1981/05/1981-747
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
POLICE CHIEF: George Tielsch
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
ASSISTANT PLA/qNING DIRECTOR - ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Gerry Schiller, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Oouncilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by the City Council:
"Anaheim Senior Citizens Day" - May 23, 1981
"Management Week In Anaheim" - June 1-7, 1981
Mr. Charles Malvin accepted the Anaheim Senior Citizens Day proclamation and
Mr. A. G. Blake accepted the Management Week proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF COmmENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unani-
mously adopted~by the City Council to be presented to JoAnn Barnett for 10
years of service on the Anaheim Elementary School Board and for her participa-
tion in community services and activities within the City.
119: PRESENTATION: On behalf of the Council, the Mayor presented to Mr.
George Ferrone, Finance Director, a Certificate of Conformance and Award of
Financial Reporting Achievement from the Municipal Finance Officers
Association for outstanding financial reporting for the City's Annual
Financial Report.
113: STATUS OF ANAHEIM STADIUM, INC.: Consideration of request by Mr. Louis
Dexter that the City Attorney be directed to obtain an opinion from the Fair
Political Practices Commission (FPPC) as to the Anaheim Stadium, Inc., Board
Members filing Statements of Economic Interests (continued from the meeting of
May 12, 1981--see minutes that date).
81-748
City Hall~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour, speaking to Mr. Dexter, stated that in response to his request
a week ago, in a Liaison Committee meeting, he and Councilman Overholt had an
opportunity to meet with the City Attorney, the Attorney representing Anaheim
Stadium, Inc. (ASI), City Manager Talley, the President and one other member
of ASI to discuss the matter. %he recommendation coming back from that group
to the City Council, and he had not had an opportunity to discuss it with his
colleagues, was as follows: They had addressed the question if ASI fell under
the provisions of the Fair Political Reform Act when it was approved and, it
was determined at that time, they did not. That was a number of years ago.
Relative to ASI and their Board of Directors, Mr. Dexter himself had commended
them for the outstanding job they had done over the years. He would be con-
cerned that their reputation for hard work, diligence and service to the City
would be upheld. In the spirit of openness and fair play, the Liaison
Committee was recommending to the City Council that, in fact, they direct the
City Attorney to seek an opinion from the FPPC relative to the question of ASI
falling under the definitions, jurisdiction and regulations of the FPPC.
Councilman Seymour moved that the City Attorney be directed to refer Mr.
Dexter's inquiry relative to ASI to the FPPC for an opinion. Councilman Bay
seconded the mo~tion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Dexter referred to his last letter dated May 18,
1981 (on file in the City Clerk's office) and in a reconciliatory spirit, he
wished to quote one of the paragraphs that was appropos to what the Mayor just
said regarding the members of the Board of Directors of ASI. "I herewith
request that the FPPC render a "prospective" decision in this matter, since
the corporation under study was formed prior to the Fair Political Practices
Act and FPPC's ruling (opinion) in Pico-Rivera (Sam Siegel) matter." It was
merely updating the status, and there was a possibility they would find it was
a non-profit organization.
Mayor Seymour stated they.~ight find to the contrary as well. He felt they
were prepared to face the'outcome whatever it might be and he appreciated his
suggesting a prospective decision and that would be their request.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title,
specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,902,456.28, in accord-
ance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
81-749
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
109/177: APPLICATION FOR STATE DEFERRED PAYMENT REHABILITATION LOAN FUNDS FOR
RENTAL PROPERTIES: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-227 for
adoption, authorizing the submission of an application in the amount of
$75,000 for participation in the Deferred Payment Program for rental proper-
ties with the State Department of Housing and Community Development, as recom-
mended in memorandum dated May 6, 1981 from Executive Director of Community
Development Norm Priest. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-227: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE DEFERRED
PAYMENT LOAN PROGRAM FOR RENTAL PROPERTIES WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-227 duly passed and adopted.
123: AFFORDABLE HOUSING ELEMENT FOR 649 SOUTH BEACH BOULEVARD - SUNDAY AND
CObiPANY: Authorizing an agreement with Sunday and Company/Lynn L. (Tom)
Matlock to provide for 28 affordable housing units to be located at 649 South
Beach Boulevard and authorizing a Memorandum of Agreement to be filed in the
office of the County Recorder and approving the Buyer's form of agreement
between the City and purchasers of said affordable units.
City Manager William Talley announced that staff was requesting a one-week
continuance on the matter. There was a number change involved, and they did
not know if the developer was aware of that change and thus did not want to
present it without making~ertain of the developer's concurrence.
Councilwoman Kaywood also noted on Page 3 of the agreement it indicated 120
days when she felt it should be 180 days; Mr. Talley stated theY would check
that out as well.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, consideration of the
subject agreements was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED.
160/129: EXTENDED DELIVERY DATE ON AERIAL LADDER TRUCK AND PROCUREMENT OF A
FIRE PUMPER TRUCK: Councilman Bay moved the following: (1) authorizing the
Purchasing Agent to issue a change to Purchase Order K06194 with O'Neill
Seagraves Fire Apparatus Company that extends the delivery date from
December 12, 1980 to January 31, 1982, for the delivery of an aerial ladder
truck, (2) declaring that Purchase Order KO7782-E with Seagraves Fire
Apparatus Company in the amount of $124,921 to be in default and authorizing
the Purchasing Agent to terminate the purchase order; also authorizing the
Purchasing Agent and City Attorney to take action on the Continental Casualty
Company Performance Bond as necessary, and (5) authorizing the Purchasing
81-750
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Agent to add, without bidding, a fifth pumper truck to Purchase Order 11957-E
with the Van Pelt Fire Truck Company in the amount of 5127,196.82, as
recommended in memorandums dated May 11 and May 12, 1981 from the Purchasing
Agent, John Thomason. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
101/158: DISPOSITION OF TEMPOP, ARY BASEBALL SCOREBOARD AT A~NAHEIM STADIUM: On
motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the temporary
baseball scoreboard used at Anaheim Stadium during the expansion project was
declared surplus and the Purchasing Agent directed to seek bids for its sale.
MOTION CARRIED.
169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - LINCOLN AVENUE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT
AND SULFUR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM: Account Nos. 13-793-6325-E3320,
24-793-6325-E3440 and 51-606-6325-26720-34340. Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 81R-228 for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended by
City Engineer William Devitt in his memorandum dated May 12, 1981. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-228: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEI~M ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSiBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLA~T, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TP~NSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOW-
ING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: LINCOLN AVENUE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS,
FHWA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT PROGRAM NO. 54 SULPHUR EXTENDED ASPHALT, IN THE
CITY OF ANAREIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 13-793-6325-E3320, 51-606-26720- 34340 AND
24-793-6325-E3440, A.H.F.P. 1000. (Five States Plumbing, Inc./James I.
Langford Plumbing, J.V., 5959,259.95)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
No ne
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-228 duly passed and adopted.
169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - SYCAMORE STREET~ WEST STREET STREET IMPROV~MNT:
Account No. 12-792-6325-E2660 and 12-793-6325-E3470. Councilman Roth offered
Resolution No. 81R-229 for adoption, awarding a contract as recomended by the
City Engineer in his memorandum dated May 11, 1981. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-229: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOW-
lNG PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: SYCAMORE STREET-WEST STREET STREET ~PROV~MENT, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 12-792-6325-E2660 & 12-793-6325-E3470.
(Coxco Associates, 55,712.50)
81-751
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
No ne
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-229 duly passed and adopted.
164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - WATER IMPROVEMENTS IN CAMINO GRANDE: Account No.
53-607-6329-1709A-34350. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-230
for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his
memorandum dated May 12, 1981. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-230: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT aND COMPLETE THE FOLLOW-
ING PUBLIC IMPBOVEMENT: WATE.R IMPROVEMENTS IN CAMINO GRANDE, FROM NOHL RANCH
ROAD TO 2215 FEET WEST OF NOHL RANCH ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 53-607-6329-1709A-34350. (Five States Plumbing, Inc., $88,242.50)
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. 81R-230 duly passed and adopted.
123/164: SOUTHERN PACIFIC° TR~SPORTATION COMPANY AGREEMENT - CERRITOS AVENUE
STORM DRAIN, WEST OF SUNKIST: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No.
81R-231 for adoption, authorizing an agreement with Southern Pacific
Transportation Company for the City installation of a 42-inch storm drain
between Cerritos Avenue and Sunkist Avenue through the property of Southern
Pacific Transportation Company, and authorizing payment of a $500 considera-
tion fee therefor, as recommended in memorandum dated May 12, 1981 from the
City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-231: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANA2iEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPAiNY
FOR THE CITY INSTALLATION OF A 42" STORM DRAIN BETWEEN CERRITOS AVENUE AND
SUNKIST AVENUE THROUGH THE PROPERTY OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL ~V~EMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
No ne
Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-231 duly passed and adopted.
1-752
City Hal!~' Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
180: PURCHASE OF LOWER SELF-INSURED RETENTION - ANAHEIM STADIUM: Council-
woman Kaywood moved to accept the offer of coverage for comprehensive general
liability insurance as contained in the letter of April 22, 1981, from the
City's Insurance Broker, Marsh and McLennan, which will reduce the self-
insured retention at the Stadium to $100,000 at a premium not to exceed
$30,000, as recommended in memorandum dated May 8, 1981 from Risk Manager Jack
Love. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: RESIGNATION OF JOAN DEAN FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: On motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the resignation of Joan
Dean from the Community Services Board as reported in letter dated May 8, 1981
from the Board was accepted, with regret, and a vacancy on that Board
declared, with posting to be made accordingly. MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor asked that a letter of thanks be sent to Mrs. Dean and that filling
of that vacancy be considered at the meeting of June 9, 1981.
108: REHEARING ON AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT AND ENTERTAINMENT PREMISES
PERMIT--J'S SUBERCADE: Darrel R. MacPherson and Jack T. Fowler, requesting a
rehearing on the subjects, which permits were denied at the City Council
meeting of May 12, 1981 where testimony was received from those in opposition
(see minutes that date).
Mayor Seymour first explained that he was aware that a number of people were
present who would like to be heard and that they had spent quite a bit of time
on the matter the previous week. They had received a good cross section of
opinion from the business community and since that time had received more
letters and petitions in opposition. He asked to hear from the applicant at
this time.
Mr. Jack Fowler stated tha£ Mr. Darrell MacPherson was also present. When
they first applied for the application, they were under the impression it
would be fairly routine and when they found out that the Police Department
recommended approval, they felt there was no problem at all. When he found
out that it had been denied by the Council the.previous week, they came to the
City Clerk's office to listen to the tapes of the meeting. They had gone into
the situation over a long period of time and were under a contract with
American Game Exchange (AGE) who had put in a number of the game arcades and
very successfully ran them without a lot of problems. Therefore, they wanted
to have American Game Exchange give a presentation and then he (Fowler) would
like to respond to the spaci~ic concerns o~ the neighbors.
Mr. Steve Fargo, employee of American Game Exchange, seated he was also
speaking as an owner of a Supercade facility which he was before he became
employed by AGE. ~hey were the larges~ developer of family entertainment
centers in the country and were involved in the operation of more than 66
separate facilities. They were very careful how they selected buyers for
their facilities in that they had to be youth-oriented. He then elaborated
upon their specific program. With their experience they had developed
operating techniques that had allowed them to operate with the minimum of
81-753
City Hall,~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
inconvenience to their customers or neighbors. Their facilities were adult-
supervised and they recommended to their clients that there always be a
minimum of two adults on duty in the facility, one behind the counter, and the
other a floating supervisor. Their facilities were operated on a membership
only basis so that they would know everyone who utilized the facility which
necessitated a registration card providing good control over their customers.
He then described the amenities found in their facilities. They allowed no
liquor under any conditions and allowed no smoking with the exception of a
small restricted area where there were no games to play. Gambling was not
allowed under any circumstances in the facility. The owners also formed a
members advisory board usually made up of young people who frequented the
center where they met each week. Any discipline problems they had during the
week were brought to the attention of that committee, the point being to have
a peer group advisory board. Outside, their adult supervisors were respon-
sible to make certain that the customers left the facility and the area, and
they were not allowed to loiter.
Mr. Fargo then gave a slide presentation showing what their facilities looked
like.
After the presentation, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he was saying that they
installed additional sound insulation in the walls.
Mr. Fargo answered "yes" and that specific question would be addressed by Mr.
Fowler, but they made every possible technological installation of sound
barrier material between their facility and the facility directly adjacent to
it. It was their desire that there should never be sound penetration, and
within the limits of technology, that was done.
Councilman Bay asked, with the type of PR employed as described by Mr. Fargo,
what contact they had with. the surrounding businesses before starting a new
arcade.
Mr. Fargo answered that they recommended to the owners that they introduce
themselves and try to eliminate, if possible, fears, opposition and problems
that other owners of stores invariably expressed. It was not the business,
but the youth that they were afraid of.
Councilman Roth stated with that amount of experience, it would appear to him
that the first order of business would be to go to the existing tenants and
present the operation to them. He personally did not have a problem with the
arcade, but the opposition was so strong it was apparent they had not done
their homework ahead of time. Further, in the letter requesting a rehearing,
they indicated a financial burden. Being prudent businessmen, they should
have explored the specifics necessary to start a business in the City.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Fargo if his company had a financial interest in
Mr. MacPherson's and Fowler's successful operation; Mr. Fargo answered "yes".
They had a continuing service and management consulting contract with them and
hoped to be selling them extra equipment, supplies, etc. They were not a
franchised company, but strictly a consulting company.
