1977/03/29 77-347
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular
session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: Joe White, Carl Kiefer, Jim Townsend
Dale Stanton and Ken Keesee
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: Richard Haynie and Wynn Anderson
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
SPECIAL COUNSEL: Alan Watts, Herb Westphal and Wynn Peterson of
R. W. Beck and Associates
Mayor Thom called the Council meeting to order at 10:05 a.m., announcing that
the purpose of this adjourned regular meeting is to consider participation in
San Onofre Generating Project Units 2 and 3.
Chairman Keesee called the Public Utilities Board to order.
175: UTILITIES - ELECTRICAL GENERATION - SAN ONOFRE UNITS 2 AND 3: Mr. Gordon
Hoyt reported on the recommendation that the City Council authorize a letter of
intent to participate in the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and
3. (A copy of the proposed letter of intent was included in the packet of infor-
mation presented to Council.) He explained that this letter complies with the
requirements of the Settlement Agreement between Anaheim and Southern California
Edison signed in August, 1972, and will set in motion the preparation of an EIR
and other documents necessary prior to actual commitment to participation can be
accomplished, these requirements being listed in Exhibit "F" of the Settlement
Agreement.
Mr. Hoyt summarized that R. W. Beck and Associates were employed by the City to
study the financial feasibility of City of Anaheim participation in San Onofre
Units 2 and 3 which has been accomplished and report presented indicating that
the City may expect that the amount of energy these San Onofre Units would pro-
duce, if the City were to participate, would be 60% of the cost of the same
amount of energy purchased in the same period of time from Southern California
Edison, which reflects a savings of 40%.
Mr. Hoyt concluded that it was his personal recommendation that the City Council
sign the letter and take the necessary steps leading to participation in the
San Onofre Project. He called attention to the presence of Mr. Herb Westphal
and Wynn Peterson of R. W. Beck and Associates in the event Council might have
questions or concerns for discussion.
Members of the Public Utilities Board expressed their opinions and reasons for
their vote on the recommendation as follows:
Mr. Dale Stanton voted affirmatively on the recommendation as he felt the rate of
return would be appropriate for investment in a utility stock and further because
from his investigation of the subject, he has read that the cost per kilowatt in-
stalled has increased from $600 to $1000 in 1976 and an extension of the figures
77-348
_City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977~ 10:00 A.M.
at the same ratio would mean current cost per kilowatt hour installed would be
$1500 or more; however according to the Beck report, the City will pay in San
Onofre Units 2 and 3, $843 per kilowatt hour installed today which is lower than
the 1976 rate.
Mr. Ken Keesee indicated his approval of generation projects as he feels they
will result in comparably lower energy building in the future. He stressed that
he did not feel there would be any change in utility costs next week, month or
year, but that once the generation project is operational, the citizens of Anaheim
stand to benefit.
Mr. Carl Kiefer congratulated the management of the Utilities Department and re-
lated his confidence in the affirmative vote on the recommendation to enter into
San Onofre Units 2 and 3, noting all the areas of intensive study and field trips
put in by the Public Utilities Board.
Mr. Jim Townsend, one of the dissenting votes, stated he did not feel the Board
had received all the information upon which to base their recommendation. He
commented that the City has not yet laid out a comprehensive energy plan for
future generation sources including the costs involved. He further pointed out
that there are unknowns in this decision referring to the upcoming Federal Energy
Plan and inflation. Mr. Townsend concluded that before taking action on this
recommendation, the Council should instruct the Public Utilities Board to work
with the Utilities Director and come up with an overall plan which could then be
presented to the "stockholders" of Anaheim making them aware of where the City is
going, and how much it might cost them, as well as the potential rewards and pitfalls.
Mr. Joe White stated his belief that the Intermountain Power Project is the key
for the City of Anaheim in the generation question. He related that he was not
yet sold on the benefits of San Onofre Units 2 and 3 for Anaheim, but felt that
certainly because of the ramifications of Intermountain Project it should be
considered prior to the San Onofre decision or at least concomitantly. Mr. White
explained that he is in disagreement with the remainder of the Board because he is
not satisified with the resources and information supplied to the Board, and in
particular, called attention to the fact that all of the information submitted on
generation is filtered through R. W. Beck and Associates. Mr. White stated although
he does not intend to demean that firm, he finds it difficult to correlate their
findings with what he reads elsewhere. Specifically, that the cost of uranium is
rising and by the year 2000, it is anticipated it will cost as much to use as coal.
Mr. White stated that if the cost of uranium increases as much as these outside
reports indicate, he felt the City's profits and/or savings from generation would
be lost. Further Mr. White commented that the Public Utilities Board has not
studied all of the information possible, that he personally would like to know in
detail what the profit picture is in the City of Los Angeles which has been in the
electrical business for some time.
Mr. White also voiced concern as to how the City of Anaheim will compete with such
utilities as Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, and San Diego Gas
and Electric, which have imbedded costs for generation of $130 per kilowatt when
the City of Anaheim imbedded cost per kilowatt may be anticipated to be as high as
$1358. He also commented on the interest payments which will have to be made on
funds before the plants are built and that principal and interest for Intermountain
Power Project will exceed $50 million per year. In conclusion Mr. White indicated
that he felt it is important to obtain some outside information so as to correlate
what he reads in the papers with what is contained in the R. W. Beck and Associates
report.
77-349~
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977, 10:00 A.M.
A discussion period during which Council Members might question the representa-
tives of R. W. Beck and City staff on any of the areas covered in the information
was held, and the following points were covered by Mr. Wynn Peterson in response
to Council questions: (1) The comparison in the report of the cost of purchasing
power from Edison versus cost for power from the San Onofre Project including the
fact that these calculations are admittedly estimations which are based on assump-
tions and information submitted by Southern California Edison; and (2) The origin
of the numbers used in the study and what factors were considered in preparing these
cost estimates.
Councilman Seymour stated that he would like to see information as to what the
Southern California Edison imbedded costs might be in the year 1990, as well as
data which would demonstrate, at the end of a specific period, what percentage of
the power generated by Edison is generated at a higher cost level because basically
his concern or question is whether or not the City of Anaheim will be able to com-
pete with Southern California Edison and provide electricity at a lower cost.
Mr. Peterson explained that in electrical generation projects the cost of capital
is huge and represents the preponderance of expense in these plants, and that South-
ern California Edison's fixed charge rate (percentage times the capital cost) when
compared to these same costs for the City, Edison's will be 15% to 17% higher.
Councilman Seymour still felt that he would need information as to the Southern
California Edison total cost of power and the average cost per kilowatt (imbedded
cost) projected out to the years 1990 to 2000.
Councilman Kott reiterated Mr. White's concern about the long range implications
of the Intermountain Power Project and inquired whether R. W. Beck and Associates
felt these were legitimate and whether they feel the entire picture is presented
in the study.
Mr. Peterson reported that in the 1976 Study, the conclusion was reached that since
generating projects would be scheduled for commitment by the City at various
times, that each must be looked at on its own merits and evaluated in light of
what the City is doing at the time commitment is necessary.
In further response to Councilman Kott, Mr. Peterson explained it is very difficult
to go beyond 1990 projections with any surety at all, but that his firm feels the
long range economics must be reviewed to ascertain whether there is any economic
benefit to the City.
