The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1960 01 08 CC MIN1960 01 08 CC MINHÄ—@¸—@TÍ«ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE BALDWIN PARK CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS) 14403 East Pacific Avenue The City Council of the City of Baldwin Park met in adjourned regular session at the above place at 6:00 o'clock P. M. Roll Call: Present: COUNCILMEN BISHOP, HOLMES, LITTLEJOHN, WILSON AND MAYOR COLE Absent: CITY TREASURER PUGH Also Present: CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ASMUS, CITY ENGINEER YOUNG AND CITY CLERK BALKUS Chief Administrative Officer Asmus stated that he had a warrant in favor of L. Gird Levering in the amount of $770.00 on a refund on a cash bond deposit on a house re- location, that the gentleman was leaving town and had requested his refund before leaving. Mr. Asmus also re- quested approval of two other warrants, being for the State Employees Retirement System and Withholding Taxes, Warrant Numbers 5772, 5773 and 5774. COUNCILMAN BISHOP MOVED THAT WARRANT NUMBERS 5772, 5773, AND 5774 BE APPROVED AND THE MAYOR AUTHORIZED TO SIGN. COUNCILMAN WILSON SECONDED. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN BISHOP, WILSON, HOLMES, LITTLEJOHN AND MAYOR COLE. NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE COUNCILMAN LITTLEJOHN MOVED THAT THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BE INSTRUCTED TO CONSTRUCT IMMEDIATELY TWO WHITE POSTS, WITH REFLECTORS, AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE CITY HALL PARKING LOT ON DEPOT AVENUE. COUNCILMAN HOLMES SECONDED. There were no objections, the notice carried and was so ordered by Mayor Cole. Mayor Cole announced that, at this time, there would be a discussion on the proposed sewer bond project. Mr. Fieldman of J. B. Hanauer & Company, stated that he had been in conference with Mr. Ivor Lyons and had checked and adjusted some of the construction figures, coming up with total bond requirements, if it is the intention to provide house laterals for existing structures out of bond funds, of $5,200,000.00 as opposed to $4,790,000.00 in bonds without laterals. In order to make such a bond issue sell and to provide the necessary coverage requirements, which the bond buyer would require in order to find bids, they could not, even after adjusting and increasing con- nection fees after the system was in operation, and after adjusting commercial rates, retire the bonds in less than 35 years, as opposed to the 30 year issue originally planned. In revising the fees and charges the basic sewer service charge for single family residence was kept at $3.00. Additional money was procured from connection fees, being JANUARY 8, 1960 ROLL CALL C.A.O. Asmus re- quest for approval of warrant Nos. 5772, 5773, and 5774. Motion made and carried that WARRANT NOS. 5772, 5773 and 5774 be approved and Mayor author- ized to sign. Motion made and carried that C.A. 0. be instructed to construct im- mediately two white posts with reflectors. at entrance to City Hall parking lot on Depot Avenue. Sewer bond project dis- cussion. Mr. Fieldman of J. B. Hanauer & Company Pre- sentation of facts and figures re sewer bond issue. Continued) BIB] 39597-U01 1960-U02 01-U02 08-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO117121-U03 FO117412-U03 DO117414-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/22/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 CLERK-U06 1960 01 08 CC MINHÄ—@¸—@TÍ«Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council set up to $75.00, $100.00 and $150.00 as originally op- posed to $50.00 the first year, $75.00 the second year and $100.00 the third year) incrasing the commercial rates by 25% in order to leave the $3.00 charge for single family residence, and retiring the bonds in a 35-year period in- stead of a 30-year period. Mr. Fieldman felt that, from a point of economics, it was more logical to keep the Issue as it was, which would provide a sewer down the middle of the street, and let the householder connect to the sewer as the contractor worked down the street, probably costing the householder approximately $50.00. Mr. Fieldman felt that the majority of property owners could borrow from the bank or on F.H.A. loan to pay the $50.00, and further stated that they could only provide money for house laterals in the bond issue for existing connections, or connections that they think will be in the system at the time the contractor goes down the street; that they cannot provide laterals for the man who develops the property next year or the year after the sewers are in, and thereafter. The way this has been pro- jected was that the property owner would get a free con- nection from the time the bonds were voted until the sewers were In actual operation, and once they were in operation, then the schedule of connection fees was established. Anyone coming In the day after the sewers were installed would pay a connection fee. He further stated that there must be a