81-754
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt then asked staff what notice was given to announce that
the matter was going to be coming before the Council; City Clerk Linda Roberts
answered that her office sent postcards in such cases on the Wednesday
preceding the meeting.
Mr. Fargo stated the postcard had not arrived and still had not and it was
apparently a postal error.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Fargo in advising his clients as to how to
proceed, did they advise them to proceed and incur legal obligations prior to
the approval of the application by the City; Mr. Fargo answered "no".
Mr. Fowler then explained what led him to believe that it was only a
formality that a permit would be issued was the fact that when they went to
the City to apply, the Business License Department and Zoning Division signed
them off. They subsequently went to the City Clerk's office who indicated it
would be an item on the Consent Agenda and the Police Department had to check
the matter out. They then checked back to see what the Police report
indicated and Bound that they recommended approval. They thus assumed,
wrongly, that they were all right. Unfortunately, they did not get the notice
that the item would be going before the Council.
Mr. Fowler then explained that Mr. MacPherson had gone to some of the shop-
keepers to speak with them when he had been in the area. Some of the proprie-
tors looked at their business as a positive aspect to the shopping center, and
they were also advised that a couple of businesses did not, specifically the
Uniform Closet and World Travel. They talked to the woman at the travel
agency about sound which was a very real problem. Mr. Fowler then presented a
chart showing the layout of the shopping center and pointed to where the dif-
ferent businesses were located. When the building was built, the walls only
extended to the false ceiling. Consequently, they would install a sound
barrier wall from the flo~r to the ceiling which should eliminate the noise.
They also indicated they would install the pinball machines along the outside
wall only with the video games to be placed next to the empty store and table
games against the wall. They also talked about lighting and parking. That
was on Tuesday, May 12, 1981 at approximately noon. The Council meeting
started at 1:30 and the person from World Travel did not indicate she was that
strongly opposed, nor that she was going to a Council meeting.
The store they were leasing was not a very good location for a normal retail
outlet because it did not have good exposure; however, it was a good location
providing good access for children. They would not tolerate breaking of the
mall rules and if they were broken, that person's membership would be sus-
pended for a period of time. They were going to be in the retail business as
well, selling T-shirts. Another concern was the mutuality of customers. They
advertised in the high school newspaper and at the same time they ran their
ad, the flower shop also ran an ad offering a 10% discount with a Student Body
Card obviously, indicating that there was some mutuality of their customers.
They would be more than happy to work with anybody in the shopping center on
promotional items. What they were really facing was the fear that existed
81-755
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
over children in the shopping center and the disruption they might cause.
Theirs was a good location for the type of business proposed where there was
not much other recreational use of that type.
Mayor Seymour asked out of the tenants in the shopping center shown on the
chart, how many were willing To support their activity.
Mr. Fowler answered that as far as the~ knew, four businesses had no opposi-
tion to them at all--the insurance agency, E. J's Little People, the delica-
tessen and the liquor store.
The Mayor asked if those businesses were in support; Mr. Fowler answered that
they were very reluctant to become involved.
The Mayor stated he wanted to know if the other small business people found it
acceptable to have that type of use in the shopping center; if not he was
going to say "no" again.
Mr. Fowler answered that he could not say. If the businesses were not present
or had not written their opposition, then they tacitly accepted the business.
The Mayor explained that they had been deluged with petitions from business
people and people with children in school. He asked if Mr. Fowler had a
petition.
Mr. Fowler answered the only way they could prove to be of value was to be
there. He then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that AGE had no other
arcade in the City; from the audience, it was indicated that one was located
in Lake Forest.
After additional discussioB between the Mayor, Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr.
Fargo revolving around th~ Zoning Code and the lease requirements, the Mayor
asked to hear from those in opposition, noting that the previous week they had
taken such testimony. He asked that anything new and different be presented
and that ~hey hear from those who did not testify at the last meeting,
particularly the school representation.
Nancy Rudd, President, Riverdale School PTA, stated she was very active and
interested in the youth of the school and also served on other such councils.
The community was very concerned and she had with her more petitions in
opposition. She had just heard about the meeting a few days ago and last
night started circulating the petitions and in one hour obtained 36 signa-
tures. If she had about a week, she could have gathered approximately 1,000.
They had a great deal of crime in their area. They started Neighborhood
Watches and initiated a community pride program. The liquor store was not in
support and that was how she heard about the situation. She was soliciting
door prizes for a parent-teacher function, and the gentleman at the liquor
store asked that they help fight the establishment of the arcade, just as her
Association fought the liquor store. From the driveway of the arcade to the
school, it was approximately one-half mile. They were not out to stop free
81-756
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
enterprise, but they were concerned for children. After expressing additional
concerns relative to the proposed usa, Mrs. Rudd submitted the petitions she
had gathered.
Mr. Bill Gillette, Principal, Riverdale Elementary School, stated he was
present to support what Mrs. Rudd had just said. Relative to Mr. Fargo's pre-
sentation, he foresaw the kinds of things happening which were referred to in
their presentation, such as gambling for the tokens that were to be utilized.
That type of thing was easily transferred to a school situation. He also felt
they would be attracting many Jr. High School and High School boys and girls,
and many smoked. Many of his boys and girls would be going to the business
after school as well, and since they were easily influenced, they would assume
since it was all right for the "big kids" to smoke, it must be okey for them.
Relative to supervision, it was recommended that two adults be present at all
times, l]~at was a good recommendation, but unfortunately, that might not
happen and he felt that supervision of that facility would be a real problem.
Mr. Fargo mentioned all of the things he thought they would be concerned about
and he was correct. Those were the same things he was concerned about rela-
tive to his students.
The Mayor then gave Mr. Fowler an opportunity to answer the concerns expressed.
Mr. Fowler stated that relative to supervision, because they were going to
have a T-shirt operation, they simply could not operate without two people at
all times. He could understand what the people were saying, but most of it
was simply fearfulness, and it could not be demonstrated that those things
would happen. Video games were already established; they were used in the
home; and pinball machines had become very space-age oriented. It was a good,
wholesome, clean business and if they supervised it well, it would not be a
problem. If not, they would not make money, and it would become a problem to
them, rather than a profit-making business. They probably should have spent
more time going to their neighbors, but in the contacts they had they tended
to not give their full op{nion. They had no idea that the opposition was
emotionally generated as it turned out to be.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood's question relative to what kind of
financial burden he had referred to, Mr. Fowler answered that they had the
facilities painted, electrical outlets installed and before they could apply
for a license, had to put down a deposit on the premises. He supposed they
would get that back, but the leasehold improvements would be a loss.
Mayor Seymour stated that they had now again heard from the people in opposi-
tion and also heard a fine and complete presentation by the applicant, How-
ever, he had not seen or heard anything to change his mind from the position
the Council adopted last week, primarily because it was a small shopping
center with small business people who from their prospective felt they could
lose their businesses if the proposed business was permitted to operate. He
was not prepared to risk the investments of those small business people. He
was also concerned when the residential neighborhoods surrounding that
facility and allegedly those people whose families would be utilizing the
81-757
City Hall~'.Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
arcade, were opposed to it. They had experienced in times past when a use not
satisfactory to the neighborhood had in essence been boycotted. He was not
personally opposed to arcades. With five children, he spent a great deal of
money at arcades, they enjoyed themselves, and it was great competition.
Those were at arcades within the City in areas that could easily contain
the activity thereby not risking the fall-out on the neighborhood or business
enterprises located immediately adjacent.
MOTION: For the foregoing reasons, Councilman Seymour thereupon moved again
that they uphold the decision they made last week to deny the permit.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like to see any future requests
that came into the City not to be simply a matter of application, partly on
what they had heard today--that people assumed it was okey and then proceeded
with out of pocket capital or leasehold improvements. It had been quoted
several times that they had 16 arcades in Anaheim and she believed they went'
from 0 to 16 in one year. She would like to see that a conditional use permit
be required so .that the neighborhood, whether business or residential, would
be notified and have the opportunity to object beforehand. She asked the City
Attorney how that might be accomplished.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that would require an amendment to the ordinance.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved to direct the City Attorney to
draw an ordinance for consideration by the Council relative to arcades.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: RE-ANALYSIS OF THE BINGO ORDINANCE: Mayor Seymour then recalled that
last week he offered a motion that they in all deliberative fashion look at
the Bingo Ordinance with ~e idea of considering an amendment to that
ordinance. Such an amendment might permit the Catholic Church, for example,
or well-meaning and certain organizations in the community who conducted a
once-a-year fiesta, as recently staged by St. Anthony Claret's, on that one
occasion to play bingo three times a week (see minutes May 12, 1981). It was
that motion proposed last week, seconded by Councilman Roth and continued to
this week, that he wished to place before the Council.
Councilman Overholt stated that he was going to oppose the motion. It seemed
to him that the present ordinance permitted the Chief of Police to pass judg-
ment on whether three-day bingo at an annual event was in the best interest of
the City and all concerned. He believed there were two or three such requests
that had been received since the ordinance went into effect, both coming from
Catholic organizations in east Anaheim. In each instance, the Chie~ denied
their request and it was his understanding in the instance brought up last
week off agenda it was also through the Chief's direction that the request was
denied. He was very comfortable with that for the moment. The Council went
through a great deal of turmoil leading up to and preceding the ultimate
adoption of the one-day bingo ordinance. The ordinance did have in it the
provision for the Chief of Police to grant permission for three days of bingo
81-758
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
to worthy organizations, worthy being subject to anybody's definition which
created part of the problem. Up to this time, Chief Tielsch had decided it
was not in the best interest of the City to grant those requests. As the
Mayor had stated at the last meeting, he (Overholt) had promised that at some
future date he would consider a loosening of the Bingo Ordinance. At the
present time, he was not willing to consider that loosening. The time had
been too short and three members of the Council put their whole future on the
line to support the reduction to one day a week. In his opinion, the impact
of that would be long felt by the City in a very positive way. He was opposed
to doing anything at this time that would give encouragement to bingo
interests who were still lurking in the City, and some of the big operations
still owned property within the City, thinking that the Bingo Ordinance was
going to be loosened to allow them to come in and reap havoc, as they had done
up until last June.
Mayor Seymour, noting that the Chief was in the audience, stated he would be
happy to bring him to the podium to ask him the question he asked a year
ago--that is, under any circumstances he could imagine, would he be willing to
waive the ordinance. A year ago he said "no", and he would suspect he was
going to say "no" again. Thus, for Councilman Overholt to imply that there
was some flexibility in the Ordinance because the Chief was empowered by the
Ordinance to provide that flexibility, was sloughing it off to the Chief when
he knew in reality that would never occur. He (Seymour) felt as strongly as
Councilman Overholt, and he did not feel there was a Council Member who felt
otherwise. They certainly did not want the rampant type bingo that they had
prior to the adoption of the ordinance. All five Council Members were in
support of the tightening of bingo, but the question was how tight. A
majority of the Council tightened it, and in his opinion, to the degree that
it stifled many very well meaning, well organized, clean, pure of heart organ-
izations from some very minor fund-raising events such as the examples
referred to. He knew that. those examples were not the ones Councilman
Overholt referred to as lurking, waiting for an opportunity to take advantage
of the City. All he was asking for was a very mild loosening of that
Ordinance, meaning permitting St. Anthony Claret, for example, to play bingo
three times a week once a year during their fiesta. He felt it was ridiculous
that the Ordinance was an overreaction and after a year's time, he would think
that the Council would feel perhaps it was time to provide some reasonable-
ness, as well as strong law enforcement. He did not think they could throw
the ball in the Chief's court because he was not going to move that ball, and
he could understand why. If he did, he would be held individually
responsible. On the other hand, he (Seymour) as an elected official was
willing to take some responsibility on his own shoulders and relieve the Chief
of that responsibility in providing some very minor flexibility to what he
felt was an overly restrictive Ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated relative to the Recall election, if that was minor
and an overreaction, she was surprised to hear it. She felt that the action
the majority of the Council took last year was a very responsible one and in
answer to all of the requests, demands and concerns of all of the people she
heard from. Other than the bingo operators, she did not hear one person who
81-759
City Hall,, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
asked that they continue with that kind of bingo. Everyone else thought once
a week was fine. If he was saying there was no other way to have a
fund-raiser but with bingo, she wondered what was done before and what other
groups did continually. She did not see that there had been a terrible
injustice done to one church group or another when they were permitted to have
two days of bingo at an annual event and have some other means of fund-raisers
on the third day. She did not feel that was going to inhibit their normal and
legitimate fund-raising efforts. She was in no way interested in looking to
change what she felt was one of the most important ordinances the City had at
a time when it was definitely needed.
Councilman Bay added that what might be a small change in the ordinance with
the best of intentions could be analagous to a small crack in a dam. At least
three people on the Council took a number of things in view when they voted to
lock the Bingo Ordinance down just as tight as it was locked down. He was not
ready to loosen it in any way. It may be a little overly restrictive, but it
had to be because when bingo was passed in the first place with the best
intentions of the Council, they did not intend to cause what eventually
occurred in the City. He would not be ready at this time to cast a vote to
even touch the 'first crack in the dam.
Councilman Roth pointed out that there were groups authorized to play bingo
once a week or 52 times a year. These were two Catholic organizations asking
for the opportunity to play three times a week, once a year. He felt that was
a good trade-off. It did not scare him to permit two Catholic Churches to
play bingo for 72 hours once a year, thereby opening Pandora's Box and
destroying the Ordinance. He felt that there were sufficient controls so that
the Council could monitor who would get those 72 hours.