Councilman Seymour discussed working capital and contingency reserve requirements
with Mr. Peterson who explained that a reasonable expectation for working capital
would be one eighth of annual operation and maintenance costs. Additionally, Mr.
Peterson went into some detail in discussing comparative costs of fuel resources,
both nuclear and oil in the future.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the necessity of this meeting, indicating that a
clear two-thirds majority of the Public Utilities Board voted favorably on the
recommendation to forward the letter of intent to participate in San Onofre Units
2 and 3. She commented that this meeting was apparently called because of a letter
presented by the dissenting minority of the Board and that if this is to be the
course of action, then it negates the purpose and function of having an established
Public Utilities Board to make advisory recommendations to the Council.
77-3~9
City Hall, Anaheim~ California I COUNCIL MINUTES i M~rch 29~ 1977~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Seymour interjected that if these two dissenting members of the Board
had not requested this meeting, then he would have done so himself because of
the complexity and technicality of the subject matter and the size of investment;
and further, because he does not feel the Council should fall into the pattern of
rubber-stamping advisory committee recommendations.
Councilman Kott voiced his concern that the R. W. Beck and Associates report was
full of suppositions and Southern California Edison projections which may or may
not be true. He did not feel the report was truly analytical.
Councilman Seymour stated that he would like to ask the Public Utilities Board
to take a closer look at the financial analysis of this proposal by a comparison
based on the 1976 Beck and Associates Study with the approach of Southern Calif-
ornia Edison as a competitor. He wished this to reinforce whether or not the
City of Anaheim will be capable of competing , which will only be possible if the
City of Anaheim's average cost per kilowatt is lower than that of Edison.
Mr. Hoyt stressed that the area which should be of prime concern to the Council
would be Southern California Edison's cost of imbedded debt, which according to the
documents in the 1974 rate case, would be 6.31% in 1976, and that the City of Anaheim
could buy money at a lower rate. He emphasized that no matter what the imbedded
cost per kilowatt hour was, it didn't have anything to do with the cost of elec-
tricity purchased from Southern California Edison. He explained that the Southern
California Edison Company rate base is made up of all kinds of costs, including
facilities capital costs, costs of generating transmission, as well as a rate of
return on their investment. Ail of these items make up the cost of service which
would be the cost the City of Anaheim would pay when purchasing power from Edison.
Councilman Seymour still felt that if the City's future cost of production is
higher than that of Edison, then the City would not be in a good competitive
position.
Mr. Hoyt summarized that the R. W. Beck and Associates report tried to analyze
these cost inputs without using catch phrases and to deal with the rates paid
by the City now, based on the information filed in the rate cases and to take
this information and look forward. He reiterated that the study had to use
Southern California Edison information as it is dealing with their system. He
noted that the report takes such information as the amounts Edison will invest,
what fuels they will use and future projects. Certainly the end calculations
are estimates, and admittedly there are risks. R. W. Beck and Associates went
through this process to reach their projected Edison rates and costs and then
against that, balanced a question as to what were the advantages to the City
of Anaheim in participating in any given plan.
Councilman Seymour requested, since it is apparent a decision on the Intermountain
Power Project will be required in December, that the R. W. Beck and Associates
report of July 1976 be updated to show the comparative costs of generation versus
purchasing from Edison, i.e., the rate per kilowatt hour plus fuel.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that in the Exhibit, page f-2, Edison retains
the right to any shares in San Onofre Units 2 and 3 which are not accepted by the
cities,which she felt was significant in that it demonstrates that Edison is not
eager to share this project with municipal utilities.
77-351
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Kott indicated that he would like to charge the Public Utilities Board
with the responsibility of coming up with a study showing the alternative signifi-
cant values of, in fact, selling the entire City electrical system to the Edison
Company. He noted that his decision in this matter will be based strictly on
whether or not it is advantageous and to the best interest of the taxpayer and
utility user in the community. He therefore stated that he would like to see
figures comparing the dollars the City would receive from sale of the utility to
the millions of dollars to be invested in generation and the interest on same.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the decision as to whether or not the
Council should authorize forwarding of a letter of intent to participate in
San Onofre Units 2 and 3 be continued for one week to an additional joint meet-
ing with the Public Utilities Board at 10:00 a.m. on April 5, 1977. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Kott moved that the Public Utilities Board be instructed to
make an analysis as to whether it would be financially feasible for the City to
consider divesting itself of the electric utility. Councilman Thom seconded the
motion.
Under discussion, Councilman Seymour indicated that he could see no correlation
whatsoever between being in the business of distribution and the business of
generation of electricity; that these are two separate and distinct functions.
Councilman Seymour further pointed out that it was extremely clear to him that
the Utilities Department has returned millions of dollars to the General Fund as
a result of savings, and further has provided lower retail rates as compared to
Edison retail rates. He remarked that there is no doubt in his mind that the
vast majority of the electorate has indicated that they wish the City to be in
the business of distribution and generation of electricity.
The aforementioned motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Thom seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 11:45 A.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
77-352
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS DIRECTOR: James D. Ruth
ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT: George H. Edwards
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST: Ron M. Rothschild
MANPOWER SERVICES MANAGER: William Hepburn
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman John Seymour led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was unanimously adopted
by the City Council to be presented to "Medic 44", a group of nurses at Anaheim
Memorial Hospital who served effectively and efficiently administering medical
aid throughout the Anaheim community during the organizing, training and equipping
of the City's Paramedic Units.
PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Thom and unanimously
approved by the City Council:
"Tennis Week in Anaheim" - June 18 through 26, 1977
155: AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS - CERTIFICATE TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
Mr. Hardy Strozier, President, Orange Section, California Chapter, AIP, explained
that Anaheim was chosen for two awards for outstanding achievement in area planning
for the Santa Ana Canyon General Plan and the People Mover Proposal, recognizing the
highest excellence of their professional staff, as well as the policy decisions of
the Council. The two awards were presented to the Mayor who indicated the proper
place for them to be displayed would be in the Planning Department.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, accepted the awards on behalf of the City
Council, the Planning Commission, staff, and the citizens who had participated
in the subject projects over an extended period of time.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Kott, the minutes
of the City Council regular meeting held February 8, 1977, were approved, subject
to typographical corrections. MOTION CARRIED.
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 reading of such ordinance
or resolution. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
77-353
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,296,702.22, in accordance
with the 1976-77 Budget, were approved.
105: CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION - SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT OF CITY'S CULTURAL N~S:
The Mayor explained that the subject item was removed from the Redevelopment Agency
Agenda as the comments that had to be made were not pertinent speaking as Agency
Members. He referred to report dated March 21, 1977, from Executive Director Norm
Priest requesting authorization of an expenditure of funds for a survey and assess-
ment of cultural needs in Anaheim. The Mayor noted that representatives from the
Anaheim Foundation for Culture and the Arts were in the Council Chamber. He
stated that his feeling was the needs assessment could be aptly handled by the
Foundation itself and his comments were directed to those members. If the Founda-
tion wished to enter into an assessment study on their own and pass a recommendation
along to the Council that would have some financial implications, he would be more
than willing to assist the Foundation on a contractual basis. He contended that
Anaheim's endeavors in the culture and the arts could best be handled by the Founda-
tion and was of the opinion there was no longer a need or use for a Cultural Arts
Commission especially since the Commission had lacked a quorum for some time and
there were presently four existing vacancies. He reiterated that 'the Commission
should be disbanded and a contractual arrangement made with the Foundation and
suggested that the Council take the matter under consideration or set a time to do so.
