Loading...
1979/05/2279-568 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl FINANCE DIRECTOR: George P. Ferrone DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Takuji Tamaru UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT: Norm Priest Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: A moment of silence was observed in lieu of an Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and approved by the City Council: "Vietnam Veterans Week" - May 28 - June 3, 1979 Mr. Louis Smith accepted the proclamation. MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred for one week. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,392,136.16, in accordance with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved. 161: REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA - PHASE I: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the award of contract on Redevelopment Project Alpha Phase I was continued one week as recommended in memorandum dated May 16, 1979 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 123: REPORT ON LIBRARY/POLICE PARKING LOT STUDY: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman 0verholt, the final report on the Library/Police Parking Lot Study submitted by Wilbur Smith and Associates was received and filed as recommended in memorandum dated May 16, 1979 from the City Librarian William Griffith. MOTION CARRIED. 79-569 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979, 1:30 P.M. 128: MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT - TEN MONTHS ENDING APRIL 30, 1979: In answer to Mayor Seymour, Finance Director George Ferrone explained that the General Benefits Fund did not appear on the Statement but he would include it in the next and future reports. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the Financial Statement for the ten-month period ending April 30, 1979 was received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. 155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project will have no significant environmental impact because the structure will not be visible and the use is compatible with surrounding land uses and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. 123: CONSULTING SERVICES FOR UPGRADING ON-LINE SOFTWARE: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-286 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated May 22, 1979 from the Data Processing Director approving an agreement with William Crossley in an amount not to exceed $6,000 for consulting services to upgrade the existing Data Processing on-line software programs. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-286: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WILLIAM CROSSLEY FOR COMPUTER PROGRAMMING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked for clarification as to the two on-line customer systems. Both Mr. Tug Tamaru, Data Processing Director and City Manager William Talley explained the system for the Mayor. As to the function of the systems, Mr. Tamaru stated that TRES billing system, Anaheim financial system and the Planning Department were all on one line and the other system was used by the twelve MDS cities served by Anaheim. They plan to revise the latter system and run all programs on the new system, which would be of benefit to the City since the object was to save more computer power and performance for Anaheim's cus- tomers when placed on the system. The services to be provided are technical in nature involving a tele-processing monitor which controls the networks. Mr. Talley explained that in order to run a computer, it was necessary to have not only operating programs, but also software programs provided by the vendor which programs took up spaces of memory. Two tele-processing systems meant that they had to have in memory enough space to have both systems resonant at all times. If they convert them over to Anaheim so that they could all run in one space, that additional computer space would then be available for 'the City. 79-570 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated as he understood, the reason they were spending $6,000 was to change the software program on the MDS cities so that they could convert to the existing Anaheim software program; Mr. Talley added, and so they could free up some computer space presently occupied. The Mayor than asked how the decision to be made today would affect some poten- tial future decision such as the joint power authority, continuation of the MDS, Anaheim going alone, or using an FM--all those types of decisions. Mr. Tamaru answered this was independent from that decision because this was an efficiency measure, whether done alone or with the other cities, the bottom line being, the proposal would free up computer time for the City. Mayor Seymour then asked if MDS no longer contracted with Anaheim and sent a notice of cancellation on July 1, would the expenditure be necessary for the 270-day cancellation period. Mr. Tamaru was of the opinion that the City would benefit in those nine months and if the MDS cities remained, it would be a permanent benefit. Essentially their computer capacity had been full and they were trying to institute all the efficiency measures possible to keep the computer capacity free for the City. It was also one of the Arthur Young recommendations made in 1975. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if MDS were to leave Anaheim, would that situation increase the City's costs from what they were at present. Mr. Tamaru explained that the MDS contract represented approximately one-third of their work load. If Data Processing no longer contracted with those cities, it would result in an approximate $600,000 income loss. Mayor Seymour asked what the future expenses would be relative to hardware if the MDS cities stayed on, as well as new personnel. Mr. Tamaru stated they had not made a study of that aspect. Mayor Seymour explained the reason he raised the question was that Councilwoman Kaywood should not be prejudging something before all facts were in. A vote was taken on the foregoing Resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-286 duly passed and adopted. 153: CREATION OF NEW UTILITIES CONSERVATION CLASSIFICATION AND TITLE CHANGES: CouncilWoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-287 and 79R-288 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated May 16, 1979 from the Human Resources Director Garry McRae changing the title of an existing classification from Energy Services 79-571 City H.all~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Representative to Utilities Conservation Analyst effective May 16, 1979 and changing the title of Energy Services Manager to Utilities Conservation Manager. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-287: 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, AND CREATING A NEW JOB CLASS AND CHANGING THE TITLE OF AN EXIST- ING CLASSIFICATION. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-288: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDNG RESOLUTION NO. 78R-660 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT, AND CHANGING THE TITLE FOR AN EXISING CLASSIFICATION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-287 and 79R-288, both inclusive duly passed and adopted. 158: SALE OF AN EXCESS PARCEL OF CITY-OWNED LAND TO MWDOC: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-289 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated May 14, 1979 from the City Engineer approving the sale of an excess parcel of City-owned land to the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) in the amount of $48,700, property located at the south side of La Palma Avenue, east of Imperial Highway (former well site). Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-289: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-289 duly passed and adopted. 