Councilman Overholt, speaking to the Mayor, stated he believed the existing
Ordinance did have flexibility built into it with the very thing he was
urging--the flexibility gi-~ing the Police Chief the discretion to authorize on
a once-a-year basis certazn groups to continue to conduct bingo actually even
more than three days. He was confident that Chief Tielsch in his wisdom, and
who was much closer to what was going on in the bingo industry, was probably
in the best position to determine whether a loosening for annual events was
appropriate and in the best interest of the City. He supported that flexi-
bility in the original Ordinance and it was still there. He had close friends
in the Catholic community and had yet to hear anyone of them complain that
they were being overly restricted on their festivities and ability to raise
money or from any other church group. He felt particularly in view of the
Grand Jury revelation on the financing of the Recall effort, that bingo was a
very serious threat to the integrity of the City. He was not ready to say
that the Chief was not the best one at this time to provide the flexibility
they needed to have.
The Mayor asked to hear from the Chief of Police as to how many waivers he had
granted to the Ordinance, and if he would'grant a waiver in the future.
81-760
City Hall~ Anaheim, California -COUNCIL MINUTES -May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Police Chief George Tielsch answered that he had granted no waivers and in the
future may do so. He concurred this was not the appropriate time but perhaps
after they had significant experience in keeping the bingo interest out of the
City. He felt that they might see some attempts from those interests to come
back and fight the Ordinance relative to donation bingo. If that did not
occur and they were able to establish the appropriate rapport with the church
groups which they did not have last year and there were no additional prob-
lems, perhaps by the time their festivals came around in 1982, waivers could
be considered. They were establishing better liaison and communication with
the groups this year. If they changed the Ordinance now and significant
numbers of the charitable organizations desired to conduct bingo, his only
question would be who would be the entrepreneurs coming in to conduct the
games for them. Many of those people did not have the ability to do it them-
selves, and he wondered if the signal that would go out would be an inappro-
priate one where somebody would again seize upon another idea to come back in
and run bingo 52 weeks a year, three days a week, for the various churches and
skim the proceeds and profits.
The Mayor surmLsed then what the Chief was saying, at this time next year they
should see some flexibility unless there was a problem; Chief Tielsch
answered, exactly. The Mayor considered that to be fair, and he could accept
that. It was a complete change from the Chief's position a year ago.
Councilman Overholt stated that he did not perceive the Chief's position as a
change of position at all. He interpreted his remarks last year the same way
that when the time was appropriate, he was willing to consider opening it up
for the annual affairs. He saluted the Chief for his consistency.
Mayor Seymour stated perhaps he heard something that he did not hear, but he
distinctly recalled the Chief saying a year ago that not only would he not
issue any waivers at that ~articular time, but that he probably would not in
the future.
Chief Tielsch stated if the Mayor heard him say that, he did not intend that.
That was not his feeling at the time. He felt it was inappropriate at that
particular time, and he again felt it was inappropriate at this time.
Mayor Seymour stated if he understood, they would continue with an inflexible
ordinance for one more year, and barring any reintrusion of bingo, perhaps
they could look to a little flexibility a year from now.
Councilman Overholt stated he did not interpret the Chief's remarks that way
at all. At no time had the Chief said that he was going to continue an
inflexible policy for the year. He said that come next year, he would take
another look at it. In his wisdom, he may choose to grant permits for annual
affairs three months, four months or six months from now and he had the power
to do so.
81-761
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked the Chief, would he three months from now grant a permit;
Chief Tielsch stated he did not know, and three months from now he would be in
a better position to answer that. He had been reading some recent VNOC
reports from Adelanto, for example, and the people who were in Anaheim were
going strong in that community. They were fighting local government officials
in that area, taking out full-page ads in the newspaper, flying in the face of
the law of that City. If those people would return to Anaheim, they would
have to steel their backs against that type of intrusion. If that did not
occur and if those interests were no longer in the City or not casting a
covetous eye on the City in any way, shape or form and all they were dealing
with would be people whose causes were worthy and "pure" as the Mayor
indicated, he would have no problem under those circumstances.
The Mayor stated he totally supported the Chief. If there were a move from
Adelanto back into the City, he would support the Chief to the hilt again, but
that was not his point. He was suggesting (1) in his opinion, they had no
flexibility, and (2) although three of his colleagues obviously did not
receive calls, he received all kinds of calls, not only from the Catholic
Church, but also other church organizations, and in his mind well-meaning, for
a slight loosening of the Bingo Ordinance. As those calls continued to come
in, he wanted to be better able to respond to his constituents.
Police Chief Tielsch expressed the feeling that part of the problem was an
educational one. Many of the people who wished to conduct fund-raising events
did not have the capability of conducting them on their own and thus had to
turn to some type of entrepreneur that could conduct those activities. Those
people frequently took advantage of the well-meaning people. Their problem
had not necessarily been with the rank and file membership of the organiza-
tions, but rather the individuals who came in to run those games.
Mayor Seymour asked again.~f three months from now a church like St. Anthony
Claret should come in for~a once-a-year fiesta and ask to play bingo three
times during the fiesta once-a-year, was he (Tielsch) saying that there was a
possibility he would perhaps give that consideration; Chief Tielsch answered
that was true. As of today, the current policy was that they could play two
nights, since what constituted a week had now been established.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if one month later they wanted another three days,
could they~get the two days.
Chief Tielsch stated they would have to come back in and ask for another type
permit. He would have to defer to the City Attorney for some guidance.
Councilman Overholt stated that the two-day interpretation was the City
Attorney's advice to the Council and it did not indicate a change o~ policy.
City Attorney Hopkins stated the Ordinance indicated a seven-day period, and
they were talking about the first day of the seven day period being Sunday.
Thus, under the circumstances, the previous week would have permitted bingo
one day and the next week being Sunday, would permit two. It was not really a
change.
81-762
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Chief Tielsch stated that was what he meant to indicate. It had always been
his understanding prior to that, a week was considered Monday through Saturday.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification relative to the three days within
a one-year period.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that was provided in the Ordinance--"An annual
festival, bazaar or similar event..." and he would construe that to mean once
a year.
Councilwoman Kaywood then reported that by some coincidence she did receive a
call last night from someone who was interested in bingo and that was Frank
Rose. It might be that he was looking for the third vote.
A vote was then taken on the motion by Councilman Seymour made at the meeting
of May 12, 1981 as follows: That the Council in a deliberative fashion under-
take the report to be prepared by the Chief of Police, City Manager and City
Attorney's office, a re-analysis of the Bingo Ordinance, to make it more
flexible to tr~ and accommodate those worthwhile organizations in the City.
The motion had been seconded by Councilman Roth.
The motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Bay
149: PETITION TO ALLOW TENANTS IN THE 1600 BLOCK OF WEST DUDLEY AVENUE TO
PARK IN ADJACENT ALLEYS:
minutes that date).
Continued from the meeting of May 5, 1981 (see
Mayor Seymour asked if a representative of the tenants was present and if so
had they had an opportuni.~ to review the staff report dated May 12, 1981
which continued to recommend denial.
Mrs. Gina Black, 1655 C-West Dudley, was present and stated that she had not
seen the report.
Mayor Seymour noted that along with ~he report, a map was submitted showing in
red where additional parking could be provided, all on private property.
Staff was saying, they did not think there was a necessity for any more public
parking, but they were recommending that the landlords and tenants get
together and create additional parking as indicated.
Mrs. Black stated they went out and measured the walkway between the apart-
ments. If they were to put parking against the fence, that would give ten
extra spaces on each side of the street. She then reiterated the problem
relative to parking that the residents experienced. She talked to the apart-
ment manager who gave her the number of the owners and she subsequently talked
to a secretary. She reported that in order for the property indicated on the
map to be made into parking, the owner of the complex would be giving property
to the City.
81-763
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- May 19~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour interjected and stated that the City did not want that property,
but they were suggesting that the private property owners could solve their
own parking problem if they would utilize their private land for more private
parking.
Mrs. Black continued and stated that the owners would not approve that because
many people rented the "C" apartments for the backyards and if they were to
reduce those yards for parking spaces, they would have nothing to offer for
those apartments. She stated if they were to mark off the ten spaces on each
side, they would not be blocking an entrance for anybody. She was referring
to the alley behind the apartments.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer noted it was a public alley; Mayor Seymour stated
if they marked off the ten spaces Mrs. Black was suggesting, it was his under-
standing from the staff report that they might be creating a hazard relative
to providing police and fire support; Mr. Singer agreed. Mrs. Black did not.
The Mayor stated they understood her request and they asked staff to take a
look at the si~ation and for the tenants to talk with the owners. He did not
think that the Council could make a decision that someday could end up with
somebody losing a life because safety vehicles could not get through. They
were reluctant to provide parking in that public alley. If the landlords were
not concerned enough relative to the tenants' parking problems, he did not
know why government should bear that responsibility.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that parking in the public alley
behind the 1600 block of West Dudley be denied, as recommended by staff.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she received a call from
a neighbor who had signed /he petition, but wanted her to know that she was
very much opposed to granting parking in the alley. She and the owners felt
that if all the junk were removed from the garages, there would be adequate
parking.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
106: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - BUDGET: To consider the proposed 1981-82
Resource Allocation Plan (continued from the meeting of May 12, 1981).
Mayor Seymour first reported that budget work sessions had been held on
April 28, May 12 and that morning thus far. He then asked if anyone wished to
speak to the 1981-82 Resource Allocation Plan. No one wished to speak.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue public hearing on the proposed
1981-82 Resource Allocation Plan to June 9, 1981, 3:00 p.m. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
106/174: PUBLIC HEARING'- FEDERAL GENERAL REVENUE SHARING: To consider the
proposed Federal General Revenue Sharing budget for the Fiscal Year 1981-82.
81-764
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak to the
1981-82 Federal General Revene Sharing proposed budget. There was no response.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue public hearing on the proposed
Federal General Revenue Sharing budget for the Fiscal Year 1981-82 to June 9,
1981, 3:00 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
166: REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY SIGN AT 1047 NORTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD - STAR-
LIGHT TRAVEL: Request of Mr. Kim Williams, President, Starlight Travel
Service, for the use of temporary signs for his business located at 1047 North
State College Boulevard, was submitted.
The Mayor asked if Mr. Williams or his agent was present.
Mr. Kim Williams, owner of Starlight Travel, first submitted pictures of his
business. He was requesting permission for a temporary sign. When they
opened their business, they were unaware of an ordinance relative to flexible
signs. Their sign was of heavy duty plastic done by a professional and
installed by a professional who assured them that it would not blow down with
the wind, tear or otherwise become unsightly or mutilated due to weather
within a five-year period. They put considerable time and money into the sign
and subsequently received a citation from the City shortly thereafter because
it was a temporary sign, which signs were only allowed for 30 days. He then
applied for a temporary sign permit and since then talked to the City Attorney
and Zoning Division regarding temporary signs as to what they could do to make
it a permanent sign. To make it permanent, he could paint the sign on wood
which would be very heavy. They had considerable hardships in starting their
business and at this time could not afford to install a sign that would be lit
at night although they would very much like to. Those signs cost approxi-
mately $5,000 or $6,000. They were in the prime of their travel season and
hopefully by the end of su~nmer they would have enough money to afford a
permanent sign. The present sign was only intended for use by their company
for about one year, and then they were going to put up a permanent sign.
If they were forced to take the sign down, it would also force them to use
white paint and paint the sign which he felt would defeat the purpose of the
ordinance. Use of the temporary sign had been extended to June 1, but after
that they must either paint or put up a permanent sign.
Mayor Seymour asked how much longer he would like to have that sign; Mr.
Williams answered to the end of the travel season, the end of August or
beginning of September.
Mayor Seymour then assumed if the Council were to approve the sign presently
existing until September 1, 1981~ that would suit his purposes; Mr. Williams
confirmed that it would.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve the request for use of a
temporary sign for Starlight Travel Service at 1047 S. State College Boulevard
until September 1, 1981. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
81-765
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a number of
concerns regarding the matter. Referring to the staff report of May 13, 1981
from the Assistant Director for Zoning she noted that the business now had
four months more than any other business for temporary signs, banners and
flags. He had already received special privileges not available to anyone
else. Since they received requests all the time, they would, therefore, be
setting a dangerous precedent.
The Mayor did not agree and could not see one sign was going to do any harm.
It was not an ugly sign, but it did not conform totally to the Ordinance.
Councilman Overholt noted that on three occasions, Mr. Williams represented to
staff that he was going to get a permanent sign, but today it appeared he had
done nothing in that respect. He was going to vote for approval at this time,
but if Mr. Williams came back to the Council for further consideration, he
would vote against him. He suggested that if it would take between now and
September 1 to order a permanent sign, he should do so because he would vote
against any further extension.
Councilman Bay then expressed his concern relative to the next person who
might approach the Council for the same consideration; the Mayor stated they
would look at each individual case. Councilman Bay merely wanted to be
assured that no precedent was being set in this case, if approval were given.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion.
"no". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood voted
156/162: REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL RELATING TO POLICE ACTIVITIES AT THE
CHEZ PAREE: A request by Mr. Tom Swanson, to address the Council on a matter
relating to police activities at the Chez Paree, located at 1112 North
Brookhurst Street, was submitted.
Mr. Tom Swanson, 526 North Schaeffer, Orange, stated that he was a representa-
tive for the Modified Motorcycle Association in Orange County under the title
of District Manager Assistant. A division adjutant was also present. Rela-
tive to the problems they were facing at the Chez Paree, he believed the
Council had received papers obtained from the Planning Commission from a Lt.
Dale Wilcox. On the last page before the pages containing the charges
regarding the incidents at the Chez Paree, there was a list out on outlawed
motorcycle gangs. Number one was the Modified Motorcycles of America. He
clarified they were not the Modified Motorcycles of America, but the Modified
Motorcycles Association, and they were not related to or associated with the
Hell's Angels Motorcycle gang. They were founded in 1972 under their present
business manager, Ron Roluffs and legislative advocate in Sacramento. Mr.
Roluffs also dealt at the Federal level. Their main objective was being a
non-profit, non-partisan political organization relating to any laws coming to
the Legislature dealing with motorcyclists and their rights and freedoms and
how they should be able to ride without any unjust laws being enforced upon
them, i.e., noise laws, helmet laws, insurance laws, etc.
81-766
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
They held their meetings at the Chez Paree because nobody else would allow
them to do so once they mentioned something about motorcyclists and expressed
their rights as citizens. Many people still pictured the old era of Marion
Brando and Lee Marvin and the Wil~ Ones in the 1960's. They were not affilia-
ted with any gangs, but they had a lot of gangs or groups that came to their
functions whether blood runs where they gave blood to the Red Cross,. toys to
the Salvation Army, or the Veteran's benefit run in the Wilshire area. The
gangs or groups knew that they were a non-profit organization and it was on
neutral territory. They could go there and feel safe. They handled their own
problems since they had their own security. They had not had any problems at
any runs or meetings or functions. They were trying to uphold the image of
motorcyclists and not downgrade that image.
At their meetings on Wednesday nights at the Chez Paree, there had been inci-
dents. One night in March (March 25, 1981) eight officers came in, Sgt. Mills
was in charge and Officer Powers was with him, two observers and six squad
cars. They did not know why the Police came in and no arrests or charges were
made. Motorcycles had been impounded there but in the four pages of charges,
90% had never bmen followed up in court and were dropped. Everytime they
turned around at a meeting, officers came in. It was not a general walk
through which he could handle, two officers or whatever, but when there were
eight officers or officers with shotguns coming in, there was no reason for
that. He wanted to bring the matter to the attention of the Council and to
the public's attention. He then asked that his division adjutant be allowed
to speak.
Mr. Mike Cantrell, 1015 South Cypress, Santa Ana, submitted some paperwork as
to the Modified Motorcycle Association. He also stated that they were not a
front for the He ll's Angels. They were a non-profit corporation and if they
were affiliated with the Hell's Angels, the State Attorney General would not
allow them to be a non-pr~it corporation in the State. They had a full-time
lobbyist in Sacramento who would be more than glad to come to the Council
meeting or talk to the Chief of Police. Relative to Police harassment, there
seemed to be one police officer in particular, Officer Powers, who felt just
because a person rode a motorcycle, they were no good. He had been stopped by
him a couple of times and Officer Powers told him he did not belong in
Anaheim. On March 26, he had a meeting with Sgt. Campbell and Hodgespeth of
the Anaheim Police Department, and he had five pages of what they discussed
regarding police harassment. They said they would call him the next day or
the day after and set a meeting with his representatives in the area to
discuss what they could do to stem police harassment such as being stopped and
detained for 45 minutes to 1 1/2 hours for no just reason. They never got
back with him. They had a meeting with the Garden Grove Police Department and
stemmed the problem there. At the Chez Paree when they had meetings there had
not been a night where they had no problem. He reiterated, his main concern
was to emphasize that they were not affiliated with the Hell's Angels and they
wanted to stop unjust police harassment. If a man was taken out of the Chez
Paree and taken into the parking lot and arrested for being drunk in public,
that was not right. He had talked to Mayor Seymour a few months ago and was
told if the harassment continued, that he should go to the Police Department
or address the City Council. He also received a letter from Senator Carpenter
advising the same thing or to go to the Attorney General's office. They
wanted to stop police harassment.
81-767
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay asked how long they had been meeting at the Chez Paree and how
often.
Mr. Cantrell answered since December of 1980, and every two weeks. They did
have meetings in 1979 until the first part of 1980 and then stopped meeting
until December of 1980. From the audience it was indicated that they had met
at the Chez Paree as early as June of 1979. He then confirmed for Councilman
Roth that they had a meeting place in Garden Grove and met there every two
weeks. They had nine meeting places in Orange County. They had 80 to 100
people at their meetings in Garden Grove and if they had all of their meetings
in one city, they would have close to 400 or 500 people in one meeting place.
Approximately 10 to 15 members attended the meetings at the Chez Paree.
Guests could also attend the meetings.
Councilman Overholt asked if he had ever observed any of the members being
arrested by the Anaheim Police Department at the Chez Paree; Mr. Cantrell
stated that he had not, but had been told about it.
Councilman Ove~hott asked, as the coordinator, for what might be called unjust
police treatment in Orange County, how many complaints had he received from
his members regarding the Chez Paree in the last six months; Mr. Cantrell
answered, over 50. Of those 50 incidents, he had personally witnessed six or
seven. He could not say if in any of those incidents an arrest was made by
the Anaheim Police Department.
Mr. Swanson then stated that the owner of the Chez Paree was changing his
license around converting the establishment back into a restaurant and trying
to conform to his previous license. A couple of weeks ago, the Council
revoked his license for a music box and pinball machine because of the
activities at the Chez Paree. He would like to see some kind of rectification
of that.
Mayor Seymour stated he was present at the meeting and he did not recall
mention of his organization. What was said was, because of the number of
arrests at the bar and the type of activity taking place there, the use was
not approved.
The Mayor then continued if their organization was as wholesome as Mr. Swanson
had stated., why were they hanging around a place that had a bad record.
Mr. Swanson stated to him it did not have a bad record; the Mayor asked if
they showed him it had a bad record, what would he say in that case; Mr.
Swanson stated he would probably still go in there.
The Mayor stated then he should not complain because suddenly he was mixed up
in a bad environment.
Mr. Tom Wateler stated he was a resident of Anaheim and he was accosted by
many officers at the Chez Paree when he was there for a meeting. He was with
two of his colleagues, motorcycle enthusiasts, and detained for 45 minutes for
no reason but pure harassment by Officer Powers who told him that he did not
want him in the City. He wanted to know if anything could be done to
alleviate harassment from o~ficers who were supposed to be upholding the law.
81-768
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour suggested as with Mr. Cantrell, he did not know how many
complaints had been formally filed with the Police Department out of the 50 or
60 previously mentioned, but he had suggested that a formal complaint be
filed. By filing a formal complaint, the Chief would have it investigated and
if it had merit, he would take action. There was a great deal of difference
between a complaint frivolously filed and then checking out the facts. He
further explained for Mr. Wateler the Council had nothing against motor-
cyclists who obeyed the laws and who did not contribute to an environment that
might already be decayed. The place they had chosen and where they had the
right to meet had a bad Police record. He reiterated that Mr. Wateler should
file a complaint. There was a processing procedure to go through and he could
be assured that the Council would be informed as to the processing of those
complaints.
Reverend Burton "Irish" Conway, 13682 Cypress Street, Garden Grove, Pastor of
the Church for All Faiths, stated that he was present because he loved motor-
cycles. He was concerned that in all of Orange County, and all of Southern
California there was a built-in bias about a wave that was sweeping the U.S.
called motorcycles. The Modified Motorcycle Association was a group who had
bothered to go through State law to obtain a legitimate charter and they had a
paid representative in Sacramento working for lawful changes and a lawful
recourse. His purpose today was to back those people. No officer had the
right to stop him or search him or do any of the things currently in vogue.
The purpose was to get the Council to understand that there was a wave of
Americans looking toward motorcycles as a sport, a way of getting rid of the
second car and possibly gas rationing in the future. They did not know how to
file reports and were hesitant to do so.
Mayor Seymour interjected and stated if they needed help in filing their
complaint, Anaheim had perhaps the easiest system for doing so in any City.
Complaint forms, as he rec~lled, could even be picked up at the Library with-
out having to go to the Police Department. He asked Reverend Conway to come
to the specific point of action he wanted the Council to take.
Reverend Conway asked if they could have some type of representative who could
show them how to file the complaints who would cooperate with them so that
they could work with the City.
Mayor Seymour explained ~hat their representative, Mike Cantrell and he
(Seymour) met several months ago and went over all that ground. He encouraged
Mr. Cantrell to file their valid complaints with the Chief in writing without
making broad sweeping statements that they were against all people who rode a
motorcycle. He (Seymour) did not believe that. He suggested that Reverend
Burton Conway consult the organization he just paid money to join.
The Mayor then stated he would like to hear from the Chief of Police.
Police Chief George Tielsch stated he did not know what response they would
like, but as far as the Chez Paree was concerned, they did not intend to allow
any enclave to exist in the City where criminal activity could take place with
81-769
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
impugnity. They presented a profile showing, since the middle of June, 1979,
they had some 63 incidents at the location. Many of them had been very
serious with many involving management including the sales of narcotics and
intoxicants to intoxicated persons. They intended to continue to go out to
that area and check that out. As far as motorcyclists were concerned, they
had motorcycle officers in the Department, 26 of them. They had no problem
with people riding motorcycles per se. There were outlaw motorcycle gangs
operating in the State of California and throughout the United States that had
engaged in every crime from murder to mayhem and the sales of narcotics. He
was not accusing any people in the audience of that. His people had identi-
fied motorcycle groups that they considered to be outlaw who congregated in
the Chez Paree which was listed in the report.
Mayor Seymour stated he felt the Council had been totally informed and they
were totally supportive of the actions that his (Tielsch's) Department had
taken relative to the Chez Paree and the record that he compiled. They did
not need any further evidence to understand the problem and would encourage
him to be as tough as he could be in an environment such as that. If those
gentlemen who spoke chose to meet in that environment, it was at their risk,
and they should understand that. He then asked the Chief to respond to the
best of his knowledge as to how many actual complaints had been filed.
Chief Tielsch stated he really did not know. He believed that Mr. Swanson may
have filed one and that they had followed up and checked with him on that.
There could not have been more than possibly three out of that entire location
in the two years he had been with the City, and they had numerous contacts in
that area.
Mayor Seymour stated if that was all he had received with all the enforcement
problems they had at the Chez Paree, three complaints since June of 1979, it
was a remarkable record.
Councilman Bay then referred to the activity report, the profile on the Chez
Paree starting in June of 1979. He started to read from that report, but then
asked if the profile was confidential.
Chief Tielsch stated he felt it should be. Apparently a copy was given to the
gentlemen in the audience today. Some were arrests and thus would be a matter
of public record, but he deferred to the City Attorney. City Attorney Hopkins
considered the profile to be confidential.
The Council took no further action on the matter.
142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 4229~ CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING CHAPTER 18.84 - PROHIB-
ITED USES IN SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE: The City Planning Commission
recommended amending Subsection 18.84.041 by repealing Subsection .060
pertaining to prohibited uses in the SC Zone.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4229 for first reading.
81-770
City Hall, Amaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4229: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SUBSECTION
.060 OF SECTION 18.84.041 OF CHAPTER 18.84 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2119 (READVERTISED) - APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS:
Submitted by the William Lyon Company, for approval of revised plans to
establish a 5-lot, 178-unit condominium subdivision on proposed RM-3000 zoned
property located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Street
(Tentative Tract No. 11053, Revision No. 1).
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the revised
plans under the subject conditional use permit were approved. Councilwoman
Kaywood and Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-32 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2199: Submitted
by David Alani, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL to permit a cock-
tail lounge in an existing motel on property located at 823 South Beach
Boulevard with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-88 and 89,
granted Reclassification No. 80-81-32 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2199 and
granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was withdrawing her request for review of
the Planning Commission's action of the subject reclassification and CUP which
she requested at the meeting of May 12, 1981, since the questions she had were
answered in the interim.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports
and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda: ~
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and
referred to the City's Claims Administrator, or payment allowed and the
Application for Leave to Present Late Claim was denied:
a. Claim submitted by Fred's Frozen Foods for personal property damages pur-
portedly sustained as a result of fluctuating power at 808 E. Broadway, on or
about March 26, 1981.
b. Claim submitted by David M. Manes for personal property damages purported-
ly sustained as a result of parkway tree falling on claimant's car parked in
front of 870 South Claudina Street, on or about February 21, 1981.
c. Claim submitted by Yoon Sik Park for real property damages at 1136 N.
Amaheim Blvd., purportedly sustained as a result of City crew work on Swan
Street between Anaheim Boulevard and Romneya Drive, on or about October or
November, 1980.
81-771
City Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
d. Claim submitted by Brian Vertrees for personal property damages
purportedly sustained to moped as a result of accident caused by street work
at Euclid Street and Crone Avenue, on or about April 30, 1981.
e. Claim submitted by Mrs. K. J. Bradley for personal injury damages
purportedly sustained as a result of fall over separation in sidewalk in front
of 1701 South Euclid Street, on or about April 22, 1981.
f. Claim submitted by William C. K~ndrick for personal property damages
purportedly sustained as a result of golf ball striking vehicle window while
parked in Savanna High School parking lot, on or about April 20, 1981.
g. Claim submitted Vivian June Richer for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of failure of Police Department to take action to correct problems
experienced on or about April 7, 1981.
h. Application For Leave To File Late Claim and claim submitted by Thomas
Martin for personal injuries damages purportedly sustained as a result of
actions by Anaheim Police Officers, on or about December 31, 1981.