MOTION: Councilman Kott concurred with the Mayor stating that he was aware of
problems between the Commission and the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department
and also within the Commission itself. It was obviously non-functional because
of a lack of membership, interest, and the internal affairs of the people involved.
If the Foundation were given freedom and autonomy, they would perform to their
maximum. He thereupon moved that the Cultural Arts Commission be abolished.
Councilman Thom seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the reason no one else was appointed to the Commission
was due to the study that was in progress and the motion was based on a total lack
of facts and understanding. She suggested instead that a meeting be set wherein all
of the people involved could be present and the resultant study material available.
Relative to the proposed study to be undertaken by the Redevelopment Agency, Council-
man Seymour stated that his philosophical beliefs were similar to Councilman Kott's
in that the private sector--the Foundation-- was better equipped to do the job
relative to the City's cultural needs; however, the question of funding would most
likely arise. If the City became involved in the funding of operational programs
of the Foundation, he was concerned that in the future the Council, or someone on
the Council, would be challenging that kind of contractual relationship, just as
with the Chamber of Commerce. If capital expenditures were involved, then it would
be in the best interest of the community for the City to fund a program of that
type. Therefore, relative to the study, he was of the opinion that it could best
be done by the Foundation, but he also had serious reservations regarding the use
of taxpayer funds to accomplish the study.
Concerning the question of disbanding the Commission, Councilman Seymour referred
to the Committee that was established made up of members of the Foundation, Commis-
sion, and various art and cultural associations throughout the City to study the
matter. As yet, no report had been made to the Council relative to disbandment
77-354
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
or continuation of the Cultural Arts Commission. In light of this, he stressed
it would be improper to act prior to talking with that Committee and consequently
he could not support the motion. He preferred instead some type of action which
would bring the problem to a positive culmination. He suggested that two Council
Members or the entire Council meet with the Committee they had created before taking.
any further action.
Councilwoman Kaywood indicated that the Committee had been meeting and did generate
a report which she had seen and, as well, representatives from the Foundation were
also represented on that Committee. She was surprised that the matter had been
broached prematurely.
At the request of Councilman Roth, Leta Archer addressed the Council and explained
that at the last meeting of the Committee which she attended, the consensus was
that a survey should be conducted, and funds were going to be requested from the
Redevelopment Agency and the Council; and James Ruth, Parks, Recreation and the Arts
Director, was to acquire a portion of those funds from the community at large.
Councilman Kott took issue with the fact that after seven months, the Committee
still had not come up with an answer.
In conclusion, Mrs. Archer further stated that the Foundation had made several
surveys in the community at no cost to the public, and it was felt they had a good
overview relative to the needs of the community and were perfectly able to take
care of those needs.
At the request of Mayor Thom, Mr. John Malmquist, President of the Anaheim Founda-
tion for Culture and the Arts, provided background on the services rendered by
the Foundation and the progress made in fulfilling the cultural needs of the commun-
ity through the facilities of the Horace Mann School without asking for much financial
assistance from the City. He emphasized that Anaheim should contract with the Founda-
tion, especially considering the excellent track record of the Foundation. If given
the opportunity, they would make the City Council proud of their organization, as
well as the program of culture and arts in the City of Anaheim. In answer to
Councilman Roth, Mr. Malmquist stated that the Cultural Arts Commission should be
abolished.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern that the matter was being prematurely
discussed and noted the great deal of animosity which has developed. She asked
Mr. Ruth to make a statement in order to clarify the matter.
Mr. James Ruth stated there were some unfortunate misunderstandings relative to
the situation. Subsequent to the meeting in August 1976, with the City Council,
a Committee was formed consisting of 18 people, 12 of whom truly served and
contributed to the results of the Committee's effort. A formal report was pre-
pared and the Committee is expected to take action on the report the second
week in April, and then submit it to Council. The composition of the Committee
included representatives of the Citizens' Capital Improvement Committee for the
Arts, 4 members of the Cultural Arts Commission, various members at large and a
representative from the Cultural Arts Center, including Mr. Ray Campbell, a
very active member. The intent was to bring some unanimity to the arts
77-3~
City Hall, .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29; 1977, 1:30 P.M.
in the City. The possibility of dissolution of the Cultural Arts Commission was
also discussed but rather than abolishing the Commission, the consensus was it
should be expanded to provide broader input from the community into the Cultural
Arts Commission and ultimately to the City Council. The Committee did not intend
to come to the City Council to ask for money to do a survey, but to generate enough
commitment and support from the community to eliminate the cost to the taxpayer.
The whole objective was to get an independent evaluation of short- and the long-term
needs of the arts and to look at the organizational structures within the City
offering these services to eliminate duplication and to come up with a plan the
City Council could accept. Mr. Ruth concluded by stating he would appreciate a
review of the report prior to any decision.
Councilman Seymour confirmed that was what he wanted to see the Council do, review
the report and meet with the Committee before taking final action. Although the
outcome might be the same, the courtesy should be extended.
Further discussion followed wherein it was ascertained that since the Cultural
Arts Commission was created by City Ordinance, the motion would have to be to
direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance repealing that Section of the
Code which established the Commission, namely Section 1.04.400. Councilman Kott
changed his motion accordingly provided the ordinance could be ready in one week.
Councilman Kott stated that although it was indicated the Committee did not want a
survey, the request for $7,500 was specifically for the purpose of doing so through
an independent consulting firm, which request initiated the whole matter. He was
of the opinion that the people who lived in Anaheim for many years knew the cultural
needs and desires of the community as opposed to bringing someone in from outside.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion directing the City Attorney to draft an
ordinance repealing Code Section 1.04.400, thereby dissolving the Cultural
Arts Commission, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MOTION CARRIED.
Kott, Roth and Thom
Kaywood and Seymour
153, 156 AND 161: ARTHUR YOUNG AND COMPANY FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AUDIT:
City Manager Talley referred to a letter dated March 22, 1977, from Arthur Young
and Company, wherein they reported completion of the implementation review of the
Financial and Management Practices Audit on the Police and Personnel Departments
and the Redevelopment Agency. Review outlines for each were also submitted.
Mr. Tim Haidinger, Arthur Young and Company, clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood
that the Community Development Department and not the Redevelopment Agency, as
stated, was the organization reviewed. He also provided the names of those from
his company who actually prepared each of the reports.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, the reports submitted by
Arthur Young and Company on the Financial Management Practices Audit of the Police
and Personnel Departments and Community Development Department were received and
filed. MOTION CARRIED.
77-350
~ity Hall~ Anaheim) California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the Police
Chief and Personnel Director were instructed to respond to the Council within two
weeks relative to the time table for implementing the balance of recommendations
made by Arthur Young & Company concerning their departments. MOTION CARRIED.
123 AND 128: IMPLEMENTATION OF CITY'S FIXED ASSET ACCOUNTING SYSTEM: The Mayor
indicated he was satisfied with the reasons cited by Arthur Young & Company Justi-
fying their retention in a consultant and review capacity during the installation of
the City's proposed Fixed Asset Accounting System as outlined in their letter dated
March 16, 1977. The cost of $4,500 to do so would be an insurance policy for a
"clean" opinion on the City's year end financial statement.