123/173: RELOCATION OF EXISTING EDISON COMPANY ELECTRICAL FACILITIES: Council- woman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-290 for adoption as recommended in memo- randum dated May 15, 1979 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. 79-572 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-290: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A JOINT USE AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY CONCERNING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENT ON THE EAST SIDE OF TUSTIN AVENUE, SOUTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-290 duly passed and adopted. 123: ELECTRIC AND WATER UTILITY FINANCIAL DATA: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-291 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated May 9, 1979 from the Assistant City Manager William Hopkins approving an agreement with Price Waterhouse and Company, in the amount of $5,000, to restate electric and water utility financial data. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-291: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH PRICE WATERHOUSE AND CO., CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, CONCERNING CERTAIN SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELECTRIC AND WATER UTILITY FUNDS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAME. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-291 duly passed and adopted. 160: "NO PARKING" STREET SWEEPING SIGNS - BID NO. 3539: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the low bid of Safeway Sign Company and authorize purchase in the amount of $19,191.30, including tax, for "No Parking" street sweeping signs as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated May 16, 1979. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, City Manager Talley explained for Councilman Roth that the funds for the project were budgeted for the current fiscal year to pay for the initiation of the City-wide street sweeping program. The entire City would be covered by the end of 1979-80 with the first increment to be completed by July 1, the next in November, and the last in late winter or early spring. Councilman Roth stated he was supportive of the program but wanted to know what response they had received in the pilot project area, specifically whether the community accepted the program or were opposed. 79-573 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Talley stated that he had not heard any complaints and that staff could prepare a report. Councilman Roth continued that the Council should be kept informed relative to the acceptance of the program and how the "No Parking" would be enforced. He found that in a pilot program near his residence that street sweeping, even with signing, had problems and cars were still parking by the curb. Mr. Talley explained that the majority of the new staff positions were for parking control checkers. Their specific duty would be to issue warnings for several weeks in each area as the "No Parking" signs were installed and then cite on a weekly basis. The citations would in a large part offset the cost of the program as well as guarantee an extremely high percentage of people parking off the street. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, application submitted by Pyro Spectaculars on behalf of California Angels, to discharge fireworks on July 4, 1979, at 9:30 P.M., at Anaheim Stadium, was approved. MOTION CARRIED, 167: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEE: Submitted by World Travel Bureau, Inc., for waiver of traffic signal assessment fee charged in connection with property located at 839 - 859 South Harbor Boulevard. Councilman Overholt moved to approve the waiver of the Traffic Signal Assessment fee as requested. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney William Hopkins explained that there was no provision in the Ordinance for a waiver of traffic signal fees but there was an exemption provision. If Council wished to provide for waivers, it would be necessary to amend the Ordinance to include a process whereby Council might grant same. The exemption was applicable if the location was within the Redevelopment Project area but this location was not in that area and thus it would require an amendment to the Ordinance. Councilman Roth moved to amend the ordinance; Councilman Overholt stated a motion was already pending and asked if he could move to continue his own motion and at the same time request that the ordinance be rewritten thus permitting the Council to grant relief in the type of situation before them. He believed where there was a move by reason of Redevelopment, they should be granted that relief. On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, consideration for waiver of traffic signal assessment fee by World Travel Bureau, Inc. was continued two weeks and the City Attorney directed to amend the ordinance to provide for waiver of traffic signal fees in situations caused by relocation due to redevelopment. Councilman Seymour abstained from voting. MOTION CARRIED. 79-574 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 175: SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY: Recommendation of the Public Utilities Board that the Council adopt their findings and amend the rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of electrical energy was submitted. (See memorandum dated May 15, 1979, recommendation for re- vision of electric rates from the Secretary, Public Utilities Board, with enclosures, including Anaheim Public Utilities Board findings and recommenda- tions to the City of Anaheim concerning a proposed electric rate increase and transcript of the proposed electric rate increase public hearing of April 18, 1979, on file in the City Clerk's office). Mayor Seymour stated that being consistent with the thinking of the Council that they wanted to remain under Edison's rates, and considering that the California Public Utilities Commission would be reviewing Edison's request for an increase in rates on June 1, 1979, and if Edison was granted half of the increase requested, the City's rates would be averaging 3% to 8~% under Edison, therefore he questioned why they could not wait until after June 1, 1979 before passing the recommended increase. The General Manager of the Public Utilities Department Gordon Hoyt explained that they had taken some time to prepare the recommendation in accordance with the new Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act. They had, therefore, paid out more money than they had budgeted for fuel adjustment costs in the current year in the amount of approximately $2 million. He did not believe it would be prudent to take a chance of further deterioration of revenues by putting off the proposed increases any longer. In order to have the upcoming fiscal year reflect the entire increase, they needed to put it into effect June 1, 1979. There was approximately one month lag time involved and the increase would approximately amount to $800,000 per month. Also, of the two increases cur- rently pending before the CPUC, one had been pending since October of 1978 and Edison requested it be made effective November 1, 1978. The other was submitted by the end of March to be made effective May, 1979. There was no assurance how the Commission would act but in their planning they used one half of the increase because it seemed recently the Commission had been granting about one-half of what the Utilities requested. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they would be in violation of the City Charter if they did not institute the increase. Mr. Alan Watts, Special Counsel was of the opinion that it would be very difficult to say there was a violation of the Charter because of a delay in a proposed rate increase for a month or perhaps even two months. However, he believed there could be a problem with being in violation of the bond covenants if revenues became so low that the Anaheim Utilities Department could not service its debts. That was not only covered in the Charter, but also in the various bond indentures and resolutions which were outstanding. They were also required to maintain the system, but that would be a question of judgment as to the level or standard of maintenance. Mayor Seymour stated he had a concern with one portion of the recommendation - that they make automatic the Energy Cost Adjustment (ECA) rather than going through rate increases. The public would then only be aware that the rate had increased when they received their bill and not until then, whereas past rate increases had been a matter of public discussion and debate. 79-575 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Hoyt stated it was true that the ECA increases would be automatic actions taken without going through the public hearing process. It had taken several months to go through the public hearing process on the proposed increases and the Board's approach to the question was that it would serve to protect the working capital of the Utility and therefore, they could reduce the working capital by $1 million. In an effort to maintain rate stability, they had established a balancing account and that balance could fluctuate from a neg- ative $250,000 to a positive $1 million. If the Council did not wish to approve an automatic fuel adjustment, they could send it back to the Board for recon- sideration and recommendation. He suspected their action would be to increase the working capital as it was necessary to have that protection against the inroads of increasing fuel prices. In the long run, this policy should work to the benefit of the consumer in Anaheim. The Mayor asked if the Board, Mr. Hoyt,or his staff, would have any objection if they were to approve the requested automatic ECA subject to every member of the Board and City Council being furnished with a comparison of how the affected rate would compare to Edison each time they were to raise that rate automatically. Mr. Hoyt did not see any problem with the recommendation. In any event, they produced within X number of days after the end of each month a report prepared and distributed by the Public Utilities Director showing the billing factors charged during each of the 12 months in the balancing account and the estimated amounts for the next six months for purchasing energy, together with all other costs. It would also forecast the energy cost balancing account in each of those months which would show the Council and the Board the trend of the Energy Cost Adjustment. He saw no problem in adding a requirement to include a rate comparison with Southern California Edison in that regular monthly report. Councilman Bay stated that as he understood, the Public Utilities Board was in agreement with the suggested rate increase, that the public hearings were conducted, and that they had seen a complete copy of what took place at the hearings. There did not seem to be a great deal of disagreement. He saw no minority report on a six-to-one vote on the Board and there seemed to be a unified argument that the proposed plan was the one needed. Therefore, he would support the proposed Resolution. Councilman Bay thereupon offered Resolution No. 79R-292 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated May 15, 1979 from tha Public Utiliti~ Board. Re{er to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-292: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 71R-478 AND AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NOS. 73R-25, 73R-373, 73R-531, 74R-75, 74R-630, 75R-243, 75R-344, 75R-345, 76R-41, 76R-377, 76R-528, 76R-817, 77R-464, 77R-628, 78R-458 AND 78R-665. 79-576 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked if Councilman Bay would include that 30 days prior to any rate adjustment, that each member of the Public Utilities Board and the City Council be furnished with information that would compare the proposed rate adjustment to Edison's rates; Councilman Bay was agreeable to the amendment. Councilman Roth asked if there were any comments from citizens or the Chamber of Commerce; there were no comments from the public and Mr. Larry Sierk, Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce indicated that there were no comments from his organization at this time. Councilwoman Kaywood noted in the report of the hearings on electrical rates that the Chamber of Commerce was on record in support of the increase; Mr. Sierk confirmed that the Chamber was in support. Mr. Hoyt explained that with regard to the 30-day period proposed, their fuel adjustment was determined on a monthly basis from the 15th of the month to the 14th of the following month. As soon as they would find out by the 15th of the month what the fuel adjustment was going to be, they would process those numbers in order to protect the revenue situation. They wanted to put that into effect on the first of the month and thus recommended that instead of the 30-day period, that it be two weeks because he was concerned with the time lag involved. Mayor Seymour was agreeable and reiterated his concern was, as elected officials, that they let their constituents know what they were going to be faced with before it occurred. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution as amended to reflect that 15 days prior to any rate adjustment, the Council and the Public Utilities Board would be furnished information comparing the proposed rate adjustment to Southern California Edison rates. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-292 duly passed and adopted. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Bay, 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 or allowed and referred to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator: a. Claim submitted by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Agency on behalf of Oswaldo Simonetti for vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of a City truck pulling in front of claimant's vehicle on or about February 21, 1979. 79-577 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979, 1:30 P.M. b. Claim submitted by C & K Skateparks, Inc., A California Corporation for damages purportedly sustained as a result of breach of covenants contained in Lease Agreement dated June 1, 1976 with the City of Anaheim. The following claim was recommended to be allowed: c. Claim submitted by Allstate Insurance Company on behalf of Jeanette Pang for vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of an accident involving a City-owned vehicle on or about March 14, 1979. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 156: Orange County Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs' Association letter to California State Assembly, stating opposition to Assembly Bill 1343 relating to use of reserve police officers. b. 114: City of Placentia, Resolution No. 79-R-121, requesting State Legi- slature to review the Formula for State distribution of Federal Title XX Social Service Funds. c. 173: Before the Public Utilities Commission Application No. 58733, applica- tion by William H. Hunt, dba Hunt Transportation, for authority to increase fares in home-to-work transportation service between points in Orange County and the Hughes Aircraft facilities in E1 Segundo. d. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of May 8, 1979. e. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of May 2 and 9, 1979. f. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission - Minutes of May 10, 1979. g. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Services Division - Monthly Report for April, 1979. 3. TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10703, 10704 AND 10705: Submitted by Holiday Harbor Developer, to establish a 3-lot, 60-building subdivision on RM-1200 zoned property bounded by Orangewood Avenue on the north, Cliffwood Avenue on the south, Dana Street on the east, and Acama Street on the west. The City Planning Commission, approved Tentative Tract Nos. 10703, 10704 and 10705, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 4. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: -~ a. Public Dance Permit requested by the Anaheim Soccer Club, for a public dance to be held May 26, 1979, from 6:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M., at the Anaheim Convention Center. (Felipe Jesus Guerena, applicant) 79-578 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979, 1:30 P.M. b. Public Dance Permit requested by Empressa Frias, for a public dance to be held on June 16, 1979, from 6:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M., at the Anaheim Convention Center. (Cruz Frias Munoz, applicant) c. Public Dance Permit requested by Sociedad Progresista Mexicana, for a public dance to be held on June 17, 1979, from 3:30 P.M. to 7:30 P.M., at Carpenter's Hall, 608 West Vermont Avenue. (Concha C. Flores, applicant) MOTION CARRIED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-293 through 79R-295, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-293: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Emkay Business Centre/Anaheim; Ernest Alvin Brown, et ux.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-294: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: VAN BUREN STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, 1120' N/O CORONADO STREET TO 32' S/O CORONADO STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-793-6325-3240; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened June 21, 1979, at 2:00 P.M.) 174: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-295: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AREA 3 - STREET AND ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 25-793-6325-3070; -3140; -3150 and 3160. (Calex Engineering and Paving Company) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-293 through 79R-295, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 142: ORDINANCE NO. 4008: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4008 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 79-579 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4008: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER 4.82 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW CHAPTER 4.82 TO TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NEWSRACKS ON PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4008 duly passed and adopted. 149: ORDINANCE NO. 4009: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4009 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4009: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS 14.32.400, 14.32.410 AND 14.32.420 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32 BY ADDING THERETO NEW SECTION 14.32.500 RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS TO FACILITATE STREET SWEEPING. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4009 duly passed and adopted. 142/166: ORDINANCE NO. 4010: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4010 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4010: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.04, BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 4.04.135 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SERVICE STATION SIGNS. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if service stations had been notified of the proposed ordinance. The Deputy City Clerk stated once the ordinance was final they would be notified. Councilman Roth asked if the stations would be required to post both self-service and full-service prices, plus the price of diesel fuel. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the Ordinance provided that all fuels be posted, but only those that were available. Councilwoman Kaywood confirmed that she was not looking for everybody to install new signs, but that those that existed should be posted accordingly. Mayor Seymour suggested that they sunset the ordinance to be certain that they would review it in twelve months. 79-580 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins stated they would put a flag on the record to review the matter with Council in twelve months. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Ordinance. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M_EMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4010 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4011 THROUGH 4013: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4011 through 4013, both inclusive, for first reading. 149: ORDINANCE NO. 4011: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190, SUBSECTION .1050 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. ORDINANCE NO. 4012: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMEN-DING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MidNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(92) CR) ORDINANCE NO. 4013: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-33, RS-HS-22,000) ORDINANCE NO. 4014: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4014 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4014: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AM_ENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM Mft[NICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-42, RM-1200) 123/101: ANAHEIM STADIUM SCOREBOARD: City Manager Talley referred to his report dated May 22, 1979 concerning Stadium Scoreboard Agreements just submitted to the Council. If possible it would be advisable to award contracts and approve the proposed agreements today to insure that the new scoreboard would be avail- able on approximately April 1, 1980 for the start of the 1980 baseball season. He was advised that any delay could jeopardize that time table. He then briefed the Council on the report (on file in the City Clerk's office) which recommended that the Council by resolution (1) approve a three party agreement between the City of Anaheim as lessee, and the Bank of America as purchaser, and Stewart- Warner Corporation as manufacturer, for the design, manufacture and install- ation of a scoreboard at Anaheim Stadium; (2) approve an agreement with American Information Corporation to act as exclusive agent for the City in selling advertising for the Anaheim Stadium scoreboard, with guaranteed revenues sufficient to cover the cost of said scoreboard; (3) accept the proposal submitted by Bank of America for a political subdivision lease of the new scoreboard, and authorize execution of said lease upon approval of the documents by the City Attorney. The Mayor asked if there was any member of the public who wished to speak on the matter; there was no response. 79-581 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay asked what impact there would be if consideration of the matter was delayed one week, since they had just been presented with the material; Mr. Talley explained that time was of the essence only to the extent that they needed to meet the April 1, 1980 deadline for installation. Mayor Seymour explained that in his opinion the Council's concern should be in weighing the financial commitments with the potential financial revenues from advertisers, including beer and tobacco, or excluding those two items. The other factor was whether or not they chose to have a guarantee of revenues, if beer and tobacco ads were permitted, or no guarantee of revenues and maintenance in the sum of $300,000 a year. Thus, there were two decisions to be made: (1) the type of advertising to be permitted and where, which was an economic as well as social or moral decision and, (2) the economic decision as to whether or not to have a guarantee of debt services on the Stadium scoreboard as well as maintenance on an annual basis of $300,000. If so, they would have to go for beer and tobacco, or as an alternative, have no guarantee. Mayor Seymour suggested because Councilman Overholt and he had worked on the transaction as liaison to enterprise activities from the outset, they had the privilege of having insight on the project. His feeling on the matter was to permit beer and tobacco within the perimeter of the Stadium, but limiting the use on the Big "A", that being oriented to the 57 Freeway, to no beer and no tobacco type items. The financial implications were significant to the City as reflected in the report submitted. There would be approximately $390,000 in potential income and no guarantee and further it was going to cost $300,000 to pay off the lease payment and keep the scoreboard maintained. However, if they chose the alternative of offering beer and tobacco advertisements within the Stadium and not on the outside or on the Big "A", they were looking at revenues of $600,000 to $800,000 a year with a guarantee. Frank Lowry, Assistant City Attorney, interjected that the Bank of America loan at 6.25% interest would not be valid without the guarantee. That was presently incorporated in the agreement. Mayor Seymour then emphasized that the economic difference would then be sub- stantially more because a higher interest rate would be involved if they opted not to take the guarantee. For the purpose of discussion, he thereupon offered Resolution Nos. 79R-296 through 79R-298, both inclusive, for adoption as recom- mended in memorandum dated May 22, 1979 and that the beer and tobacco adverti- sing take place within the confines of the Stadium on the scoreboard and further that they be excluded on the advertising on the Big "A" sign oriented toward the 57 Freeway. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-296: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AS LESSEE AND THE BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA AS LESSOR-PURCHASER, AND STEWART- WARNER CORPORATION, ELECTRONICS DIVISION, AS MANUFACTURER OF A SCOREBOARD FOR THE ANAHEIM STADIUM; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 79-582 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-297: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND AMERICAN INFORMATION CORPORATION FOR AN EXCLUSIVE SALES REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE NEW SCOREBOARD AT THE ANAHEIM STADIUM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREE- MENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-298: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL OF THE BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA FOR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION LEASE OF A NEW SCOREBOARD AT THE ANAHEIM STADIUM SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY IN THE FORMAL DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSAL AND THE FORMAL DOCUMENT WHEN APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that he believed all of them wanted to maintain the "clean" image that the City had worked so hard to develop and if the Council supported the resolutions as offered, they would be maintaining that image. The advertising of beer and tobacco within the confines of the Stadium could not be offensive to anybody who chose not to go within the Stadium. In his research of the subject, every Stadium in the country offered beer and tobacco type advertising. They also sold beer and tobacco on the premises of Anaheim Stadium and therefore if they were selling it he did not see anything wrong with the advertisements. When he combined those considerations with the economic aspects of the decision, in his opinion, that was the way the Council should opt. Even setting the favorable interest rate aside, what they were looking at was a difference between $3 million and $5 million in revenue over a ten year period and that was substantial economic consideration. They promised at the outset that the entire project would not cost taxpayers one cent and he was confident that it would not. However, what they would be buying for themselves here, was an additional insurance policy to keep that promise true. He also pointed out for Councilman Bay that if the vote were held off one week there was always the possibility that the 6.25% interest rate could be withdrawn at any time. Mr. Lowry then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the interest rate was not based on beer and tobacco, but upon the guarantee being sub~nitted by'American Information Corporation who would not guarantee the amount of dollars without that advertising. Advertising inside only on beer and tobacco would be accep- table to them, although not as desirable, but they would live with that situation. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the number one problem in the United States was alcoholism. She had to be very concerned that they were going to be flashing advertising encouraging the use of alcohol, even though they did sell it. Relative to smoking, there was a long history as to her feelings about it. If they would have equal time for cancer and heart disease messages, she would approve of it. Although she was aware of the tremendous difference in the economic return, in all good conscience she could not vote "yes," and asked that the vote on the three resolutions be separated and she would have to abstain on the beer and tobacco ads. 79-583 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated even as a nonsmoker, he had to respect an individual's right to smoke or not to smoke. His concern was for the taxpayers of the community in insuring that they received the low interest rate involved which was contingent upon the guarantee. He was thus supportive of the Mayor's provision. Councilman Overholt stated as a nonsmoker who smoked for 27 years, he also believed it was up to the individual to decide and he was fully supportive of the Mayor's announced philosophy that the Big "A" would become a showcase for the City as well as Anaheim Stadium. The Council had the broader responsibility to all citizens of the City to have a toned-down advertising policy on the Big "A". However, relative to the scoreboard in the Stadium, he did not believe a Rams fan was going to be offended by beer and cigarette ads, nor an Angel or a Surf fan. It was a way to look out for the economic rights of the taxpayer and to keep the family image of Anaheim where it should be, by having the Big "A" devoted to non-t~bacco and nonalcoholic advertising. Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry then clarified for Councilman Overholt some additional points in the commitment from the Bank of America, at the conclusion of which Councilman Overholt, although he appreciated Councilman Bay's concerns, maintained that time was of the essence in this instance, whereas normally he would be inclined to allow an additional week. Councilman Bay stated he did not like to vote on something he had not studied or reviewed but he would go with the wisdom of the Council, especially since Councilman Overholt and the Mayor were fully aware of the contract provisions. Otherwise, he had no problem with the moral questions of the advertising and thus he would support the resolutions. A vote was then taken on Resolution No. 79R-296. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-296 duly passed and adopted. A vote was taken on Resolution No. 79R-297. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-297 duly passed and adopted. 79-584 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. A vote was taken on Resolution No. 79R-298. Roll Call Vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-298 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:10 P.M.) 174: PUBLIC HEARING - PREAPPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS: Public hearing scheduled to allow Community Development Depart- ment to obtain the views and proposals from citizens on the preapplication for $300,000 in Community Development Block Grant reallocated funds. Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, stated that the proposal before the Council came about as part of this year's Community Develop- ment Block Grant (CDBG) funding for all Orange County cities. Sometime during the year, the cities of Newport Beach and Orange turned back, through decisions of their own, $1.3 million of funding. Subsequently, the City Manager, repre- sentatives of his staff, and he, met with other representatives of cities throughout Orange County. The thrust was to get HUD to reallocate the funds to Orange County cities, which they did. Subsequently alternate ways of utilizing the funds were discussed. One such alternative was that the con- sortium cities utilize the funds for a single project or in a combined effort. It became apparent over time however, that the most appropriate or frugal way to proceed would be for each city to develop its own project to the maximum amount of $300,000, which was the proposal before the Council today. The hearing was a typical one in the Block Grant process to receive the views of citizens on the utilization of the $300,000. At the same time the Council had before them a preapplication under which the $300,000 would be used as part of the money for the production of residential units at a site near the corner of Orangethorpe and Imperial. If favorably considered, this preappli- cation would be submitted to HUD for their consideration. The area covered in the preapplication was one parcel only, which Mr. Priest explained repre- sented surplus state property. They had talked with the owner of adjacent parcel and, if approved, they would deal with him so that the parcelization would be such that the owner would be able to develop limited commercial frontage along Orangethorpe and the rear or northerly portions of the site would be used for residential units. Mr. Priest emphasized it was a use they felt was critically needed in Anaheim. He recommended approval of the preapplication by motion so that it might be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development A 95 Review. 79-585 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour asked if the application was approved as prepared, could the $300,000 be allocated to another site if one should become available and also asked the status of the proposal with the adjacent property owner. Mr. Priest answered that they could reallocate to another site, but it was necessary to designate a particular site in the preapplication. Secondly, they had talked with the adjacent property owner a number of times and were in agreement, in principle, although the discussions had not been reduced to dollars. They did arrange a mutual or reciprocal easement for access both to his parcel and to the residential parcel on the northerly side. Having dis- cussed that in some detail, they believed it was a double project. Mr. Priest also explained for Mayor Seymour that the grant, if approved, would have to be presented to the Planning Commission as a requirement and perhaps HACMAC as a preliminary step to the Planning Commission, as well as being pre- sented to the Council. Further discussion and questioning followed between Councilman Roth and Mr. Priest, wherein Councilman Roth expressed his feeling as he had several times in the past that the parcel involved was undesirable for housing, considering the freight trains that passed that area nightly and the traffic on Imperial Highway. He was not convinced that favorable living conditions could be provided unless sound barriers were installed and swapping of land on the frontage was feasible. As well, there would be problems in trying to develop a shopping center in the area since the parcels were so narrow and long. Mr. Priest noted if the swap did not occur, the development would not be possible. Councilman Bay explained that they had looked into the matter on the Redevelop- ment Commission, and the Housing Commission had also been looking at various means to implement low and moderate income housing in the City and noted that some expensive studies and reports were available concerning the matter. It was not an easy matter to find available land on which to place low and moderate income housing and it was at the point where the Housing Commission was start- ing to look at some of the City's industrial land because they were desperate to find such land. Although the proposed site with trains and traffic was not the best, there were some nice apartments and condominiums in that area at present. When talking about getting started on low and moderate income housing, there was not a great deal of choice and this would be a starting place and thus he favored the proposal. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the preapplication for $300,000 in Community Development Block Grant reallocated funds; there being no response he closed the public hearing. MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the preapplication for CDBG funds was approved for submittal to A-95 Review and the City Manager authorized to execute same. MOTION CARRIED. 79-586 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 174: PUBLIC'HEARING - FEDERAL GENERAL REVENUE SHARING: To consider the proposed Federal General Revenue Sharing budget for the Fiscal Year 1979-80. City Manager Talley recounted the fact that the administrative hearings on Federal General Revenue Sharing had been held and the funds were proposed to be committed to the Civic Center project by the City Council. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak on the proposed Federal General Revenue Sharing budget and the proposed allocation of funds; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed Federal General Revenue Sharing budget for the Fiscal Year 1979-80 was approved as proposed. MOTION CARRIED. 106: PUBLIC HEARING - BUDGET: To consider the proposed 1979-80 Resource Allocation Plan. Mayor Seymour invited public input on the proposed budget. Shirley Cohen, Director of Project TLC stated they had written to Joe Garza at Community Services asking for consideration of the amount of $200 a month, or $2,400 a year, toward expenses that they had to pay for Anaheim's TLC Site No. 2 at the Salvation Army facility. They received federal money but they tried to reserve as much of that for staff costs and the actual meals and to ask the respective cities to provide for additional costs. They usually did not pay rent for a building because accommodations were provided bY the City or church or other community groups. When they first opened the Anaheim No. 2 site t~ey had problems finding a suitable location near the downtown area and the Salvation Army had to charge their cost to the program which placed an additional burden upon them. Since they wrote the letter asking for $200 a month, they found they had to pay either $50 or $100 a month to Anaheim No. 1 site at St. Paul's Church (Magnolia and Orange). They had been very generous in allowing TLC to use their facility for almost six years to the present time and they had not charged anything for that use. The TLC nutrition program at that site was providing meals for approximately 125 to 150 people, placing an increased burden on their costs of utilities and trash removal. She emphasized they had been very generous and they could not ask them to carry the increased costs any longer and thus they were now paying the $50 to $100 expense. Every time they paid such costs, it cut down on their ability to provide more meals. Therefore, they were asking Anaheim to help with $200, but preferably $300 a month, to cover the costs of the two nutrition programs in Anaheim where they were serving approximately 200 meals a day. Mrs. Cohen explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the maximum they could probably handle at St. Paul's was 135 seniors. They did not like a site to get too large because they wanted to be more than just a meal service. They wanted their staff to be able to talk with each senior individually, if necessary, and if they went over 135 seniors, this would not be possible. 79-587 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979, 1:30 P.M. A woman from the Chamber audience stated that they were serving on a daily basis approximatley 90 meals at the Salvation Army, 110 at St. Paul's and 15 to 20 at Colonia Independencia, the latter being located in the County area, and that they did have seniors that they had to turn away. Mrs. Cohen explained the reason for the cutback was that at the federal level the Older Americans Act was operating under a continuing resolution, but at the same dollar amount as the previous year. Towards the end of the last fiscal year, they contracted to serve 1570 meals a day (later corrected to 1370 meals) at their 21 sites in the County and were able to increase it to 1630. Since Congress did not appropriate additional funding, they could not maintain the increase and thus had to cut back to the contracted level of service and perhaps would have to cut more if no resources were available. The increased cost of food and paper goods also made it quite difficult to handle the financing. Mayor Seymour asked what the alternative would be if the Council did not approve the request; Mrs. Cohen stated that the Council had always approved their requests but if not, they would try to get the money elsewhere or cut down on the number of meals provided. Joyce Nethery, Finance Director for Project TLC explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the federal government money paid for approximately 50 employees including kitchen staff, drivers and site staff. All others were paid through Senior Aid or they used volunteers for approximately 100 employees altogether. Thus, over one-half were paid by other resources, not counting volunteers. In Anaheim, they paid the manager at both sites No. 1 and 2. All other staff positions were either CETA, senior aides or volunteers. Money from Title VII, the federal dollar, was allocated to meals, with only 10% for administration. They did receive $10,000 from Bingo through the National Association of Senior Citizens in March and they received an advance of $7,000 recently so that they could open an additional TLC center at the National Association of Senior Citizens (NASC) site which they would call Anaheim No. 4, but it would have nothing to do with Bingo. Mr. John Morrill of NASC would have to pay for all staff, the meals and all the equipment and rather than the California Depart- ment of Aging supporting them with USDA money of 38½¢ per meal, he would basically be supporting that site. They had drawn up an agreement that NASC would have to pay 60 days in advance per month so that they would be able to serve through that money an additional 75 to 100 people a day in Anaheim with all. expenses paid by the NASC. He had given them another $1,000 which they used to buy some extra eq~ipment a~ both Anaheim sites and to provide one site with 10 meals a day and the other five meals a day. That money was given to preclude cutting back on meals and they did not have to cut back for the month of May. Councilman Roth asked for clarification that they were asking for $2,400 because of an additional amount at the St. Paul's site. Ms. Nethery indicated that was correct but she could not remember if it was to pay $50 or $100 a month, but she would supply that information. Mayor Seymour asked if she would also submit another letter outlining what they were looking for at both sites and the Council would take the request into consideration as they pursued deliberations on the budget. 79-588 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mildred Jones, President of the Board of Directors of the West Orange County Hotline stated, as was evident from the material submitted by Steve Swaim, Manager of Community Services, they had continued to serve citizens of Anaheim and had not reduced their service at all. The Hotline service continued to be a general crisis intervention service by telephone to assist the caller in whatever crisis that might be confronting the individual at the time. In their budget, they were asking for $200 or $100 a month from the City of Anaheim whereas the average number of calls per month from Anaheim residents was 119. Mrs. Jones thereupon elaborated on other aspects of the program at the con- clusion of which she stated that they felt the services they were giving and would continue to give to Anaheim justified their appearing before the Council to ask for some assistance. If the City could not give $1,200, they would take $600 or would be grateful for any contribution. Since they had been serving citizens of Anaheim, she suggested that they ask the Community Services Department to appoint one of the staff members to serve on the Hotline Board of Directors which met once a month, to become more familiar and aware of the work the West Orange County Hotline was.doing for the citizens of Anaheim. Mr. John Flocken, 1320 South Hacienda, President of the Anaheim Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) explained the purpose of his appearance was to request that the City Council adopt a suggested policy, that a portion of the City's business license fees be identified as a source of funds on a continuing basis for the AEDC. Since there were certain restrictions with funding from other sources, there might be an item that was questionable relative to funding by one agency or another. In that instance, the Corporation would have to curtail activity until a source of funds could be identified. By identifying specific sources of funds, if the need would arise in the future, it would be up to the business community through an increase in the business license fees to support Economic Development if that should become necessary. He also stated that they had opened a bank account and, with private funds, were raising $10,000 as seed money. He was looking for a policy for future direction of their efforts and he was cognizant of the fact that they would have to perform in order to get the support of the business community and the City Council. He repeated it was necessary to have identification of funds in order to provide continuity to the Corporation. Parallel to this request is the Visitor and Convention Bureau wherein a source of funds for that operation was identified in the room tax. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that relative to the V&C, that was an additional transient tax and not something taken from the General Fund. She was concerned that Mr. Flocken was talking about taking funds from the business license fee with an increase"if it became necessary. Anything presently in the General Fund was more than allocated at this point. She did not understand Mr. Flocken when he suggested support from the General Fund and she also asked how much money was coming from federal funds. Mr. Flocken answered that approximately $88,000 represented federal funds. At this point, they were just getting into the budgetary process. The budget for 1979-80 was $137,600. Thus, there was a shortfall provided in the preliminary budget of approximately $36,000 from the General Fund. 79-589 City Hali~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. City Manager Talley referred to Pages C112, 13 and 14 listing the Economic Development budget with approximately $36,000 coming from Block Grant funds of the Community Development Department for the Economic Development Corporation. Mr. Flocken then explained for Councilman Overholt that the Chamber of Commerce endorsed the idea and the policy that the business license fee be identified as a source of funds for the AEDC. It was passed unanimously by the Board of Directors of the Chamber. There was an additional resolution, however, that they did not want that to be construed in any way as any kind of an endorsement at this time to increase the business license tax. Mayor Seymour stated it sounded as though the thrust of the motion was, why not allocate some of your existing license fees but do not increase those fees. Mr. ¥1ocken felt that was exactly what was being said, but the way he viewed it, as they proceeded, they would have to show results. He emphasized the Chamber did embrace the concept, which was what he wanted. The Mayor stated he would support any concept, and in this instance business, commerce and industry, asking the City to collect taxes from them and, in turn, take that and invest it back into that segment. On the other hand, he had difficulty voting an increase in the business license fees without the strong endorsement of the people who were going to pay for it. Mr. Flocken agreed and stressed that he would not suggest an increase in the tax but in the future if they needed a source of funds and were doing a good job, he maintained it was incumbent upon the AEDC to go to the business community and state that they needed it. Councilman Overholt stated that he endorsed the concept as well, but in looking down the road, if there was d~fficulty, in his opinion it was incumbent upon the AEDC to sell the business community on the fact that an increase in the business license fee was the way to go. It made sense, but in the final analysis it would be difficult to sell the people they would be dealing with on an increase of license fees. Further discussion then followed between Council Members Kaywood, Roth, and Overholt and Mr. Flocken relative to the discussion that took place at the Chamber of Commerce as well as further questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood. Mr. Fiocken clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that he was not asking for any City funds, but looking for an identification of a source of funds. At the conclusion of discussion, the Mayor stated that Mr. Flocken had plenty of sensitivity and agreement from Council relative to the concept he described and what he had been asking in the event the AEDC saw the need for an additional source of funding, and in the event the Corporation got the business, industry and commerce to support an increase in license fees. He wanted the Council to pass those back and invest them. He did not believe any of the five Council members was in disagreement with this concept. 79-590 C__~t~_ Itall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCI. L MINUTES - May 22~ .1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 79R-299 for adoption supporting the policy that in the event the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) had need for alternate sources of funds and the EDC and/or Chamber of Commerce is successful in gathering the support of those who pay business license fees to pay an increase in those fees, that such increases, in turn, be invested into the EDC's activities. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-299: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING A POLICY OF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Flocken stated that he could suggest a shorter resolution, that being, that the Council adopt as a policy the identification of a portion of the City license fees as a specific source of funds for the AEDC. The Mayor stated he would not support such action because it was asking that they identify something right now. He reconfirmed that what Mr. Flocken was asking was a policy from the Council stating in the future if they needed funds and could convince the business community that the City should raise license fees, that increased portion so raised be put back into economic development. Mr. Flocken stated that was agreeable and more than what he wanted. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-299 duly passed and adopted. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak to the budget; there was no response. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the public hearing on the proposed 1979-80 budget was continued to the meeting of May 29, 1979. MOTION CARRIED. 114: POLICE RESERVE DINNER: Councilman Overholt, Councilwoman Kaywood, and Councilman Bay commented on the excellence of the Police Reserve Dinner held recently and commended the dedicated group of volunteers who devoted their time and energy to the law enforcement needs of the City over and above those of the City's Police Department. It was heartwarming to see how many were willing to give so many hours of dedicated service with a high risk involved and with no monetary benefits. 140: LIBRARY BOARD - FIRST ANNUAL AWARD NIGHT: Mrs. Elizabeth Schultz, Chairman of the Library Board, recalled that two years ago they came to the Council to get acceptance of a gift to the Library of $10,000 given in memory of Michael Roston, the son of Dr. and Mrs. Maxwell Roston. They recruited Martin Sklar 79-591 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 22, 1979, 1:30 P.M. to chair a committee who made arrangements for a First Annual Award to be given Wednesday night, May 30, 1979 at the Brookhurst Community Center. Letters were in the mail to the Council and she hoped all would be in attendance. Ten young people from the community were going to receive monetary awards, the highest being $100. They were grateful to the Rostons for providing the money, giving young people an opportunity to write about subjects in which they were interested. They received 400 entries for the first year and thus were looking forward to an interesting evening. The celebrated author of science fiction, Mr. Ray Bradbury, was the scheduled speaker. Before concluding, Councilman Overhoit noted that Irv Pickler's term on the Library Board was going to expire June 30, 1979 and he had indicated he w~uld be available for reappointment at the appropriate time. In his opinion, Mr. Pickler had done an outstanding job in his (Overholt's) tenure as liaison to the Library Board. Further, as a preview, the Library Board would be approaching the Council relative to their strong feeling regarding Sunday openings at the Library. They would be submitting figures that would be astonishingly low as to what it would cost to open the Central Library on Sunday, which figures would be presented to the Council during the workshop on June 5 to be very specific on that request. 114: OPENING OF RALPH'S MARKET: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that she had attended the Grand Opening of Ralph's Market at Lincoln and Gilbert, which she considered to be a nice addition to west Anaheim. 114: OPENING OF SUNSHINE BROILER: Councilman Bay reported that he and Council- woman Kaywood attended the Grand Opening of Carl Karcher's Sunshine Broiler (formerly Carl's Restaurant) offering a completely new menu. 114: RETIREMENT DINNER - AVON CARLSON: Mayor Seymour stated that while Council- man Bay and Councilwoman Kaywood were covering the Grand Opening of the Sunshine Broiler, he and Councilman Overholt were covering the retirement dinner of Avon Carlson, which was also a very fine event and well attended. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive Session. (4:25 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:00 P.M.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn, Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:00 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK DEPUTY