The following claim was allowed:
i. Claim submitted by Roger C. Nelson for property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of tree branch falling on patio during tree-trimming
operations, on or about April 28, 1981.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and
filed:
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of April 15, 1981.
b. 173: Before the Publi~ Utilities Commission, Application No. 60221, in
the matter of the applica6ion of JATS Enterprise, Inc., a California
corporation, for a temporary and permanent Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity to operate as a passenger stage corporation pursuant to Section
1031, et. seq. of the California Public Utilities Code in Orange County and
certain other designated Counties.
c. 105: Anaheim Housing Commission--Minutes of April 1, 1981.
3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accord-
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Amusement and Entertainment Premises Permit--Pool Rooms: Family Arcade,
401 South Brookhurst Street, for two pool tables. (Mar~ha Miranda, applicant).
b. Amusement Devices Permit: Junction Liquor, 3353 East Orangethorpe Avenue,
for one video game. (William A. Collar, applicant)
c. Public Dance Permit: Lam Van Nguyen, for a public dance to be held
May 23, 1981, 8:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center.
81-772
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11053 (REVISION NO. 1): Submitted by The
William Lyon Company, to establish a 5-lot, 178-unit condominium subdivision
on proposed RM-3000 zoned property located at the southwest corner of Cerritos
Avenue and Euclid Street (Conditional Use Permit No. 2119 (Readvertised).
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11053, Revision No.
1, and a negative declaration was previously approved.
MOT ION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATIONS FOR AMUSFaMENT DEVICES PERMIT - FAMILY ARCADE, VIGADA'S
PIZZA~ GREAT WESTERN PIZZA: Submitted by Martha Miranda, Family Arcade, 401
South Brookhurst Street, for various amusement devices; William A. Collar,
Vigada's Pizza, 331 East Orangethorpe Avenue, for various amusement devices;
Gary L. Krumwiede, dba Great Western Pizza Co., 5555 Santa Bna Canyon Road,
for 8 video games.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know if the subject applications were for the
establishment of new arcades or for one or two amusement devices.
City Manager Talley stated that a report could be provided in one week. He
believed the question to be if the devices were additions to existing arcades
or if new arcades were being established. They would visit the sites to
ascertain whether it was an existing facility and if amusement devices were
being added to it.
By a general consensus of the Council, the subject three applications were
continued one week to await a staff report.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-232
through 81R-237, 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. 81R-232: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
~N~JiEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Charles R.
Talmage, et ux.; Robert Eugene Bentley, et ux.; Fixture Design & Mfg. Co.~ et
al.; Homes by John Lyttle)
158: tLESOLUTION NO. 81R-233: A I~ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASmMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#2800-3, Anaheim Blvd. Widening project)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-234: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANA~IE~M ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAREIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#2800-10, Anaheim Blvd. Widening project)
81-773
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-235: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#2800-32, Anaheim Blvd. Widening project)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-236: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINA~LLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLiaNT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TP~NSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: OLIVE HILLS
AND EASTRIDGE RESERVOIR STORM DAMAGE REPAIR, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NOS. 51-484-6329-0707E-76100 AND 51-479-6329-0519E-76020. (Holstrom
Construction Corporation)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-237: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAl{ElM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND CObLPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PATT STREET
NEIGHBORHOOD AREA STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 25-791-6325-E1210; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLAINS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.;
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEA.LED PROPOSALS FOR TILE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on June 18,
1981, at 2:00 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolu~%on Nos. 81R-232 through 81R-237, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4228: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4228 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4228: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(91), ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
No ne
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4228 duly passed and adopted.
142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4230: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4230
for first reading.
81-774
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4230: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION
4.24.010, CHAPTER 4.24, OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A
NEW SECTION 4.24.010 IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO POOLROOMS.
129: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Council-
man Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Application for Public Fire-
works Display Permit submitted by As tro Pyrotechnics, on behalf of the
California Surf, to discharge fireworks at Anaheim Stadium on May 20, 1981
between 7:30 and 10:00 p.m. was approved, as recommended by the Fire Marshal.
MOTION CARRIED.
106: POSSIBLE FORMATION OF AD HOC COMMITTEE TO ASSIST IN ANALYSIS OF CITY
BUDGET STARTING FY82-83: Councilman Bay stated although he was not moving it
as a motion, he would like the Council to consider between now and the end of
budget activities the possibility of next year forming a budget ad hoc
committee of some selected citizens. He had received numerous calls on the
budget from people who had attempted to look at the budget giving him sugges-
tions on some of the things about which they were concerned. Some of the
questions they,were hearing from him today were those he was receiving over
the telephone. As a layman, he suggested that beginning next year and set up
by May 1, that they form an ad hoc committee to specifically look at the
budget and to choose or select those people they could get to volunteer who
were involved in budgets in business throughout the community and who could
assist them in the complexity and vastness of the budget. He felt he could
use a lot of assistance.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the amount of time it would take to train an
ad hoc committee. She did not know why he could not get that assistance from
staff.
Mayor Seymour stated his idea was worthy of future discussion. He wanted to
provide for Councilman Bay's edification an historical account that there had
been such a committee called the Blue Ribbon Committee on the budget and
apppointed to that committee by the City Council were the very best of brains
they could find in the City and in business. As he recalled, they also had a
representative from the company at which Councilman Bay was employed who was
very familiar with data processing operations, also Bill Bridgford, Bridgford
Foods, CPA's, controllers, all citizens of the City and that was how they got
to the form at the bottom of each Control Center indicating the percentage
increase. That was one of their recommendations. They labored long and hard
over the budget and the budget process and did make the type of contributions
described. They had been there before but he felt the idea merited discus-
sion. He wanted Councilman Bay to be apprised of what had taken place in the
past. He then asked the City Manager to provide Councilman Bay with a list of
people who served on that previous committee. He reiterated they tried to
find the best they could to advise them on the budget. (See minutes
August 22, 1978, Page 78-1117 where the motion was approved forming the Budget
Committee).
81-775
City Hall,' Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
PERMISSION TO LEAVE THE CITY - MAYOR SEYMOUR: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mayor Seymour was granted permission to
leave the City for 30 days. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (4:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, for the purpose of
continuing the budget work session, all Council members being present. (5:05
P.M.)
106: BUDGET WORK SESSION - MECHA1NICAL MAINTENANCE: Mr. Talley announced that
the subject budget was approximately $5.4 million found on Page C-159. Mr.
Merriam was present to give a brief presentation on why the costs had
increased from last year which was a subject of Council concern, as well as
that of Facility Maintenance.
Mr. A1Merriam, Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent, first gave a brief
overview of his budget. He noted that in previous budgets the costs were
varied in othep departments. Currently the proposed budget contained every
cost within their budget associated with the equipment rental system. A~n
interesting aspect was the fact that the system caused the Program Managers to
take a very close look at their program where their vehicles were involved and
many Departments had returned vehicles to them, since after having reviewed
their operation, they found that they could do with less vehicles.
Mr. Merriam then presented nine exhibits (on file in the City Clerk's Office)
which were also visually projected, briefing each for purposes of clarifica-
tion (see Budget Comparison (see -159); major areas of 1979-80 over expendi-
tures; Fuel (budgeted); Automotive Parts; Services to Maintain Auto (outside
repairs); Increases in Equipment Purchases 1977 to 1981; Fund 72 Cash
Position; Rates; Annual R~tal Rate Comparison 1980-81). He pointed out in
several exhibits the majo~ impact brought about by the fuel crunch.
Relative to the exhibit entitled Fuel (budgeted), the Mayor asked to be
provided with a mileage comparison as opposed to gallonage; Councilman Roth
explained that a pilot program was being instituted in Riverside County to
encourage County employees to use their private vehicles and paying them 35 to
38 cents a mile even to the extent of putting County radios into private auto-
mobiles. They considered it to be a program that would prove to be cost
saving. He suggested that staff look at that program and talk to the County
of Riverside to ascertain their experience with that program. San Bernardino
County was looking at the turn around time on vehicles. In the past, they
were trading vehicles in after a certain amount of time or after so many
miles. Now they were looking at the possibility of overhauling the engine or
replacing the engine, since the body of the car remained in good condition,
thereby being able to keep the vehicles for a much longer period. Those were
two concepts from two different counties who were concerned about the
increased costs of vehicles, maintenance, parts, gas, oil, etc. He asked that
those programs be monitored.
81-776
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE: Mr. Talley referred to the Control Center for
Administration on Page C-52, Accounting C-55, Risk Management C-59, Purchasing
and Stores C-65--Budget total $2.8 million with no capital improvement
projects, Position Control Pages E-12 through 15. The only issue they had
that was a departure from the normal year's budgeting were the Certificates of
Participation which the Council indicated they would address on June 9, 1981.
Mr. George Ferrone, Finance Director, then gave a brief overview of the
Finance Department. He pointed out that last week, the Council approved
action reorganizing the Finance Department to include the Risk Management
Division. The net effect of the Finance reorganization was to increase the
full-time positions from 45 to 47 or a 4.9% increase in work hours. The total
Departmental budget increased 16.2% and the three line items making up one-
third of that total were postage, duplicating and duplicating supplies for
$150,000. If they were to take out those three on direct available line
items, their budget would be up 10%, the two major causes being the addition
of the Risk Management program up $92,000 and the increase of Data Processing
charges up $50,000. At this time the latter was a City-wide charge for all
accounting charges provided. The budget anticipated a high volume in 1981-82
in the following areas; maintaining the City's unqualified opinion from
outside auditors in several areas; maintaining both National and State levels
of recognition for outstanding financial reporting; maintenance of cost
controls on the $18 million Convention Center expansion project; continuing to
seek out new and cost effective means of financing the City's needs, the most
current being Certificates of Participation; providing assistance to the
Electric Utility Division in selling its $92 million Electric Revenue Bond
Issue with the same type of assistance to be provided to Redevelopment in
selling their $10 million Tax Allocation Bond Issue. They strived to improve
productivity and reduce costs in two target areas, the purchasing and printing
and duplicating operations. They also hoped to reduce City expense through
in-house administration and Risk Management both in the area of Workers'
Compensation claims liability processing, as well as general liability claims
processing.
Mr. Ferrone then clarified questions posed by both Councilman Bay and the
Mayor relative to the Data Processing programs and the increase in average
hourly rate.
Mayor Seymour then referred to Control Center Page C-38, Risk Management, and
asked what the almost three new positions being added were going to do.
Mr. Ferrone answered that one would be filling a need in the area of Workers'
Compensation Claims Administration and after the budget was approved, they
would be addding one claims administrator in the area of general liability
claims and one clerical level position to support that person.
Mayor Seymour asked since claims were going down, why did they need more
people.
Mr. Ferrone explained that general liability claims were presently being
handled by the City Attorney and an outside firm. Now they were going to
bring that function in-house; Mayor Seymour asked when that decision was made.
81-777
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, !:30 P.M.
City Manager Talley stated that was a decision he thought had been agreed to,
that they were going to move the general liability claims to Risk Management,
effective July 1. There was a budget proposal that on July 1, Risk Management
General Liability Claims Administration move from the City Attorney's office
to Risk Management.
The Mayor stated this was news to him.
Mr. Talley then explained that the City Attorney informed him that the report
had not been submitted to the Council where that had been recommended by both
departments. He apologized for the error, since he thought it had been
forwarded to the Council. He suggested, therefore, that they hold up on that
issue until they had an opportunity to review the report. He thereupon with-
drew the item and suggested that they discuss the matter on June 9.
CITY ATTORNEY: Mr. Talley announced that the City Attorney's budget involved
one Control Center Page C-25 totalling $1,800,000. There were no capital
improvement projects, Position Control Page E-8. The only issue relative to
administration,, this was the only department unable to conform to requirements
on turning in program work units. Initially a position for $23,000 was
requested. Subsequently, a request for a staff accountant from the Finance
Department for two hours which they had costed at $8,400 was requested. The
Director of Finance did not have two additional staff hours a day and thus
that was perhaps an item that Council may wish to address.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated as indicated in the budget message, the
City Attorney's office continued to experience a heavy volume of litigation at
all times, in addition to ordinances, resolutions, opinions and contracts. In
addition to the general liability litigation, they had an increase in
petitions for writ of mandate, petitions for injunction, declaratory relief,
arbitration cases and more. serious now, the additional litigation load coming
through the Federal cases~being filed under the Civil Rights United States
Code 1983. Those cases did not involve the claims procedure because they went
directly to the Federal Court. However, they were attempting to continue the
work-load with the existing staff attorneys who had been taking on heavier
work-loads, and they were attempting to keep more of the work in-house.
The request made for an additional person was originally triggered by the fact
that they were told that the Federal government had mandated a time keeping
system. Later that was changed and on February 23, 1981, he advised the City
Manager they would drop the request for a Division Aide. However, they were
concerned with the increasing amount of time required to do what they
considered accounting and budgetary work which was a drain on the time that
they spent on legal work. They believed it would be more cost effective to
have the persons trained in accounting and budget work doing the budget
preparation and a lot of the accounting that was currently being done by
attorneys and legal personnel.
81-778
City Hall,~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley then explained for Councilman Bay that the response to the City
Attorney relative to providing that assistance, he (Talley) personally and PD
& A to an extent, contacted a number of professional City Attorneys, meaning
full-time attorneys, as opposed to contract City Attorneys, and also a number
of private attorneys. They found that the only way a system worked where the
department was managing itself was where it learned in some way from the
people in the office what they were doing and set up standards accordingly.
The concept that an attorney could not in some way be measured easily and
managed was not shared by a lot of offices. If someone came in just to do the
books, the issue would be, what type of productivity standards and work units
were going to be developed and administered so that the attorney could manage
his own million dollars worth of resources. It was his contention that
similar to every other department in the City those were managerial problems
within the City Attorney's office and not accounting problems per se.
City Attorney Hopkins stated they felt much legal time was being drained off
on that aspect. They could have a high price attorney do accounting work, but
it was not cost effective. If they had a person who was trained in accounting
and who knew budgets to do that work, that would save a lot of time and money,
and the attorney's time could be more effectively utilized.
Mr. Talley stated he did not disagree with that. Many agencies both public
and private had found that a non-attorney, either staff or high level
accounting clerical type could perform those services. In looking at that
budget which had increased over 50% in five years, he believed that a reallo-
cation of classifications, whereby either an office manager at the paraprofes-
sional level or at the staff level in lieu of some other position could
provide that service and also a more businesslike approach that would benefit
the whole organization.
City Attorney Hopkins clar£fied for the Mayor that they had withdrawn the
request for the Division ~ide and hoped that they could get some assistance
from the City Manager or Accounting to do some of the accounting and budgetary
type work at approximately 38,400.
Council Members then posed questions to staff for purposes of clarification,
followed by additional discussion on the matter at the conclusion of which,
the Finance Director reported for the Mayor that his guesstimate would be that
the City Attorney could get the job that he wanted done with an accountant,
perhaps a Senior Accounting Clerk. The problem was that the two hours were
deceiving because in talking about providing assistance for the budgetary
process, the time frame was very short. Although it would work out to an
average of two hours per week for the year, it all came in one short period of
time and thus there would be a need for a full-time person for about five or
six weeks. He did not know how they would free somebody up for that block of
time internally, and they would almost have to go outside to get that person.
Mr. Talley stated that should be explored because he also believed that the
City Attorney wanted help during the year.
81-779
City Hallf Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that they did have a number of other things that
involved the preparation of warrants, library maintenance, purchasing
activities, payroll, monitoring the microfish, the MAFIS records, reviewing
numerous Data Processing printouts, etc. That would be under his supervision.
All they wanted was someone to do the paperwork and they would provide the
guidance.
The Mayor asked if it sounded as though a Senior Accounting Clerk would
suffice; City Attorney Hopkins stated he felt that would be fine.
The Mayor then asked how much a Senior Accounting Clerk was worth two hours a
day; Mr. Taltey stated he had to assume it was going to be somewhere around
$6,000 to $6,500.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know how this differed from any of the other
departments; the City Attorney answered that they were not different, but they
were finding that more and more legal time was being diverted to accounting
and budget work, and he did not feel it was cost effective. Many large legal
offices today bad an office manager so that the attorneys could confine their
efforts to legal work. It was just a matter of whether the attorney would be
pulled off legal work and put on accounting work or letting him concentrate on
legal work and having a specialist do the bookkeeping.
Mayor Seymour stated perhaps what they should do in this case is, talk to
Price Waterhouse to see if they had a Senior Accounting Clerk and find how
much they would charge for "X" hours per week to come in, and help out. The
$6,500 or $8,400 did not seem to be a horrible amount to get bogged down in
and if they could find a way to contract that outside at a reasonable price,
that might be a way to go; the City Attorney stated he would be glad to check
that out.
The Mayor asked him to do.so and to report to the Council on June 9, 1981.
Before concluding, City Attorney Hopkins then explained for Councilman
Overholt why the misdemeanor prosecution cost was going up.
CITY CLERK: City Manager Talley referred to Page C-3t and noted that there
was a correction on that budget. %he amount, instead of $364,473 should be
$340,711. One of the positions in that was double budgeted in both the City
Clerk's and City Council's budget. There were no capital improvement
projects, Position Control Page E-9, and there were no issues that he was
aware of.
City Clerk Linda Roberts noted that the budget was down this year because of
the consolidated election in June of 1)82. Other than the $10,400 budgeted
for the leasing of the word processing equipment which would be selected by
the Data Processing Director, there was no difference in the budget.
81-780
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
CITY TREASURER: Mr. Talley reported that the City Treasurer budget involved
only one Control Center and they had scheduled an amount of $66,768 on Page
C-36, Position Control E-10 with no capital improvement projects. He believed
that the budget should go through as proposed and when the new Treasurer came
on board, there might be changes at that time unless Council wanted to give
other direction.
The Mayor asked the current City Treasurer, Glenn Stewart, if there was any-
thing he wanted to add; Mr. Stewart answered he did not think it was appropri-
ate to suggest what a new Treasurer might want, but the proposed budget was
satisfactory if he were still going to be with the City.
DATA PROCESSING DEPARTMENT: Mr. Talley referred to Page C-211, budget
totaling $2,776,000. In addition, the capital improvement projects were
$300,000 to move the new Data Processing facility and a computer hardware
upgrade found on Page B-47, Position Control, E-42. The only issues were the
move, representing a 372,000 annual rent increase, and the new Central
Processing Unit acquisition scheduled for approximately one year from now.
Mr. Phil Grammatica, Data Processing Director, stated that the principal theme
of the Data Processing Department for the next fiscal year was centered around
the goal to assist the City of Anaheim in improving its productivity by acting
in partnership with City departments and the automation of system and informa-
tion processing upon which he elaborated. The single largest change in
service level was the more than doubling of the systems and programming effort
planned for the Utilities Department as a result of that Department's ever-
growing information requirement.
The overall budget was increasing from approximately $1,900,000 to $2,775,000.
The increase reflected the impact of inflation, $330,000; increase in
Utilities systems work, $3~0,000 with an increase in Utility hardware required
to support that work of $~0,000; facility increase of ~25,000; software
productivity tools, $70,000 and a training and educational cost of $40,000.
The actual average hourly rate during Fiscal Year 1980-81 was lower than
budgeted because their vacancies occurred in their high price positions. The
increase for 1981-82, when compared with the 1980-81 adopted, was 18.8%
reflecting the impact of the special increase granted by the Council to the
Data Processing personnel at the last negotiation.
In concluding, Mr. Grammatica stated he felt they were performing very well in
servicing the City in relationship to the cost in the private sector.
Mr. Grammatica and Mr. Dave Morgan, Data Processing Staff Assistant, then
explained for the Mayor the $330,000 increase due to inflation which in
finality was an increase of 17% for labor and paper costs.
Both Mr. Grammatica and Mr. Morgan then answered questions posed by the
Council for purposes of clarification with regard to certain areas of the Data
Processing budget.
81-781
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked what the $330,000 for the Utilities Department would get
them.
Mr. Grammatica answered that they had a backlog of approximately 5500 work
hours of system enhancements to systems currently existing for reporting that
were either mandated or would aid in their own control, management support and
audit of the Utilities environment.
Mr. Talley explained that one night they spent four hours deliberating Data
Processing requests in the Utilities hearing, resulting in the 5500 hours, but
initially the hours were at least double that. There was also more that the
Utilities Department would like to do, but which he did not think the City
physically could accomplish. They had well over a million dollars worth of
work they would like to get done, including a revision of their customer
information system which they would be discussing with the Council, almost a
total revision, as well as their general billing system plus a myriad of what
they considered mandated requirements. In addition, they were going to find
substantial amounts of money in the Utilities budget for various Data
Processing typ~ services.
Councilman Bay asked if they were nearing the total capabilities of the
computers Data Processing presently had; Mr. Grammatica answered that the
environment they had today was taxed at an 82% level.
Councilman Bay noted that they were providing a great deal more today, but he
wanted to know if it was saving money; Mr. Grammatica answered he believed
there was a report this morning given by the City Manager regarding the head
count within t~e City over the past five years. He knew that through the
budget process and the monitoring of same, they were, in fact, working a lot
smarter, using the money and information wisely.
Councilman Overholt revereed to the original question to see if they had
resolved what happened on salaries and where they were headed for if they all
understood what happened.
Mr. Grammatica explained what happened. He came to the Council earlier in the
year and requested increases for people in the Department and in certain
positions in order to become competitive with the rest of the world. They had
been very successful and they were up to staff at the moment.
Mr. Morgan reported that they had been running an annual turnover rate of
approximately 40% which had been decreased to as low as 5% in the last few
months.
Mr. Grammatica continued that he felt the people who were in the Department
now were long-term employees who would remain, given the education and other
things they were told their career path would include.
81-782
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 19~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt asked if he felt the salaries presently paid were
competitive with the private sector; Mr. Grammatica answered "yes" and the
reason why he felt that way was due to the fact that they filled the positions
with qualified people rather rapidly, as opposed to the length of time they
had been looking for people prior to that increase.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to
discuss potential litigation with no action anticipated.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:52 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7:52 P.M.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
81-783
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1981, 9:30 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned
regular session.
PRE SENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL PrEMBERS: Overholt (entered the Council Chamber 10:15
a.m.), Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour (entered the Council
Chambers at 9:55 a.m.)
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
POLICE CHIEF: George Tielsch
STADIUM, CONVENTION CENTER & GOLF GENERAL MANAGER: Tom Liegler
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone
ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR - RESOURCES: Ron Rothschild
ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER: Jim Armstrong
DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Phil Grammatica
FACILITY MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: John Roche
MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: A1 Merriam
Mayor Pro Tem Roth called the adjourned regular meeting to
order for the purpose of a budget work session with various
City departments.
106: POLICE DEPARTMENT: City Manager William Talley referred to Control
Canter Page C-83 totalling $21,397,363. There were no capital improvement
projects involved, Position Control, Page E-17 and 18. In addition to the
presentation by the Chief, there was one additional expense not in the
budget. They were advised in late April that there would be a helicopter
parts increase of approximately 45% by the manufacturer and, therefore, their
cost for servicing the helicopters by Tallmantz Aviation must be incresed by
~28,000. There were three major issues not addressed in the plan of which the
Council should be apprise~and a decision would be requested on those. The
first, the Police Facility Expansion projected to cost ~520,000 beyond that
anticipated (see report dated April 16, 1981 which included the Financing Plan
submitted to the Council at the April 28, 1981 meeting; an Automated Police
Information System for $75,000 to begin that effort (see memorandum dated
April 20, 1981 submitted to the Council at the April 28, 1981 meeting); and
the Police Canine Corps scheduled $84,080 this year with a cost of approxi-
mately $13,000 after the first year if approved (see Canine Program Proposal,
revised March 20, 1981 also submitted to the Council at the April 28, 1981
meeting). He then turned the presentation over to the Police ~ief George
Tielsch.
Police Chief George Tielsch, first brought the Council up to date relative to
some of the items the Council had previously authorized such as the School
Resource Officer Program involving five additional positions in Fiscal Year
1979-80 which program was not fully implemented until the latter part of
1980. Daring the current fiscal year, the Council authorized sophisticated
video camera equipment to be used for_ in-service training films, the first
film produced describing the SRO Program. The film was then shown to the
Council which described the new program which included introduction of the
five School Resource Officers and the area of work in which they were engaged
in the City's schools.
81-784
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1981, 9:30 A.M.
Mayor Seymour entered the Council Chambers. (9:55 A.M.)
Chief Tielsch then continued relative to the enhancement granted by the
Council in the current fiscal year. He then presented a chart (Burglary Anal-
ysis) explaining that one of the goals of the enhancement was an attempt to
get a handle on neighborhood crime and to specifically address the problem of
burglary in the City. They went back over the past four years to show the
period of time of October through March in each of those years. Burglary
increased rather dramatically in 1977-78 with 3,171 crimes; 1978-79, 3,215;
1979-80, 3,281; but after the enhancement, the crimes of burglary were reduced
to 3,163. Not only beefing up the Crime Task Force, but also the additional
officers on the streets were needed in that effort. Also one of the goals was
to attempt to reduce the crime rate for the next five years to what it was in
1979. The first quarter of the calendar year, crime had been reduced by 1.05%
under that of 1979.
One of the problems that they had encountered when the SRO Progam was approved
in the 1979-80 fiscal year was, they were not able to bring it up to speed for
a full year because they continued to be under strength. Even when the en-
hancement was granted in the beginning of the current fiscal year, they found
they were down eight positions at that time and with the additional 24 posi-
tions, they suddenly became 32 positions down. He was happy to report that as
of today, they were one officer over strength in the Anaheim Police Department
and by the first of June, they hoped to be five officers over strength. There
were six officers currently in the academy training mode who would be gradua-
ting in June. ~ey had been fortunate in securing many lateral entries and
many were still in the FTO mode. %hey were hopeful by the Fall, they should
be completely up to strength and with all of those people in the field and
operating as single officer units.
Relative to the current budget, they were not asking for any additional per-
sonnel because they never had the enhancement completely up to speed. They
wanted to wait and see wh~re they were going with that before they came back
to ask for any additional'resources. The budget would be just under
321,400,000 in their initial request, and much of that increase was due to
inflation and some contractual agreements made with the Police Officers
Association. Facility and mechanical maintenance costs had risen, as well as
insurance costs.
Mayor Seymour then questioned Chief Tielsch relative to the following areas--
(1) recruitment in the Reserve Officer program and incentives that would
encourage more successful recruitment; (2) request for the establishment of a
canine corps, and (3) his recommendations for making Pearson Park a safe place
for both children and adults.
The following is a summary of Chief Tielsch's response: (1) It continued to
be extremely difficult to recruit for the Reserve Officer program for a number
of years upon which he elaborated. At present they had 25 reservists and they
could go as high as 100. !hey were hard-pressed to find citizens who were
willing to make the commitment necessary to become a Reserve Officer even
though they had a Sergeant assigned full-time to handle that function. There
was a feeling that they could offer more incentives; but he did not have an
answer as to what would assist them in their recruiting efforts.
