HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1 MINUTES 02-01-82OF ~HE T~STIN CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 Centennial Way
January, 18, 1982
III - P~RT-?C
CONCEalS
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Sharp at 3:43 p.m.
Councilpersons Present:
Councilpersons Absent:
Others Present:
Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli,
Sharp
None
james G. Rourke, City Attorney
William A. Huston, City Manager
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
Mike Brotemarkle, Co-n-. Dev. Director
Bob Ledendecker, Director of PGblic Works
Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director
Royleen White, Co~unity Services Director
Ron Nault, Finance Director
Monda Buckley, Administrative Assistant
Eva Solis, Deputy City Clerk
Approximately 20 in the audience
None
1. CO~I~I~3~ (FOZI~Z.~ .crr~ S~AK C~Bma~ISIO~)
The City Manager stated that at staff's request, representatives
from CommuniCom were present today to provide Council with a
status update on the timetable for installation of cable and
services to be offered to subscribers in terms of the level of
service to be provided, both in terms of what the agreement
requires and anything over and beyond that. He continued that
the intent of the presentation is to give an update and allow
Council the opportunity to give staff some direction on how to
proceed from this point. The Director of Public Works then
introduced Monda Buckley, Administrative Assistant, who has been
involved in meetings with Com~nniCom, along with the City Attoz~
ney, City Manager, and Director of Public Works.
Douglas Beach, Vice President of Operations for CommuniCom, pro-
vided some historical background on the acquisition of the fran-
chise from Six Star Cablevision and introduced other representa-
tives of communiCOm.
He reported that the original franchise allowed for a 35-channel
system with two-way capability and a single-~rnnk line. The
plant being built here is in excess of the minima franchise
requirements, which is capable of some 120 channels if both
trunks are operational. They are actually putting up two cable
systems (one on top of the other latched together) activating
one 52-channel system imediately. Those 52 channels will have
the ability of handling 43 channels of sound video and 9 chan-
nels of data (i.e., a security system). They are also providing
full-range FM stereo services and an emergency alert system
which City officials can override in case of a civil emergency.
The services to be launched in April will be almost identical to
the services being provided in Los Angeles. The initial 27
channels will be comprised of 17 off-air Los Angeles channels
and 10 satellite services, which will include 4 pay services and
another 6 services for sports, Congress in session, and stations
from other cities such as Atlanta and .Chicago. The initial
package will be a tremendous increase in programming and channel
availability for subscribers. Five channels will be added
shortly after service begins (additional sports and movie
channels).
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2, 1-18-82
Mr. Beach continued that Co~muniCom has received clearance from
Edison and Bell Telephone to attach to 69% of the required ~oles in
the City. The remainder of the pole releases will be forthcoming in
the next 6-8 weeks. Some 72% of the steel strand is in place, which
functions as a support structure to which the trunk and feeder
cables are attached. They are progressing rapidly to construct the
rest of the plant and will connect the first subscribers in April,
with completion of the entire plant anticipated by August.
Tustin is included in the suburban operations along with Covina,
LaVerne, and Corona. The Corona office will be the central adminis-
trative location because it is equidistant between Tustin and
Covina, and will be headed by Mr. Robert Grimes. They have a local
office on First Street where the walk-in payment center will be
maintained, along with a technical staff, head-end and processing
center.
In response to the Mayor, Mr. Beach reported that the head-end is
actually split into two portions. They have received clearance from
the co~ndant at the base and the E1 Toro regional facility to
locate the earth receive station on the U.S.M.C. helicopter base.
Final written authorization is expected shortly.
Further, Mr. Beach stated that neither the original franchise pro-
posal or the franchise document refer to the availability on behalf
of the company for providing video equipment. It does refer to pro-
viding channel space, and he suspects it was written that way
because many co-~unities - schools, colleges, etc., have existing
studios that can be connected to the cable. In previous meetings,
staff has voiced this concern and he indicated they would be pleased
to provide public access facilities, rather than trying to develop
an immediate local origination capability. Co~auniCom would have to
look further into the existing commitment and rate schedule, as they
would be investing approximately $100,000 to properly equip a
studio, and it would be very difficult to operate on a functional
basis for less than $75,000 per year. Had this been anticipated in
the original proposal, the rate structure would have reflected those
costs which would be spread across the subscriber base at approxi-
mately 50~ or $1.00 per month per subscriber to support that type of
facility.
In response to councilm~n Edgar, Mr. Beach continued that the second
part of the head-end facility, which is really the ~rocessing
center, would be in the office on First Street. CommuniCom is nego-
tiating a 10-year lease for the building. The electronics will be
installed there and signals will be received on a super trunk from
the helicopter base, plug into the processing center, mix with the
off-air signals, and a complete progr~ming package will come out of
that building. There will be a 15-18' mast on the roof for t_he
off-air antennas. Other than that, no further tower structure is
envisioned or necessary.
In response to Councilwoman Kennedy, Mr. Beach stated that the
August completion date includes homes with underground cable, pro-
vided all permits come through and easement difficulties are
resolved in a timely manner.
Mr. Beach responded to Councilman Hoesterey that the receiving sta-
tion on the helicopter base will be located at the northeast corner
off of Red Hill. A tower will not be erected, and there will actu-
ally be three circular discs elevated approximately 18' off the
ground to receive from three different satellites.
The City Attorney commented that to clarify the situation, at the
meeting held last week staff made a number of requests of Co~uniCom
which amount to an upgrading of the proposed service, including a
facility for local origination, public access, etc. Staff was
advised by CommuniCom that they would study those matters and
respond to the City. As yet, the only response has been to the
Mayor that CommuniCom might give it some study, etc. He pointed out
that the franchise was granted more than two years ago to a prede-
cessor and interest of CommuniCom and the state of the art has
changed considerably since then.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3, 1-18-82
Secondly, the terms of the original franchise to Six Star have not
.been met by Six Star, mainly the construction schedule is long
past-due and out of date as far as compliance. It is staff's feel-
ing that before any approval is made to a new construction schedule,
and/or approval of CommuniCom becoming the new franchisee that the
various matters that staff has directed to CommuniCom be addressed.
To date, the franchisee has not complied wi~h the franchise terms
and now a new owner has requested approval to substitute and become
the franchisee and a new construction schedule is being proposed.
The City Manager suggested that unless Council has any o~her ques-
tions or co~ments, that staff again meet with CommuniCc~ and attempt
to come up with a deadline in terms of installation, when service
w~uld begin, the status of the facility at the helicopter base and
First Street location, come beck with specifics, and then whatever
appropriate action would have to be taken in terms of amending the
franchise agreement can be done at that ~ime. staff has asked Cc~-
muniCem to explore the feasibility whereby if the City, hypothe-
tically, were to make space available in the corn,miry center at
Columbus Tustin Park would they in turn install the equixa~ent needed
to have local origination. CommuniCem has indicated a willingness
to explore this, but it needs to be pinned down so the agreement can
be emended accordingly, and then presented to Council.
Councilman Hoesterey stated that the previous performance of Six
Star has left a bad taste in the community from a marketing stand-
point and from public acceptance to the entire system. With that in
mind, there's going to have to be some type of action taken by the
company to convince the people of Tustin that they are going to be
offering a service they really want. During public hearings on
location of the discs, there was a great deal of disenchantment not
only with site selection but to the manner in which the people were
treated by the company. With that in mind, the company has a long
way to go in finding acceptance in the community.
Mr. Beach concluded that he understands Coun¢ilts uneasiness with
the past parformance, and pointed out that Cc~municom is not the
same company, they are very determined to do 'an excellent job, they
have a new team in place with years of experience in the industry,
and they are very interested in building the plant as rapidly as
possible to give the City an absolute state-of-the-ar~ system.
muniCom will work with staff to provide the necessary facts and
figures needed as soon as possible to make a decision and to fully
understand the magnitude of what is being addressed. 53
C~S~T
Item 1 was removed from the Consent Calendar by Hoesterey; and Item
5 by staff.
2. APP~O~FAL (~ ~A~D$ in the amount of $744,894.92.
~kTIFICAT~ O~ PA~ in the amount of $95,937.05.
~]X~TI~ NO. 82--6- A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING
RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (Red Hill Ave. Water Main
from First St. to Irvine Blvd. - JER Construction & General
Engineering, Inc.)
Adoption of Resolution No. 82-6 and if no claims or stop
payment notices are filed within 30 days of the date of
recordation of the Notice of Completion, authorize payment
of the final 10% retention amount as recommended by the
Engineering Department. 107
The Director of Public Works responded to Councilman Edgar
regarding fees compared to budgeted amount for the project.
'4.
~OI~r-O~ NO. 82-7- A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin, APPROVING '£mNTATIVE T~ACT NO. 11649 LOCATED AT
1162 SYCAMORE AVENUE
Adoption of Resolution No. 82-7 as recommended by the Com-
munity Development Department. (Kennedy registered a "NO"
vote. ) 99
cITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4, 1-18-82
~0~ NO. 82-9- A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING
RECORDATI(~ OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (TRAFFIC SIGNALS ALONG NEW-
PORT AVE.) (Traffic Signal Installation/Modification and Inter-
connect System along Newport Ave. between Irvine Blvd. and E1
Camino Real/Laguna Rd. - Electrend, Inc. )
Adoption of Resolution No. 82-9 and if no claims or stop
payment Dmtices are filed within 30 days of the date of
recordation of Notice of Completion, authorize payment of
the final 10% retention amount as recommended by the City
Engineer · 94
Kennedy registered a "NO" vote on Item 4. It was t.hen moved by
Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, to approve the remainder of the Con-
sent Calendar, with the exception of Items 1 and 5. Carried 5-0.
Consent CalenR~v Item 1 - It was moved by Edgar, seconded by
Kennedy, to approve the following=
1. APP~O~BL~IN~TES- January4, 1982
Motion carried 4-0, Hoesterey abstaining.
Consent Calendar Item 5 - The City Manager clarified that funds will
be advanced from next fiscal year to this fiscal year and combined
with Edison funds available to get the project done. This is simply
a matter of cash flow and will not forego the E1 Camino project for
any ~rojects next year, with the exception of possibly delaying the
underground project scheduled for next year. It was then moved by
Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, to approve the following=
~F~0X~F~ZO~ ~O. 82-8- A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin SETTING A TIME AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER THE DESIGNATION AND ADOPTION OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY
DISTRICT ~EQUIRING THE ~MOVAL OF POLES, OVERHEAD WIRES AND
ASSOCIA'£~'-.'~ OVEBHEAD STRUCTURES WITHIN THE AREA OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN LOCATED ON IRVINE BOULEVARD BETWEEN YORBA STREET AND HOLT
AVENUE, AND YORBA STREET FROM IRV1%~E BOULEVARD TO 240+ FEET
SOUTHERLY OF IRVINE BOULEVARD WHICH AREA IS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND ON THAT CERTAIN MA~
ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AND CITY ENGINEER OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN
Adoption of Resolution No. 82-8 and authorize recomendation
to the Redevelopment Agency for the transfer of funds in the
amount of $220,000 from the E1 Cemino Real Street Improve-
ment project to Segment "B" of the Underground utility Dis-
trict No. 6 project as recommended by the City Engineer.
In response to Councilman Edgar, the Director of Public Works stated
that as of December 31, 1981, the Edison fund balance is approxi-
mately $300,000 deposited at a rate of approximately $80,000 per
calendar year.
Motion carried 5-0.
NANC~S POR
I~T~DD~CTIO~
1.
104
O~DZNANCENO. 866 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City
of T~stin, California, AMENDING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 9612
PERTAINING TO ADULT BUSINESSES
It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance
No. 866 have first reading by-title only. Carried 5-0. Follow-
ing reading of the title by the City Clerk, it was moved by
Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, that Ordinance No. 866 be intro-
duced. Carried 5-0. 31
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5, 1-18-82
VII. OI~D?-
NANCES FOR
ADOPTIO~
1.
B~INESS
1.
O~DIN~N(~ NO. 864 - An ordinance of the City Council of the City
of Tustin, California, PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF A FEE
SCHEDULE FOR ANIMAL SHELTER AND ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
It was moved b~ Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No.
864 have second reading by ~itle only. Carried 5-0. The City
Clerk read Ordinance No. 864 by title only. Pursuant to the
City Manageres recommendation, Council concurred to defer Reso-
lution No. 82-5 to follow the effective date of ordinance No.
864.
It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, that Ordi-
nance No. 864 be passed and adopted. Roll call vote:
AYES: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Sharp
NOES: None
O~DIN~ NO. 8~ - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City
of Tustin, California, A~DING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE ~ELATIVE TO
COUNCIL COMPENSATION
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No.
865 have second reading by title only. Carried 5-0. Following
reading of the title by the City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar,
seconded by Saltarelli, that Ordinance No. 865 be passed and
adopted. D~ll call vote:
AYES= Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Sharp
NOES: None
In response to Councilman Edgar, ~he City Attorney reported that
provisions do not require a project area committee. If there is
a projec~ area con~nittee and it is anticipated a substantial
n-m~er of low- and ~aoderate-income housing residents will be
displaced by the activity, then the project area committee must
be represented By residential owner occupants within the area,
residential tenants within the area, and businessmen within ~he
area. However, it is not limited 2o just those ~eople.
Following the City Attorneyes con~nents, it was moved by Edgar,
seconded by Kennedy, to defer the residential owner occupants to
the subcommittee and appoint the following to the South/Central
Redevelopment Project Conuuittee:
Residential Tenants - South Area - Elmo Anderson
Central Area - Ann DUrkee
Chamber of Commerce Representative - Jeffrey McElderry
Tustin Unified School District - Larry Sutherland
Major Property Owners - South Area - Robert P. Warmington Co.
Central Area - Mark Ainsley
The City Attorney responded to Councilman Saltarelli that com-
mittee members cannot acquire any new property in the project
area after their appointment.
The motion was amended by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to defer
the residential owner occupants and major property owners 2o the
subcommittee and appoint the following to the South/Central
Redevelopment Project Committee:
Residential Tenants - South Area - Elmo Anderson
Central Area - Ann Durkee
ChamBer of Commerce Representative - Jeffrey McElderry
Tustin Unified School District - Larry Sutherland
Motion carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6, 1-18-82
2e
AgFA~D ~ BID
YO~BA ST. TO mA' ST.
Bids for subjec~ project were received as follows=
Noveco, Inc., Corona
Hardy & Harper, Inc., Tustin
Arm & Hammer Concrete Removal, Irvine
Golden West Asphalt Co., Costa Mesa
Bavin Construction Co., La Habra Heights
Griffith Co., Irvine
Porter Construction Co., Santa Ana
R. J. Noble Co., Orange
John W. Tiedemann Co., Whittier
$14,438.14
$14,460.00
$14,549.30
$15,579.40
$16,499.00
$16,679.75
$16,814.00
$19,390.45
$21,857.35
The low bid is 9% below the Engineer's estimate, with $15,500.00
presently budgeted for ~he work. As recommended in the report
dated Jan,~a~y 12, 1982, prepared by the Engineering Division, it
was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to award ~he contract
for subject work ~o Noveco, Inc., Corona, in the amount of
$14,438.14. Carried 5-0. 92
CITT~8 REQ~EST FOR PA~A~ ~ ~ (14862 Bridgeport
Road)
Pursuant to the recommendation contained in the report dated
january 12, 1982, prepared by the Maintenance Division, it was
moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to authorize City removal
of the tree as requested and replacement of a tree from the
City-approved tree list as chosen by Mrs. Nehls. Motion carried
5-0. 86.1
CTTI~'m~8 REQ~IE.T~ FOR PA~E~A~ TRE~ ~ (1902 Pennington
Avenue)
As recommended in the report dated January 5, 1982, prepared by
the Maintenance Division, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by
Kennedy, to authorize City removal of the tree as requested and
replacement of a tree from the City approved list as chosen by
Mrs. Wilson. Carried 5-0. 86.1
4. CITIES ~ FOR PA~X T~EE ~ (14492 Oxford Avenue)
Pursuant to the memo dated January 5, 1982, prepared by the
Maintenance Division, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by
Kennedy, to authorize City removal of the tree as requested with
no replacement. Motion carried 5-0. 86.1
CI~S ~ FOR PARE~BX ~ ~ (14662, 14672, 14682,
14692, 14702, 14712 Westfall Rd.)
As recomended in the report dated January 5, 1982, prepared by
the Maintenance Division, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by
Kennedy, to authorize City removal of the trees as requested and
replacement of trees from the City approved list suitable to the
owners. Carried 5-0. 86.1
T~STIN P~K & ~TIPURPOSE
PLAN)
The Community Services Director added to the staff report that
the firm of Recreation Systems, Inc., was selected following
extensive screening, and staff feels very comfortable with the
firm. In response to Councilman Edgar, the City Manager stated
that staff is requesting Council concurrence with the consultant
selection. An agreement will be prepared for Council approval
at the next meeting. The eight-week completion timetable will
commence from the date the agreement is approved. The Request
For Proposal was designed to allow for flexibility to select
another architect for Phase II should the City not be satisfied
with performance on Phase I or the Phase II fee is not adequate.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7v 1-18-82
X. ~EPO~TS
1.
The Co~nunity Services Director added t_hat after reviewing
historical data, there was no specific decision made as to
whether the facility would be recreational or sports oriented.
The process will allow for a great amount of public input which
will be a deciding factor, with Council having the ultimate
decision ·
It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to 1) Select
the firm of Recreation Systems, Inc., Fullerton, to provide the
professional design services for the preparation of improvement
plans for Columbus Tustin Park and Multipurpose Recreation
Facility; 2) Direct staff and City Attorney to draft subject
agreement with Recreation Systems, Inc., pursuant to their pro-
posal submitted Dec-tuber 7, 1981; and 3) Authorize the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute said agreement as reco~nended by the Com-
munity services Director in the repoz~c dated January 13, 1982.
Motion carried 5-0.
41
In response to Councilmen Edgar, the C~unity Services Director
reported that the park plan will be on the February 1 agenda.
STREET NAME ~ - WaT~UT STREET
0~ STreET
Following discussion, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by
Hoesterey, to take D~ action on changing the Dame of Walnut
Street between Newport Avenue and Orange Street, as recon~nended
in the report dated January 13, 1982, prepared by the Director
of Public Works. Carried 5-0. 96
Pursuant to the report dated December 14, 1982, prepared by the
City Manager, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, ~o
review the audit report, work program, achievements, and recom-
mendations for needed State legislation. Carried 5-0.
81
FISCAL ~ 19e0/81 A~D~T ~PO~
Council concurred to receive and file the repoz~c prepared by the
City Manager dated January 13, 1982. 29
Council/staff discussion followed pertaining to blue reflector
markers to designate fire hydrant location, possible traffic
hazards if they're placed too far from the center line, cost to
the City, and value on residential streets as opposed to arte-
rial highways.
The Director of Public Works reported that approximately four
years ago, the City was approached by the County Fire Department
to install reflective blue markers opposite hydrants Just off
the center line. At the time, the County indicated that if the
City supplied the markers, they would attempt to install them.
Staff responded that if it was a necessary item, the County
should budget for same. The item died until Councilman Edgar
brought the matter up a few meetings prior.
Council concurred with Councilwomen Kennedy's suggestion that
staff report back on data re number of seconds, property, lives,
etc., saved where time is essential, and the possibility of
including the markers in fire protection services agreement
with the'County. 51
SOT~ICIT~TIO~ O~ I~-~T FOR PItOPO~ FOR
CE~TER DR~v~ ~GINEEI~ING ~SIGN SERVICES
Council concurred to receive and file the report prepared by the
Director of Public Works dated January 13, 1982. 95
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8, 1-18-82
The City Manager requested an Executive Session for discussion
of personnel matters.
In response to Councilman Saltarelli, the City Attorney stated
he does not believe the Tustin Water Works bonds are immediately
due and payable because of the sale to the City. To date, there
have been two requests for payoff of the bonds. At this point,
the City is only making interest payments on the bonds.
The Director of Public Works responded to Councilman Edgar that
there was a short red zone adjacent to the corner of Sixth
Street and E1 Camino Real, and the remainder of it was a two-
hour time zone, which has been frequently violated. Within the
next meeting or two, staff will present a plan to red-zone quite
a bit of curb on both sides of Sixth Street as well as E1 Camino
to provide adequate turning radius for truck traffic, etc.
Councilm~n Edgar commented that he is pleased to see all the
power lines down on E1 Camino. The Director of Public Works
reported that Pacific Telephone expects to have the telephone
lines down no later than April.
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Sharp, to recreate the Plan-
ning Agency with the time schedule that the newly elected Coun-
cil will select the Agency and establish the principle that the
selection be at-large.
Pursuant to
was made by
ter for the
Councilman Hoesterey's co-~ents, a sub~itute motion
Kennedy, seconded by Hoesterey, to agendize the mat-
February 1, 1982, meeting.
Councilmen Saltarelli expressed his support of the main motion.
The Mayor recognized Margaret Byrd in the audience, who stated
that from her observations, the previous Planning Commission was
not a very efficient, productive commission.
Following Councilman Saltarelli's comments, the original motion
was amended to appoint public m~bers to serve on the Planning
Co-~ission, as opposed to the City Council.
Councilman Hoesterey spoke in favor of the substitute motion to
allow the opportunity to study what fiscal impacts creating a
Planning Co-~ission might have in terms of a higher staff
support level.
In response to Councilwoman Kennedy's concern, the City Attorney
stated that there is no requirement to agendize a matter, but it
is an orderly procedure to follow.
Councilmen Edgar spoke in favor of the main motion.
Councilmen Hoesterey stated that the present Council has tried
to let the voters know that it is not in the "railroading" busi-
ness. He felt the proposed action is either in response to an
editorial in the paper or some input that was received by a
Councilmember, and did not understand why a decision must be
made at this meeting if members of the Planning Commission will
be appointed by the newly-elected council.
The substitute motion failed 2-3, Edgar, Saltarelli and Sharp
dissenting.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 9, 1-18-82
Councilman Saltarelli stated that although he believes the
present Planning Agency is a very efficient, frugal operation,
it is obvious that no one seems to appreciate the time being
spent by Councilmembers to fill that job.
The Mayor stated his suppor~ of the amended motion due to prob-
lems that arose following approval of rather complicated pro-
posals, or proposals Council thought were understood when
approved, but once construction started or people started to
object after construction commenced, he wonders if in the press
of business, they received proper and due consideration.
Councilman Hoesterey stated he was torn between voting against
the amended motion to allow the matter to be agendized for fur-
ther fiscal study, and voting in favor as it might be good to
have a separate Planning Commission.
The amended motion carried 5-0.
81
It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to recess at 5:06
p.m. to an Executive Session for discussion of personnel matters,
and thence adjourn to the next regular meeting on February 1, 1982.
Carried 5-0.
MAYOR