block Grant pursuant to the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1980.
Councilman Bay stated he asked that the item be removed from the consent
calendar so that he could reiterate his total disagreement with portions of
the request, even though he did not intend to vote against filing of the
application. He wanted it known that he was not in support of 515,000 for
Legal Aid, ~20,000 for AMPS, ~20,000 for Fair Housing, 512,300 for Hope House,
and 520,000 for Christian Temporary Housing (total 587,300).
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-247 for adoption, authorizing
the City Manager to execute and file an application in the amount of
$2,194,000, for Ninth-Year Community Development Block Grant Funds. Refer to
Resolution Book.
501
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-247: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND FILE AN
APPLICATION FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPmeNT BLOCK GRANT PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1980.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-247 duly passed and adopted.
144/153: PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS: Submitted was a report dated
June 7, 1983, from the Human Resources Director, recommending the appointment
of three members to the Orange County Private Industry Council, serving
one-year terms.
Councilman Roth nominated Fred Bercher, Mel Miller and Larry Slagle.
Councilman Bay seconded the nominations.
Councilman Overholt moved to close nominations. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Bercher, Miller and Slagle were thereupon appointed to serve one-year
terms on the Orange County Private Industry Council.
139: AB 260 (ROOS) AND SB 24 (ROBERTI): To clarify existing law in order to
maintain the 1978 property tax base allocations to municipalities and to avoid
loss of that base should a municipality enact a separate property tax rate for
pension debt retirement.
City Manager Talley explained that he served on the League Revenue Taxation
Committee and this matter was brought to their attention last Friday. He
understood that AB 260 might be considered as early as tomorrow. The problem
was that there was more than one legislative opinion floating around the
State. There was one from Los Angeles County and another from the State.
Orange County had not adopted an opinion, but one stated that if they had the
ability to levy a property tax ~or retirement purpose~, they con~idered that
as having been done. That would mean the City would be penalized whether or
not that property tax had been levied or be forced to levy it to cover pension
obligations. What they were trying to do was to clarify the process and not
obligate the City to have to levy that but, on the other hand, not be
penalized for failure to get property tax distributions.
Councilman Roth moved to support the League of Cities amendments to AB 260
(Roos) and SB 24 (Roberti) to clarify existing law in order to maintain the
1978 property tax base allocations to municipalities and to avoid loss of that
base should a municipality enact a separate property tax for pension debt
retirement, as recommended in memorandum dated June 13, 1983, from the
Intergovernmental Relations Officer. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
502
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay posed a line of questions which were
answered by Mr. Talley and Cindy Cave, Intergovernmental Relations Officer.
(See memorandum ~ated June 13, 1983, from the Intergovernmental Relations
Officer, containing a detailed discussion of the issue.)
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175.123: INSPECTION SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION FOR
UTILITY CAPITAL PROJECTS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an
agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates in an amount not to
exceed $81,900 for inspection services and construction contract
administration for seven Water Utility Capital Projects, as recommended in
memorandum dated June 7, 1983, from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman
Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION - CARL WARREN & COMPANY: Councilman Bay moved to
authorize an agreement with Carl Warren & Co., in an amount not to exceed
~50,000, plus allocated expenses, to provide claims administration services,
for the term ending June 30, 1984, as recommended in memorandum dated June 2,
1983, from the City Attorney. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC REQUESTS - CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by
Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in accordance with the
reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and
as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Roth offered Resolution No.
83R-248 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 166: SPECIAL EVENTS PEP~IT NO. 82-183, EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by The
William Lyon Company, for a six-month extension of time to their permit, to
allow the display of temporary flags and banners for Tract No. 11053 located
at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Avenue, was granted, in
accordance with the recommendation of the Zoning Division, to expire
November 18, 1983.
2. 168/170: STREET NAM~ CHANGE: Request by American National Group, for a
change in street names of Ranger Trail and Wrangler Lane in Tract No. 10410
located north of Big Sky Lane, west of Imperial Highway, was approved, in
accordance with the recommendation of the Zoning Division~ changing the street
names to Estate.Ridge Road.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-248: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CHANGING THE NAME FOR RANGER TRAIL AND WRANGLER LANE TO ESTATE RIDGE
ROAD.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-248 duly passed and adopted.
503
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
166: SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT NO. 83-149, ADVERTISING BALLOON: Discount Import
Parts Store, requesting approval to fly advertising balloon at a height of 75
feet in connection with a grand opening parking lot sale June 25-26, 1983, at
1205 South Euclid Street. Submitted was a report from the Zoning Division
dated June 8, 1983, recommending denial of the request.
