Loading...
1979/09/1179-1006 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour (entered at 3:15 P.M.) COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CI2~f CLERK: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest PURCHASING AGENT: Richard Jefferis FINANCE DIRECTOR: George P. Ferrone PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti UTILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICE MANAGER: Darrell Ament GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS MANAGER: Neal Beeson Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend George Brown, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: "National Lupus Week" (City of Hope) - September 16-23, 1979 "Constitution Week in Anaheim" - September 16-22, 1979 Mr. Keith Armer accepted the proclamation on National Lupus Week. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mr. James McAlvin on his retirement from Anaheim Memorial Hospital after 22 years of service. 119: BIRTHDAY GREETINGS: Birthday greetings were extended to Henry G. "Dad" Miller by the Council on his 102nd birthday, September 11, 1979. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt also read a letter sent to the President of the United States under Mayor Seymour's signature asking him to recognize "Dad" Miller on the occasion of his birthday. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. 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 read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Council- men Roth and Seymour were absent. MOTION CARRIED. 79-1007 City Ha~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $215,102.10 for the period ending August 31, 1979 and $831,998.76 for the period ending September 7, 1979, in accordance with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilman Bay offered Resolution Nos. 79R-513 through 79R-516, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-513: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-443 FOR THE UTILITIES SERVICE CENTER OFFICE ADDI- TIONS, 901 E. VERMONT AVENUE. 129: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-514: 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: FIRE STATION NO. 4 - APPARATUS ROOM REMODELING, 2736 W. ORANGE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-911-7107. (Newport Construction, $37,680) 163: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-515: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN APPLICATION/AGREEMENT FOR A GRANT OF FUNDS FROM THE STATE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR PUP, POSES OF CONDUCTING A SAFE SCHOOL ROUTES STUDY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ($40,100) 159/152: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-516: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC WORKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AS THE ACTING CITY ENGINEER FOR PURPOSES OF EXECUTING CERTIFICATES REQUIRED BY THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT DURING SUCH TIMES AS THE CITY ENGINEER IS ABSENT FROM THE CITY OR OTHERWISE UNABLE TO SO ACT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Bay None Roth and Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-513 through 79R-516, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - EIGHT LOC-TYPE CONTROLLERS: (Account No. 46-792-6325- 2190), The City Engineer recommended an award be made to Econolite Control Products, Inc., $74,488.89. Mr. Jerry Humphrey, Computer Service Company, 4622 East LaPalma, referred to the letter he submitted at 4:00 P.M. on September 10, 1979 (on file in the City Clerk's office) which was self-explanatory. He realized that there was no cash value mentioned as to the impact on the City, and they were asking for the opportunity to have the bid resubmitted. 79-1008 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Sep, tember 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood asked what was missing on their bid as to the actual cost compared to that of Econolite. Mr. Humphrey stated the question would be - what was added to the bid that would cause the price to be so much higher. The item involved was an interface, section 1021, on the original bid request. There were eight interfaces and the estimated additional cost which was not removed per addendum number one of their bid was approximately $2,000 per interface. Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney in a case such as this, where there was a time set to receive sealed bids and they had received them and then selected the lowest sealed bid, would it be an unprecedented action to come in after the bidding process and claim an error. He asked if that would normally be any reason to rebid. City Attorney William Hopkins explained that the Council had the prerogative to reject all bids. It was understood that the matter was made public, plans and specifications published, and all data furnished to bidders. It would be highly unusual to make any changes at this time. Councilman Bay stated what he feared even though he sympathized, if they decided to go back and redo everything, on that basis any time thereafter if they received that type of appeal, the precedent would be set. Councilwoman Kaywood commented that an appeal after amounts were made public, made a pretense of the whole bid process. Mr. Humphrey stated he was hoping the Council would consider the timing element involved in the addendum itself, since it was published two days prior to the bid opening and he received it the day prior to the bid opening. It~was reacted upon immediately by redoing the price of the controllers. As their letter of September 10, 1979 stated, his assistant not being aware of the addendum, failed to remove the added cost of the interface. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted clarification that the bid they submitted was submitted in error; Mr. Humphrey stated that was correct. He was not claiming there was an error on the part of the City, but took issue with the timing element for res- ponding to the addendum that was issued by the City. City Manager William Talley stated that Mr. Humphrey recognized he had the information in time, made the adjustment in his bid and apparently through a clerical oversight, his man did not submit all the information he had. It was unfortunate, but as Councilman Bay pointed out, if they set a prece- dent, while they would save $12,000 over the award today, anyone else could make some sort of claim for any other reason and chaos would then ensue in the competitive bid process. He continued to recommend award to the low bidder. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 79R-517 for adoption as recommended by the City Engineer in memorandum dated September 4, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book. 79-1009 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September lip 1979~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-517: 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: SUPPLY AND DELIVER 8 LOC-TYPE CONTROLLERS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-792-6325-2190. (Econolite Control Products, Inc. $74,488.89) ' Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay and Overholt None Roth and Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-517 duly passed and adopted. 174: RELOCATION ASSISTANCE: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-518 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated August 31, 1979 from the Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest, authorizing relocation assistance and payments in connection with rehabilitation activities under the Community Development Block Grant and California Housing Finance Agency programs, and authorizing the Community Development Director to approve payments up to $15,000 maximum. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-518: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND RELOCATION PAYMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, and Overholt None Roth and Seymour 2he ~yor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-518 duly passed and adopted. 106: REVISION OF HOUSING AUTHORITY CITY BUDGET FOR FY 1979-80: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, an increase of $218,968 to the Housing Authority budget for the additional 125 Section 8 "existing" housing approved by HUD, was approved. Councilmen Roth and Seymour were absent MOTION CARRIED. · 123/158: PURCHASE OF STATE PARCEL NO. 980312-01-01: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-519 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 4, 1979 from the Executive Director of Community Development, authorizing an agreement with the State of California (Department of Transportation) for the purchase of State Parcel No. 980312-01-01, property located at Imperial Highway and Orange- thorpe Avenue, in the amount of $319,900. Refer to Resolution Book. 79-1010 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that it contained rather significant information in it and she asked Mr. Jefferis if he was familiar with the claims made in the letter. Mr. Jefferis stated that he had not seen the letter. He did meet with Golf Carts and his response to their claim at the time was that they were questioning the adequacy of the specifications, not whether or not the low bidder met those specifications. The discussion revolved around their claim that other carts could not do one thing or another, which was a matter of conjecture. Councilman Bay stated since he had not seen the particulars contained in their letter, he suggested that the matter be postponed one week; Mr. Talley preferred that it be held over until later in the meeting, during which time staff could review the communication received. Later in the meeting, Mr. Jefferis first stated he wanted to clarify that on the bid for the "Dad" Miller Course, he had stated that Best Golf Service took exception. They later phoned and talked to the buyer and stated they would rather not have the maintenance if that was all they were going to get. In the actual bid opening, they took no exception so they were in the same position as Taylor-Dunn, and thus the staff report was correct. Mr. Jefferis continued that in reading the letter from Golf Carts he noted on Page two, Paragraph four, they indicated they were talking to the wrong people in the City. He then referenced and read three provisions in the bid proposal documentation where it was stated clearly that they were going to look at the situation on an individual basis. In further reviewing the letter, he felt it was more like a public relations document. They made statements all through it about what the E-Z Go Cart would not do without any factual information and their statements could not really be challenged because they did not provide any back-up information on which to base it. It was his opinion that Taylor- Dunn and E-Z Go Carts were probably very fine carts, and he saw no significant difference. Councilman Bay stated, if they took the whole package to do the whole job versus the selection as recommended by staff with Taylor-Dunn doing the maintenance, Golf Carts was saying the difference was $3,300. Mr. Jefferis stated he did not check the exact amount, but he did not feel it was significant. His obligation was to go with the iow bid. Councilman Bay stated they also normally looked for low bids. When considering a delta of only $3,000 or $4,000 between bids, then he had to strongly consider Golf Cars of California from the standpoint that they would have an Anaheim company serving both courses. As well, the representative from Taylor-Dunn indicated they were not excited about their maintenance bid and recommended that they go with one company. City Manager Talley asked Mr. Beeson to speak to the issue. 79-1011 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Neal Beeson, Golf Course Operations Manager, explained they presently had 30 Taylor-Dunn carts and 10 Club carts at the Muni Course, and they had no more problems with the Club car than with the Taylor-Dunn. Relative to the letter from Golf Carts, Mr. Bignell was building his prOduct and knocking the compe- tition. He did not feel the arguments were Just considering the present use of their cars or the test done on the other carts. The long-term comparison that they had to make was between the Taylor-Dunn and Club Cart. He personally felt that the Club Car would provide better service than Taylor-Dunn relative to the number of rounds played, and they had gone a very high number of rounds. They were the first out everyday and were required to go out at least three times every weekend and two times on weekdays at the Muni Course. They were good carts. He also did not doubt that E-Z Go could provide what they said they would for a lower price. After further questioning by the Council for purposes of clarification relative to the validity of statements made in the Golf Carts letter, Mr. Beeson stated they tested every cart that was bid on site, and they were locked in the cart storage building each night on charge and no service was performed other than what was normally provided. Mr. Talley stated he did not know that all the carts had been tested and, if so, it would have expedited the matter. He asked then if Mr. Beeson noticed a marked difference between any of the carts at the Anaheim Hills Course. Mr. Beeson answered that they found nothing significantly better. Councilm~n Bay asked, in Mr. Beeson's opinion, if the questions in the letter raised any doubt in his mind as to whether the specifications were thorough enough to cover the functions and reliability they were looking for; Mr. Beeson answered that although they could always be stronger, they were adequate. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the purchase of 90 golf carts and maintenance for a three-year period with Anaheim Hills and H. G. "Dad" Miller Golf Courses as follows: Ninety carts with a three-year maintenance for the Hills Course, to E-Z Golf Carts, $199,463.40; and a three-year main- tenance for the 40 existing carts at "Dad" Miller Course with Taylor-Dunn Mfg. Co., $39,600. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilmen Roth and Seymour were absent. MOTION CARRIED. 128: FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR ONE-MONTH PERIOD ENDING JULY 31~ 1979: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the financial statement for the one-month period ending July 31, 1979 was received and filed. Councilmen Roth and Seymour were absent. MOTION CARRIED. 129: DESIGNATION OF AN ARCHITECT - FIRE STATION NO. 8: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve selection of Dan Rowland and Associates as the architect for the Fire Station No. 8 project, 111 North Pinney Drive, and directing the City Attorney to prepare the necessary agreement with the excess budgeted amount of $804 to be allocated from the Council Contingency Fund, as recommended in memor- andum dated August 31, 1979 from Fire Chief James Riley. Councilmen Roth and Seymour were absent. MOTION CARRIED. 79-1012 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September lip 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 153: PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS FOR CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS - UNITED WAY: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-522 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 5, 1979 from the Human Resources Director Garry McRae, establishing criteria for charitable payroll deductions and reaffirming the United Way of Orange County am the principal charitable combined fund drive organization for payroll deductions. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-522: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CONCERNING CHARITABLE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay and Overholt None Roth and Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-522 duly passed and adopted. 123: FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES - WATER UTILITY'S CAPITAL EXPANSION PROGRAM: Councilman Bay recalled that last week he had some questions (see minutes September 4, 1979) and he was not certain they had been answered. He had nothing against the recommended consultant, James J. Lowrey & Company, but he did not receive an explanation as to why the other low bidders were ignored. Mr. Talley stated he could not add much to what Mr. Hoyt said last week. In his presentation, Mr. Lowrey convinced staff that he would make a savings of a basis point of at least one, which would more than make up for the cost dif- ference; that he had a totally independent relationship, where all the other bidders represented housers which would also be bidding on the bonds and, therefore, the incentive for establishing a maximum number of consortia was not as great as Mr. Lowrey; plus the fact that he was new in the field as an independent agent. His ten years with a major house and the recommendation Mr. Hoyt obtained from Wall Street, convinced him this was an appropriate recommendation to make. If they had to go with two issues, the cost would be $50,000 as opposed to one at $25,000. Councilman Bay stated that the question was not Mr. Lowrey at all. He felt that he received only one side of the whole bid package and no information on the other bidders. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Mr. Talley as to what the one percentage point would amount to in dollars; Mr. Talley answered that it would be in excess of $14,000. Mr. Talley was then informed by staff that Mr. Lowrey was presently in the building. He (Talley) thereupon suggested that Mr. Lowrey make a presentation to the Council. Mr. James Lowrey, James J. Lowrey & Company, stated that the process of recommen- ding his firm had been thoroughly covered by Mr. Talley and staff. They did rep- resent other California issuers and other issuers in general, and staff's inves- tigation and concern for doing what was right for the City of Anaheim probably exceeded any preliminary discussions or investigations he had been involved with. 79-1013 City Ha.ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Talley stated the question that kept surfacing was, why pay James L. Lowrey & Company more money and what could he do for the City relative to obtaining a savings. Mr. Lowrey then made an extensive presentation relative to his background, exper- tise and long experience in the field and all the reasons why he felt that Mr. Talley, Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Ament believed that his firm could do the best job for Anaheim. They would bring to the City in-depth knowledge that no other financial advisor could bring. At the conclusion of his presentation, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Mr. Lowrey could give any specifics on what the minimum amount he felt he could save for Anaheim. Mr. Lowrey stated if he gave a dollar amount, he would be misleading them because he did not know. Everybody else was sitting on the other side of the table - the institutional investors and the distribution mechanism. They felt that they could take advantage of the distortion in the marketplace, upon which he elabor- ated. He could say he felt confident they would be able to save the City a multiple of the fee which they were charging. Further, it was not their intent to try to convert $14 million into two loans. Twenty-five thousand dollars migh~ sound like a great deal of money, but it was not, compared to their other fees. They wanted to be involved in Anaheim and their base fee until coming to the City was $50,000 per loan. However, they discussed the situation in his office before they mailed the proposal and decided they would take a loss because they believed if they proved themselves, they would have a chance at a good deal of business in California. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-523 for adoption authorizing an agreement with James L. Lowrey & Company in the amount of $25,000, plus out-of- pocket expenses, for financial advisory services in connection with the Water Utility's capital expansion program authorized by the voters at the November 7, 1978 General Election. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-523: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT EMPLOYING JAMES J. LOWREY & COMPANY AS CONSULTANTS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH FINANCING EXPANSION OF THE CITY-OWNED WATER SYSTEM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay and Overholt NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth and Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-523 duly passed and adopted. 112: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO CHALLENGE CERTAIN DECISIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-524 for adoption, as recommended by the City Attorney in his memorandum dated August 30, 1979,, making the provi- sions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to establish 79-1014 City Ha~l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Sept,ember 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. a ninety-day statute of limitations for challenges to certain adjudicatory decisions of the City Council. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-524: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MAKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1094.6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN ADJUDICATORY DECISIONS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay and Overholt None Roth and Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-524 duly passed and adopted. 139: HOUSING ELEMENTS OF LOCAL GENERAL PLANS: Councilman Bay moved to support the Coastal Cities' position that the housing elements of local general plans provide for housing issues in an adequate manner and reflect local needs and concerns and, therefore, unnecessary to be included in the Local Coastal Plan, as requested by the City of Newport Beach in their letter of August 31, 1979. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilmen Roth and Seymour were absent. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (3:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present '~z~th the exception of Councilman Roth. (3:15 P.M.) 179: ENCROACHMENT OF COMMERCIAL USES INTO THE NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL AREA: Proposed amendment to Section 18.61.050 pertaining to the ML zone as outlined in the staff report to the Planning Commission dated August 13, 1979, and establishment of a Northeast Industrial Area Code Enforcement Program. Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, briefed the staff report submitted to the Planning Commission and read the excerpt relating to the Commission's action. Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, stated that relative to zoning enforcement in the Northeast Industrial area, the Planning Commission and citizens involved in the many work sessions were desirous of an ambitious program not only regarding Zoning Code enforcement, but also changes in the processes and procedures of the Planning Department, with certain Code modifications as well. To minimize the opportunity for the quasi-commercial developments to locate in the Industrial area in the future, they would have to "beef up" some of the procedures that might delay many of the uses falling into that gray area. They would have to be checked by the Planning Department when applying for business licenses and building permits and possibly with the Fire Department rather than utilizing the normal procedure. It would be a tightening up of the process at the front end that might entail more time for those few businesses. Given this change in procedure and an ambitious enforcement program, he would anticipate that a considerable amount~of heat would be generated for the Council. Thus, they were looking for direction and guidance with respect to undertaking a program of that nature. 79-1015 City Hal!~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour asked if there were members of the public who wished to speak to the matter. Mr. Larry Sierk, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, stated that over the past few months, the Chamber and its members on the Industrial Comittee spent considerable time working with the Planning Commission and in study sessions with staff to develop the recommendation being presented to the Council today. The Chamber was in support of the approval of the proposed amendment to the ML Zone as recommended by the Planning Commission. He added that Anaheim was still being looked to by many major employers and just recently the City was still in the running with a firm who would be hiring 2,500 employees. The City was in a valuable location, and thus the Coundil should make every effort to support the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Additionally, they were soon to support other items that would be coming before the Council relative to zoning changes for a retail shopping center in the Canyon area. It would also perhaps have some quasi-commercial in the same immediate area. He reiterated they supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission and there were many people who did speak previously, but who were unable to be present today. However, their comments were in the minutes of the previous meetings. Mr. Joe Campbell, Chairman of the Chamber Industrial Committee, then briefed the Council on the reasoning behind the position the Chamber had taken. The Chamber was in support of the present General Plan for the City; it was an excellent plan. An industrial area was typically one that was less desirable with resoect to compatibility with commercial and residential areas, and it was desirable to have it segregated and separated from those areas. Industrial procedures produced noise, traffic, different working hours, fumes and irri- tants. The Canyon area was particularly advantageous from that standpoint because it had natural barriers. With respect to co-existence, the industrial people on the Committee were concerned about encroachment in general. Some came to the Anaheim area because they were forced out of other areas because of encroachment by commercial and residential. They were put under pressure to look elsewhere to establish and maintain their businesses. They would be reluctant to consider staying or expanding if not given reassurance that they were not going to be forced into the same decision in Anaheim four or five years from now. Many commercial businesses could co-exist in the industrial sector if they main- tained their relationship with industrials, such as banks or restaurants serving the industrial area. Even in the industrial sector they sometimes had problems with their own neighbors. They were concerned about the industrial community being forced to live side-by-side with commercial establishments that did not draw a major portion of their business from the industrial sector. They also felt that the industrial sector had only so much fixed land available for future development within Anaheim's City limits. The General Plan allowed for physical growth of the industrial area, and allowing commercial would limit that opportunity. By a unanimous vote they supported the proposed plan a~Ld felt that the City had an obligation to establish stricter enforcement of the Code and to support the industrial sector by restricting the use of the businesses in that area to industrial as opposed to commercial. 79-1016 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood asked their feelings on the Southeast Industrial area; Mr. Campbell answered that area already had gone somewhat to a quasi-industrial area. They believed even in that area where there was a reasonable feeling of compat- ibility, it was going to be difficult to maintain. The Stadium itself was not industrial, but it had no problem with the uses around it. Offices were being built there and they were co-habiting very well. It did not appear to be as much of a problem, and there were also residential areas in the vicinity and they did not have a problem. They felt it was acceptable to have commercial enter- prises anywhere as long as there was reasonable compatibility between the com- mercial enterprise and the industrial sector, and that was the major concern. Relative to painted signs on windows, they were not desirable no matter where they were. They felt the City had done a good job in developing controlled zoning to make certain that the appearance in an area was compatible, and no one was allowed to generate an eyesore. Mayor Seymour asked if the Committee spent any time touring other industrial areas such as Irvine, Mission VieJo and Fountain Valley wherein there were commercial usages along the freeway and/or interchanges and also if they had any comments relative to that type of quasi-commercial and actual commercial developments in those areas. Mr. Campbell answered "no"; they toured the Northeast Industrial sector. How- ever, he personally had worked in the Irvine industrial complex for seven years. There, they used the natural barriers to segregate areas and it was very effective. The other areas mentioned by the Mayor appeared to be well controlled. There was a ne~d for an area where the large furniture-type outlets could locate. During the work sessions with the Planning Con~nission, it was made clear by Mr. Farano and others that the City had a need for such opportunity for those types of businesses. The key element that deterred them from the usual commer- cial complex was cost. Space within a standard shopping center was not desired because they did not draw revenue per square foot normally expected, and the cost to the outlet was higher than they felt they could afford. They then looked to the industrial sector where property value was lower. They felt there should be other areas that could be used for sites other than the Northeast Industrial sector. There were plans afoot in the Canyon for commercial centers, and the Chamber of Commerce was in support of those centers. Mayor Seymour stated they appreciated the Chamber's favorable consideration relative to the location of a potential regional shopping center but that type of development was typically commercial, meaning high traffic, because of the high rent attached to it. His question remained, where in the City did Mr. Campbell or the Committee see, or did they even broach the question of an alternative, that would accommodate quasi-commercial uses. Mr. Campbell stated that was asked during one of the Committee meetings and one of the recommendations to the Planning Commission was that an additional review be made of the entire General Plan to see if there were areas outside the indus- trial areas for such use. They did not go as far as making a decision or rec- ommendation. They did want to work with the Planning Commission to look into the possibility of that kind of area being set aside somewhere. 79-1017 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated he was of the opinion that they should clean up the area and close the door, but as they did so, those businesses would have to go somewhere because merely closing the door would not solve the problem. Such action would either eliminate those types of business establishments in the City or they would be repeating the same mistake that had been made before. Councilman Bay stated he did not follow the logic of saying the industrial area might be a good place to put furniture stores. The basic function of the work sessions was not to single out large square footage furniture stores by saying there was no other place for them to go~-they should be placed in industrial areas. If that logic were followed and extended, they would have to explore the logic for accepting other unusual uses that might want to locate in the City as well. He heard in work sessions if they could get industrial buildings in which to sell their furniture, they could undercut the market. It might be good business, but it was not good planning. Mayor Seymour countered that what Councilman Bay considered good planning was not so. Good planning was to take an action to clean-up the Northeast Industrial area, but poor planning was to take the "ostrich" approach by saying they would not