mandatory hook-up in order to get a sufficient numer of con- nections contributing to the financing. Mrs. Oberg of J.B. Hanauer & Company, stated that when she had spoken to Mr. Warren Beebe of O'Melveny & Myers regarding this, he had stated that a standby fee could be charged, but that that charge could not be used as debt service...that there was no way, legally, the householder could be charged the full service charges by the month unless they used the sewage. Discussion followed. It was the opinion of Mayor Cole that it would be more uniform to have all put in at the same time; that Councilman Holmes stated that he felt the prime factor before the Council was whether or not it would be the best procedure to include the property stub-outs to the property line at the. time the sewers are constructed, and that it did appear to be the most advantageous to the people of theCity to have this included. Mr. Fieldman continued his opinions by stating that the only security behind these bonds is the contract which the Council makes with the bondholder to levy a sewer service charge suf- ficient to pay the bonds; that this job job would take anywhere from 18 months to two years to finish; that long term financing for a sewer system that is expected to last a mini- mum of 50 years is far better, from an economic standpoint, than paying off the facility in aten year period. He further stated that they recommended a bond issue that will put sewers up the street and ask the property owner to pay interest on the $50.00 over a period of 20 years..or recommend that the householder be asked to come up with $50.00 in cash, or secure a bank loan for a short term in order to do it..but pointed out that If you average out the $50.00 over a 20-year basis, it would cost them about $97.40 to pay off the $50.00. Discussion followed wherein Councilman Bishop inquired as to whether every possibility had been explored with reference to the 1911 Act...that he felt it would be a considerable saving to the people of Baldwin Park, and that people would accept a 1911 Act much quicker than an issue covering 35 years. This occasioned a discussion regarding the costs of a 1911 Act, as compared with a Revenue Bond Issue. A general e)p ression of opinions followed, being, that Councilman Holmes felt it would be worth the difference to have the job completed at one time; Councilman Littlejohn felt that if Baldwin Park was January 8, 1960 Page 2 Continued) BIB] 39597-U01 1960-U02 01-U02 08-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO117121-U03 FO117412-U03 DO117414-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/22/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 CLERK-U06 1960 01 08 CC MINHÄ—@¸—@TÍ«I I Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council going to progress they needed sewers, and that the Revenue Bond, as presented, was probably the better way of acaplish- ing this; Councilman Bishop stated that he was not in favor of the 35-year bond, that it was best to pay as you go; Councilman Wilson stated that he, too, felt that they should be put into the property line, and that sewers were necessary for the growth of the City; and Mayor Cole stated that he, also, felt that it was betterto extend it over a longer period of time and put the laterals in to the property line as they went along. Mr. Fieldman further stated that the whole process of revenue bond financing is that everybody must hook-up...that it didn't matter how they accomplished it financially); that in this type of financing it was normal procedure to make a portion of the bonds callable before they were due; that in order to make this bond issue saleable, any surpluses that were accumu- lated must be used for sewer system and for no other purpose until all the bonds were retired; that, at the time the City issues bonds they will adopt a bond resolution which will spell out, in detail, exactly what happens to every dollar that is collected, and that this money cannot be used for any other purpose. He also stated that these under the 1911 Act would not be subject to the monthly sewer service charge, but would only have a maintenance charge, and that they would be permitted, under State statute, to vote on this issue. Discussion followed wherein Councilman Holmes stated that if the City did not put in a sewer system the entire population has been paying for trunk line sewers since 1948 in Sanitation District #15, which they will continue to do) we would not de- rive any use or benefit from all this money, which has already paid for the trunk lines which the Sanitation District would be required to install. Mr. Fieldman stated that he had talked to Mr. Warren Beebe, Bond Counsellor, who had said that if Council took action on or before next Monday night, they could come in with the necessary documents and have them properly prepared; that the voters in the community should be made aware of the facts of the bond proposition, the effects on the property owners, etc.; and