Mr. Charles Stauffer, 1205 South Euclid, explained that the balloon was owned
by Sunrise Balloons, based in Palm Desert. The balloon had been used at a
couple of Anaheim locations in the past, the Anaheim Convention Center and a
local auto dealership and on both occasions, it was flown at a height of 125
feet. He was told by Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, that
the balloon could be flown at 25 feet and for any added height, they would
have to obtain permission.
Miss Santalahti explained that when activities of the subject type occurred at
the Convention Center, it did not require any specific approval by the
Planning Department other than the Convention Center staff usually contacted
them to make certain it was not totally unreasonable. They had approved a
balloon at an auto dealership in Anaheim and for the last three years, when
they approved such use, they did so at the permitted sign height for that
particular location. Further, she knew that balloons had been flown without
any permits, as well as being flown over the height they were permitted for.
They received approximately six such requests a year and typically they did
not receive any complaints. Recently, they received a strong complaint when a
balloon in the Disneyland area had been flown in excess of the approved
height, which caused them to be much more cautious.
Councilman Bay surmised then that the standard procedure was to permit
balloons at the permitted sign height at the particular location. The subject
balloon would be approved to fly at 25 feet, which was the sign limitation in
the area.
Mr. Stauffer stated he could see the point of 25 feet in the area, but there
was a structural height limitation of 75 feet. The balloon was being
commissioned for June 25 and June 26, a two-day weekend event. Not only was
it not a permanent structure, but also it was not a temporary use. They could
use the balloon as a marking for the location without any identification if
that was what was necessary to fly it at 75 feet.
Councilman Pickler felt that for a two-day promotion, they could allow Mr.
Stauffer to fly the balloon at 75 feet.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the request of Discount Import Parts Store
to fly an advertising balloon at a height of 75 feet in connection with a
grand opening parking lot sale June 25-26, 1983, at 1205 South Euclid Street.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilmen Pickler and Roth voted
"No." MOTION CARRIED.
It was pointed out during the discussion that this did not preclude Mr.
Stauffer from flying the balloon at a maximum height of 25 feet only.
5O4
City Hall., Ana.h~im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 11426: Developer, Pacesetter Homes, Inc.; tract
is located souttieast of the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Citron
Street and cont,%ns a 2-lot, proposed RM-3000 zoned subdivision.
Councilman Overholt stated he had consistently voted against actions on the
subject property' for only the reason that the backside of residential was
going to front ~n Lincoln Avenue. He felt the project was a good one, but he
did not like forever dedicating frontage on the Fremont Junior High School
site to resid~ntial development, and he joined with the people who had
commercial enterprises on Lincoln Avenue that as a gateway to Anaheim, it
should remain commercial.
On motion by Co~ncilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the
proposed subdivi~ion, together with its design and improvement, was found to
be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved
Final Map Tract No. 11426, as recommended by the City Engineer in his
memorandum dated June 6, 1983, subject to the approval of the CC&R's by the
City Attorney's office and the Engineering Division. Councilman Overholt
voted "No." MOTION CARRIED.
108/156/142: O~DINANCE NO. 4439: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4439
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4439: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER
4.32 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 4.32
PERTAINING ~) AUCTIONS.
Roll Call Vo~.e:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4439 duly passed and adopted.
114: LIAISON MEETING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Councilman Bay
reported on the Liaison Committee Meeting he and Councilman Pickler attended
with representatives of the Community Redevelopment Commission and staff on
Friday, June 10, 1983. The topic was the Riverdale Redevelopment Project
currently in progress. He surmised from that meeting that it did not seem
practical to force the issue on that project in time for this year's tax
increment. The opposition they would gain from the County, as well as some
other taxing dfstricts in that area, would not be worth the one-year
differential in their moving ahead, since they had not made a final decision
to move with that project. They were going to be slowing down on it. A
hearing was going to be held at the County level, since the school districts
were asking for a review of the financial situation if that project went
through. Any c~ner details would be given in a one-page report or they could
call either Mr. Priest or himself.
5O5
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations with no action anticipated; the City Attorney
requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with
no action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:45 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (12:28 p.m.)
RECESS - LUNCH BREAK: By general consent, the Council recessed for a lunch
break. (12:28 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:45 p.m.)
106: PUBLIC HEARING - BUDGET: To consider the proposed 1983/84 Resource
Allocation Plan (RAP).
Mayor Roth asked first to hear from the four Neighborhood Councils.
Karen Townsend, 201 Leatrice Lane, President of the South Anaheim Neighborhood
Council, stated she was present today to bring to the Council's attention an
eyesore in the City of Anaheim, the Glenn/Jeffrey/Hampstead area, although
this was not the only place deteriorating conditions existed. They were
planning to make up packets to give to all of the homeowners and a different
packet for renters to make them aware of the City's Nuisance Ordinance. They
also hoped to get another inspector for the Code Enforcement Division, since
it would take the present staff over a year to handle all of the complaints.