allow any more furniture stores that wanted to locate in the City or auto- mobile dealerships, such as developed along the Santa Aha Freeway in Irvine and Mission Viejo. Not to recognize the economic benefit and contribution to the City of those or other type uses and, therefore not to plan for their location, was not good planning in his opinion. Councilwoman Kaywood assumed that the Chamber Committee did hear from the existing legitimate business firms who were paying the proper rent in the proper zone. She asked if they were verbal about their feelings relative to undercutting competition. Mr. Campbell explained that they invited all industrial and all commercial enter- prises within the sectors to the Planning sessions. No commercial people attended, except for Mr. Farano who was representing one or two establishments in the ~Iortheast Industrial area. He (Farano) represented the feeling that development as it had occurred already would continue unless something changed drastically. ~o one attended the sessions from places such as The Broadway or Robinson's in the Anaheim Plaza. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the reason those businesses located in an industrial area was because of the lower cost. She wanted to know if by loca- ting there, would such action raise the cost of land so that further industrial moving into the area would have to pay a higher rate? Mr. Campbell answered that was another concern; if there was a rezoning as com- mercial, there would be a substantial increase in the cost of rent because of that action. Therefore, the advantage would have been lost in the first place. The industrial area itself was seeing a substantial appreciation in any case, but nothing was attributed directly to the commercial establishment. His belief was that at least along La Palma around the Kraemer and Tustin off-ramps, there was a substantial increase because it was fairly well known that it was being established as a commercial sector. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood's question then, he would have to say "yes", it was true in that area. It was a concern 79-1018 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. of the Planning Commission that the area was becoming a commercial sector because of loose enforcement and the question was what to do about it. They finally agreed they should not condone or accept the establishment of that area as a commercial sector. It should be maintained as an industrial sector and that was the outcome of all the discussions. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern over the fact that Curtis Furniture was running full-page ads which she found to be personally offensive. They went in illegally and did everything wrong blatantly. There was another wholesale furniture outfit on East Ball Road that was presently coming in for a CUP after existing illegally for quite some time and even while they were applying, their windows were painted with large signs. It was the only disgusting looking business in the industrial neighborhood and encouraged porliferation. If they could not even go into the wrong zone and abide by the site development standards existing in that zone, she could see that the entire City would be turning into the type of strip commer- cial existing along Lincoln and Brookhurst, and it would be a constant enforcement problem. She also felt that they needed to pay more attention to the Southeast Industrial area as well. She realized that there was a mix in the Stadium area and there was nothing wrong with that, as long as they all complied with the standards. Councilman Bay stated that he had been working and trying to bring it to a head since July 1978 in a letter to the Council. A resolution was also presented from the Redevelopment Commission that he helped to originate at that time. His position had been clear on the subject for a long time. He complimented the Industrial Committee of the Chamber, Larry Sierk, The Anaheim Economic Development Corporation and the industries who sent representatives to all of the work shop meetings. He attended all but one and heard all the pros and cons about the industrial areas, not Just the Northeast area. He felt strongly it was the duty of the Planning Department, Planning Commission and the City Council to vigorously defend the integrity of the City's General Plan because he believed it to be a good one. If it was not defended and enforced, the integrity of the Plan would be lost, as well as the basic reason for zoning and planning in the first place. He saw the integrity of the Plan being blatantly challenged by illegal business operations and subtly challenged by CUP requests. There were exceptions to the rule and that was the reason for variances and CliPs. The General Plan clearly stated it was up to the elected officials of the City to vigorously defend and preserve the industrial portions of the General Plan in the City. Zoning without enforcement was worse than no zoning at all because it penalized the law-abiding businessman. Lack of enforcement eliminated the protective benefits intended by the original planning and zoning function. Therefore, the issue struck at the very heart of whether they were going to main- tain the integrity of their zoning and planning. If they were not and gave protection equally to the various uses, residential, commercial and industrial, then he questioned the reason for planning and zoning in the first place. Relative to the staff recommendation, he was also interested in restating some of the points which he wanted to make clear, one being, they would have to have the best enforcement in order to maintain the integrity of the industrial area, perhaps to the point of removing existing illegal commercial uses in that area. 79-1019 City Hall~ Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. He noted specifically lc(3)e of the staff report, which discussed the problem of display windows, and buildings being subdivided after they were approved as industrial. He wanted to hear from staff relative to originating a control or at least cautioning developers regarding the installation of display windows and the like. If they did not put some kind of stop or give warning to the developers, they were going to be approaching the City to explain all the money they had spent installing show windows that they were not going to be able to use. He wanted to know what they could do about that situation and also the subdividing of industrial buildings in the areas for obvious small commercial shops. Somewhere in the development standards there should be an amendment, if it was not there now, to make it clear. On lc(5)d, he did not agree with the implication that they should give up on the Southeast Industrial area. He could see a reason for dividing that area and taking a new look at the planning in that vicinity. It was obvious that future plans in the Stadium area were going to include commercial, commercial office and mixed areas. He wanted staff to look at the potential of separating that area from the rest of the industrial with the possbility that they could still save the potent industrial area within that Southeast Industrial zone. Councilman Bay concluded that he wanted to have a full Council present when making a decision on the subject amendment because he considered it a very important issue of policy for the future of the City. Councilman Bay thereupon moved to continue consideration of the proposed Code amendment for one week for full Council action. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: !. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claim~ were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator or allowed: a. Claim submitted by John Edward Rice for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of an accident on the Stadium parking lot caused by lack of crowd supervision, on or about May 18, 1979. b. Claim submitted by Aetna Life & Casualty (Denise Ortner, Insured), for vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of improperly functioning traffic signal at intersection of Western and Orange Avenues, on or about July 24, 1979. c. Claim submitted by Robert E. Todd for property damages at 1218 Kenwood Street purportedly sustained as a result of work done by City employees on or about June 21, 1979 d. Claim submitted by Phillip G. Trad for vehicle damage~ purportedly sustained as a result of hole in pavement in Loara Street, approximately 300 feet north of Crone intersection, on or about June 10, 1979. 79-1020 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. e. Claim submitted by Satellite Market (D & R Jensen) for damages purportedly sustained am a result of transformer burn-out causing loss of compressor equipment and frozen foods, on or about August 9, 1979. f. Claim submitted by Raymond Kohl on behalf of his son, Kristofer Kohl, for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of fall from seat at Stadium, on or about May 19, 1979. g. Claim submitted by Ralph J. Todd for damages to personal property purportedly sustained as a result of power outage caused by transformer blow-up on or about August 9, 1979. h. Claim submitted by Arthur Rivas for personal injury damages purportedly sus- tained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about May 22, 1979. i. Claim submitted by Brinley A. Williams, IV, for damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by the Anaheim Police, on or about May 20, 1979. j. Claim submitted by Scott Zeidlik for vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of warning devices around street drain construction area at White Star and La Palma Avenue being knocked down, on or about May 21, 1979. k. Claim submitted by Steven Bellville by his father Glenn W. Bellville, for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of bicycle accident caused by material being sprayed on street by City crew, on or about August 15, 1979. The following claim was allowed: 1. Claim submitted by James G. Sickles for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of City vehicle backing into claimant's vehicle in Utility parking lot, 900 East Vermont Street, on or about July 25, 1979. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 175: United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Opinion and Order on Rate Increase (Opinion No. 62), Southern California Edison Company, Docket No. ER76-205. b. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of August 20, 1979. c. 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of June 28, 1979 (approved by Board on August 23, 1979). d. 178: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Resolution 7782, levying taxes for FY 1979-80. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 79-]021 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-525 through 79R-527, 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. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-525: 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: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF EUCLID STREET AND MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-794-6325-4070. (Smith Electric Supply) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-526: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION OF VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC ALLEY AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (79-1A, October 2, 1979, 3:00 P.M.) 161/176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-527: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC ALLEYS LOCATED GENERALLY NORTH OF LINCOLN AVENUE, EAST OF HARBOR BOULEVARD. (78-15A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour None Ro th The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-525 through 79R-527, both inclusive duly passed and adopted. ' ORDINANCE NO. 4045: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4045 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4045: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-8(1), RS-HS-22,000) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour None Roth The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4045 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4046: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4046 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4046: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-3, CL) 79-1022 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour None Ro th The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4046 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4047 AND 4048: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4047 and 4048 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4047: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-37, RM-1200) ORDINANCE NO. 4048: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-19, RM-1200) 108: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CURRENT BINGO ORDINANCE: Councilman Overholt stated that for in excess of a year sitting on the Council, he personally had wrestled with the problem of the emerging bingo industry in the City. In his personal opinion, the so-called bingo industry, according to the last figures they had, indicated an annual gross in excess of $10.5 million reported. It was becoming a very large segment of the community. What concerned him when they had hearings on the question of the bingo ordinance and when petitions were filed, they found that the people playing bingo were not residents of Anaheim in the main, but people who came to Anaheim to play, since it was the most liberal city in the county. When talking about enforcing or auditing the operation of bingo, it involved substantial sums, and there was no way to extract that cost from the operators. The effect was that the taxpayers in Anaheim were paying for moni- toring and enforcement of the rapidly growing industry from which Anaheim derived nothing but a bad name of bingo capital of Southern California. There were a series of violations, some of which have been concluded by pleas of guilty and some were still pending. He was very concerned with the trend of the industry and their helplessness in being unable to do anything about it if they let it go too far. Without further elaboration, he was suggesting that the Council, without committing to a final decision, request the City Attorney to ~raft an ordinance amending the current bingo ordinance to provide two changes: (1) that bingo operators be allowed to play bingo one night a week in Anaheim, and (2) that the ordinance, if passed, be immediately effective with respect to all operators upon the effective date of the new ordinance, which, as he understood, would mean thirty days after the Council's final actions; City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that was correct. If Council joined in that request, he (Overholt) presumed they would have something to look at next week. Councilman Overholt continued that he had seen the operations of the some of the larger operators in the City, and he saw the happy elderly people enjoying the lunches that were passed out, but he believed they had to look beyond what appeared on the surface and recognize that the primary involvement was the game itself and what the operators could take for themselves, rather than the charity which, in some cases, those charitable purposes had actually been solicited to justify the 79-1023 City ~all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. basis for the bingo operation. They had to explain to the seniors who enjoyed playing bingo that they had recreational bingo in the senior citizen programs long before bingo with high cost came into the City, and that they could continue to have recreational bingo. They also had to explain to long-term charitable organizations, many of them religious, the purpose for allowing one night a week was to allow them to continue bingo parties to run their charitable operations. Further, they had to explain to the citizens that the industry in Anaheim was achieving proportions that none of them truly realized, and they were helpless in trying to monitor the situation. Unless there was a restriction at this time, it might be too late. Councilman Bay stated he wholeheartedly supported the proposal. Mayor Seymour stated as he understood, this was merely requesting the drawing of an amended ordinance and there would be ample time for discussions, questions and receiving input from the public; Councilman Overholt stated that was correct. 114: SCAG MEETING: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that she had attended the morning SCAG meeting held in Garden Grove where the topic was housing. They were going to have a speaker from Anaheim at their General Assembly the next week to report on what Anaheim was doing relative to providing housing. La Habra had an interesting concept which they were working on at the present. Everybody agreed that housing was a horrendous problem, and they were seeking whatever good sD%utions they could find. She also reported that SCAG was opening an office in Orange County in the Fountain Valley City Hall later in the week which would be staffed, and they were looking for ideas as to how they could be of better service. 164: MIRALOMA STORM DRAIN PROJECT: Councilman Bay asked the City Manager to have the Engineering Department at the next Council meeting provide an up-to-date status relative to the Miraloma storm drain project and where they were going before the rains came. ]05: LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETINGS: Mayor Seymour stated that he and Councilman Overbolt attended a Convention Center Authority meeting yesterday, September 10, i979. The week before, he and Councilman Bay had a liaison meeting with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman Pro Tem of the Redevelopment Commission. They met with David Collins and Bud Hecht, developers in the Redevelopment Project, to ask how they were doing. They discussed the Brashear's project as well. Councilman Bay stated they did not go to the meeting with the intent of looking at the details of the Collins-Drabkin development, but they did see a lot of detail. They also reminded Mr. Collins that five of his six months' negotiation period was almost up, and the six-month deadline was fast approaching. They indicated they wanted to see something concrete which he believed they were supposed to get within this week or next. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 79-1024 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES .- September 11~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Roth. (5:52 P.M.) 112: JOHN EARL MORGAN VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs were authorized to settle Superior Court Case No. 27-01-68 (John Earl Morgan vs. City of Anaheim) for an amount not to exceed $5,000. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 112: CITY'S CLAIM AGAINST FLEX PAVING: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the compromise proposal dated August 21, 1979 concerning the City's claim against Flex Paving and Engineering, Inc. and Robert J. Snyder was approved for the sum of $6,185, and the City Attorney authorized to execute all documents to implement said settlement. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:53 P.M. LINDA~D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK