|
66
<br />Mr. Huffaker explained there is an amount of $500 in the City Attorney's budget designated
<br />for Legal Matters, which could be used.
<br />Councilman Gonzales felt that before the Council became involved in something of this nature,
<br />they should consult with the Employees' Associations and see what can be worked out. Mr.
<br />Gonzales said he felt this is the only fair way for the employees, and therefore, this matter
<br />should be deferred until the Council hears something from,the Associations.
<br />Councilman Hayes stated that he believes the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed by both
<br />Houses of Congress, it is the law of the land, there was a great deal of.study that went
<br />into it, the people in industry are covered by it, and he feels that Governmental employees
<br />should be entitled to this protection also.
<br />Councilwoman Spragins stated that apparently the League of California Cities has studied this
<br />matter quite thoroughly, and if this is what the League feels should be done, she recommended
<br />that the City go along with the League.
<br />City Attorney Hutton said he feels this is a policy decision more than a legal point, and it
<br />depends upon the direction one leans. Mr. Hutton stated if a person feels the government is
<br />interferring more than it should in local affairs then possibly the lawsuit should be supported;
<br />however, if one feels that the government is doing a good job in this area, then you can go the
<br />other way. Mr. Hutton concluded he does not feel this is a legal point, but a policy decision.
<br />Mayor Huntoon said he feels this whole matter was brought about by the feeling that the Federal
<br />Government is bypassing the State, County and City Governments by mandating this act.
<br />Councilman Gonzales said he feels that if the Council is of the opinion they have treated
<br />their employees just and right as the work force of the City, we should act on this thing
<br />as to our own beliefs and exactly how we feel, and not according to how the City of San
<br />Bernardino is doing, or anyone else.
<br />Councilman Gonzales moved that the City of Colton does not participate in the lawsuit, or
<br />contribute funds to assist in the lawsuit, with regard to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
<br />Motion seconded by Councilman Hayes.
<br />Mayor Huntoon called for a Roll Call Vote:
<br />Councilman Hayes - YES
<br />Councilwoman Spragins - NO
<br />Councilman Rehrer - NO
<br />Councilman Gonzales - YES
<br />Mayor Huntoon - NO
<br />Motion did not carry.
<br />Councilman Rehrer said he feels that before he can actually make a decision, more information
<br />on this matter is needed.
<br />City Manager Huffaker stated there is more information available. Mr. Huffaker said in terms
<br />of the time and one half provision, the effect on the City of.Colton, other than the Refuse
<br />Department , is not that great, however, there can be problems in the area of fire protection.
<br />Mr. Huffaker advised that at the present time the firemen are on a 62 hours per week schedule,
<br />however, as of January 1, 1975, it will be reduced to 60 hours per week, and in three years
<br />it will be reduced to 52 hours. Mr. Huffaker said it appears that eventually the intent is
<br />to reduce a fireman's hours to 40 hours per week, which would put a tremendous burden on the
<br />City of Colton and will -have an adverse effect on fire services.
<br />Councilwoman Spragins said she feels that the Federal Government is taking too much privilege
<br />with our local economy, and therefore, she moves that this matter of participating in a law-
<br />suit regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act be referred back to Staff for more information
<br />and further study.
<br />Motion seconded by Councilman Rehrer and passed, Councilman Gonzales voting NO.
<br />Letter from Mr. Joe Aceto, regarding Appeal of Weed Abatement Assessment.
<br />City Manager Huffaker said the next item involves a letter from Mr. Joe Aceto, regarding an
<br />Appeal of Weed Abatement Assessment on property at 166 East G Street, Colton.
<br />Mr. Huffaker stated that Mr. Aceto indicates in his letter that no notice of Weed Abatement
<br />had been received for this particular parcel.
<br />Mr. Huffaker advised that in checking the records of the City, it has been found that the
<br />notice was sent out, however, whether or not it was actually received is not known. Mr.
<br />Huffaker said the City discontinued posting notices on the properties ten to fifteen years
<br />ago because the notices were either torn down or were blown away.
<br />Mr. Huffaker stated the total cost of the assessment is $114.00, which includes 4 men, one
<br />truck, for 2k hours, at a cost of $95., and administrative costs of $19.
<br />Mr. Joseph A. Aceto, 820 West B Street, Colton, stated his Appeal is based on the fact that -
<br />he had not been notified. Mr. Aceto advised that he has a total of nine parcels in the City
<br />of Colton, and he had received five notices of weed abatement in March on the other parcels
<br />which are all vacant land. Mr. Aceto said the parcel in question is a vacant house and has
<br />been maintained by the family since the beginning of the year, with the yard work being done
<br />up to the middle of April.
<br />JUL - 1611974
<br />
|