Councilman Roth referred to Council minutes dated October 26, 1976, wherein by a
3 to 2 vote (he and Councilman Kott dissenting), a contract was signed with Marshall
and Stevens for $225,000 for consulting services to implement a Fixed Asset Accounting
System. He was, therefore, opposed to authorizing another $4,500 to have consultants
watch the original consultants.
Councilman Seymour contended that Councilman Roth was confusing the issue since it
was decided sometime back that the City could not operate in a professional fashion
without a balance sheet and to continue to do so, would cost taxpayers dollars
relative to a bonding rating because of a qualified opinion on the City's financial
statement. That opinion was used historically because the City's assets were not
known. He considered the implication that the $225,000 to be spent to determine the
assets as a waste of taxpayer funds to be dishonest. The $4,500 to be paid to Arthur
Young & Company was to assure themselves that proper and adequate procedures were being
used in establishing the total fixed assets of the City since they would be responsi-
ble for providing the "clean" financial statement. Even considering the two combined
amounts, it was obvious that one-quarter of 1% in a bonding rate would return many
times'that amount.
Councilman Roth stated that, in fact, Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt stated at the
October 26, 1976, meeting that the Fixed Asset Accounting System would not improve
the City's bonding rating.
Councilman Seymour stated that after checking with a number of bonding agents, a
report was submitted indicating there would be a savings.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Haidinger stated that while his Company
was not in a position to say whether the Fixed Asset Accounting System would or
would not have an impact relative to bonding rates, it was the opinion of their
underwriters approximately two years prior there could be some reduction in the
rate if an unqualified statement was obtained although they could not state this
positively. Those opinions were previously presented to the Council. If there
were no reductions, there would be no off-setting savings from having done the
Fixed Asset Study. The general indication was, however, there would be a tendancy
to give a better rating.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour,'the Arthur Young &
Company proposal for consultant services regarding implementation of the City's Fixed
Asset Accounting System was approved. To this motion Councilman Roth voted "No".
Councilwoman Kaywood abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
77-357
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
108: BUSINESS LICENSE TAX REPORT, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: City Manager
Talley referred to the report prepared by the Program Development and Audit
Office containing recommendations in four major areas of revenue sources: apart-
ment businesses, motel/hotel businesses, professional business classifications,
and the gross receipts tax schedule, and briefly explained the purpose and effect
of the recommended changes. He also pointed out that if the cost of issuing
licenses was averaged, there was a strong possibility that it cost more to provide
the licensing than the revenues that were generated.
Mr. Talley further explained that a letter dated March 23, 1977, from the Anaheim
Chamber of Commerce already directed to the Council's attention had been received,
as well as a telegram from seven apartment owners in opposition to the recommenda-
tions in the staff report.
Mr. Ron Rothschild, Senior Administrative Analyst, answered questions poSed by
Councilman Kott relative to the preparation of the report, specifically those
consulted and the basis used for the concurrence of the Finance Department as
stated by Mr. Rothschild in the report cover letter. He (Rothschild) explained
that he had reviewed the report with the.City Treasurer, the Licen'se Collector
and the then Finance Director, Michael Moore. Subsequent to the review of the
preliminary draft by Mr. Moore, a more final draft was reviewed with the Acting
Finance Director, A1 Eccles, and he received concurrence from all four either in
writing or verbally. He confirmed that Mr. Eccles concurred with the body of the
report although all he did was write comments on the draft. The only comment that
could be construed otherwise was one where he indicated that any additional taxes
levied on the motel/hotel industry would be violently resisted and could become
a political issue. Mr. Rothschild considered that comment to be outside the scope
of the report.
Councilman Kott stated that he had spoken to Mr. Eccles who told him he wrote a
report stating he disagreed with the Business License Tax Analysis and Recommenda-
tions. Mr. Rothschild had not seen the report, and Mr. Eccles did not mention this
fact verbally to him.
Further discussion followed between Councilman Kott and Mr. Rothschild revolving
around the City Treasurer's scope of responsibility. Councilman Kott contended
that he (City Treasurer) as an appointed official had no basis for stating whether
or not the proposed method of extracting money should be accomplished as prescribed.
In answer to additional questions by Councilman Kott, Mr. Rothschild explained that
consideration was given to changing the methods of collecting monies for business
licenses so that collection could be done more efficiently, but he also considered
that to be outside the scope of the report.
For clarification, Mr. Talley stated that complete concurrence meant that all
factual material was contained in the report and as far as staff was concerned,
it was correct. Staff did not set policies or taxing priorities.
The Mayor asked Mr. Rothschild if he assumed the responsibility of generating the
report or if he was asked to do so.
77-3~
~i~Ha!l, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Rothschild stated that he and the City Manager agreed some months earlier
that since business licensing and tax analysis was an area that had not been
reviewed for almost 20 years, Mr. Talley asked him to conduct the report.
Mr. Talley emphasized that he was the one who asked for the report and that all
reports done by the Program Development and Audit Office were under his. authority.
Councilman Roth interjected for clarification purposes that although the City
Manager could write any kind of report he wanted, he did not have the prerogative
to raise taxes and only the Council could do so.
The Mayor emphasized that his main objection was the clandestine manner in which
the report was generated and its attempt at confidentiality in keeping it away
from the Council until it was already prepared, whether the Council wanted it or
not.
Councilman Roth voiced the opinion that it would be derelict of the City Manager
and staff not to call the Council's attention to the fact that 23% of licenses
issued by the City cost more to issue than monies collected, and a decision should
be made either to eliminate the tax or raise it to cover costs.
The Mayor then encouraged anyone in the Council Chamber who wished to comment on
the matter to do so, after which it would be disposed of accordingly.
The following persons spoke in opposition to the recommendations contained in the
staff report on the proposed methods of business licensing for the below listed
reasons: Mr. Richard Heald, 1142 West Broadway; Dr. Marshall Stonestreet, 1834
West Lincoln; Dr. Bushell, 1781 West Romneya; Mr. Bill Miller, McCoy Ford, 1600
West Lincoln; Mrs. Patricia Bayley, 801 North Loara; Mr. Fred Brown, 812 West
Broad~ay; Dr. Thayne Price, 1001 South Brookhurst, Fullerton; Mr. Jack Ward,
1736 West Greenleaf; Mr. Bob Hardin, Attorney, 2127 West Ball Road; Dr. McBirney,
1842 West Lincoln; Mr. Jim Morgan, Attorney, 300 South Harbor Boulevard.
1. Levying a tax on rental income will cause a raise in rents for those who can-
not afford a home. If the business license tax costs more to collect than
is realized, then the tax should be eliminated entirely.
2. From an ethical standpoint, the proposals are unfair to the medical and dental
profession who have a confidentiality to preserve; from a philosophical standpoint,
opposed to increasing taxes without actual services rendered.
3. Relative to medical fees, if taxes are based on income, any increase would
have to be passed on to the patient. If there is a need to increase taxes, it
should be done without any percentage ratio relative to income.
4. Do not consider increasing the tax, but decreasing it instead. The tax on
automobile dealerships escalated within the last four years refuting staff's
statement that there had been no change for 19 years.