81-785
City Hmll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1981, 9:30 A.M.
Mayor Seymour stated he would be interested in the Chief's thoughts, as well
as staff, as to what it would take to reach authorized strength in the Reserve
Officer Program to permit the Council to look at the price tag to see if they
were prepared to pay the price to achieve that; Councilman Roth also suggested
the possibility of including an insert in the Utility bill soliciting for the
Reserve Program.
(2) Relative to the Canine Corp, Chief Tielsch first referred to the proposal
presented at the April 28, 1981 budget work session (on file in the City
Clerk's office) requesting three dogs, but no additional personnel. He then
explained how the program would work and extolled the merits of such a program
both in residential and commercial areas, especially the time effectiveness
using dogs for search purposes. Approximately one-quarter of the time would
be spent in search as well as officer protection. The program would cost
$84,000 in the first year and each subsequent year approximately 313,000.
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (10:15 A.M.)
(3) Relative to Pearson Park, he had a meeting with the Assistant City Manager
and Deputy Citz Manager, as well as members of the Parks Department. Their
feeling initially was, rather than spend a great deal of money to deploy
uniformed officers on a permanent basis, that perhaps through the Park Ranger
Program or a Counselor working with the Parks and Recreation Department, some-
one could be on-site full-time. They would also increase their patrol by
having more frequent officer presence in the park. The Parks and Recreation
people indicated to him that they were going to have a road constructed
through the park so that the Police would actually be able to drive through
the park for a more visible presence. His people currently were engaging in
foot patrol, as well as mobile patrol in the area. He had talked to the VNOC
people and they were going to again start increasing their efforts in the
areas of the homosexual problem prevalant in the park. If the Council saw fit
to add the Canine Program, that would obviously be one area where the dogs
could be deployed for routine quick run throughs and to assist at night in
handling some of the probiems they found there now.
Councilman Bay stated he assumed the Chief was still going to come back to the
Council with a specific plan and what it would cost to do something about the
situation..
The Chief answered that Parks and Recreation would speak to the Council on
that. %hey felt that there should be a civilian deployed on an ongoing basis
who would interface with the Police Department which would be an initial
attempt to have someone on site, rather than a more expensive police officer.
Mayor Seymour stated he wanted the Chief to know that if in order to achieve
that objective it would take something special in the way of appropriation, he
was prepared to make a commitment to see that it was done and he knew the
Council was concerned as well.
81-786
City Ball, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1981, 9:30 A.M.
Chief Tielsch then answered Councilman Roth relative to complaints that had
been received concerning response time wherein he reported that response time
was being cut dramatically. In emergency calls they were seldom less than
three minutes away and non-emergency response was also being cut way back.
The following issues were also discussed by Chief Tielsch as a result of
Council questioning: Enhancement of the data processing system in the Police
function; a system whereby drive-through areas through parks for the Police
Department could be denied to the public; the increasing graffiti problem and
possible mitigating measures; and the problem of businesses dis- pensing
alcohol to minors.
Councilman Bay then asked Chief Tielsch's opinion relative to what was causing
the 33 to 35% increase in Other Operating Costs in Control Center 51, Page
C-84, Police Services.
The Chief answered that a couple of areas that had hit them hard were the
increases in Facility and Mechanical Maintenance. Gasoline had increased at a
tremendous rate. Further, their insurance costs increased. There was a form-
ula set by Risk Management whereby as civil claims against the City approached
litigation in court, more money had to be set aside. However, there had been
a decline in claims against the Police since 1978 and perhaps their insurance
costs might not be as heavy.
Councilman Bay noted that telephone costs with Northern Telecom went from
~12,000 to ~27,000 and he asked if he knew why that was so; the Chief stated
he wanted to know as well. %hose were figures that were given to them as
fixed costs. He also explained for the Mayor that they were provided with the
alternative by the City Manager of going out to contract their own services if
they felt it inappropriate to automatically accept those costs and occasion-
ally they had done so. Frequently they found after doing so, they were able
to work the matter out with Facility or Mechanical Maintenance, and they had
done that in the proposed~f~udget.
Mr. Talley explained that a majority of the charges were not City labor so
much as gas, water, electric, trash, utilities, City insurance policies and
liability policies, items that could not be shopped. They also maintained a
replacement and appreciation amount.
Councilman Bay then asked the Chief if they were pressed for space; Chief
Tielsch answered that was a very serious problem for them and they would
appreciate any consideration the Council would give in order to pick up an
additional approximate 11,000 square feet of visible space in the trailers.
Mayor Seymour stated he was sympathetic to the Police Department's space
needs, but wondered why they needed to turn back the trailers that were
already in place in the Hmrbor Center under what he believed to be a favorable
lease and then to have to replace them with new ones.
81-787
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 19, 1981, 9:30 A.M.
The Chief stated that was simply one of the options being brought before the
Council. From the financial standpoint, the Assistant City Manager and Mr.
Ferrone had reviewed the matter again and might be able to better address
that. They could use the existing trailers.
Mr. Talley confirmed that the recommendation was to maintain the existing
trailers.
Assistant City Manager William Hopkins stated that was correct. The existing
facilities could be retained. Ihe issue they were facing was relative to the
time constraint and the person who owned the trailers had given them some
extra time pending the decision of the Council on the matter, and they were
just waiting to see what direction to take.
Mayor Seymour, speaking to the Chief, stated that in the past year he had done
an outstanding job. He had received a commitment from the Council a year ago
that they wanted him to get a handle on neighborhood crime. It was uphill
with the recruitment problem for a while, but now being one over strength and
five over strength in June, that problem had been solved. He was sure the
Council would ~gree that they had already begun to feel the impact of the new
program although the citizens at large had not at this point, but soon would.
He commended the Chief and his department for doing an outstanding job in
beefing up the Police Department during the past year. For his own part, he
was going to give very serious consideration to the request for the Canine
Program and it would be amongst his top priorities--it was needed if they were
going to continue with the commitment they had begun; it was in order that he
should be provided with that additional facility.
In concluding the Police Department presentation, Mr. Talley stated that on
June 9, they would present for Council consideration the facility expansion as
a project for determination and also the Canine Corps. He asked, however, if
he could assume that they could include in the budget the additional $28,000
that was recently transmit~ted to them by Tallmantz Aviation for helicopter
maintenance; there was notobjection from the Council to doing so.
Mr. Talley stated also in concurrence with what the Chief said about data pro-
cessing although perhaps not definitively reducing employees, the overall City
staff was working smarter than they were in the past. He reported that in the
five years from 1970-71 through 1975-76 the administrative budget increased
266 positions or over 18% of the 1,448 positions in 1970-71, and except for
the Police enhancement, the administrative departments in the last five years
increased 60 positions, or a 3.5% total. He felt that showed City-wide a com-
mitment to attempt to work smarter and not necessarily adding people, a great
deal having been caused by the facilities and the improvements Council had put
in the City.
STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF (FAMILY FORESOME): Mr. Talley referred to the
subject budget totalling $18.8 million, including the Convention Center on
Page C-84 at ~7.3 million, the Golf Courses on Page C-195 at $2 million, and
the Stadium on Page C-199--$9.5 million. There were a number of capital
improvement projects totalling ~1.8 million on Pages D-48 through 54, Position
81-788
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1981, 9:30 A.M.
Control E-39, 40 and 41. The department anticipated fee increases for golf
greens fees and cart rental fees, and the two major areas of discussion
relative to resources were the Betterment II debt service and the Golf Course
operation lease proposal. The budget anticipted continuity of City staff at
the Golf Courses and a very minor subsidy by the General Fund of approximately
$5,000; however, Council also had requested the Golf Course Commission to
bring in a definitive plan which was not part of the Resource Allocation Plan
in any way. He deferred to Mr. Liegler.
Mr. Tom Liegler, Convention Center-Stadium-Golf General Manager, stated for
Fiscal Year 1981-82 their staff, Commissions and administrators had presented
a great budget for a great City. The Family Foresome departmental resource
allocation plan called for a ~20,420,000 budgetary investment in four major
public assembly facilities and a net return of those same four facilities of
close to $25,700,000, or a bottom line profit of $5,279,000 net to the Anaheim
General Fund, their all-time expected record high. The capital outlay portion
of the budget and the major programs within had been provided previously,
totalling less than 2% of the City's capital outlay total of $126 million,
their investment in the future.
The key elements of the Family Foresome budget were as follows: (1) the
enhancement of tenant and service contracts at all four facilities; (2) an up-
date adjustment of fees at the golf courses and the Convention Center which
were previously approved; (3) a change in contractual services to private con-
tractors who apparently could perform services less expensively than similar
City elements in some cases; (4) a request for about the same number of
personnel--two additional full-time people were being requested; (5) a minimum
capital outlay of less than 2% of the City's request; (6) emphasis on produc-
tivity under the City Manager's guidelines for both full-time and part-time
employees; (7) continuing to work closely witht the three boards and commis-
sions; and (8) to provide a bottom line of $5,279,000 budget to the Anaheim
C~neral Fund under the Fiscal Year 1981-82 Resource Allocation Plan.
There was a need during t~e forthcoming fiscal year to review the goals and
objectives of the Stadium, Convention Center and Golf Courses set by previous
City Councils, but perhaps worthy of some minor adjustments.
The significant major departmental related programs for next year included at
the Stadium, (1) the beginning of the Anaheim Center Development on their
parking lot, (2) the construction of an Amtrak station that would enhance the
entire community and, (3) equipment and grounds rehabilitation.
At the Convention Center, (1) construction of the Betterment II Program with
an additional 150,000 square feet of ongoing leaseable space; (2) the con-
struction of a major hotel on-site by contract with the City; (3) rehabilita-
tion of facility, equipment and furnishings now some 15 years of age; at the
golf courses, they considered this to be a lean year with an expected close to
break-even year on the combined courses. That projection was based upon an
upward movement in play, food and beverage, cart fees, productivity and an
enhancement of the Anaheim Way Program--satisfied patrons.
81-789
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1981, 9:30 A.M.
Mr. Liegler then answered questions posed by the Council relative to the
importance of continuing competitiveness of greens fees and cart rental fees;
the consultant's report relative to the redesign of the Anaheim Hills Course
to make it more playable and to permit the sale of surplus property; plans for
some promotion to increase food sales at the Hills Course; vandalism, graffiti
and theft at the Hills Course and possibly mitigating measures.
Councilman Bay also questioned the slip-and-fall liability costs at the
Stadium and if Mr. Liegler planned to do anything about the smoothness of the
floor surfaces which facilitated ease of cleaning; Mr. Liegler answered that
they had ongoing discussion with the Risk Management Department, but the
answer had not been fully provided as yet. Tests, as well, had been ongoing.
Councilman Roth suggested that Mr. Liegler have staff monitor the temporary
food and beverage operations set up at the Stadium by Szabo Foods during foot-
ball games relative to liquid spillage.
Mayor Seymour stated that Mr. Liegler, his staff and the boards and commis-
sions had done an outstanding job, one that was unparalleled throughout the
country relative to enterprise operations. He would be interested in sitting
down and lookiJg at the goals and objectives to see if there might be minor
modifications. Further, he did not believe he was going to have any dif-
ficulty at all in resolving the question of whether or not the City was going
to continue to manage the golf courses and supervise the concessions.
Mr. Talley asked if the Council wished to schedule any hearing or anything
where they could do some definitive planning regarding the proposals they
received on the course maintenance, the Golf Commission's recommendations and
most importantly their plan for the Hills Course. He could not agree more
with the comments made relative to the Family Foresome operation, but they
still had to look at that as a conglomerate that was extremely productive and
profitable to the City. However, they had the one operating division, the
Hills Course, that every y~ar for the last three years was a $200,000 loser
and if there was anything'the Commission had to bring to the Council's atten-
tion that might in some way mitigate this continuing deficit now being subsi-
dized by the Dad Miller Course, it would be helpful in their planning process.
He asked the Council if there was any direction they would like to give staff
on the matter.
Councilman Bay stated that he would like to' know when they were coming with
that plan.~ He recalled that they tabled discussion of the matter for 60 days
(see minutes April 7, 1981), but if there was something ready from the Commis-
sion for the Council, he would like to know when the Commission was coming
back and if they could do so earlier than 60 days.
Mr. Bob Messe, Chairman of the Golf Course Advisory Commission, stated that
the 60-day time period would be over in the middle of June. He did not see
them coming in much before that. %hey were just now going to be hearing from
the Golf Course architect on some final things he had to say. He would still
look to the middle of June.
81-790
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1981, 9:30 A.M.
Mayor Seymour noted that June 30th would be the earliest they would have a
full Council during that month (after June 9); Councilwoman Kaywood asked if
it was possible to have anything more for them on June 9, since a full Council
would be present.
Mr. Messe stated that they had a Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday,
May 21, 1981, and if things looked like they were firming up for June 9, he
would get back to the Mayor with that information.
Mayor Seymour then asked that Mr. Messe attend the June 9 meeting prepared
with whatever information was available at that time, so that the Council on
that date could finally resolve the matter; Mr. Messe stated they would have
something, but whether it would be the complete and final definitive plan, he
did not know.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE: Mr. Talley noted that last week the Council asked that
they bring back both Facility and Mechanical Maintenance with regard to the
questions raised. He first presented the Facility Maintenance budget total-
ling $5,871,884, Page C-141. Mr. Roche would provide certain information
followed by the Mechanical Maintenance budget.
Mr. John Roche, Facility Maintenance Superintendent, then proceeded with a
presentation on the overview of the facility rental system provided in
Exhibits A through G (on file in the City Clerk's office) which exhibits were
also visually projected. He then briefed each exhibit--Exhibit A, Facility
Rental F~nd, what it covers; Exhibit B--How Retes Are Set. In the course of
briefing Exhibit B, Mr. Roche pointed out that the key item was, "Regardless
of utility, materials or inflation increases, the system did not allow for
adjustments during the fiscal year." It meant if inflation increased, his
budget absorbed all the costs and in order to make that up, he had to increase
his rental rate the next year.
The Mayor asked why he ha~ to do so; Mr. Roche answered that was the way it
was set up. The b~yor wa~ted to know why it was set up that way.
City Manager Talley answered with an example that if a building were being
rented where square footage costs were stipulated, including janitorial and
utility costs, if those costs increased, two things would occur: (1) Mr.
Roche would have the ability to throw every budget in the City into the red by
passing the cost along in mid-year which would cause massive adjustments, and
(2) there would not be as much of an incentive for him to keep his costs down.
Instead, they asked that rates be established and subsequently if they did not
live within that budget, all of their deficit would go into his budget, and an
analysis would be requested to review just that aspect, rather than impacting
all the departments. It was a management judgment and Council could, if they
wished, have the costs passed along.
The Mayor then explained why he felt those costs should be passed along. A~
far as putting a particular department in the red, they were going to be in
the red either today or tomorrow because somebody had to pay. If they put b~.
Roche's department in the red, then the other departments were being let off
81-791
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1981, 9:30 A.M.
the hook momentarily, but then there would be catch-up time. On the other
hand, the only incentive that he understood was provided to keep a check and
balance on what Mr. Roche was charging, the department head had the incentive
to go out to the private sector to ascertain if that service could be provided
less expensively.
Mr. Talley stated if the Council wanted to change those parameters, there was
no problem. However, the majority of the costs as listed, were insurance,
utility rates or depreciation rates based strictly on their cost of acquiring
supplies. From a policy standpoint, if Council would like to have the actual
costs billed as they occurred, the system could accommodate that.
Councilman Bay stated he would personally be more interested in seeing a
column totalling what holding accounts applied against each Control Center
throughout the City. He had no disagreement with the theory in setting up
total charges coming back into an operation center. Where he was concerned,
it was almost impossible for a layman to know that without totalling up each
one of the separate accounts to get the overall picture as to just how much
money and how much of an increase across certain holding accounts was occur-
ring City-wide. H~ took for example the telephone costs. If it was going up
30 to 35% with 'the company that the City signed a contract with, something
ought to tell him what that increase added up to City-wide and why it went
that high.
Mr. Roche explained that they prorated the Northern Telecom charges for each
program budget separately.
Mr. Talley further explained that they were all collected in Mr. Roche's
accounts so that it was possible to see the entire City, Department 12,
Program 255, Account No. 6420.
Further discussion followed between Councilman Bay, City Manager Talley and
Mr. Roche relative to telephone charges and the accounts in which they could
¢
be found. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Bay stated that the
explanation helped him a great deal because he did not know where the totals
were and all he saw were massive increases throughout the whole budget on
every Control ~nter he went to, on telephones.
Mr. Roche explained that the first allocation of Northern Telecom rates last
year were based upon the consultant's recommendation on the number of phone
lines, an~ they prorated costs on phone lines. Once installation was started
and Northern Telecom talked to the departments, the departments requested more
lines and thus the allocation this year was based upon what the departments
actually had. In some cases, they had gone up 50% as Councilman Bay noted.
The Police Department was a good example because they had requested more phone
lines than originally planned.
Councilman Bay stated he was concerned about the increases occurring in this
year's budget, thinking back when they were trying to make a decision as to
whether they would stay with Pacific Telephone & Telegraph or whether to go to
~rthern Telecom. Now that he saw those increases, he was beginning to wonder
about that decision.
81-792
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1981, 9:30 A.M.
Mr. Talley answered those figures, except for Pacific Telephone & Telegraph,
were all in the original analysis, except for the trunk charges which were
extracted from the analysis. The other figures were all in that projection.
Upon confirmation of that fact, Councilman Bay stated that relieved his mind
somewhat, because he was not sure that they were getting new maintenance and
service costs that were over and above what they projected when they made the
decision.
Mr. Roche stated they were negotiating those contracts now. They were looking
into some alternatives on the monthly telephone reporting system where they
could save more money as well.
Mr. Roche then briefed the remainder of the exhibits as follows and answered
questions posed by Council Members on specific items: Exhibit C--Comparison
of Budgets by Year (in this exhibit City Manager Talley noted that Civic
Center should be corrected to Convention ~nter); Exhibit D--Comparison of
Full-time City Personnel to Square Feet Maintained; Exhibit E--Why Rates are
Up; Exhibit F--Comparison of Utility Rates By Year; Exhibit G--What Can Be
Done To Reduce Cost (all exhibits on file in the City Clerk's office in Fiscal
Year 1981-82 B~dget Documentation).
Mr. Roche pointed out relative to Exhibit G, they were going to contract out
12 facilities on a trial basis. It appeared that savings could be realized in
the amount of $55,000. If that worked out, they would come back and recommend
contracting out all other facilities. Their costs were comparable to the out-
side in most cases. He also explained for Councilman Bay that there were more
buildings now than three years ago. At that time they did not have the
Stadium expansion, the C~orge Washington School, the Canyon Branch Library and
the Brookhurst Community ~nter, plus small park facilities and the Fire
Training Facility. %hey were maintaining approximately 120 facilities at
present.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern over security if they contracted
out custodial services; Mr. Roche stated that was always a problem. Outside
services were bonded, but they did use more transient type people; however,
the cost justified the ~ty at least trying contract maintenance.
Councilman Bay asked when they were building funds for future replacements of
short- or long-term capital equipment, could they be broken out anywhere.
Mr. Talley referred to Pages B-28 and 29 showing fund balances for every fund
in the City and the proposed opening and closing balance for the year. The
information Councilman Bay questioned could be provided; however, they knew
those amounts and they were in those accounts, but they were not segregated
out. Each year during the budget process, they reviewed those accounts to see
whether or not they had enough set aside, but they did not give it a detailed
reporting. Capital replacement funds were by and large self-liquidating.
81-793
City Hmll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1981, 9:30 A.M.
Councilman Bay stated he would also like to see a breakdown of payroll burden
whether today or the next time they met on the budget. He wanted to see an
explanation of the payroll burden that fell on top of all the labor charges,
unless it was in the budget, and he could find it.
City Manager Talley stated it was not and.he would direct Program Development
staff to give Councilman Bay several typical examples--a field personnel such
as a Park Maintenance or Utility worker, an office clerical person, and safety
series personnel in both police and fire. He asked if four examples would be
sufficient.
Councilman Bay stated four would be enough as long as they were across various
salary ranges; Mr. Talley stated they would put that information in the
Council boxes.
Councilman Roth commented that relative to conservation, he had received
several complaints every Tuesday about the Council Chambers being too cold out
in the audience portion. He was certain that there was some kind of monitor-
ing system throughout the Civic Canter to insure that energy was not being
wasted by cooling it beyond the point where people were made uncomfortable.
Mr. Roche answered that they were still going through trial and error with the
new equipment. He was told today that they were having problems with the
system in the Chambers and that they were continuing to work with Del Webb in
trying to correct the situation.
Councilman Overholt asked relative to Exhibit E, was it his (Roche's) opinion
that the problem this year was a one-time problem related to start-up of the
Civic Center and the increased use of the Stadium facility and not symptomatic
of an ongoing problem in the rate settings.
Mr. Roche answered that the rate settings could be somewhat complicated
because they were set by f~cility and facilities could change year to year.
Park vandalism, for example, as previously discussed was a continuing escala-
ting cost. He felt what they had now was some poor estimation on his part
relative to revenue and being too conservative on rates within the rest of the
City. He felt it was a one-time problem.
Councilman Overholt stated to some extent he relied on information given to
him and thus that would mean that there had to be a finer tuning on the part
of the sources of that information; Mr. Roche agreed and explained that a lot
of that information came from his own crews. He had instituted some new
changes to help correct that.
City Manager Talley then explained why there was a problem. In concluding, he
stated there were bad estimates but based purely on the fact that Mr. Roche
had never worked a year for the Family Foresome where he could go back histor-
ically as he could now. The revenues and hours should have been, in his opin-
ion, calculated more closely but they were not, and they were making it up
this year.
81-794
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1981, 9:30 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would be opposed to changing the reporting
system because in the past they had complaints that they could not compare and
everytime there was a change, it was the same problem.
Mayor Seymour referred to the fact that he brought up earlier the idea of
billing as it occurred, rather than running it through the year. He believed
that was the only way they could keep the incentives proper. Otherwise, they
would on an annual basis during the budget process receive the bad or good of
that. ~ wanted to hear from other Council Members, Councilwoman Kaywood
having expressed her feeling. He felt the incentive must be and that the
responsibility lay with the department head.
Councilman Overholt stated he was interested in what the price would be.
City Manager Talley stated he did not think it would cost anything. %here was
no way they could predict in November through April what the costs were going
to be the following July through June. Every account in the City, therefore,
was going to be a little or a lot under or over. For every account that was a
little in the red, the department was going to tighten up a little bit, and
where there was going to be a lot in the red, that department was going to
have to come td the Council. Conversely there would be others that would be a
little or a lot "fat" who would have an incentive to go the other way. The
goal of the Council had been to go to pro- ductivity and work measurements and
to move away from line items. ~hey did not now control by line item, but by
operating accounts.
Mr. Roche stated he would prefer a zero outage because he was spending the
money for other people and not for himself.
Mayor Seymour stated that other than on an annual basis, he was at Mr. Roche's
mercy.
Mr. Roche explained, however, every program had the decision to sit down with
him prior to creation of ~he rates and come up with standards, and many did so.
Mr. Talley pointed out that Mr. Roche generated a report monthly that was sub-
mitted to the Council and they could ask questions at that time.
Mayor Seymour stated what they were seeing develop and what had been articu-
lated indirectly by a number of department heads, was an inability to control
their desciny because of the figure being laid on them.
Mr. Talley stated that was a policy decision that they could implement begin-
ning July 1 if that was what the Council wished.
Councilman Bay stated if budgets were becoming the permission to spend regard-
less of anything else, he felt it important that incentives did not get split
into above the line and below the line as in the private sector. The below
ghe line budget in the private sector was truly uncontrollable by the depart-
ment manager because it was set centrally. He needed the City Manager's opin-
ion on whether that was starting to occur with his management.
81-795
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1981, 9:30 A.M.
Mr. Talley stated his interest was in having them manage their primary
resource--their personnel representing well over 80% of their budget. He was
willing to keep their attention away from some of the items and go to produc-
tivity measures which largely were accomplished through work hour usage.
Since they had a new director in Public Works and one of his primary purposes
was to consolidate the maintenance and also look at the situation as a serious
problem, it might be that they would want to continue for this year or to mid-
year and then get recommendations from Jim Ruth. They did not have to use the
same system all year long. He could see both sides but preferred personally
to have someone like an energy manager looking City-wide at energy uses,
rather than trying to have a department head worry about who turned lights on
and off and the like.
Councilman Bay stated one thing that might help, anytime there was a variance
over a certain percentage, that they automatically receive an explanation of
it that month, instead of merely receiving and filing the report.
Mr. Talley stated he received an elaborate variance report. He suggested that
starting with the next fiscal year, he would ask the Finance Director, George
Ferrone, to present to them a variance report that would give them more infor-
mation on those areas. He would prefer to take them on a City-wide basis,
i.e., variance to the City-wide budget, and if they wanted to get into actual
programs, they could do so. However, if they went into actual programs, the
variances, with rare exceptions, would not occur because they would be too
minute. He asked if the Council wanted a more detailed variance report.
Councilman Bay answered that he would like to receive it on a monthly basis,
but not necessarily what the Manager received; Mr. Talley stated they would
work one up beginning July 1 and present it to the Council about mid-August.
Councilman Bay stated if a manager at those levels was going to be encouraged
to look at the cost of services on a monthly basis and then check with the
private sector, he did nog feel it would be practical time-wise. Perhaps it
could be done on a quarterly basis. The time element and the cost to do that
had to be weighed against whether that option would create that much of an
economic savings.
The Mayor stated what he felt the~ should be doing was devising a system
placing the onus on the department head. Unless the department head was going
to question the situation, there would be no check and balance. He reiterated
the onus h~d to be placed on the department head. Quarterly was fine just so
long as it was something other than one shot a year.
Mr. Roche stated it would be difficult to do that in the Civic Center since
one standard had to be agreed to and so many department heads were located in
the Civic Canter; the Mayor stated that perhaps in the Civic Center they
needed to take a look at that through Mr. Ruth's new responsibility.
Mr. Talley stated the only thing they did not want to do was change rates
during the year, because everytime they did so, it would require a reprogram,
ming for the year. He suggested that they ask Mr. Ruth to sumbit in
mid-November the first quarter results and discuss with Council how they could
accomplish that.
81-796
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 19, 1981, 9:30 A.M.
Councilman Bay stated that in Other Operating Costs there were a number of
accounts that were not self-explanatory to him by the words in the tab, such
as Special A~tivitie~ Materials; Mr. Talley stated they would provide Council-
man Bay with a chart of accounts.
It was agreed that the remainder of the departments scheduled for today's
budget session be deliberated after the regular Council meeting.
RECESS - CLOSES SESSION: Mayor Seymour requested a Closed Session to discuss
potential litigation.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:35 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:47 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kmywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:47 P.M.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK