Loading...
1980/06/26 80-824 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned 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 POLICE CHIEF: George Tielsch PUBLIC WORKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Thonrton Piersall CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest CONVENTION CENTER GENERAL MANAGER: Tom Liegler 174/106: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - FEDERAL GENERAL REVENUE SHARING AND CITY BUDGET: To consider the proposed Federal General Revenue Sharing budget for the Fiscal Year 1980-81 and the proposed 1980-81 Resource Allocation Plan (budget)--continued from the meetings of June 10, June 13 and June 24, 1980. Mayor Seymour stated that it would be appropriate first for the City Manager to recapitulate his report of June 20, 1980 which was a detailed response to City Council comments regarding the FY 1980-81 Resource Allocation Plan (with attachments) made during the budget hearings which took place previously (on file in the City Clerk's office). City Manager William Talley first spoke to the Utilities Department budget due to the fact that the Public Utilities Board (PUB) had a scheduled public hearing at 3:30 p.m. this date. The only item he was aware of that needed to be changed in the Utilities request, other than what the Council would choose to change, was that the General Manager previously advised the Council that the San Onofre Gen- erating Project Bond Issue should be adjusted in the RAP from $60 million to $73 million which still represented 1.66% ownership. Units II and III of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station would be producing 36.6 megawatts. An approximate $4.5 million annual savings for the first ten years was anticipated which infor- mation was provided in a June 24, 1980 memorandum. Relative to his June 20, 1980 report, because it was turned out so hurriedly, there were several minor corrections as follows: Page 2--Paragraph 4: Change the $1,150,000 figure to $1,741,437. The reason for the change was that it should include the $191,437 of CETA funds they were going to ask that the budget be enhanced for Youth activities that Council previously approved. Page 5--Paragraph 2: Change $1,700,583 (second to last line) to $1,700,857. Page 10--Second to last Paragraph: Change $352,373 to $352,363. Page 16--Paragraph 3: full-time positions. full-time positions. Change line two from five full-time positions to four Change line three from three full-time positions to two 80-825 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Talley then explained that ten separate subjects were brought to staff's attention during the previous budget hearings and he had reacted to those ten. Unless there were questions on the ten as listed on Page 1 of his June 20 report, he was going to skip all but the Police Department. In the Police programs, he wanted the Council to aware that at the time the Police Chief had his hearing, Council requested that he react to the general problem of neighborhood crime and response times for units. At that time, he stated he felt it would take approximately five beats added to the City to have an impact on crime. When he gave that figure, he merely took five times five officers per beat, totalling 25 officers, and a $900,000 figure was reached. Subsequently, the Police Chief provided his report dated June 16, 1980 which reported that a total of approximately $1.9 million was needed on an annual basis for 45 per- sonnel, including two in the Human Resources Department, the necessary staff and necessary supervision to support placing five beats in the field, including additional record clerks, additional detectives, investigative administrative personnel and an additional canine detail. Looking at that figure, staff, under his direction, analyzed the Police Department's current resources and inasmuch as he did not see how the City could sustain certain programs with a $2 million a year increase in Police services, he attempted to create a program which basically placed as many of the 25 officers in the field as possible with the necessary support. Also attached to his report were exhibits as to how he arrived at the estimations, the net effect being the recommendation to hire approximately 20 additional personnel and substituting or not including the equivalent of approximately 25 additional people (see attachment "H" consisting of three pages). Starting with 25 people, he recommended that the new eastern sector beat already included in the budget and the School Resource Officers substitute for two of those beats, that approximately three additional personnel not be included on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, and that the continual recruitment program be given some credit for increasing the amount of available manpower or there would not be any reason, in his opinion, to put four full-time people into that activity. By doing that, it would reduce the 25 new employees the Chief originally discussed, to six. In addition, he recommended a reduction of one sergeant in patrol, the canine patrol, one detective, the jailer position, and one records clerk, deleting those from the request resulting in 19 new personnel rather than 45 new personnel. This would cost approximately 50% of the Chief's original analysis of his program. The recommendation was more of a reaction to the Chief's memorandum than a specific administrative recommendation on how to handle the problem. Relative to the Street Program (see Page 6--June 20, 1980 report), the cost for moving the surface level of the Street Program up from 9 million square feet to 12.8 million square feet was indicated as explained in the first paragraph on that page. Starting on Page 10 of the report, where the staff recommended program adjust- ments listing seven budgetary additions which they had intended to bring to the Council's attention which occurred since April 15, 1980 when the budget basically was finalized. The only two major accounts were--B.--Police Administration-- 80-826 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. $125,000 to be added to the Police Department on the recommendation of the Risk Manager to adequately cover civil liability reserves and, G.--CETA Youth Services Program--S191,437 previously mentioned entirely supported out of a Federal grant. Recommendations fop the funding, beginning on Page 12, suggested the revised Police program alternative, if Council wished to put the equivalent of five new beats in the field, that General Revenue Sharing be used for the Citron to I-5, Lincoln Avenue project, $225,000, and that $175,000 be allocated to signalization modifications in the region adjacent to Anaheim Stadium. In addition, he believed they had addressed the other major issues and concluded that if they were limited to reallocating the $1,550,000 and not disturbing any programs based upon the recommendations of Council at their last meeting, that was how they could do it. If the Council did not want to make any budgetary reductions in the Police program, they would need to raise approximately another $535,000, and as set forth, affect approximately $745,000 worth of reductions in 12 steps as out- lined. Other alternative strategies, if the Council wished, revolved around allocating a specific sum to the Police Department and providing the Chief with instructions on the types of programs in which the Council had an interest. While they might go forward with recruiting at this time on an accelerated basis, they would not necessarily commit to a specific program. His other major changes in the report would realistically address the availability of funding for Stadium improvements and signalization around the Stadium. Each Department Head received a copy of the report and could speak to their specific part of it. He had also provided the Mayor with actions that would be necessary if the Council wished to conclude the budget today and the necessary resolutions were prepared for approval if the Council adopted the budget. Mayor Seymour then opened the meeting to Council questioning relative to the understanding of the City Manager's report at this time. Councilman Bay wanted to be sure of the exact makeup of the $1,741,437; Mr. Talley then explained in detail the makeup of that figure which in the final analysis was as follows: $1,150,000 "bailout" funds; $400,000, Federal General Revenue Sharing, and $191,437 incoming and outgoing CETA slated funds (see Page 2). Thus, when talking about enhancing programs from that basis, they would be s~artin§ with $1,550,000 to work with from the report. Mayor Seymour asked relative to the $1,550,000 where Mr. Talley talked about keeping positiong open, thug gaving labor dollars, i£ that wag in the 1980-81 budget or a carry-over from 1979-80. Mr. Talley explained it was the 1980-81 budget and it was not keeping positions open but a "corporate way of life." When an employee left the City's employ at the "E" step, it took perhaps three or four months before a new person was hired and that new p~rson must come in at the "A" or "B" step. Thus, they would have budgeted someone at the "E" step for the year and perhaps they left in October 80-827 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. and then a new person was hired at the "B" step in January. They monitored such occurrences which amounted to approximately $1.3 million per year in personnel savings and in various budgetary accounts of the City. Mayor Seymour asked why that was not included in the basic budget document. Mr. Talley answered because in the basic budget document, there was approximately $1.1 million contemplated to be received from "bailout" funds that would not have been received if Proposition 9 had passed because the deflator would have been triggered. The amount was just verbally mentioned by him to the Council indi- vidually on June 4. The Mayor then asked why he did not give that information to the Council upfront and why he waited until after the election. Mr. Talley stated that they were looking a~ a budget that might have as much as $5 million worth of revenues deducted by the State with regard to motor vehicle fees, cigarette fees and "bailout" funds. In assembling the budget, he did not take the maximum savings that he could at that time. Mayor Seymour stated that prior to June 4 then, Mr. Talley knew there was pos- sibly $1,150,000 coming in, but the Council did not; Mr. Talley answered, that would be a correct statement. Mayor Seymour then questioned Attachment "H", the alternate Police Program, comparing the original 45 officers to the 19. He wanted to know if the City Manager was saying they were hiring an additional 20 persons not previously authorized; Mr. Talley stated that the number was 19 unbudgeted, unprogrammed positions. The Chief stated he would need 45 more people than in the budget document. He (Talley) maintained that moving people around that were presently included in the document, a certain workload could be accomplished and that with the hiring of another 19 not in the budget, it would be possible to get almost as much as the 45 new people. To accomplish what the Chief wanted, he (.Talley) would hire 19 new people and the Chief would hire five, the difference being that he would reassign positions and the Chief did not. He then explained in detail Page 1 of Attachment "H" (Comparison of Full-time Staffing of Police Program Enhancement Alternatives), as well as Page 2 (Comparison of Police Officer-- Patrol Requirements to Achieve Five Additional Patrol Areas) in answer to questions posed by the Mayor. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if they would need one more prosecuting attorney with all the work that would be generated. Mr. Talley answered that the area of concentration would not be misdemeanors so much as felony; City Attorney William Hopkins stated that was correct and he felt they could handle the present load and future load with the four attorneys they had in that area at the present time. Councilman Bay stated that before talking about the Police Program proposal, he wanted to work first from the standpoint of knowing what they had to work with in the budget and whether he thought funds were available, starting with the base of $1,550,000 enhancement money in order to determine Council priorities and adding those to the budget. 80-828 CitH Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay then questioned certain areas of the budget where there might be money available that they could add to the enhancement funds such as the overrun on the Civic Center, the amount budgeted for the AEDC, parking citations in the street sweeping program, etc. Extensive discussion followed wherein City Manager Talley clarified and/or explained the status of the monies involved in the areas of question. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Bay stated that in addition to the $1,550,000 enhancement, there would also be approximately $650,000 from the Civic Center overrun, totalling $2,200,000. (Mr. Talley indicated if the Civic Center overrun was expected to be $700,000, and they would be safe using a $600,000 figure, Councilman Bay was, therefore, using the midway figure). Before they started trying to break up some of the priorities, they ought to agree on the figure they were working with. Mayor Seymour asked what the City Manager would recommend. Mr. Talley stated, if there was some other money in the amounts shown in the budget document on Page B-27, and with approximately $300,~000 in General Revenue Sharing over and $200,000 in the Capital Improvement Reserve it was his opinion that they had $1,550,000 available for at least the next several years that could be placed into programs and utilized accordingly, and around $1.3 to $1.4 million of one-time funds that could be used for anything one time, including new projects, i.e., resurfacing of Lincoln Avenue, Citron to I-5, overruns on existing projects, or other shortfalls, for instance, if the new library budgeted for $1.5 million came in at a higher figure. He felt, therefore, that they could use a figure of $2.8 million composed of $1,550,000 in program funds and perhaps $1.3 million in one time funds. Councilman Bay then asked where in the budget, if the City was going to dispose of the old City Hall or the annex to Redevelopment or some other way, were the funds estimated for that. Mr. Talley answered that there were no estimates for two reasons--they did not know for sure if that building would come down and become a sale this year, and secondly, because of the funds the Redevelopment Agency had committed to the general area, they might want to occupy that area in fee and trade the land. It may be appropriate to transfer one parcel for the other. Mr. Priest would bring that to ~he Council's attention but absent any policies in those areas at the present time, there were no funds contemplated. It was a policy decision the Council was going to have to make. Executive Director of Public Works Thornton Piersall and City Engineer William Devitt then confirmed the following for Councilman Bay: the street repair budget did not include any street improvements on Kraemer; there were no streets involved in the northeast Redevelopment Project Area that were part of the total street budget, either major street repair or resurfacing, although there was an extensive amount of money in traffic signalization coming from FAU funds and the State, but not from the General Fund. Mayor Seymour then asked to hear from Police Chief Tielsch relative to the neighborhood crime issue. 80-829 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Police Chief George Tielsch stated that he sensed the frustration of the Council in two areas. The first was when the Council indicated they were going to give additional resources to the Police Department, which they did last year, why those officers were not on the street today. The other was relative to the question that if they were given "X" number of resources, what would that relate to in reduction in crime. Neither he nor any other police administrator that he knew, could be responsible to that question. When the Council asked him the last time, he gave his best estimate and then went back and discussed the situation with his staff and subsequently developed the report submitted to the Council by the City Manager. During his recent absence from the City, the City Manager and members of his staff, as well as staff members of the Police Department, met to discuss a possible alternative. The feeling was that other City services would be decimated at the expense of the Police Department, and were there other alternatives. When he was out of town recently he discussed the matter over the phone with staff. He was also aware of the report that the City Manager submitted. If they had the opportunity to engage the alternate plan and with the additional resources that would be devoted to the Police Department and the Human Resources Department to bring his Department up to strength, he felt that could have some good effect on the problems that they faced today. At present, they were eight officers short in the Department and several more, eight to ten, were in a training mode. The alternate program would be an excellent start to see if they could get a handle on crime and by the time of reporting to the Council on the next budget year, they hopefully would have good news. His call for services was down 4% in 1980 and the crime rate (Part I crimes) was down 1% with existing personnel. That would be reflected as a 3%, major crimes per 100,000 population, decrease. Should they ever be up to strength, he felt they could report even better results as far as a reduction in crime. Mayor Seymour asked his best estimate relative to call for services and the crime rate for 1980-81 if they did nothing more than what was included in the budget document. Chief Tielsch answered if they did nothing, there would be a call for services increase, and the crime rate would increase. The Mayor then asked if they took the original proposal (see minutes June 10 and June 13 discussing the possibility of adding five additional beats) what impact that would have; Chief Tielsch answered he felt they could go back and take the 1975 crime rate figures and reduce those beyond that rate and hold that reduc- tion for the next three years maximum. The Mayor also asked if they took the alternate proposal recommended by the City Manager and compared it with the original proposal, would there be any difference between the two; Chief Tielsch stated he did not know the answer. He would hope that if they were up to strength and had the additional resources, they could approach that. He did not want to stake his professional reputation on that, since there was no formula that could give him an accurate answer. He did not want to tell the Council something this year and be embarassed next year to say they were unable to accomplish it. 80-830 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay then posed a line of questioning relative to ratios of police officers to population, some of which was covered at the budget work session of June 10, 1980. He stated that his concern revolved around that fact that Anaheim had a 1.4 ratio of sworn officers per 1,000 population for Group I cities (250,000 or more since Anaheim's yearly tourists were being considered) in the Pacific geographic region, whereas the average was 2.1 (see Chief Tielsch's memorandum of June 16, 1980, page 1). On that basis, he could come to no other conclusion but that they needed more police officers on the streets in Anaheim. What they had to determine was to what extent and what was the best they could get for the "buck". Before getting further into the matter, he suggested that the Council could decide to set a dollar figure with some stipulations. For example, they could give the police budget $1 million or $1.5 million this year, and the Chief, in turn, could give some idea from those dollars how many beats could be added. The other question in this mind looking at the burglary statistics in the report, 79% or 80% of those took place on the first and second shifts, rather than the third shift. He questioned if it would be possible to have five new beats on a two-shift basis. He did not know what the difference in the dollar figure would be, and he also wanted to know if one sergeant could handle two of those beats so that they would not have to have a new sergeant for every beat. He confirmed that he was not talking about diverting the School Resource Officers or counting the Canyon beat. Chief Tielsch explained that the sergeants were not to handle each beat, but the sum total of the beats around the clock. One additional field sergeant around the clock would be five people with days off relief formula, and the ratio of sergeants to beats at present was one to five. At this point, Mayor Seymour reiterated his concern as he did in a previous discussion with Chief Tielsch at the meeting of June 10, 1980, the fact that last August the Council had appropriated funds for an additional ten officers. Time and again for almost a year, they had expressed their concern relative to staffing in the Police Department in order to make.a better impact on crime, but yet the Department was running under strength in sworn officers and running 80% under strength in reserve officers. The Mayor continued that relative to reserve officers and the report they received from Captain Gray dated June t9, 1980 on the subject, what he computed from that report was that the City of Buena Park had filled 90% of its authorized positions, Garden Grove, 40%; Humtington Beach, 40%; Santa Ana, 50%; and Anaheim only 20%. He questioned how that could be if Anaheim had the number one force in Orange County. He wanted to. know what they were not doing that the other cities were doing, especially with regard to Garden Grove and Huntington Beach. He was aware that Santa Ana was accepting those under 21, but agreed with the fact that Anaheim did not want to do so. Chief Tielsch explained that those cities were paying for various things which Anaheim did not pay for. About the only thing Anaheim furnished were uniforms and equipment. The City did not even pay for court time if a reservist had to leave his job and appear in court. Consequently some of the officers were looking for other departments. 80-831 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked how the Chief felt about the situation; Chief Tielsch stated that he thought the City should be paying reservists for that time, and it was only just and right that they do so. Also, some of the other departments made it slightly easier for a lateral entry into their agencies. Although there were many reservists who did not have any desire to be police officers, there were many that did so, and they used that position as a step in the door and Anaheim had lost many of their reservists to other agencies. They also must go along with the Biddle Report and because of that report, they forced all of their people to go through all of the various steps of the testing procedure, whereas some other departments waived certain aspects of that report. The Mayor asked if he was saying, in order to better their "batting average" in meeting authorized strength for the reserve program, that they should "beef- up" benefits and be more favorable as far as transfer into the Department. Chief Tielsch answered if there was any possible way they could be more favor- able in allowing reservists to enter the program, they could attract additional people, and he also concurred that "beefing-up" the benefits would assist. He did not believe it would involve a great number of dollars, and it would be appre- ciated and would show the reservists they had confidence in the work that they did for the Department. Further discussion then followed between the Mayor and Chief Tielsch relative to the procedure used in contacting the Human Resources Department when hiring police officers and the subsequent procedures used by that Department. Mayor Seymour pointed out that the City Manager had suggested if they could not "get their heads together", and Councilman Bay also spoke to it, that one alternative might be to set aside a sum of money, $1 million or $1.5 million, and have the Chief put a plan together and come back to the Council with that plan. He asked the Chief how he felt about that as an approach, as compared to either opting for the original Council proposal or the recommended proposal by the City Manager. Chief Tielsch answered that from his personal standpoint, any of the proposals would enhance the ability of the Anaheim Police Department to deliver service to the citizens, and he would be pleased with any of them. The "blank check" was always nice if the Council and Mayor had that kind of confidence in him, where they could set aside an appropriate amount of money and allow him and his staff to sit down and give it more thought. He would like that for the reasons that he was rather uncomfortable with the time constraints placed on him after the last meeting, because that did not give a long enough period of time to develop a plan they felt would be appropriate. Also, with the dollar amount, it would give more flexibility because they would be coming up with programs they thought were appropriate and then everybody would understand the dollar amount. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Chief T±elsch if there were to be a cut in the Recreation and Park program or the Library, how that would affect the crime rate. Chief Tielsch explained that there was no magic formula to use. That same question was also asked of Mr. Ruth, Deputy City Manager, and he also stated there was no way of knowing. However, they did have a "gut" feeling that to cut out 80-832 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Parks & Recreation programs would add to the problems of crime because of the youth being at loose ends and not having some type of formalized programs in which to engage. Relative to the Library, there again when the quality of life was diminished in any form, he felt there had to be a cause and effect relation- ship, but he could not come up precisely with any formula. He also felt that the School Resource Officers program would make a dent relative to crime pre- vention, as later questioned by Councilwoman Kaywood, and that the new Park Ranger Program would also have a positive impact. Councilwoman Kaywood asked his reaction if he were to be given $500,000 for his Department instead of $1 million or $1.5 million. The Chief answered that they would do the best they could with the resources the Council felt appropriate. The way that would be spent would be the Council's decision, but the Police Department would do its best whether they received nothing and from nothing on up to whatever the Council felt was appropriate. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he felt there would be a change upward or downward in the crime rate if their undercover program was hurt in any way. Chief Tielsch emphasized that if their undercover program were hurt in any way they would be in desperate straits, and he did not believe they should diminish the program they presently had in the City. Councilman Overholt stated that he was interested in defining "neighborhood crime". In looking at the report of Part I crimes for the year ending January 10, 1980, over 78% of reported crimes were in two categories, burglary and theft. They ought to define what they were talking about--thefts and breaking and entering whether homes or businesses resulting in threat to life and loss of property. When talking about neighborhood crime, they were talking about burglaries and non-motor vehicle theft primarily in terms of allocation of resources. Chief Tielsch confirmed that was correct. They were basically talking about propertY crime, as opposed to crimes against the person. Councilman Overholt noted that as Councilwoman Kaywood expressed in her questioning, that in order to get a handle on crime, particularly on burglary, that there were many programs other than an officer patrolling in a patrol car that had a great impact on burglary, for instance, the School Resource Officers Program. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if the Neighborhood Watch Program would make a dent and if that program could be put into wider circulation, perhaps through the Board of Realtors. Chief Tielsch answered very definitely to the first questioning, emphasizing that citizens must help themselves in hardening the target. Relative to the latter, they had already talked to the Board of Realtors at the Mayor's suggestion and advised them of what the program entailed. The Police Department also in- dicated their willingness to cooperate with them should they wish the Department to expand the program in any other area. 80-833 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth then s~ated that the Chief was aware that the majority of the Council, Seymour, Bay and Roth, in vocalizing their priorities at the budget meeting of June 13, 1980, that number one was the priority relative to the need for an additional amount of police officers and their concern over crime. As elected representatives of the community, not only were they subject to telephone calls and other personal contacts with the community about the Police problems in the City, particularly with regard to burglary, but also repeated hotline calls with respect to response time, and thus the need for beefing-up the ranks. He again referred to the questionnaire he had sent during his campaign with nine out of ten responses indicating the need for an additional amount of police protection at homes and businesses. Evolving in the whole budget process was the fact that their constituents were saying that they wanted the Council to do something. He expressed his opinion the last time that he was not locked into any fixed number of beats, but that every dollar that could be squeezed out of the budget should be utilized toward the decrease of burglaries in the City. His number two priority was relative to street repairs necessary to enhance the downtown area. In concluding, Councilman Roth repeated that he was willing to do anything he could to squeeze every dollar out of the budget, within a reasonable amount, to enhance the Police Department in their effort to control the burglary problem. Further, the Council had not been over it before the budget hearings of the tremendous recruitment problem the Department faced, and such matters should have been brought to their attention. Chief Tielsch stated they would start sending monthly up-dates to the Council, and they would be more than happy to call on the Council for assistance. Councilman Overholt emphasized, to correct any possible misimpression that Council- man Roth might have created, security of the citizens and police were his top priority as well (see budget session minutes June 13, 1980). He did not want to be put into a minority on the Council, and Councilwoman Kaywood did not want to be put into that position either. To raise another point relative to burglary and theft, he maintained it was not only a question of putting more officers on those tasks, but also on the Communications Center as was presented earlier (see minutes of budget hearing June i0, 1980) in the matter of dealing with the public in a fashion more acceptable to them. It was an attitude toward burglary and theft as being crimes that really impacted people and treating the occurrences more seriously; Chief Tielsch confirmed that they were working hard on that aspect. Councilman Bay then clarified so that there would be no misunderstanding that if the Council would decide on a dollar figure for the Police Department and approve it, they would probably reserve that amount of money and appropriate it within the budget or place it in the Council Contingency Fund and have the Chief come back and tell them what he would do with that money. They were not simply going to hand it to the Police Department. Chief Tielsch stated that he 'understood. However, the one major impact where they would need some resolution immediately was in the area of recruiting, and he assumed the Human Resources Department would also like to have whatever hours they were asking for, almost immediately. He felt that was a high priority. 80-834 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour then suggested a possible way to get the discussion on a narrow basis. What the City Manager had told them, as he understood, was that they had approximmtley $1.5 million that could be appropriated in ongoing programs and for one-time projects, $1.3 million, totalling $2.8 million. He suggested that they appropriate both in the following fashion and in so doing ask that they refer to page 12 of the City Manager's proposal of June 20, 1980 and to number the items listed one through ten. On the ongoing items, $1.5 million, (rounding out the numbers) that they: Number 1--enhance the Police Program by $1 million with the idea that the Chief would immediately "beef-up" his recruiting and be back in 30 days with a specific plan as to the utilization of up to (not to exceed) $1 million. Until that time, the $1 million would be placed in the Council Contingency Fund. For example, relative to recruiting, the Chief would be ~mmediately authorized to do whatever necessary or what had been recommended, including the Human Resources Department. Number 2--still ongoing, include the expanded Street Maintenance Program of $424,000, thus far committing to ongoing $1,424,000. He suggested stopping at that point to take a look at one-time projects. Number 3--Lincoln Avenue Reconstruction--Citron to I-5, $225,000. Number 4--Lincoln Avenue Slurry Seal--Olive to East, $35,000. Number 9--Non-profit Community group requests which he arbitrarily reduced to $16,000. They would, therefore, have to make some decisions as to what they would or would not want to fund in that group. Number 10--staff recommended program adjustments--S352,363; add to that two other items as follow~: Number 7--Stadium Restroom installation, $175,000, and ask Mr. Liegler to find on his own the remaining $175,000 to get the job done, and Number 8--Signalization in the Stadium vicinity--S175,000 (instead of $580,000) and attempt to find other combined monies or joint monies with the County and other sources. The one-time figures totalled $978,363 or $1 million, the bottom line being on ongoing, they would have allocated $1,424,000 and on one-time projects, $978,363, almost $300,000-1ess than what they had set aside. In speaking to his proposal, the Mayor felt that the City Manager's recommended proposal was not sufficient enough in his opinion to get a handle on neighborhood crime the way the Council wanted to do it for almost a year. Therefore, he pre- ferred that they set aside a sum of $1 million because that would deliver the original proposal of 45 personnel. On the other hand, he was not so sure that given one month the Chief and his team, working with the