5. As a renter concerned over the fact that apartments would be included among
those to be taxed, causing a hardship for those on fixed incomes.
77-359
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1.977, 1:30 P.M.
6. An increase in taxation is wrong; opposed to increased taxation in Anaheim
under any circumstances.
7. Tax of gross income is very oppressive and could result in publishing of
gross salaries of not only physicians, but also everyone else. Staff should
introduce a program to lower or eliminate the business tax in Anaheim thereby
attracting more business to the City.
8. Do not increase taxes on business for any reason whatsoever or in a manner
that costs more to implement than it returns.
9. It is grossly unfair to the residents, as well as businessmen who come into
the City, to levy a tax on the gross receipts of a business instead of the net.
It was proper for the City Manager to make known the existing problem but to
go beyond that using the taxpayers time and effort without authorization'from
the Council was wrong.
10. The issue of gross tax on gross income arose in 1957 with right of search
and seizure. If the present proposal is allowed, all confidentiality would be
lost as far as personal records are concerned.
11. The issue of confidentiality is an extremely important one and a matter to
be seriously considered.
Mr. Jim Morgan emphasized relative to the issue of confidentiality that as a
lawyer, he would not open his files to anyone enabling the City to enforce a
tax based on gross income unless ordered to do so by a Court.
Mrs. Patricia Bayley explained that although she was opposed to tax increases
especially as applied to apartments, she was concerned that Council Members
saw fit to attend a private meeting, by invitation only, to discuss an issue
which should have been brought before the public.
Mr. Fred Brown, over and above his opposition to increased taxes, stated there
were other matters he wished to discuss regarding the issue before the Council.
The Mayor asked if it was something procedural, he would like to know what it
was. Depending on what he thought Mr. Brown was going to do, if it was to accuse
any member of the Council of anything illegal, he wanted Mr. Brown's testimony
under oath £or ~uture recourse.
Mr. Brown asked to be certain the Mayor's statement was entered into the record
because that was not his intention. What he wished to discuss was in the City
Charter, Section 604 (d), Page CiO, wherein the City Manager's position was
established. Mr. Brown read from the Charter, concluding that the specific
reference meant that the type of reports being presented to the Council by the
City Manager were well within the guise of his position. It did not stipulate
formal Council approval to write such reports.
Mr. Brown continued that a more important fact involved was the meeting held last
Wednesday night in the basement of the medical building adjacent to Anaheim Memorial
Hospital, which meeting was designed to discuss the tax issue presently under dis-
cussion. He had attended the meeting although he walked in after it started and
77-360
C_~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
left early. His concern was that the meeting involved three Council Members
all under one roof discussing a pertinent City issue. Since the matter was leaked
to the press a week or so prior, it was no longer confidential making it a matter
of public business. However, he had not received an invitation to the meeting
through the media and while he was in the audience, he asked Councilman Kott
where publication was made that the meeting was taking place. Councilman Kott
answered it was not a public meeting but by invitation and he and the Other two
Council Members had been invited to answer questions regarding the report. Mr.
Brown then referred to the headlines the next day in the Anaheim Bulletin indicat-
ing that the three Counc£1 Members had spoken on the tax plan and again referred
to the City Charter, Section 507, Article V, which discussed special meetings.
He was of the opinion that the meeting was a private one transpiring City business.
The Mayor explained that if Mr. Brown had been present at the start of the meeting,
he would have known that the Council Members responded to an invitation by Doctor
Thayne Price, Chief of Medical staff at Anaheim Memorial Hospital. Even though
the meeting involved some questions about the subject report, he did not consider
it City business because the Council had not asked for such a report.
Dr. Thayne Price explained that he was contemplating moving his office into the
building next to Anaheim Memorial Hospital, dependent upon a decision made relative
to the business license tax. It was his interest in the matter, as well as other
doctors, that prompted him to arrange a meeting to find out the facts regarding
the report. An invitation was extended to all Council Members, as well as Doctors
from Anaheim Memorial and other local hospitals. While they were most interested
in the facts of the report, the meeting also broached the philosophy of politics
in general.
The Mayor explained that every member of the Council received numerous invitations
for a'variety of functions and there was no way of knowing how many Council Mem-
bers would attend. There was no question in anyone's mind when invitations were
accepted of making a decision or doing anything other than entering into casual
discussions of topics of common interest. He considered the innuendos and allega-
tions that were postulated as to their actions being questionable ethically,
morally or legally to be inappropriately made.
Mr. Jack Ward referred to the statement made that the report was not City business
because it was not requested. He maintained that it was City business and the
City Charter demanded it to be so. Speaking as one who spent a great deal of time
writin$ the Charter alon~ with Councilman Roth, he explained they went through
the Charter scrupulously and one of the important factors they dealt with was that
the City Manager must be able to manage the City. When he saw something going
wrong, he must be able to make it known. The purpose was to have the City run
as a business or corporation so the electors of the City would be able to elect a
Board of Directors who, in turn, could select a professional manager to manage the
City just as corporations were managed. He contended that the president of most
corporations would go to their Board of Directors first before going to the stock-'
holders, indicating there was a problem. The report was given confidentially
since it was not the type of problem that should have been brought to the public
in a leak of confidential matter, but done in a manner that would indicate there
was a problem and presenting alternative solutions only after considering the
situation in its entirety. He considered the course taken in revealing the report
prematurely to be wrong. He also stated there was a matter of ethics in the "leak".
77-361
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor stated that it was unethical and morally corrupt to talk about taxing
people in a confidential way and it should be done out in the open where the
"Sunshine" law prevails.
Mr. Ward stressed that was true for those who were in a power position, not an
adversary one. The alternatives must be presented to those who have the power
and subsequently submitted to the public in terms of alternatives, not 'in terms
of a single proposal.
Councilman Kott explained that although Mr. Ward was well meaning and well inten-
tioned in what he was saying, he wanted the opinion of the City Attorney regarding
the matter of confidentiality as outlined under the Charter and the laws of the
State of California.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that although there were items spelled out in the
Government Code which were.exceptions to the "Sunshine Act," in his opinion the
raising of business license fees was not a confidential matter outside of the
initial paperwork and interoffice memos. Beyond that time, the report would be
in the City Clerk's Office and subject to the requirements that alt public records
be open to the public.
The Mayor stated that he received the document in his correspondence box in the
City Clerk's Office and immediately gave it to the press before reading it.
Mr. Ward stated that the report should have been confidential because more than
one tax structure was being considered. Releasing the report prematurely brought
extreme pressure to bear before the matter could be studied to make certain the
proposals were balanced.
Councilman Seymour summarized that there were several issues involved: (1) business
taxes, (2) alleged misconduct on behalf of the City Manager, and (3) allegations
that an illegal meeting was held. Relative to the City Manager, it was his opinion
that the business license matter should have been studied, but prior to the in-depth
analysis authorized by Mr. Talley, he (Talley) should have informed the Council
he was going to undertake the study, solicited Council opinion and proceeding only
after the majority of the Council indicated he should continue. He maintained
that was the only area wherein the City Manager may have erred. Otherwise, the
matter had been politicized unfairly.
Regarding the possibility of an illegal meeting, Councilman Seymour stated he
talked to the City Attorney's Office when he knew that the entire Council had
been invited to the previously discussed meeting, and he was assured that as
long as he was at the meeting to listen and discuss and not render any decision,
there could be no way it could be an illegal meeting or a violation of the Brown
Act. Many times he personally met with a number of citizen groups to discuss
and listen to their problems and considered it extremely important that the Council
be receptive and willing to meet with its constituency. He took issue with Mr.
Brown's allegations which would deny that process and further told of just such
a meeting which was, in fact, held at Mr. Brown's home at his invitation where
both he and Councilman Kott attended on the subject of redevelopment. Councilman
Seymour also stated that he conducted himself in a professional manner befitting
his position and understood the law well enough so that he did not make decisions
relative to City business in a private meeting of any type. He did not have any
fears about illegal meetings or violations of the Brown Act.
77-362
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES ' March 291 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Relative to business taxes, Councilman Seymour recommended rather than
increasing revenues, ways should be sought to decrease expenses. He was opposed
to the invasion of privacy that would follow especially for the small businessman
and professional man in an attempt to increase such taxes. Councilman Seymour
thereupon moved that the City Manager be directed to submit recommendations to
streamline the procedure and "red tape" used in the collection and issuance of
business licenses within the existing structure, thereby eliminating a need for
any increase in business licensing or taxes to prevent the system from running
at a loss. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that if the issue had been
handled properly, it would have been deliberated in a manner proper for a group
of elected officials. She stressed that it was a matter of respect and common
courtesy for one Council Member not to release a confidential report before other
Council Members had an opportunity to review it.
Councilman Kott stated that the matter should have been handled as outlined by
Councilman Seymour. Regarding the confidentiality of the report, he did not
give this contention any credibilty; merely because someone indicated something
was confidential did not make it so and the legal opinion given by the City
Attorney confirmed that it was not a confidential matter. The electorate had
the right to know when such important issues became known.
Councilman Roth stated that he was opposed to increasing any type of taxes and
instead wanted to see a reduction. Relative to the report, he emphasized that
the City Manager and the staff were responsible for keeping the Council advised
particularly if business licenses were costing more to prepare than they returned.
He did not see anything wrong with the report although he did not support it in
the context of increasing taxes.
The Mayor concurred with Councilman Seymour relative to the way in which the sub-
ject matter should have initially been presented. If it had been done in that
manner, he may have been in favor of the report being prepared. He reiterated
that what he objected to was the fact that it was done without Council knowledge.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion to streamline the business license pro-
cedure. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Kott, recommendations con-
tained in the Business License Tax Analysis and Recommendations Report of February,
1977 were rejected. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:30 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:40 P.M.)
77-363
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1977, 1:30 P.M.
174: HOUSING REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE AGRR~ENTS: City Attorney Hopkins stated
that in view of the fact that Mr. Mattessich was leaving the employment of the
City, an amendment to Page 2, Paragraph 3, of the proposed resolution was in
order to include both the Executive Director, Community Development, and the
Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Manager to sign the subject agreements.
Councilman Kott referred to Paragraph 2, Page 1, and Paragraph 2, Page 2, of the
proposed resolution, both of which delegated authority to other than elected
officials to spend taxpayers' money. He was, therefore, opposed to abdicating
his authority to appointees.
The Mayor recommended that where the resolution stated delegation of authority,
that the Executive Director of Community Development be specified.
Mr. Hopkins confirmed the change would be made accordingly.
Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-209 for adoption with the amendments
as articulated. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-209: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF HOUSING REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND OWNERS OF HOMES IN THE HOUSING REPAIR ANDMAINTENANCE
TRAINING PROJECT AREA AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 75R-582 DELEGATING SUCH
AUTHORITY TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM COORDINATOR.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-209 duly passed and adopted.
123: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE COAST REGIONAL TRAINING CENTER:
Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-210 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated March 22, 1977, from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-210: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
PROVIDING FOR THE PARTICIPATION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WITH OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT
BODIES IN ORANGE COUNTY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COAST REGIONAL TRAINING
CENTER AGENCY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL Mt94BERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-210 duly passed and adopted.
77-364~
C. ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, !977, 1:30 P.M.
~23: HEIDRICK AND STRUGGLES~ INC.~ AGRE~mtENT~ RECRUITMENT SERVICES FOR FINANCE
DIRECTOR: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 77R-211 for adoption as recom-
mended in memorandum dated March 22, 1977, from the Personnel Director. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-211: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LETTER AGREEMENT WITH HEIDRICK'AND STRUGGLES,
INC., PERTAINING TO RECRUITMENT SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SAID
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-211 duly passed and adopted.
153: EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the Personnel Department was authorized to negotiate
contracts with Health Care Associates, General Medical Centers, California Medica~
Group, Family Health Plan and Security Health Plan, to provide prepaid medical
care benefits to eligible employees and dependents as recommended in memorandum
dated March 22, 1977, from the Personnel Director. MOTION CARRIED.
123: LA BELLE CONSULTANTS AGREEMENT FOR ENGINeeRING SERVICES - ANALYSIS OF CITY
STREETS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-212 for adoption, as
recommended in memorandum dated March 17, 1977, by the Director of Public Works.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-212: 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 LA BELLE CONSULTANTS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-212 duly passed and adopted.
123: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PROFILES AGR~RMENT~ EIR ON THE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-213 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated March 22, 1977, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-213: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF A~NAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAMEIM. (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
PROFILES (EIP)~
77-365
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL'MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-213 duly passed and adopted.
150: CHANGE ORDER NO. 1~ WORK ORDER NO. 881 - BROOKHURST COMMUNITY BUILDING:
(EDA Project No. 07-51-08031) On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council-
man Thom, Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $13,379.94 to Work Order No. 881,
Brookhurst Community Building, Stage One, site preparation plans, Aldo's
Landscaping Company, contractor, was authorized as recomended in memorandum dated
March 23, 1977, from the City Engineer, bringing the original contract price to
$120,727.92. MOTION CARRIED.
158: ACCEPTANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DEED NO. 001 097-01-01: Councilman Seymour offered
Resolution No. 77R-214 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated March 17,
1977, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-214: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A DIRECTOR'S DEED FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA (NELY OF RTE 5 FWY., WLY OF HARBOR BLVD.) AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION
NO. 76R-790.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-214 duly passed and adopted.
123: CITY OF STANTON AGREEMENT - ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS~ CERRITOS AVENUE: Councilman
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 77R-215 for adoption as 'recommended in memo-
randum dated March 17, 1977, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-215: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF STANTON FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ON CERRITOS AVENUE BETWEEN MAGNOLIA AND
DALE STREET AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-215 duly passed and adopted.
77-366
City Halla Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29j 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
123: BONAFIDE SECURITY SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY PATROL SERVICE AT THE
UTILITIES SERVICE CENTER: Mr. George Edwards, Electrical Superintendent, ex-
plained for Councilman Kott that the City's Police Department was not staffed
to provide ongoing checks of the Utilities Service Center and City warehouse
yards but that such checks could be provided by Bonafide SecUrity Service, as
proposed. He further stated that long-range plans were to provide a surveillance
system with closed circuit television which system was going to be proposed in
the next fiscal year budget.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-216 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated March 9, 1977, from the Utilities Director. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION N9. 77R-216: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING TH~ TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEHENT FOR SECURITY SERVICES 'AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (March 11 through June 30, 1977)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-216 duly passed and adopted.