that the mere fact that you authorize bonds does not mean that they have to sell them. He further stated that it was going to cost a single family residence, which is 92% of the voters, $3.00 per month. Discussion followed wherein Councilman Bishop stated that before he voted for a bond issue he wanted to know just what it was going to cost; and Councilman Holmes stated that it was strictly a matter of figuring out the equitable charges in relations to the additional usage of the sewer. Council- man Littlejohn stated that he would like to see a question and answer" session held in the Auditorium so that the people can be given explanations and an opportunity to express their opinions Councilman Bishop questioned holding a separate election for the sewer bonds when another election is scheduled in April...that it was a waste of public funds. Mr. Fieldman stated that the way to get a proper expression of the people on a particular issue was to hold a special election without letting it become a political football for other reasons. At this time Mayor Cole asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to express their opinions or if there were any questions that could be answered. Continued) January 8., 1960 Page 3 43; BIB] 39597-U01 1960-U02 01-U02 08-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO117121-U03 FO117412-U03 DO117414-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/22/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 CLERK-U06 1960 01 08 CC MINHÄ—@¸—@TÍ«3 Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Coundil Mr. H. L. Blake, 13519 E. Frazier Street, Baldwin Park, stated that he had not heard what the size of the main trunk line and the lateral would be, and whether the $50 to put the lateral in would be dropped in the case of the $5,200,000.00 bond issue. Also, he wondered if the contractors would give sealed bids in the event the issue passed. Mr. Fieldman answered his inquiry by stating that the $50.00 would be dropped and the sewer would come to the property line; that the street laterals, without exception, are 8" in diameter and the half sewer from the lateral in the street to the prop- erty line would be 4". Mayor Cole Informed Mr. Blake that there would sealed bids. Mr. Ralph 0. Roberts, 13417 E. Foster, Baldwin Park, wondered if the sewers would go down non-dedicated streets and if they do, would the streets be completely repaired by the City after- wards. Also, he wondered what the charge would be for those owning more than one house on a lot...that he thought it would be fair to pay a proportionate share, but did not think they should pay $3.00 per unit all the way back. Mr. Ivor Lyons stated that they planned a lateral on every street that was indicated on the City map; Mayor Cole stated that the street would be put back In the same condition as before. Mrs. Rosebud Helmick, 14506 E. Jeremle Street, Baldwin Park, stated that she did not feel that a revenue bond project was as fair and equitable as a 1911 Act; that 35 years was a long time to be paying for something... that she would rather pay cash and have no interest, which was an advantage Mayor Cole explained that a 35-year period did not mean that you would actually pay for 35 years-that approximately 22 years it would be paid off. Mr. Randall R. Atkins, 4508 Landis, Baldwin Park, wondered if there would be two types of propositions put on the ballot and that he felt that the person with more frontage should pay more, that his property would be worth more. Discussion followed. Mr. Doyle T. Lackey, 14553 E.'Chevalier Avenue, Baldwin Park, wondered why the 1911 Act bonds were so much more difficult to sell than the 35-year term bond; that if the cost of sewer- age was not prohibitive, that it would increase the resale value of property; that the type of bond should be that wherein the lateral would be brought to the property line so the street would not always be torn up and should be put in whether there was a building on the property or not. Discussion followed. Mr. Ralph 0. Roberts, 13417 E. Foster, Baldwin Park, wondered where a person had four lots, including his own, if that would be constituted as separate houses and be $3.00 each on all of them, but that it would be under one ownership. Discussion followed wherein it was stated that if it were entirely separate pieces of property it would be a $3.00 unit charge, which would have to apply for each individually owned unit, but not so under multiple usage under one owner- ship. Continued) January 8, 1960 Page 4 Mr. H.L. Blake, 13519 E. Frazier Baldwin Park re: size of trunk line and laterals $50.00 for put- ting in laterals; whether it would be sealed bids. Mr. Ralph 0. Roberts, 13417 E. Foster Ave., Baldwin Park re: Sewers down non- dedicated streets and the repair of same; what charges would be for more than one house on a lot. Mrs. Rosebud Helmick, 14506 E. Jeremie St. Baldwin Park re: 35 years too long to be pay- ing. Mr. Randall R. Atkins 4508 Landis Baldwin Park Re: Whether there would be 2 types of propositions on ballot. Mr. Doyle T. Lackey 14553 E. Chevalier, Baldwin Park Re: Various opinion. Mr. Ralph 0. Roberts, 13417 E. Foster, Baldwin Park re: Multiple usage. BIB] 39597-U01 1960-U02 01-U02 08-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO117121-U03 FO117412-U03 DO117414-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/22/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 CLERK-U06 1960 01 08 CC MINHÄ—@¸—@TÍ«434 Adjourned Regular Meeting if the Baldwin Park City Council Mr. William E. Minger, 3816 North Foster Avenue, Baldwin Park, stated that he felt that the costs were in line; that if the bonds could be retired earlier, it would be better; that if the bonds could be renegotiated that would be good; that if the charge would be pro-rated as to those having 5-6-8 units on their development, it would be fair. COUNCILMAN LITTLEJOHN MOVED THAT THE PROPOSED REVENUE SEWER BOND ISSUE, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF THE LATERALS TO THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT THE PROPOSED ISSUE BE INCREASED TO AN ESTIMATED TOTAL OF $5,200,000.00 IN BONDS, AND THAT THE BOND ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY RESO- LUTION FOR A BOND ELECTION ON MARCH I, 1960. COUNCILMAN HOLMES SECONDED. The motion carried by the following votes: AYES: COUNCILMEN LITTLEJOHN, HOLMES, WILSON AND MAYOR COLE NOES: COUNCILMAN BISHOP ABSENT: NONE 00- January 8, 1960 Page 5 Mr. Wm. E. Minger 3816 N. Foster Baldwin Park Re: Various opinions Motion made and carried that pro- posed revenue sewer bond issue, Inc. construction laterals to property line; that proposed issue be in- creased to est. total of $5,200,000. in bonds; that bond atty. be instruct- ed to prepare necessary Res. for bond election on March I, 1960. Further sensus suggest discussion ensued wherein it was the general con- of opinion that Council should develop a rate schedule; that people compile their questions and set up a Discussion question and answer" session. Mayor Cole suggested that a work session be called for Wednesday, January 13, 1960, at 8:00 o'clock P.M. 00- Chief Administrative Officer Asmus recommended that an allocation of $425.00 be approved, out of Unappropriated Surplus Account, for the purchase of a used multilith machine. He stated that this machine was far more versa- tile than any now in operation and was needed, especially, for budget preparation, and felt that it was a good buy for the City. Discussion followed. COUNCILMAN HOLMES MOVED THAT THE USED MULTILITH MACHINE NOT BE PURCHASED. COUNCILMAN LITTLEJOHN SECONDED. There were no objections, the motion carried and was so ordered by Mayor Cole. 00- Councilman Littlejohn reported that he had attended the League of California Cities Meeting last night and that it was a very interesting meeting wherein some of the speakers were Mr. Todd, City Attorney of Lakewood-Pico- Rivera, who spoke regarding mineral rights under the parks, etc.; Mayor Tutwiler of the City of Montebello, who spoke regarding the necessary tax information that should go on the tax bills, etc.; and Mr. Updegrath, who gave a brief report on the action of the Supervisors and what they were doing. He further reported that the next meeting will be Thursday, January 21, 1960, at Santa Anita Race Tract at Arcadia, and on March 17, 1960, the City of Torrance will host the general meeting. Work session on Wednesday, Janu- ary 13, 1960, at 8:00 P.M. C.A.O. request for allocation of $425.00 for purchase of used multilith machine Motion made and carried that used multilith machine not be purchased. League of Calif. Cities report by Councilman Littlejohn. Next meeting to be Thursday, January 21, 1960, at Santa Anita Race Tract at Arcadia. 00- BIB] 39597-U01 1960-U02 01-U02 08-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO117121-U03 FO117412-U03 DO117414-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/22/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 CLERK-U06 1960 01 08 CC MINHÄ—@¸—@TÍ«435 Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council Councilman Holmes reported that the County of Los Angeles had again revised the ordinance regulating the construction, extension, alteration and use of water systems in the County of Los Angeles, making It even more restrictive, and that they had postponed the hearing date to February'4, 1960. 00- At 9:30 P. M. COUNCILMAN WILSON MOVED THAT COUNCIL ADJOURN. COUNCILMAN BISHOP SECONDED. There were no objections, the motion carried and was so ordered by Mayor Cole.- 00- LY H. COLE, MAYOR January 8,'1960 Page 6 Councilman, Holmes report re county of L.A. regulating water systems. Adjournment at 9:30 P.M. THELMA L. BALKUS, CITY CLERK APPROVED: / 2 24 I 7 1960 BIB] 39597-U01 1960-U02 01-U02 08-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO117121-U03 FO117412-U03 DO117414-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 5/22/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 CLERK-U06