Inspectors should be allowed to go door-to-door in some of the selected areas,
which would ultimately save time and money. The South Anaheim Neighborhood
Council would be glad to assist in any way.
Pamela Robinson, 400 North Vine, Apartment D, representing the Central City
Neighborhood Council, was present to appeal to the Council's judgment
considering Code Enforcement. She had photographs showing living conditions
four blocks away. People were being forced to live in unsafe and unsanitary
condltion~, cailin~ ware cavins in, walls were crumbling, there was no heat
in winter months, people were living in garages and sharing one bathroom,
etc. Mrs. Robinson then elaborated on what she considered deplorable
conditions evidenced by the photographs and the fact that many violations had
to continually be turned in to Code Enforcement, because they were not able to
be handled in a reasonable period of time, and some had been pending for 1 1/2
years. Code Enforcement should be one of the top priorities of the Council
and the City. They were in need of more Code Enforcement Officers, plus a
proactive state of enforcement. She then submitted the photographs to the
Council covering a variety of violations amongst which were pictures showing
garage living, exterior and interior violations in a residence on Alberta
Street, collapsing front porch, etc. (on file in the City Clerk's office).
5O6
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Kris Tenpas, 1213 North Citron, Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council, recounted
that in October of 1981, the four Neighborhood Councils and many concerned
~itizens appeared before the Council to propose an occupancy inspection
program as a possible solution to the blighted conditions in certain areas of
the City. Out of that hearing came the Nuisance Ordinance and Housing Task
Force. The Task Force recommended the Nuisance Ordinance be enforced on a
proactive basis. The Council voted to continue its reactive policy. They
were told at that time to try it on a complaint basis. However, they did not
know how to answer people who said that they turned in a complaint several
months ago, but nothing was ever done. She questioned why they must
continually return to the Council with their problems of enforcement.
Sheri Pignone, 1181 Crown Street, Chairperson, Patrick Henry Neighborhood
Council, submitted photographs of blighted conditions involving residences
located on West Street, Olive Street and Brookhurst Street. She was prepared
to answer any questions.
In answer to questions posed by Council Members, Mrs. Pignone stated that she
had reported violations that had not been handled and some as far back as
i 1/2 years ago. On the other hand, she did see enforcement taking place and
while many things had been resolved, there were a great many more that needed
attention. Relative to the Patrick Henry Area, in many cases where violation
notices were sent, work was being done, but several owners had done nothing.
Relative to reinspection, they received comments that some of the people were
either not home or, if home, they indicated everything was taken care of, but
would not allow the inspector back in for reinspection.
Councilman Bay asked, in her opinion from what she had seen, how many
additional enforcement officers did she think the City needed; Mrs. Pignone
answered that they were asking for one, because that position was authorized a
year ago. However, the City was over 40 square miles and the Enforcement
Officers handled a variety of enforcement duties, the Nuisance Ordinance being
only one facet. If they did not get a handle on the situation now, they would
never be able to do so.
Pete O'Harwell, 1823 West Neighbors, stated he owned a fourplex and was a
member of the Glenn-Neighbors Property Owners Association. Relative to the
problems described by previous speakers, they had similar problems in his
area. He encouraged Council to hire more inspectors. As an owner, he was in
favor of a continuation of the enforcement pr0~ram.
Mr. Gus Bode stated that many of the laws that were passed in the City were
passed 20 and 30 years ago and were outdated. He had received a citation
under the Nuisance Ordinance and suggested that when the Police Department saw
a car parked on a lawn, that first a warning should be given.
Patti Nymann, 1741 Neighbors, Apartment 2, Glenn-Neighbors Apartment Owners
Association, stated that without some sort of law~ there was no way to follow
up as to what was being done. They had written letters to the City without
receiving a response. She then referred to the letter that was published in
507
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
the Anaheim Bulletin, dated June 6, written by her. She expressed her concern
over the attitude of Mr. Montoya, Housing Code Inspector, in handling her
complaint. She reiterated that a follow-up system of complaints was necessary
in order to solve the problems. Something needed to be done before the City
deteriorated any further.
City Manager William Talley stated it would be helpful to brief the existing
organization and set the framework for Council to express their policy. The
Building Division of the Planning Department had two Housing Code Inspectors.
One Inspector worked almost exclusively in the target areas, because it was a
HUD-funded position. The other worked approximately 16 percent of the time in
those areas. In the Zoning Division of the Planning Department, there were
six people, 'lwo Senior Code Enforcement Officers, one having been off for 90
days, but up until that time, both were involved in Code enforcement
activities. There were also two Code Enforcement Officers who had been
employed a short time. Of those four, khree were on the payroll and working.
