Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1977/10/20 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday - 4:00 p.m. October 20, 1977 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was held on the above date beginning at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue. ROLL CALL Councilmen present: Mayor Hyde, Councilmen Hobel, Cox, Egdahl and Scott (arrived late) Councilmen absent: None Staff present: City Manager Cole, Assistant City Manager Asmus, Assistant City Attorney Harron, Director of Public Works Robens, Director of Personnel Bigge 1. REPORT ON REQUEST OF Director of Public Works Robens referred to his written ELAINE KATZER FOR report in which he detailed the background of the City's ADDITIONAL MONEY FOR purchase of the sculpture/water feature for the Library HER SCULPTURE OR grounds. RELEASE FROM CONTRACT He summarized the report stating that Elaine Katzer's work, "Sea Chanty," was selected in June 1976 for $20,000 and an application was then made to the National Endow- ment for the Arts for a $10,000 grant. In July 1977, the City received notification of the grant award in the amount of $5,000 at which time the Council adopted Resolu- tion No. 8722 accepting the grant and awarding the con- tract to Ms. Katzer. Construction was to begin on August 10, 1977. In going out to bid, only one contractor responded and his bid was $16,000. Mr. Robens added that to reduce the construction costs, he proposed that City forces do the excavation, site preparation, plumbing and electrical work ($5,080) and the contractor do the concrete work ($5,500). Ms. Katzer has now requested that the Council increase the amount of her contract. Mr. Robens stated it would be his recommendation to approve the request and grant Ms. Katzer the sum of $27,000. Elaine Katzer In answer to Council's queries, Ms. Katzer explained her costs involved in this project, the amount of construction work necessary, the team of "experts" she has to hire to put the sculpture piece together, the work involved in this process and the resultant net profit to her. Council discussion Discussion followed in which the Council discussed the delay in getting the National Endowment Act grant, the reduction in this grant, the escalating construction costs in the last several months, the lack of a con- tingency factor in the Public Works Director's estimate and the increased cost now being requested for the sculp- ture. Motion to increase It was moved by Mayor Hyde and seconded by Councilman amount of contract Egdahl that the staff's recommendation be approved to increase the amount of the contract to $27,000 from $20,000 and a resolution be brought back at the next meeting (October 25, 1977). Adjourned Regular Meeting -2- October 20, 1977 Discussion of motion Councilman Egdahl commented that he served on the com- mittee for the library sculpture and the members were strongly in favor of getting some art pieces for the City. He added that he feels the artist should get some reward for the work she has done on this particular piece but is alarmed over the fact that they are increasing the cost of the project by one-third, in a one-year period of time. Councilman Scott arrived at this time - 4:30 p.m. Councilman Scott stated he would abstain from voting on the motion since he was not present during the discussion. Motion carried The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Mayor Hyde, Councilmen Egdahl, Hobel, Cox Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Councilman Scott Motion for letter to It was moved by Councilman Egdahl and seconded by Council- the National Endowment man Hobel that a letter over the Mayor's signature be sent of the Art (NEA) to the National Endowment of the Arts expressing to them the Council's dismay at the increased cost of this project due to the length of time that they required for the City to delay the project from its initial bid. Addition to motion Councilman Hobel suggested the motion also include asking for compensating funds. Motion carried Councilman Egdahl agreed to the addition; Councilman Hobel agreed to the second and the motion carried unanimously. 2. APPROVAL OF REVISED City Manager Cole submitted a revised Conference schedule COUNCIL CONFERENCE as follows: SCHEDULE October 27 - Library November 2 - Parks & Recreation November 10 - School fees and Curbs along Telegraph Canyon Road November 17 - Public Works Department December 8 - Building and Housing December 22 - Police Department Motion to approve It was moved by Councilman Cox, seconded by Mayor Hyde and unanimously carried that the revised Council Conference schedule be approved. t 3. OPERATIONS REVIEW PROGRAM City Manager Cole referred to his written report detailing the background on this proposal. He noted that at the meeting of July 19, 1977, the Council directed the staff to prepare a prioritized list of departments which would be the subject of operations review and a draft Request For Proposal (RFP) for consultant services to conduct such a program. Mr. Cole outlined the order of the departments for which the review would be conducted as: (1) Planning; (2) Library; (3) Parks and Recreation; (4) Fire; (5) Purchasing; (6) Police. He stated that the request made by Councilman Hobel for an operational review of the Planning Department is recog~izedboth by him and the Director of Planning. If Councilman Hobel had not requested the study, Mr. Cole said he would have done so in time - probably some months beyond this in the course of meeting with his department heads concerning a revised organizational program. Adjourned Regular Meeting -3- October 20, 1977 Mr. Cole added that he wished to revise his recommenda- tion to Council. Instead of the "mixed group" approach to the program, he would recommend the hiring of a con- sultant for the first department - Planning. He explained that of all the departments, the toughest one to take on is Planning because a good portion of their activities, by their very nature, has to be subjective, and thus becomes a difficult activity to evaluate. It would be difficult to use the mixed group approach in this parti- cular department and expect to get an appropriate evalua- tion. Councilman Hobel said he was concerned that the list of departme~[ts did not include Public Works which he felt should be the next department, after Planning, as they tie very closely together. Mr. Cole said he had no objections and noted that his prioritized listing was done to pick out the departments from which the City would realize the most benefits during the four-year evaluation - more savings and increased efficiency. Council discussion Council discussion followed concerning the cost of the consultant; the number of departmental reviews which can be done in one year (possibly two); the advantages and disadvantages of "mixed group" approach; considera- tion of this type of program should occur during the budget deliberations since the Council should be looking at the whole content of the budget; and the on-going control of all departments which should be the function of the City Manager's office. Functions of the Further discussion ensued regarding the growth of the City Manager's office City, complexity of the Manager's office, daily work- loads, and change in governmental operations. The Council discussed the possibility of hiring a person in the City Manager's office who would be separated from the daily activities of City operations and would be charged with conducting these on-going reviews of the departments. City Manager Cole delineated some of the functions of his office noting that he does have weekly staff meetings and meets individually with the department heads for in-depth discussions of their departments at least once every three months. Assistant City Manager Asmus Assistant City Manager Asmus declared that there is a decided need in this City to have a "management group" which will devote a good share of their time in this area. He said he is not opposed to hiring a consultant to review the Planning Department operations because in today's activities, "the planners catch it from four sides." There would be more credibility coming from a consultant to do the review of the Planning Department rather than from "in-house" people. The proper thing, in the long run, would be to create whatever size management team is needed, to get the function accomplished. Motion for Request It was moved by Councilman Scott and seconded by Council- for Proposal man Hobel that the staff be directed to bring back the necessary documents to put out the RFP (Request for Pro- posal) - that it be brought back to the Council for funding. Adjourned Regular Meeting -4- October 20, 1977 Discussion of motion Councilman Scott declared that he is doing this with "great reluctance" and basing it on the fact that this function is not being carried out on any basis - that the City Manager has not been able to meet with his department heads for a number of months and there are so many other activities the Manager must attend to that he does not have time for this function - thereby the need for this type of report. Mayor Hyde spoke against the motion stating that the proper approach would be to go to the City Manager and ask him what it takes to provide for a permanent in- house capability to perform the management analysis necessary for sound management practice. Substitute motion It was moved by Mayor Hyde that the City Manager be directed to consider the discussion that the Council had this after- noon and by the first meeting of November, he come back with recommendation as to whether or not it would be ap- propriate to employ someone in the management capacity, under him, for management operation review purposes versus going the route of a consultant for this process. No second to motion The motion died for lack of second. Motion carried The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Cox Noes: Mayor Hyde, Councilman Egdahl Absent: None Councilman Scott noted that the motion (for an audit review) to carry, would take a 4/5's vote and that he did not want the staff to go through an exercise of futility (in preparing the RFP). Motion to rescind It was moved by Councilman Scott and seconded by Mayor Hyde previous action that the previous action be rescinded. Motion carried The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen Scott, Hyde, Hobel, Egdahl Noes: Councilman Cox Absent: None Motion for Manager's report It was moved by Mayor Hyde and seconded by Councilman Egdahl that the City Manager be directed to take this discussion under advisement and come back to the City Council within a month with his recommendations with regard to appro- priate measures to provide for improvement and on-going management procedures. Discussion of motion Councilman Hobel indicated he would vote against the motion as he cannot, at this time, support any report that will ask for additional staff (in the Manager's office) - the City is not big enough for that type of department. Councilman Egdahl the motion stating that action clarified has already been taken that the Council does want the audit - they are now asking for a recommendation from the City Manager, in light of the discussion today, on how to carry out this function realizing that the Council has already rejected one method. Motion carried The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Mayor Hyde, Councilmen Egdahl, Cox, Scott Noes: Councilman Hobel Absent: None ADJOURNMENT Mayor llyde adjourned the meeting at 6:05 p.m. to the regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 25, 1977.