City Manager, could Put together a program where they could create efficiencies and do it for less, perhaps three-quarters of a million or $800,000 or $600,000. As one Council 80-835 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. person, he did not want to see the elimination of the School Resource Officers Program but that it be continued. As Councilman Overholt and Councilwoman Kaywood stated, that was part of neighborhood crime. He felt strongly that the Council should commit itself, once again, to improving conditions in the neigh- borhood relative to crime. Regarding street maintenance, they had all heard enough about the condition of City streets, not that the Public Works Department had not done an admirable job with what they had been provided. They had heard the City Manager in years past say that they were letting down on street improvements. It was now time that they realigned their priorities and get back to some of the basics of street maintenance and, therefore, he would be prepared to make that ongoing commitment necessary to reach the standards of street maintenance outlined by the Public Works Department. Relative to the remaining one-time items (Number 5--Citizens Newsletter and Number 6, additional Council clerical support), the citizens newsletter at $65,720 was a nice thing to have, but he did not think it was necessary to have it. Since it had been eliminated, he had not heard an outcry from the citizenry that they wanted it back. Therefore, he saw no need to again institute that newsletter. If they had information they must disseminate, it could be put on a small piece of paper and enclose it in the utility bill with hardly any cost at all. Another aspect that concerned him about that particular proposal was that, although somebody went through a lot of work to put it together, he did not see any charges included for labor or the 30% for fringe benefits. Relative to additional Council clerical support, you would think they would be more efficient, having moved into the new Civic Center and, therefore, he did not see the need for additional support. He was not interested in that item. He then asked the City Manager if he would first care to respond, and then the Council. City Manager Talley first referred to Item No. 8, $580,000, where the Mayor suggested that figure be $175,000. He pointed out that the Mayor also recommended the inclusion of the staff recommended program adjustments of $352,000 (Item No. 10). Included in that figure was the $191,000 in CETA funds. Since they were separate and apart, the entire $352,000 should not be included, but more properly $162,000. Regarding matching funds, they had not been able to match better than 50-50, and thus, he might add $115,000 to the $175,000 (Item No. 8), totalling approximately $290,000. That would leave a balance of approx~mmtely $900,000 and thus, out of $1.3 million, they would be using approximately all of the money in the account. That was no problem as long as their revenues came in and no other major projects ran substantially over. On the $1 million for the Police Department, that was the ultimate policy issue the Council would decide this year. The report from the Police Department and his office basically stated whatever the Council did this year, they should count on doubling next year. Thus, implicit in the $1 million would be that next year, there would be another million to be found somewhere. As long as they recognized that, he had no problem, or, he questioned, were they indicating only a $1 million program each year ? 80-836 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour answered "no"; it was meant for this fiscal year. He understood the price a year from now might be $2 million. He was not so hung up on that, because if the Chief could do what he said he could do with the $1 million, get a handle on crime in the neighborhood, he was prepared a year from now to make those hard decisions to insure that that program would stay alive. On the other hand, he would expect that next year at this time, they would all agree that they indeed had a handle on neighborhood crime. He was willing to pay that price for them to do so. City Manager Talley stated it was a challenge they certainly would try to meet. However, he was slightly uncomfortable budgeting all but perhaps $400,000 this year and this early. However, looking at where revenues might go, he felt the Council was giving them the latitude to come back periodically and report to them. If he were to comment on one other thing, it would be if the Council bought the program, he would suggest that they direct them to go out and recruit a full class, a November class of Police officers, because no matter what alter- natives were presented, they were talking about 15 to 20 men at an absolute minimum. Perhaps they should not necessarily limit the Chief to come back in 30 days with a program, because the people who would be staffing the program would not be employed for four months, and they might want to give him more time. As well, he did not know the Chief's staffing plans for the sunm~er. The Mayor did not think it unreasonable to expect a plan in 30 days unless there was a very good reason why it could not be done. He was very eager to begin to see the program materialize. Relative to the Chief's staff, if necessary, he should get them to change their vacations. Councilman Bay noted that the $1 million was very close to 1980-81 figure the City Mmnager listed in his report (Page 12), going to $1.9 million next year and that would be for the 45 people. If that was what it would take, he was willing to live with that and work to find that money next year in the budget. On the street maintenance program, he was not certain he could go along with $424,000 in that area because it encompassed the 12.8 million square feet which would also commit them to another $460,000 next year, precommitted as an on- going program. He was thinking more along the lines of 11 million square feet and hoped if they went for the whole 12.8, which the Public Works Department considered optimum, that Lincoln West could be worked into that. Discussion then followed between Councilman Bay, Public Works Executive Director Thornton Piersall and City Manager Talley for purposes of clarification relative to certain aspects of the street maintenance program, particularly in the downtown area. In concluding, Mr. Talley pointed out that as an option in future years, while he had shown $460,000, they discussed the matter privately, and he believed it would be possible, if they wanted to, back down to 11.5 million square feet from the 12.8 by not doing some outside contracting. However, if they bought the equipment, they should use it to its full value. He did not think they were married to a 12.8 million square foot program every year. Councilman Bay then stated that he personally did not support the additional cler- ical support, but relative to the newsletter, if they felt such a newsletter was ~;0-837 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M, necessary they had $150,000 in the Council Contingency Fund and if they decided they wanted to try it for a quarter to see how it worked, they could do it out of those funds. Other than the foregoing, he (Bay) tended to agree with the layout that the Mayor gave. Mayor Seymour clarified it represented $902,363 in one-time projects and $1.4 million on ongoing items totalling $2,326,363; Councilman Overholt asked if that was on the basis of 11 million square feet in street maintenance per year; the Mayor clarified that it was 12.8. Councilman Roth stated that he did not have a problem with the Mayor's proposal, but he was not as optimistic relative to the economy. One thing not addressed was the overrun in budgeted programs. However, the reason he was going to support the proposal was because of the fine staff, department heads and particularly the City Manager. They should move ahead with those figures for 1980-81 and even though they were setting patterns for 1981-82, as they proceeded further down- stream, that would be the time to make adjustments. Councilman Roth continued by voicing his strong opposition to a City newsletter as he did at the previous meeting (see minutes June 13, 1980). Also, he did not have any problems at present getting a limited amount of secretarial service, as needed, from the City Clerk's office, and he did not see that as a problem. At the previous meeting, he also suggested a proposal regarding finding a method for eliminating property taxes in the future as a revenue source. He wanted see the Council address that issue in the future, not 1980-81, and Anaheim to set a precedent and eliminate the p~gperty tax which was a goal of his. It was only a secondary source of revenue of approximately $7 million from a budget of approximately $300 million. In that regard, Councilman Bay stated that it was true that property taxes were around $7 million, but he asked what the increment involved with property taxes was. in addition to that amount; Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest answered that to his recollection it was about an equal amount. City Manager Talley interjected and stated that the property taxes of $6 million (not $7 million) included over $1 million of "bailout funds" and thus, it was probably about $5 million. Councilman Roth asked if Mr. Priest was saying that if they eliminated the City property tax, it would eliminate that much increment tax; Mr. Priest answered "no". He was saying that the other taxing jurisdictions would be supporting the Redevelopment programs in Anaheim. Councilman Roth stated he was merely indicating those were not the figures. To say a like amount or equal amount of $5 or $6 million was not correct. Mr. Priest stated in the sense that the direct receipts to the City, that was correct. In the sense that the City would be contributing nothing to the support of the Redevelopment project, that was a fact. Councilman Roth asked that the matter be explored one more time and to give him a report in writing. 80-838 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated in 1974 when they took that difficult step into Redevelopment, the increment was the reason they were not seeking Federal funds and it was a "boot strap" operation. If someone had mentioned eliminating property taxes at that time, it would not have been a viable solution. Councilman Roth stated he was not trying to implement that possibility this year. He also hoped that they were not in Redevelopment for five, six or ten years. Mayor Seymour stated that the elimination of the City property tax was also one of his goals but on the other hand, they had to realistically consider that they would not be finishing the 200 acres in the Redevelopment project in the next three years. It was going to take more time if they were going to do it right. Further, he had another concern as it related to the elimination of the property tax. The citizens had built a couple of "golden gooses"--one being the Convention Center and the other the Stadium. The third was the Utilities-- all three being the City's enterprise activities. He had some concern regarding the Utilities some years ago, in 1975 or '76, that they were going to kill that golden goose by taking more and more of its revenue and pouring those into the General Fund and thus the citizens would end up paying the same rates as Edison. Consequently he asked for a City Charter amendment at that time and he 'ha~the~,sup~o~t of the Council, although Councilwoman Kaywood had him compromise a limitation on how much the General Fund could take, and that was overwhelmingly voted in. He know had an identical concern with the remaining two enterprises, the Stadium and the Convention Center. Mr. Liegler and his staff had labored long and hard going from red to black. He could see well meaning elected officials reaching in and taking those monies, putting them in the General Fund, and delivering more government services at the expense of those enterprises. He was trying to express his concern that in the future they needed to find some way to assure the citizens that elected officials would not cause their demise by putting those monies into the General Fund--a Charter amendment, for example, that would say if property taxes were $7 million and the two enterprises were making enough money, they could contribute that $7 million, but not a penny more. In that way, they could eliminate the property tax while knowing that those two enter- prises could carry on their activities in a fashion which they would not be endangered or deprived of revenues. Such a plan might work. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the guarantee the Mayor was looking for was called an election. She was worried about tying the hands of every future Council because with all of the constraints coming from Sacramento and Washington, they would soon not need any elected officials because there would be nothing for them to decide. After further discussion between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood, Council- woman Kaywood stated that she had difficulty coming up with the same total as the Mayor on the $2.3 million for the ongoing, when it was $1.9 million on the police alone. The Mayor stated he was taking this year's cost for the Police program at approx- imately $1 million and he was willing to "bite the bullet" in making whatever sacrifice that might have to be made to insure whether it was $1 million, es- calated to $1.9 or whether $750,000 escalated to $1.2 that it would be made. 80-839 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Further questioning of the Mayor by Councilwoman Kaywood followed relative to the two figures given in his proposal at the conclusion of which, City Manager Talley explained that they were putting in $1 million this year and recognizing if the Police program cost approximately $2 million next year, there would be an additional million which would either have to be funded or other programs reduced at that time. Councilwoman Kaywood then stated she was extremely concerned, because one of the things so great about Anaheim lay in the fact that it was a well balanced com- munity. When people were satisfied and things, were running well, nobody noticed that. If the Mayor was going to chmnge things and if the Recreation programs were not going to be staffed, resulting in more youth running around without something to do, creating more crime problems, not only.would he not be saving anything, but he would have made it worse. She was concerned to see what it really was the Mayor was talking about. She did not know how they could hire people without figuring in a second year of ongoing salaries. Councilman Bay stated in looking at Mr. Talley's figures, when they were talking about the full blown program of 45 people, the estimate was close to $1 million. They should not predetermine at this point that the program was going to have to be that big and that the whole $1 million was all going to represent recruiting costs. He had no doubt that part of the $1 million would be non-recurring. City Manager Talley referenced Page 59 of his report, the last full paragraph stating, "...should the Council wish to implement the full program as proposed by the Police Chief in attachment B, program reductions would be required in the magnitude of $531,253 for the fiscal year 1980-81." For future years, the cost would be $943,000 and he explained the reason for that as he had done pre- viously in the meeting. Although he did not want to use it as a formula, it could be figured that the cost of getting a program started of the nature under discussion would cost about twice as much to keep it going in 1980-81 dollars. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if they were to go to some other alternative with the initial cost of hiring people, would there be any way at all where they would not have an ongoing cost after that. City Manager Talley answered "no". Any program the Chief brought back to the Council would lay out the first year cost, recurring cost and the final cost. Councilwoman Kaywood then noted that the $531,000 was just for the 19 people and she would think that the $1 million was far out of line. She did not hear the same thing the Mayor did--she heard Chief Tielsch say that nobody could promise a guarantee for anything. Chief Tielsch stated that with the initial program, they could hold the crime rate at a lower rate than it was in 1979 for a minimum of three years; Council- woman Kaywood interjected and stated that "lower" was not "eliminate" or "eradicate." Chief Tielsch stated there was no way they could promise to do anything like that but they could definitely hold that crime rate. Numerous additional people would also be coming to the City as well. He would predict that the crime rate in surrounding communities would continue to rise. 80-840 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a couple of other concerns--(1) with the new Park Ranger Program and (2) with the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department having received two National awards and the only City ever to have received the most recent award--to go backwards by considering cuts in those areas would be a mistake. Mayor Seymour emphasized that nobody had suggested cutting one penny for Parks and Recreation. Councilwoman Kaywood countered that her concern, when the Mayor indicated he was going to look for $1 million or $2 million next year, where that was going to come from. After a brief discussion between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood regarding previous budgets, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that another concern was the City newsletter. Although a quarterly letter was not something they needed to go to, they were looking at $30,000 campaigns everytime someone ran for office and candidates took their own polls. She felt that was a mistake in the City, and the leadership had to know what the people were thinking. She received questions and complaints when the newsletter was first stopped and in the last few years, much more had gone on in Anaheim on a continuing basis than ever before in the history of the City. She considered the newsletter to be a very fine communication media which would not impinge on the daily newspaper. Discussion then followed between Councilwoman Kaywood, the Mayor and Councilman Roth revolving around the newsletter issue. In concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that relative to signalization of the Stadium area, the amount the Mayor came up with was not going to be enough. If they could get County funds, that was what she would like to see. That work needed to be done. Councilman Overholt then reiterated he was pleased to be a part of the majority of the Council which was 5-0 that put the security of the community as number one priority. Without that, they would have nothing. With their deliberations today on the question of the Police budget, which totalled approximately $19 million, and the proposed dedication of an additional $1 million to Police security in the City, with an additional $2 million already added to the budget, he felt that the Council was really going on record this year, as last, that they wanted to make the citizens in both the residential and business community secure in their property. They were willing to do everything possible to cut the seem- ingly endless burglary and theft epidemic in the community, which was a sign of the times and the economy. He supported the allocation of $1 million to the Police program and he knew that Chief Tielsch did not think of it as a "blank check", but a challenge to work with management and the other parts of the community which he felt were numerous and which had an impact on crime. The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department had a real impact on crime prevention, as well as the Human Resources Department in being able to recruit enough police officers to do the job. He was also very much in favor of a continuation of the School Resource Officers Program and he considered it a continuation because the program had been inter- rupted. The impact of that program would impact the frequency of burglary and thefts in the community. 80-841 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Speaking to Chief Tielsch, Councilman Overholt felt that the dialogue that they had today with him and management and amongst the Council was a reasonable dialogue. The message was loud and clear, that they all wanted to reduce and get a hold on burglary and theft in the community, both business and residen- tial. Whatever it took to do that, the Council was united in doing. He re- peated it was also an attitude toward burglary and theft. It was a serious crime and even had risks to the person aspects attached to it. He was pleased to support the Mayor's proposal on the Police program. He was concerned when they had their meeting one week ago when shots came off the wall and questions were asked and figures quoted that other portions of the City felt the Council would scuttle programs in other areas of the City to make it appear that they were "gungho" on something that appealed to the voters. He did not believe that was what the Council was doing. He was pleased that through the exhaustive work of Councilman Bay with City Manager Talley that they had come up with an accurate analysis of sources of revenue to give the Council an oppor- tunity to get a handle, to give the Police the opportunity and yet not emasculate other programs in the City. Relative to the newsletter, and he did not like that word necessarily, that was not what he had in mind, but instead a means of communicating with the citizens on matters newspapers might not consider news--i.e, recruitment of police officers, etc. Therefore, $6,000 for a pilot newsletter which perhaps after further evaluation a different figure would emerge, would not deter him from approving the Mayor's proposal on the budget. However, he would continue to look into the newsletter, and he was certain they could find the money to try a pilot program and if it did not do any good, then he would be against it. In concluding, Councilman Overholt complimented the City Manager, Department Heads and Program Directors for working so diligently in coming up with a budget that he felt was fine tuned and calculated to deliver the best the City could deliver to make Anaheim, as they entered the 80's, an even better place to live in the next ten years. Councilwoman Kaywood noted an item that was broached by Councilman Roth which was subsequently not discussed and that was relative to the $600,000 shortfall in revenues. She asked the City Manager how that shortfall would impact revenues at this time. Councilman Roth first clarified that he did not mention any figures, but stated the economy might not permit all the revenues they expected, but that he had confidence in the City Manager and the Department Heads that they would bring that information forth to the Council. Mr. Talley explained if he had to lock the budget up today and could not open it again, he would recommend that $500,000 of the allocations not be made and that revenues be reduced by that amount. However, he would prefer to track those revenues and in about six months come back to the Council with modifi- cations, if necessary. Mayor Seymour added that they were laying off approximately $500,000 if what had been proposed should carry. They would not appropriate $2.8 million, but $2.326 million, leaving an approximate $500,000 cushion, with the Chief to come back with a program of perhaps $800,000 or $900,000 which they would all like to see. 80-842 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor than asked Councilwoman Kaywood if she were going to support the action of $1 million, then by her positive vote on that, was she saying that she was willing to "bite the bullet" or absorb whatever was necessary to continue the program in 1981-82. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like to see the opportunity given on Alternative "H", or whatever it was. If the job could be done at $539,604 with no cutting back on what she also considered vital services in Parks and Recreation, Library, street surface and maintenance of streets and the things people of the City had grown accustomed to--a certain level of service-- she would favor funding in the appropriate amounts next year. She did not want to see any cuts if possible. If they were going to cut actual things that would increase the crime potential, that ~ould be counterproductive. The Mayor asked again if Councilwoman Kaywood voted "yes", was she prepared if necessary in 1981-82 to "bite the bullet" or make a hard decision. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that he show her the specific decision. Obviously, she wanted to protect the neighborhoods, but she saw other ways of doing it without just ruining the entire budget. After further discussion and debate between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood, the Mayor asked the City Clerk to provide a verbatim transcript of the last hour of proceedings (approximately 4:07 to 5:07 p.m.). The Mayor then asked if any member of the public wished to provide input at this time; there being no one who wished to speak, he closed the public hearing on Federal General Revenue Sharing and the City budgets. Councilman Bay commented that relative to the letter request from a police reserve officer regarding court time, he wanted to know if a policy decision by the Council was required so that the Chief was free in his report to include court time for reserve officers. He read a figure of about $3,000 in the letter of June 20, 1980 that was received. If it required a policy motion from the Council, he would be glad to offer that motion. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would second it. Mayor Seymour asked to hear from Chief Tielsch; the Chief indicated that the cost would be between $3,000 and $5,000. The Mayor stated he did not think a formal motion was necessary since the Chief previously stated how he felt and he (Seymour) expected that when he came back with a plan, the Police Reserve Program would be a part of that plan. He under- stood the Chief to have indicated that (1) the benefits should be increased, and (2) there should be more flexibility relative to tranferring in. Therefore, he expected the $3,000 to $5,000 to be included in the $1 million. The Mayor then asked the City Manager to recant his understanding of the motion before the Council relative to budget amendments. City Manager Talley stated he believed they were going to adopt a motion and thereby approve the 1980-81 Resource Allocation Plan as proposed with the following amendments: Increasing the San Onofre Generating Project Bond Issue from $60 million to $73 million, thereby increasing the budget by $13 million. 80-843 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. An increase of an additional $2,326,000 composed of $424,000 for street programs previously discussed,.approximatley $105,000 to the Police Department Administr- ation Program to begin their recruiting effort, approximately $82,000 to Human Resources to begin a recruitment plan ~mmediately, and placing the balance of approximately $813,000 of the $1 million into the Council Contingency Fund for subsequent allocation. The Council also directed the appropriation of $225,000 for the I-5--Lincoln Avenue Project, $35,000 for the East Lincoln Project, $175,000 for the Stadium restroom project, .and $290,000 for the Stadium signalization project. He assumed they were also being directed to immediately begin plans and speci- fications on those two projects as well as investigating manner in which to fund the remaining of those. Approving $16,000 for various community groups to be placed in the Council Contimgency Fund until the Council made a specific selection and the approximate $161,000 in ongoing programs, rather than one-time, to distribute as in the budget. Thus, they were approving somewhere around $1.6 million in ongoing programs and approximately $160,000 less this year. It was also his understanding they would probably come back to the Council some- time in July to have a new Federal General Revenue Sharing hearing for the projects they were adding today. The foregoing items increased the budget approximately $15,326,000, plus $191,437 for the CETA Youth Program, making the total approximately $2,520,000. Mayor Seymour confirmed that would be his motion. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor asked if it was possible to deal with the allocation of the $16,000 for the various community groups at this time. MOTION: Councilman Bay thereupon stated he would be glad to offer a split and moved that the full request of TLC for $9,229 be approved, $1,200 for the West Orange County Hotline, $1,247 for RSVP and $4,324 for the Christian Temporary Housing Program. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked if Councilman Bay would accept condi- tioning the Christian Housing Program allocation to an allocation and approval by the City of Orange. Councilman Bay was agreeable to such an amendment and stated that the motion would be contingent upon that. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. City Manager Talley then introduced and read the title of the proposed resolutions necessary to implement the 1980-81 budget. 80-844 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-286 for adoption, establishing an appropriation limit for fiscal year 1980-81, pursuant to Article XIII B of the California Constitution (Proposition 4). Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-286: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIII B OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-286 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-287 for adoption, authorizing a re- vised schedule of sanitation charges for residential solid waste collection, com- mercial and industrial solid waste collection, residential, commercial and industrial sewer maintenance, and charges for street cleaning, effective July 1, 1980, and rescinding Resolution No. 79R-687. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-287: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE OF SANITATION CHARGES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-687. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-287 duly passed and adopted. Mr. Talley then reported relative to the proposed resolution establishing green fees and cart rental fees to be charged at the golf courses, the Golf Course Commission had taken another action and if it were to be approved, it would cause a revenue loss of $30,000. Mr. Tom Liegler explained that the difference was merely a change in attitude by the Commission. A representative was present earlier, but had to leave, and was also present at the session last Tuesday. The Commission spent a great deal of time with them in the original budget preparation and did approve it as submitted in the Resource Allocation Plan. He believed they overlooked the past decision and felt they would like to reduce the green fees at both golf courses on Saturdays and Sundays and that was the recommendation to the Council. Staff who also advised the Council continued to support those dollar fees across the board everyday based upon a simple business proposal. Saturdays, Sundays and holidays were the busiest days at both courses, primarily tournaments and men's clubs participation, and not the time to cut or provide reduced fees. He felt they needed the $30,000 in the Resource Allocation Plan, since there was a vital need for that income. 80-845 City Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay stated he was glad to see that the Golf Course Commission differed with staff once in a while and thereupon offered Resolution No. 80R-288 for adoption, establishing green fees and cart rental fees to be charged at the Golf Courses, and rescinding Resolution No. 79R-340. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-288: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING THE GREEN FEES AND CART RENTAL FEES TO BE CHARGED AT THE H. G. "DAD" MILLER ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE AND THE ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-288 duly passed and adopted. City Manager Talley then clarified that on the budget just adopted, the motion included not only the $16,000 in group requests, but also the entire budget with the amendments he set forth; Mayor Seymour clarified that was correct. Mr. Talley also advised the Council of one more item, that they were soon going to be receiving a water rate action. Written testimony had been presented, and the PUB was presently considering that at their meeting. He estimated it would be an approximate 20% average increase and light and power rates were estimated to be increased between 20% and 25%, which would be coming in some time between September and December. The budget was based upon those probable rate increases. Councilman Overholt thereupon offered Resolution No. 80R-289 through 80R-291, both inclusive, for adoption, amending the following resolutions respectively: Resolution No. 79R-591, establishing rates of compensation for classes designated as Staff and Supervisory Management, effective June 20, 1980; Resolution No. 77R-703, establishing rates of compensation for classes represented by the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, General City Employees Unit, effective June 20, 1980; Resolution No. 77R-704, establishing rates of compensation for classes represented by the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, Clerical Unit, effective June 20, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-289: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-591 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-290: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-703 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES UNIT. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-291: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNICL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-704 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, CLERICAL UNIT. 80-846 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-289 through 80R-291, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. In concluding, Mr. Talley stated on behalf of the entire management staff, he thanked the Council for what he thought had been the most stimulating and program oriented discussion he had ever experienced with a City Council on an annual budget adoption. Mayor Seymour stated, on behalf of the Council, they appreciated all the time and effort put into the budget and budget hearings, including that of all Department Heads. He congratulated them on the effort extended. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to Tuesday, July 1, 1980 at 11:00 a.m., for the purpose of recessing into Executive Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:25 P.M.