There were also two part-time clerical people who, on occasion, had been sent
out in the field. Of the six full-time positions, two were in Housing and
four in the Code enforcement area and approximately five worked on Code
enforcement. In point of fact, they had a "5-person year's" worth of activity
being devoted to Code enforcement, plus the two part-time clerical, which
represented a 100 percent increase over two years ago in the number of hours
being spent on Code enforcement. They had a seventh position which was vacant
and they were recommending that Council consider deleting that from the
budget. Mr. Talley then briefed report to the Council dated June 10, 1983,
wherein they noted the number of nuisance complaints that had been received
for the last 11 months and one week. For the first ten months, they averaged
around 200 complaints a month. However, in the last six weeks, they had
received nearly 800 complaints. Under the right circumstances, they would
never have sufficient staff.
Mr. Taliey then stated that two of the actions they felt were appropriate were
as follows: (1) Transfer the two inspectors from the Building Division to the
Zoning Division and have all people working under Code enforcement activities,
whether Housing Code or Code enforcement, and ail under one person. Because
the salaries and two operations were different, they were going to have to do
a study, and it would probably be July 1, 1983, before the inspectors would
all be working under the same person. (2) Recommend to the Council when the
Planning Department budget was presented, that the vacant position they
thought they could delete because the workload was approximately 200
complaints per month, not be deleted, thus representing a seventh position.
He also felt a third area might be something they could explore collectively.
If Council wanted to set a limit on how many people they had, he would think
that in some way dialogue between the Neighborhood Councils, the City and
senior staff people should occur that would prioritize what they wanted them
to work on, since the residents living in those neighborhoods knew what
bothered them the most. They had well in excess of ~200,000 a year being
spent in the area of enforcement, but they could not handle massive
complaints, which were just demonstrations. It was going to take a realistic
appraisal. He agreed
508
Ci'ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
totally that they should combine the enforcement operation under one roof, and
he would withdraw his recommendation that they not fill the vacant position.
When the employee who was out returned to work after 90 days, they would
continue with a seventh officer, but seven was not going to do it, and if it
continued to accelerate, eight or nine officers would not be sufficient.
Councilman Pickler felt that the third suggestion was perhaps more important
than the first two as he felt they had to set priorities. Also, he noted that
they kept backing away from proactive enforcement. He asked Mr. Talley's
opinion.
Mr. Talley answered, that was a policy decision and staff was going to do
whatever the Council wished. Proactive enforcement was a lot more expensive
manhour-wise for the results, than reactive. If they went into what he
considered a full-blown proactive program, it would take twice as many people,
but it would be a sustaining program that would be part of much more
substantial ordinance requirements getting into areas that the Council never
elected getting into. Absent a legal reason to get interior access, it was
difficult to continue a proactive program, because of the possible potentially
punitive aspect that could fall on the occupant.
Councilman Bay stated he was hearing there were somewhere around 800 pending
complaints, and those received in the last six weeks were a small sample of
truly proactive inspection. There were about five Neighborhood Councils that
became proactive enforcement officers. What they were looking at was an
example of some very dedicated citizens within the Neighborhood Councils who
had a great deal of heart and feeling for the City. He felt the
recommendations by the City Manager for all the enforcement to move in under
one manager and to reinstate the requirement for the additional enforcement
officer would be a good first two steps. He was not sure that they may not
have to add another enforcement officer in addition to that, particularly when
one of the "top notch" officers was presently on medical leave. The question
was where they were going to find the money to do that.
Mr. Ronald Thompson, Planning Director, then answered questions posed by
Council Members Bay and Kaywood.
Mayor Roth then asked to hear from the Community Service organizations.
Mrs. Donna Caston, 20~5 gast Ball Road, Chairman, Community §ervlces Board,
stated they received 15 requests for funding from Community Service Agencies
totaling ~223,000. The Board visited most of the agencies in order to receive
first-hand information on the services provided. On April 27, 1983, the
agencies presented their budget requests to the Community Services Board. On
May 12, 1983, the Board met again to discuss and develop funding
recommendations for the Council. In order to provide the Council with options
for funding, the Board identified four funding level breakdowns, as noted on
Page 2 of their May 2, 1983 report (on file in the City Clerk's office). They
were recommending the third funding level, totaling ~80,000, which was the
same as adopted in 1982-83. She then briefed the balance of the report which
5O9
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
explained how they justified funds for a particular agency and the key
elements applied in evaluating each request. After concluding her
presentation, Mrs. Gaston clarified for Councilman Bay that basically all of
their decisions relative to funding levels made by the Board were unanimous.
Mrs. Gaston stated that she had received a request from an additional agency
that morning, the YWCA Employment Service, which was not included in their
program.
Council Members then posed questions to Mrs. Gaston regarding AMPARO, the
Child Molestation Assault Prevention Center, Christian Temporary Housing,
Legal Aid Society, the R.S.V.P. Program and The Villa.
Councilman Bay asked relative to Legal Aid, if toward the last end of the
current year they had received the 525,000 add-on that was slated as a
priority during this fiscal year, plus the 515,000 that was going to be
earmarked in the upcoming Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds, plus
the 513,000 the Board was recommending, including free office space, free
utilities, etc.
Steve Swaim, Community Services Manager, explained that they would be
receiving the Block Grant money as of July 1, 1983, of 520,000, and if the
Council wished to fund the 513,000 recommended for 1983-84, they would also
receive that.
Ellen Pierce, Attorney for the Legal Aid Society in Anaheim, stated they did
not receive the Block Grant money and they were encouraged by that group to
request money from the Community Services Board. They had requested $13,000.
The 515,000 they received from the Block Grant and the ~13,000 combined would
enable Legal Aid to continue operation of the Anaheim office with a'full-time
paralegal, the question being what could the paralegal do for Anaheim. It
would not be the same level of service as presently being provided. They were
actually asking for more and since they did not receive the.money from Block
Grant backup, they were going to be about ~12,000 short. With the 512,000
additional, they could match from Legal Aid funds sufficient money to run the
office the way it was being run at present, assuming they received the ~15,000
from the Block Grant and the ~13,OOO requested from Community Services. She
clarified what they were asking for today was the ~13,000 recommended by the
Community Services Board and an additional $12,000 which would be brought in
as an additional resource allocation, because of the failure of the
application for Block Grant funds.
Mr. Swaim then reported that Legal Aid received no City money last year. This
was a first year request. They had received Orange County Revenue Sharing
dollars. They did receive free office space and utilities at the George
Washington Community Center, but no funds. They did not serve Anaheim
exclusively, but theirs was a regional office in this section of Orange County.
The following groups then gave a description of the services they provided,
the percentage of Anaheim residents served through their offices or facilities
510
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
and, in a number of cases, reasons for increases in requested funding. After
several presentations, representatives answered questions posed by Council
Members. Also, see blue booklet, previously submitted to the Council
following the Community Setvices Board meeting of April 27, 1983, which
contained requests and backup data from 14 of the community services agencies
requesting funding (on file in the City Clerk's office):
AMPARO--John Garrett, Director of the AMPARO program, located in Garden Grove,
2111 South Cindy Place, request, $15,000; Anaheim City School District Child
Molestation/Assault Prevention Program--Carolyn Plettinck, representing the
District, 1650 West Cerritos, request, ~6,600; William Thompson, Deputy
Superintendent of the Anaheim City School District also gave input; Catholic
Social Services--no representative present, request, $10,000; Christian
Temporary Housing--Elmer Holthus, Director of Development, Main Facility, 1311
East Collins Street, Orange, request ~15,000; Community Pride--no
representative present, request, ~2,500; Home Helping Hands--Beverly Calton,
Project Director, 320 North Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton, request, ~15,950;
Legal Aid Society--Ellen Pierce, presentation made earlier in the meeting,
request, ~46,131; North Orange County Regional Occupation Program--Pat
Giamarino, Supervisor of Instruction, 2360 West La Palma Avenue, request,
~1,600; Orange County Community Development Council (Food Bank)--Joanie
Valdez, Food Bank Manager, 416 South Birch, Santa Ana, request, ~10,130;
Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP)--Helen Haines, Program Director, main
office, 233 West Amerige, Fnllerton, request, ~15,022; Project TLC--Feedback
Foundation, Inc.--Nick Warner, Manager, Anaheim I TLC, 2580 West Orange (also
read letter dated June 14, 1983, submitted by Shirley Cohen, Project Director,
on file in the City Clerk's office), request, ~28,874. Input was also
received from Kathleen Benson, Manager of Project TLC at the George Washington
Community Center; The Villa--Steve Thomas, Program Director, 910 North French
Street, Santa Ana, request, ~18,000. Input was also received from Cleo
Bryant, 1887 Monrovia, Costa Mesa, who was a previous resident at the
facility; We Tip--no representative present, request, ~6,795; West Orange
County Hotline--Marya Blackwell, Office Manager, 8472 Gay Avenue, Cypress,
request, ~1,200; and the Fair Housing Council of Orange County--Eugene Scorio,
Executive Director, request, ~15,000.
The Mayor then asked to hear from anyone else who wished to speak.
Jeannie Blodgett, Vice Chairman, Anaheim Youth Employment Service (YES),
explained the services provided by their program, which had been in operation
for one year (also see letter of June 8, 1983, from the president and the
executive director of the organization and letter received June 10, 1983, from
the recorder of the YES Advisory Board, both of which gave background
information on the organization--on file in the City Clerk's office). They
needed the City's help in order to continue the vital program, so that young
people of Anaheim could continue to benefit and to grow through being
gainfully employed. They were requesting ~4,000.
Mrs. Lisa Stipkovich, Assistant Director of Community Development, clarifying
an earlier question relative to funding for Legal Aid, explained that there
511
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
was never any funding for Legal Aid at all during the current fiscal year.
The budget the Council approved that morning for the Block Grant program
included ~15,000 for Legal Aid.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked the HUD requirements relative to the Orange
County Fair Housing Council. Would they otherwise be required to provide that
service in-house and, if so, the comparative costs.
Mrs. Stipkovich answered it was a requirement of the Block Grant Program that
they perform fair housing activities. They did not have to fund the Fair
Housing Council, but had chosen to do so. Twenty thousand dollars was funded
from the budget approved that morning. They had requested ~38,000. It was
their feeling that the ~20,000 would be a very cost effective way to provide
fair housing activities, but if ~38,000, they could possibly perform those
services in-house.
Mayor Roth stated relative to the foregoing requests, he had four priorities,
RSVP, Project TLC, Anaheim City School District Child Molestation/Assault
Prevention Program and YES. He was recommending an increase in the RSVP
proposed funding by ~7,105 and the TLC proposed funding by ~6,307, which would
allocate total funding for both organizations to their original requests of
515,022 and ~28,874, respectively. The latter two programs were new requests
for 1983-84 in the amounts of $6,600 and 54,000, respectively.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed with those four priorities, but would add another,
the North Orange County Regional Occupation Program.
Councilman Pickier stated he felt the community benefited from Legal Aid in
helping those who could not afford such assistance, as well as the Anaheim
City School District Child Molestation/Assault Prevention Program and YES.
did not favor any allocation to The Villa, since he felt there were other
programs providing such services and they also received funding from other
private sources, the County and United Way.
He
Councilman Overholt stated, since they were not bound by the ~80,000 funding
level, it was his thinking that they should support a total allocation of
5104,012, which would include the $7,105 additional for RSVP, ~6,307 for TLC,
~6,600 for the Anaheim City School District Child Molestation/Assault
Prevention Program and ~4,000 for YES, the priorities outlined by the Mayor.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the fiscal year 1983-84 Community
Services Agency Funding requests as recommended by the Community Services
Board and outlined on Attachment A of their May 20, 1983, memorandum, with the
following additions, bringing the total to 5104,012, subject to Council
approval of the funding from the 1983-84 budget:
Increasing the RSVP program by
Increasing TLC funding by
Adding the Anaheim City School District Child
Molestation/Assault Prevention Program
Adding Youth Employment Services
~7,105
~6,307
~6,600
54,000
512
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt secoz~ded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler stated he would like to amend the
motion to delete The Villa. The motion died for lack of a second.
Before a vote was taken ~,n Councilman Roth's motion, Councilman Bay stated he
wanted to comment before casting his "no" vote. He maintained that cities
should not give taxpayers' monies to charities. It was a principle with him
that they should be raised from private funds. He did not disagree with the
good work done by all ~6 organizations, but he still felt strongly that the
City should not be in ~he charity business. They had enough problems solving
the other problems o~ t?.~ir constituents to whom they were directly
responsible.
Councilman Overholt stated relative to the Child Molestation Program, he would
encourage the people in charge to expand their capability in obtaining private
contributions for the program; Mayor Roth stated that should be a message for
all organizations to follow.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "No."
MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Talley ~ ~en clarified that the ~104,012 covered the following,
with reference to Attachment B of the May 20, 1983, report from the Community
Services Board, usin? the ~80,000 funding level: AMPARO, no change; add
~6,600 for the Anahe~ City School District; no changes for Catholic Social
Services down to the )range County Community Development Council; RSVP
increased to $17,105; TLC increased to $28,307; no other changes except the
addition of the YES program at ~4,000.
Before concluding the issue, Councilman Bay moved that the Council make its
policy known to charitable organizations that from the amounts given this year
they should be cut 33 1/3 percent per year for the next three years, to come
to a zero at the end of the three-year period. That would include any and all
of the current agencies and that they adopt no new o~es. The motion died for
lack of a second.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (5:13 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:20 p.m.)
106: DEPARTMENTAL BUDG£T PRESENTATIONS: City Manager William Talley then
prefaced each department's budget presentation by referencing the page numbers
in the submitted budget, control centers, position controls and capital
improvement projects, wh~re applicable, as well as the budget totals, noting
any areas of change, iss~es and/or other items which needed further
explanation.
The following department heads then gave an overview of their budgets and
plans for 1983-84 and their achievements in 1982-83, followed by questions and
comments from the Cot ~c~l:
513
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
City Librarian William Griffith--Librar~ Department: Department 08,
Control Center, Page C-78, budget total, $3,863,754; two capital
improvement projects, both in future fiscal years--Central Library
remodeling, and theft detection system, Page D-445. Position Control,
Page E-19. Executive Summary, Page 24.
Mr. Griffith also reported that relative to the Bookmobile Outreach
Program, it was presently being funded through the Block Grant program.
As the Council was aware, they were preparing to go out to the community
to see if money could be raised privately for that program. The slide
presentation had been completed, except for minor details; Councilman
Overholt requested when the presentation was ready, that it first be
presented to the Council for viewing at a regular meeting.
Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services~ Chris Jarvi--Parks~
Recreation and Community Services Department: Department 13, four
Control Centers, Pages C-164 through C-i83, including Parks, Recreation
and Community Services Administration, Page C-164, Recreation, Page
C-166, Parks, Page C-177 and Community Services, Page C-183. Budget
total, ~7,946,532. Capital improvement projects, Pages D-38 through
D-44, totaling 5847,365--departmental total 58,793,897. Position
Control, Pages E-34 through E-37. Executive Summary, Pages 19, 22 and 23.
Mr. Talley first explained that the issue they wanted to direct to
Council's attention was the matter of level of services to be provided at
the West Anaheim Senior Citizens Center. They also included on June 9,
1983, a communication from the Anaheim Senior Citizens Club and the
response to that. They had also directed to Council's attention the way
they reduced the Community Services Division in order to accommodate that
within the current budget parameters. The Council had approved in the
Community Development Block Grant application an increase in the budget
of 5210,000. They also rebudgeted improvements to Yorba Regional Park in
cooperation with the County for ~50,000 which would increase the budget.
In the additional 5700,000 available and the Transient Occupancy Tax
receipts, they recommended the Council increase the budget request by
~59,747 to maintain current service levels. They had also recalculated
the benefits/burden for part-time work hours, which would increase the
budget by approximately ~60,607 and telephone rental increase by ~3,327,
giving a new departmental total of $9,177,647 if all of the adjustments
were made.
Mr. Chris Jarvi then gave an extensive overview of his department's
budget, followed by a line of questioning posed by Council Members Bay,
Overholt and Pickler.
RECESS - DINNER BREAK: Councilman Roth moved to recess for a dinner break.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:27 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (8:32 p.m.)
514
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
o
Fire Chief Bob Simpson--Fire Department: Department 10, Control Center
· Page C-108--budget total, $12,144,814; two capital improvement projects
in the future--Station No. 10 and Station No. 3, Page D-46. Position
Control Pages E-22 and E-23. Executive Summary, Page 28.
City Manager Talley first stated that two issues for the Council's
attention and policy direction related to the continuing problem of fire
protection in the commercial-recreation area, and the subject of fire
permit fees, which was discussed at the May 31, 1983, budget preview
meeting.
After questions posed to the Fire Chief by Councilman Bay, he (Bay)
stated that the public comment on the Fire Department and Chief had been
nothing but positive. He personally felt one of the most effective and
efficient operations they had in the City today was the Fire Department.
Executive Director of Community Development, Norman Priest--Community
Development Department: Department No. 11, Control Center, Pages C-115
through C-129, including Community Development Administration, Industrial
Development Authority, Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority and
Neighborhood Preservation collectively totaling ~33,359,585. No capital
improvement projects recommended. Position Control, Pages E-24 through
E-27. Executive Summary, Pages 20 and 46. Mr. Talley explained that
since they submitted the budget, Council approved amendments to the
Community Development Block Grant application and rebudgeted items from
the 1982-83 year, which would increase the budget by ~562,000, to a new
total of ~33,921,585.
Plannin~ Director~ Ronald Thompson--Plannir~ Department: Department No.
12, Control Center Pages C-134 through C-148, departmental total,
~2,720,816, including Planning Commission, Planning Administration,
Business License and Building Administration. No capital improvement
projects. Position Control, Pages E-28 through E-31. Executive Summary,
Pages 15, 16 and 41. Mr. Talley explained that in addition, they would
be increasing the budget by $33,600, which would pay for the addition of
one Housing Code Enforcement Officer for fiscal year 1983-84, resulting
in a new departmental total of 32,754,416.
Mr. Thompson also explained in answer to Mayor Roth that relative to the
enforcement program, he (Thompson) felt that the immediate centralization
of the Code Enforcement Officers would provide better accountability and
control. It was an area everybody agreed they would move toward. The
reason they delayed was primarily because of salary differences.
City Engineer, William Devitt--En~ineerin~ Department: Department 12,
Control Center Page C-153, budget total, $2,824,356; capital improvement
projects, Pages D-33 through D-37, totaling ~9,105,371. Ail of the
latter projects were presented in booklet form submitted to the Council
on May 31, 1983 (see minutes that date--on file in the City Clerk's
office).
515
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Ye
Mr. Talley stated that in addition to the departmental total, they were
recommending that they include an amount of ~647,400 in that control
center, which was the remainder of the 5700,000 income from the Transient
Occupancy Tax after subtracting what they had recommended for Program
Restoration in the Parks, Recreation and Community Services control
center. They had also included another 5200,000 in the budget for
Council-approved amendments to the CDBG application, which the Council
approved today, bringing the departmental total to 512,770,127. The
Transient Occupancy Tax increase of 5647,400 was uncommitted by the
Council until they decided what they wanted to do with it. Position
Control Pages E-32 and E-33. Executive Summary, Page 17.
Councilman Bay stated he was interested in (1) shelf plans on projects
that fit into the FAU revenue category and (2) knowing what those
reserves were, based on what estimates. If they needed a 17 percent
match, without an estimate against those FAU projects, how would they
reserve that 17 percent. He felt it was critical that they be ready in
the coming year for that type of revenue, and also for the matching funds
they needed to get it, not to mention some monies that might come through
on immediate jobs on the recent recovery from the recession. The Council
should be fully aware of what shelf plans they had and how many programs
that were not funded, so that they would have some idea of what they were
ready to move out on if FAU funds did become available in larger amounts
than expected.
Mr. Art Daw, Civil Engineer, then reported at a recent APWA meeting a
representative of CalTrans spoke on the five cent Federal Gas Tax which
was broached by Councilman Bay. At that time, it was indicated one cent
would be going toward transit, one cent toward bridge repair and
upgrading, and the balance intended to go into the Interstate System
primarily and projects that were proposed by the State Transportation
Program. Any fallout the cities would realize would be whatever money
the State would release into the FAU program, because of the additional
money they were receiving. There was, however, no indication that any
money was going to be forthcoming in the next year.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, also reported that the major
disbursement agency in Orange County for those funds was going to be the
Orange County Transportation Commission.
Chief of Police, Jimmie Kennedy--Police Department: Department No. 09,
Control Center Page C-93, budget total, 524,579,579. Capital improvement
Project, Police Management Information System, 5202,000, Page D-53.
Also, Pages D-53 and D-54, Future Projects Involving the Mobile Property
Storage, Parking Lot Improvement and the Office Information System Word
Processing. Total recommended budget, 524,781,579. Position Control,
Pages E-20 and E-21. Executive Summary, Page 26. Mr. Talley explained
in addition they would be adding approximately 515,000 to the budget.
After Council had made its determination regarding the Halloween Festival
support, they recommended increasing the budget by 53,968. They also
516
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
discovered during wrapup procedures that they had not included approved
equipment that was not leased from Facility Rental, which would increase
the budget request by ~11,144, thus resulting in the addition of
approximately ~15,Q00 to the ~24,781,579.
Councilman Pickler asked the future plans for the temporary police
facilities located on Harbor Boulevard between the Library and police
headquarters; City Manager Talley answered that when they recommended to
Council to secure those facilities that were available after the
relocation of the Redevelopment businesses, they purchased the trailers
on five-year financing. It was contemplated at that time that they would
last a minimum of five years, but he felt it would be closer to ten, the
alternative being a major modification to the existing police department
building, which was substantially more costly. Relative to long-term
plans, the most efficient plan was to start over, but he did not know if
the Council or City could afford to do that. The police department
building was approximately 20 years old and had been upgraded a number of
times, but never to a point where it had been satisfactory. If they had
a great deal of money, they might consider relocating the facility to a
less prime location. However, lacking a monumental financing source, his
inclination would be to leave things as they were at present until they
could arrive at a point where it would be economically feasible to design
a structure located in a less prime spot.
Police Chief Jimmie Kennedy added that they outgrew their facility about
five years after they moved into it and had been cramped for space ever
since, and the acquisition of the temporary buildings greatly relieved
that situation. His thoughts were much in line with the City Manager.
Theirs was a prime piece of property that perhaps the City would want to
look at selling and relocating the Police Department to a less prime area.
Mayor Roth also recommended that in the future, they look at the idea of
having some type of branch facility in the Canyon area; Mr. Talley
suggested that it should not be limited only to the Police Department
operation, but also for other City operations, such as the Utilities
activities, and the possibility of fire operations and maintenance
activities.
By general consent~ the public hearing on the bud§et was continued to Tuesday~
June 21, 1983, at 1:30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:07 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
5!7