174: ANTICIPATED ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT: Relative to
his subject report dated March 18, 1977, City Manager Talley corrected a statement
wherein it was indicated all project positions were being supported entirely from
Grant-funds. He explained that the report was written under the assumption that
the Council would have adopted recommendations made the prior week where anti-
recessionary funds could be used to pay for the expansion of the CETA Program as
outlined in his memorandum. If the Council had no objections, staff would proceed
to implement the program with the knowledge that it would cost the City $5,300 unless,
after the report~as requested by Council recommending use of the funds was submitted,
anti-recessionary funds were applied to cover this amount.
Councilman Seymour wanted to first review the report as well as to be asSuredthat
the Council would see and subsequently approve all of the projects in which CETA
employees were to be used.
Mr. William Hepburn, Manpower Services Manager, stated that his office was still
in the process of developing projects and would submit a complete list at such time
as final determination of the money was made by the U.S. Department of Labor.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, report dated March 18,
1977, from the City Manager on anticipated additional funding for Public Service
Employment was received and filed. To this motion Councilman Kott voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
103: DETERMINATION 0~. COUNTY AREA TO THE CITY: ("Gaza Strip") On motion by
Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City is not to pursue the
annexation of County area bound by Broadway on the north, Katella on the south,
Brookhurst on the east and Gilbert on the west, as recoe~ended in memorandum
dated March 18, 1977, from the City Manager. MOTION CARRIED.
77-367 ~' '
City Hall, .Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- March 29, 1977, 1:~30 P.M.
105: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS - HILL AND CANYON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY cOMMITTEE (HACMAC~:
After Council discussion on the subject, it was confirmed that the membership of
HACMAC would be 15 and not lower since the whole intent was to create a line of
communication with the Canyon and broader representation would best facilitate
that intent. However, although the concept had previously been discussed in general.
terms, the specific scope of the new committee had not yet defined.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the appointments be continued for one week
so that the Planning Department could draft a specific policy for Council approval
as to the make-up of the committee, as well as their responsibilities and methods
of accomplishing those responsibilities. He did not want to meet with them before
this was done.
The Mayor stated that the make-up was pre-established as being representatives
or officials of homeowners groups but he would welcome suggestions as to'the
scope of responsibilities. He wanted as many appointments as possible made
immediately and subsequently the scope could be discussed with the appointees.
No action was taken on the foregoing motion.
Further Council discussion followed relative to the list of nominees that was
submitted. Councilman Kott noted that several names were submitted from one
homeowners' association and he was concerned that future problems would arise
because of over representation of some organizations.
The Mayor explained that the City solicited as many names as the associations
wanted to submit; some groups did not send in any recommendations. He then
asked that those Council Members who were prepared to do so, to submit the names
of their appointees.
Councilman Seymour appointed John Lether, 990 Calle Venado, Lynn Buffington,
6401 East Nohl Ranch Road #75, and Bill Maxwell, 307 North Starfire.
Councilwoman Kaywood appointed Janice Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, Mary Ruth Pinson,
5069 Crescent Drive, and Hank Rivera, 451 South Country Hill Road.
Councilman Thom appointed John Rau, 6432 Via Estrada, Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz
Street, and Ronald Trunk, 417 Brook Lane. ·
Council Members Kott and Roth continued their appointments for one week.
Staff was instructed to prepare goals and objectives for the newly established
Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee for Council approval.
164: AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 1266 - LINCOLN AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT: Council-
man Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-217 for adoption as recommended in memorandum
dated March 21, 1977, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-217: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER
FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL
WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: LINCOLN
AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT & GP~kND AVENUE SEWER LATERAL EXTENSIONS, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1266. (Kershaw Construction Company, $33,264)
77-36~8
9ity Hal.%~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977, 1:30 P.M.
156: REHABILITATION OF POLICE PISTOL RANGE: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Kott, award of Work Order No. 1055 was continued for one
week. MOTION CARRIED.
114: REQUEST: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
request for consideration of holding two Council evening meetings per month
submitted by Douglas O. H. Renner, Secretary, Anaheim Jaycees, was continued for
one week with waiver of the $25 continuance fee. MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: Councilman Roth moved to
deny Application by the Unification Church for solicitation of donations in com-
mercial and business areas and minimal door-to-door during April and May, 1977.
CouncilwOma~ Kaywoodseconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked that consideration be given to the possibility
of Constitutional infringement relative to the religious connotations of the applica-
tion.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that if the organization was carrying'on a solicitatio~
in the context of their religious activities, then the City would be entering into
a Constitutional problem.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CM__4RITY FUNDS: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilman Thom, Application for Solicitation of Charity Funds submitted
by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Orange County Chapter, for door-to-door
solicitation, placing coin canisters in business establishments and mailing of
appeal letters for donations May 8 through July 8, 1977 was approved since City of
Anaheim volunteers were involved in the solicitation in their respective neighbor-
hoods. To this motion, Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
108: RECONSIDERATION - DINNER DANCING PLACE PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Thom,
seconded by Councilman Seymour, continuation to April 12, 1977, of reconsideration
of a denial of an application for a Dinner Dancing Place Permit for the Plush Fox
Inn, 950 Ox Road, for dancing Sunday through Saturday, from 7:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M.,
was approved subject to the $25 continuance fee. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seym°ur,
the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommenda-
tions furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIM$ AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were deni.ed and referred to
the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Ail Diameter Grinding, Inc., for property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of a power malfunction on or about February 14, 1977.
b. Claim submitted by Nicole Boyd, minor, through Mr. & Mrs.'William Boyd, parents,
for personal injuries purportedly sustained while playing in Boysen Park on or
about August 14, 1976.
77-369
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
c. Claim submitted by Bedford Godwin, Jr., for property damages purportedly
sustained as a result o~ loose cuttings from power line on or about February 1,
1977.
d. Claim submitted by Rogers Plating for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of a power overload on or about February 14, 1977.
e. Claim submitted by Brummer Metal Finishing for property damages and loss of
business purportedly sustained as a result of disruption of electrical service on
or about February 14, 1977.
f. Claim submitted by Thomas J. Pesich for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a golf cart accident at Anaheim Hills Municipal Golf Course on or
about December 17, 1976.
g. Claim submitted by John C. McMullen for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a golf cart accident at Anaheim Hills Municipal Golf Course on or
about December 17, 1976.
h. Claim submitted by Allstate (Workers Compensation carrier for Szabo Food Service)
for personal injuries sustained by Elizabeth Treacy purportedly as a result of
falling at Anaheim Stadium on or about January 23, 1977.
i. Claim submitted by Entrex, Inc., for money damages purportedly sustained as
a result of breach of contract on or about June 30, 1976.
j. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company for property damages
purportedly sustained during repair of an overhead electrical line at 1720 West
Ball Road on or about February 8, 1977.
2. 108: DINNER DANCING PLACE~ ENTERTAINMENT; PUBLIC DANCE AND AMUSEMENT DEVICE
PERMITS: The following permits were approved in accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Police:
a. Dinner Dancing Place Permit to allow dancing Monday through Saturday at The
Ball, 1116 Fountain Way, from 7:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. (John H. Olsen, applicant)
b. Entertainment Permit to allow entertainment Monday through Saturday at The
Ball, 1116 Fountain Way, from 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. and 4:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M.
(John H. Olsen, applicant)
c. Public Dance Permit for a dance to be held April 29, 1977, 8:00 P.M. to
1:00 A.M. by Anaheim High School Parent Advisory Committee, for the Cinco de
Mayo Fiesta dance at La Palma Park Recreation Hall. (Margarita L. Maes, applicant)
d. Amusement Devices Permit to allow approximately 45 various devices to include
air hockey, foosball tables, pinball, skill games, electronic games and video games,
at an establishment located at 314 Anaheim Plaza, 500 North Euclid Street. (Steven
H. Evert, agent for SEGA Enterprises, Inc., applicant)
'77-3FD
City Hallm Anaheim,.. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1977m 1:30 P.M.
3. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 175: Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Notice of Hearing,
Application No. 57032 of Southern California Gas Company for authority to (a) engage
in a solar demonstration project and (b) to include in its rates the amounts neces-
sary to fund a solar energy program, on April 25 and 26, 1977.
b. 175: Federal Power Commission regarding Southern California Edison Company
Docket No. ER76-205, Scheduling Order.
c. 109: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Notice of Proposed Changes in
the Regulations to provide for denial of retail licenses where crime rate and
number of alcoholic beverage licenses are higher than average and for premises
located in Close proximity to residences, hearing to be held April 13, 1977.
d. 175: Amended monthly reports for August through December, 1976 - Customer
Service.
e. 175, 156, 175: Monthly reports for January, 1977, Electrical, and for February~
1977, Police and Water.
f. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of March 9, 1977.
g. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of February 3, 1977.
h. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission - Minutes of special meeting of
March 3, 1977.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NOS. 77R-218 THROUGH 77R-221: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution
Nos. 77R-215 through 77R-221, 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-218: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY.OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Herbert E. Christensen,
et ux.; D. Dwight Edwards; D. Dwight Edwards; Herbert E. Christensen; Herbert E.
Christensen; Herbert ~. Christensen; Philip W. Fields, et ux.; Theodore I. Goodman;
Newport National Company; William J. Franklin, et ux.; Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc.,
et al.; Baldwin Builders)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-219: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETEBMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC-
TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: RIO VISTA STREET STREET
IMPROVEMF2{T, S/O LINCOLN AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 804-A~
APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUC-
TION 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 April 28, 1977, 2:00 P.M.)
77-371
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-220: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC-
TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SUNKIST STREET TRAILER PARK-
ING BAYS, S/O SOUTH STREET AT JUAREZ SCHOOL AND S/O WAGNER AVENUE AT GUINN SCHOOL,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 875; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES,
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUC-
TION 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 opend April 28, 1977, 2:00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-221: 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: PACIFICO AVENUE AND STATE COLLEGE'BOULEVARD
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 796-A. (Contractor:
R.J. Noble Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-218 through 77R-221, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP~ TRACT NO. 8340: Developer, Mariner Savings and Loan of Newport
Beach; Tract located north'of Katella Avenue, west of Nutwood Street containing
i (74-units) RM-2400 zoned lot.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, the proposed subdivisio,n
together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's
General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 8340, as recommended
by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated March 23, 1977. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO, 3670: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3670 for adoption.
Refer to. Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3670: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS 18.42.020
AND 18.02.060 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (relating to Permitted
Primary Uses and Structures and Site Development Standards in the CL-HS (Commercial,
Limited-Hillside) Zone to indicate SC Zone provisions are in addition thereto.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3670 duly passed and adopted.
105: ORDINANCE NO. 3671: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3671 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
77-3~2
C~iity Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3671: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTIONS 1.04.900,
1.04.910, 1.04.920, 1.04.930, 1.04.940 AND 1.04.950 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE.
(Youth Commission)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3671 duly passed and adopted.
142: ORDIN~A~..CE NO. 3672: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3672 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3672: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER
4.02, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO NEW SECTION 4.02.055 TO
REQUIRE FEES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3672 duly passed and adopted.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 3673: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3673 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3673: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18,
CHAPTER 18.05, SECTION 18.05.074 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
THERETO NEW SUBSECTION .030 TO REQUIRE FEES FOR FLAG AND BANNER PERMITS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3673 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3674: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3674 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3674: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-12, CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3674 duly passed and adopted.
77-373
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
123: ORDINANCE NO. 3675: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3675 for
first reading as recommended in memorandum dated March 22, 1977 from the Personnel
Director.
ORDINANCE NO. 3675: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD
OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
(1959 Survivor's Benefit Option)
ORDINANCE NO. 3676: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3676 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3676: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-15, RM-1200)
108: COST OF PREPARING BUSINESS LICENSE TAX REPORT: At the request of Councilman
Kott, City Manager Talley stated that the cost for preparing the subject report was
approximately $4,200, including fringe benefits, representing approximately $2,000
from both the General and Manpower Funds.
101: COST OF ANAHEIM STADIUM PARKING LOT AUDIT: In answer to Councilman Kott, Mr.
Talley stated that he did not have the cost for the subject audit but would subse-
quently submit it.
Councilman Kott noted that there was little input from the Stadium Manager relative
to the audit indicating whether or not he agreed with the findings. Otherwise, he
did not know h°w someone could reach a conclusion when they did not know the parking
lot business.
Mr. Talley commented that on any operational audit, the auditor expressed an opinion
as to how well he thought a department was doing in relation to the way matters were
supposed to be handled. Unless there were adverse comments, he agreed that what was.
audited, was, in fact, what the department said was transpiring. In the particular
audit in question, they were merely looking at the cash handling process involving
approximately $.5 million a year. He further stated that the Council
would be receiving an audit on an allied area where a major problem was found.
105: JOINT MEETING BETWEEN COUNCIL AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION: The Mayor, on
the earlier suggestion of Councilman Seymour, recommended that the CounCil meet
with the Committee that was named last August to study the City's cultural and arts
needs as he did not want to lend credence to the probability that tha pravious
action taken winding down the Cultural Arts Commission was an affront to them.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the first reading of
the ordinance to be prepared disestablishing the Cultural Arts Commission was
postponed to April 12, 1977, and a joint meeting between the Cultural Arts Commission
and the Council set for April 12, 1977, time and place to be established. To
this motion, Counsilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
105: YOUTH COMMISSION - NOMINEE INTERVIEWS: On motion by Councilman Thom,
seconded by Councilman Seymour, interviews of nominees by the Council for the
newly established Youth Commission were set for Wednesday, April 6, 1977, 3:00 P.M.
in the Council Chamber. MOTION CARRIED.
The Public Information Officer was directed to notify Susan Delesk of the date, time
and place of the interviews.
77-374
.City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent the Council moved to recess into
Executive Session. (4:26 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all members being present.
(4:35 P.M.)
112: LITIGATION - ANAHEIM VS. SUN FOOTBAI.T. INC. (BATTISTONE}: On motion by Council-
man Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Attorney, through special counsel,
was instructed to file a complaint in Superior Court against Sun Football, Inc., and
Sam D. and Carla N. Battistone (Does 1 through 30) to recover funds owed the City
for the use of Anaheim Stadium. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, the
Anaheim City Council adjourned to Tuesday, April 5, 1977, at 10:00 a.m. for a
joint meeting with the Public Utilities Board. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 4:37 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK