HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1985-12-18Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia
Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego
Counci 1:
John "Jack" Drago
Ri chard A. Haffey
Gus Nicolopulos
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1)
ROLL CALL:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMUNITY FORUM
AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager Birkelo requested:
- Add a Resolution that authorizes the
City Manager to act as Interim City
Treasurer to pay the Deputy City
Treasurer, who is not currently on
the payroll for services rendered,
on a part time basis. He stated
that the rate was $20.00 an hour
and he did not believe the total
amount would exceed $500.00.
A joint meeting with the School
Board for discussion of Magnolia
Center.
MINUTES
City Council
Municipal Services Building
Community Room
December 18, 1985
ACTION TAKEN
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
6:08 p.m. Mayor Teglia presiding.
Council present:
Council absent:
Nicolopulos, Addiego,
Drago, Haffey and
Teglia.
None.
School Board present:
Braschi, Fernekes,
Latham, Rodondi and
Massetti.
School Board absent:
None.
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No one chose to speak.
COMMUNITY FORUM
No one chose to speak.
AGENDA REVIEW
So ordered.
City Manager Birkelo stated that he had
given the Council a brief run-down on
behalf of the Councilmembers on the
City/School Liaison Committee which basi-
12/18/85
Page i
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
AGENDA REVIEW
1. Joint meeting with the School Board
for discussion of Magnolia Center -
Continued.
AGENDA REVIEW
cally indicated that this matter had been
discussed at some length over the past
year. He continued, later some bids were
received which indicated that the cost
was rather substantial if the two Boards
were to consider moving the building to
the Southwood site and rehabilitation.
He stated that at the most recent meeting
of the Liaison Committee in November it
was felt that the problem was significant
enough to warrant a meeting of the two
Boards to discuss the matter.
Superintendent of Schools Gaffney stated
that Staff had given a recommendation to
the Board that the cost was excessive to
move and rehabilitate the building. He
stated that the figure was $120,209 to
move the building and put it in place,
however the figure would be higher when
the building was brought up to code
standards. He felt the estimate was
substantial for the District to bear.
Mayor Teglia questioned if the Board had
had the opportunity to discuss this
matter prior to this evening because it
was the District's property and nego-
tiations were under way to sell the pro-
perty.
Superintendent of Schools Gaffney stated
that the negotiated sale was under way
with BRIDGE Corporation and the question
was the Baden Bungalow itself and the
cost of moving it. He stated that
Staff's position was that the purchaser
accept the bungalow as a part of the
sales transaction and that that would be
one of the conditions he would recom-
mend to the Board.
Vice President Rodondi stated that when
the Committee met, relative to the moving
of the bungalow, it was concluded at one
of the Board meetings that the cost to
move the building was excessive.
12/18/85
Page 2
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
AGENDA REVIEW
1. Joint meeting with the School Board
for discussion of Magnolia Center -
Continued.
AGENDA REVIEW
He stated that the Board had recovered
insurance funds and he believed that the
City/School Committee had concluded that
it would be a compromise of a cost factor
not to exceed $72,000 and this cost was
far in excess of that figure. He stated
that it was concluded at that time it was
not feasible.
He stated that the Board was toying with
the idea of leaving the bungalow where it
stood, or relocating it on one of the
areas of the Baden property. He stated
that the Board at that time had concluded
that if the Developer wanted to include
the Baden bungalow with the purchase
agreement and work out with the City and
the School something that could be done
on that level, that would be the only
alternative. He stated that he did not
know if that was feasible for the
Developer at this time.
Councilman Naffey spoke of the alter-
natives discussed by the Liaison
Committee and their dilemma because it
became very costly to preserve the bunga-
low. He stated that both Boards wanted
to see the bungalow preserved, however
the Board wanted to see a valued return
on their property. He stated that there
had been agreement between the Bodies to
each pay 50% to move the bungalow, which
at this point because of the cost appears
to be unreasonable. He continued, the
property has to be sold and the Developer
cannot deal with the bungalow.
He stated that the unfortunate thing was
that the arson or fire that occurred
destroyed the building to such an extent
that it cannot be transferred for a
reasonable amount for either Body to
handle.
President Masetti stated that it was her
understanding that the Magnolia site, the
cement building, would be developed as a
community center or a senior community
center. She questioned if part of that
12/18/85
Page 3
AGENDA
ACTION
TAKEN
AGENDA REVIEW
Joint meeting with the School Board
for discussion of Magnolia Center -
Continued.
0
AGENDA REVIEW
could be used for an historical society,
in that that was the purpose of keeping
the bungalow was for historical purposes.
Councilman Haffey stated that the primary
purpose of the Magnolia Center was to
provide a senior center as the City
currently leases space on Grand Avenue
which was not as large as Magnolia
Center. He stated that the idea of
including an historical portion to
Magnolia had not been considered.
Boardmember Latham stated that he would
like input from the Developer on his
plans for the property.
Mr. Arthur Sullivan, BRIDGE Corporation,
stated that he worked for a regionally
based non-profit housing company called
BRIDGE Housing. He stated that his
Company's interest in the project began a
year ago at the request of City Staff who
had informed them of a fairly extensive
study on the use of the Magnolia site to
try to coordinate the efforts of con-
verting the school building into a senior
center and having senior housing provided
as a strongly identified need in this
community; especially low and affordable
rental senior housing.
He spoke of similar projects that his
firm was working on in the Bay area.
He stated that his firm was not adverse
to the idea of preserving the bungalow,
however the cost of moving the building
was a very costly factor which the estima-
tes had proven. He stated that leaving
the bungalow where it stood would be a
significant cost because of trying to
plan a fairly high density development of
senior housing.
He stated that he had urged this meeting
to take place so that both Boards would
understand the assumptions made when his
firm had made an offer for a purchase
12/18/85
Page 4
AGENDA
ACTION
TAKEN
AGENDA REVIEW
Joint meeting with the School Board
for discussion of Magnolia Center -
Continued.
AGENDA REVIEW
price on the property for a per unit type
value. He stated that if something could
be worked out that would not have an
impact on the affordability, which was
the number objective for senior housing.
He stated that the bungalow could have a
physical impact because of its location
or it could have an economic impact by
trying to absorb that cost into the
housing.
Discussion followed: that the BRIDGE
Corporation was not aware of the problem
of the bungalow when their offer had been
made; that it was realized that the
bungalow in its present condition was a
cumberance on the development of the pro-
perty; a question of what the dollar
figure, as to the value of the bungalow,
detracted from the property as a whole in
its present condition; what would happen
if the bungalow was culled out from the
project; that it was decided that it
would be foolish for the School District
to own a part of the senior citizens
development; that if the City was
interested in developing that site it
should take the whole piece of property
and not cut out a little square and leave
it for the District; that the difficulty
was that the bungalow was in the middle
of the site and therefore a square
footage ratio to establish value was not
valid; that to the School District the
bungalow had no value; alternative loca-
tions for the bungalow; what purpose the
bungalow would serve after the expen-
diture of money for relocation, restora-
tion and maintenance; culling the
building out or destroying the bungalow;
that if the building continued to exist
it would be a 50-50 proposition between
the City and the School Board.
Mrs. Edna Harks stated that two and one-
half years ago the Historical Society
was approached to accept the bungalow,
which they had, and then there was the
fire. She stated that the Society wished
12/18/85
Page 5
AGENDA
ACTION
TAKEN
AGENDA REVIEW
1. Joint meeting with the School Board
for discussion of Magnolia Center -
Continued.
AGENDA REVIEW
to reaffirm that the bungalow should be
saved and presented a petition with 150
signatures in favor of the preservation.
She stated that it would not be that hard
to restore as the cupolas off and the
north wall had been knocked down, which
could be put back together without much
of a problem.
She spoke of the Developer using transfer
of density rights to take care of trans-
ferring the City's rights of density
on the Magnolia building to the School
District. She stated that the Developer
would receive an income tax credit on
any money he spends on developing the
site.
Councilman Haffey stated that he also
would like to see the bungalow preserved,
but he did not want to see the School
District lose money. He stated that if
the District can have those kinds of den-
sity rights transferred to their other
property, then it could be the best of
both worlds. He continued, the matter
was in being able to facilitate that, and
that that building was not in great shape;
and had been in mediocre shape before the
fire.
Vice Mayor Addiego stated that because
the BRIDGE Corporation was a non-profit
organization and would assume that what
Mrs. Harks referred to as an income
tax credit would not have any bearing.
Mrs. Harks stated that if it was income
property then she thought it would as
it had to be income producing.
Mayor Teglia questioned if during the
dealings and the studies to develop the
Master Plan site, which took in not only
the School District property but City
property as well, was there not some
transfer of density from the City to the
District.
12/18/85
Page 6
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
AGENDA REVIEW
1. Joint meeting with the School Board
for discussion of Magnolia Center -
Continued.
AGENDA REVIEW
Director of Recreation & Community
Services Norton stated that Staff did
allow for some housing on the feasilibity
plan on City property behind Magnolia and
he thought at the time that the density
had been counted on the entire site to
get up to the possibility of 50 units per
acre. He stated that he thought that the
City and School District property was
3.025 acres and that the numbers worked
up had included the entire property.
Councilman Haffey suggested giving den-
sity rights to that property to make up
for the land where the bungalow sits and
still split the improvements between the
District and the City for that building
and also split the operation and liabi-
lity. He stated that there would be no
loss to the District for the value of
their land because the building would be
culled out.
Vice President Rodondi stated that the
question he would raise was the limita-
tion of funds to restore the building.
He stated that he was not concerned with
the maintenance. He stated that the
restoration that had been agreed to had a
limit of $72,000, but he didn't know what
that figure was now that the two bodies
had agreed to split the costs.
Councilman Haffey stated that tonight the
Board and the Council should come to a
firm agreement on what they were willing
to do: give a density bonus - yes; are
we willing to make it a 50-50 split of
$36,000 each with that cap. He stated
that if it went over the $36,000 each
then it was up to the community to do
something.
Boardmember Latham stated that he had no
problem with Councilman Haffey's proposal
but requested the Developer to respond to
those conditions and whether there was a
place on the site that the Developer
could move the bungalow where it would
not cause a problem.
12/18/85
Page 7
A G E N D A A C T I O N T A K E N ~'~,~..
AGENDA REVIEW
Joint meeting with the School Board
for discussion of Magnolia Center -
Continued.
AGENDA REVIEW
Mr. Sullivan stated that his firm was
working hard with its architects trying
to get the full number of units on that
site in order to keep to a certain
construction, type which is a wood frame,
and still provide an adequate but tight
site plan. He spoke of attempts to try
to get the number of units and the park-
ing required by the City and allow
affordability of the site as there was
very little hope of little hope of
Federal or State dollars available to
assist in senior housing to make this
project economically feasible. He
stated that in order to keep the
bungalow where it stood the number of
units would have to be cut down.
Councilman Haffey stated that the point
was that the City wished to give a den-
sity bonus to make up some of the han-
dicaps, as three goals could be seen:
1) The school District needs a maximum
amount of return on their property; 2)
there was a very valuable historical
resource the City wanted to preserve; 3)
the City wanted a valuable project in
that area that would not jeopardize the
neighborhood.
Mr. Sullivan stated that he was sym-
pathetic with Councilman Haffey's three
points. He stated that in order to
accomplish this, it was not so much the
number of units in terms of density, but
with the land left over which would
require that the plan be a steel
construction or a four story in order to
get the units on the site and the cir-
culation for the parking.
He stated that if the City wanted to keep
the affordable housing in, without subsidy
dollars, the City would probably have to
cut down the number of units and therefore
the land would be worth less.
Discussion followed: that additional
stories had sprinkler systems required,
different kinds of construction methods
which would make the cost prohibitive,
12/18/85
Page 8
AGENDA
ACTION
TAKEN
- - AGENDA REVIEW
Joint meeting with the School Board
for discussion of Magnolia Center -
Continued.
AGENDA REVIEW
whether the City was looking towards
using Redevelopment funds for this pro-
ject; not using Redevelopment funds for
the housing, just for the utilities work.
Mr. Sullivan stated that if the Council
kept the bungalow and wanted to have a
construction type that was more affor-
dable to build, essentially three
story wood construction with surface
parking, then to do the plan the City
would either have to cut down the number
of units which affects the price of land;
or the City would have to put some of its
redevelopment monies into the project.
City Manager Birk~lo stated that the City
was going to use some of the Redevelop-
ment housing funds to make sure utili-
ties were brought to the site, but
nothing to his knowledge as a subsidy
towards the housing project itself.
Councilman Haffey questioned how valuable
the building was to the City and how
willing the City was to pursue this. He
stated that the City was trying to show at
this point that it was willing to use
Redevelopment dollars that were
available; was willing to use General
Fund dollars that were available to
preserve it and give a density bonus on
the site.
Vice President Rodondi stated that he
agreed whole heartedly, if it was a
workable plan and the building could be
preserved. He stated that there had been
cost factors that had destroyed the
bungalow and it had to be renovated and
put back in place.
He questioned if it was feasible to have
the Developer resubmit plans, to see if
it could be worked out; or the other
alternative was the culling out of that
section of land and what price difference
that would make on the land itself.
Vice Mayor Addiego stated that if some
12/18/85
Page 9
AGENDA
ACTION
TAKEN
AGENDA REVIEW
Joint meeting with the School Board
for discussion of Magnolia Center -
Continued.
AGENDA REVIEW
units had to be culled out, how would
that affect the value of the property;
compare that dollar amount to moving
the bungalow or restoration - only then
could a choice be made.
Discussion followed: to set goals and
learn the desires of the two Boards; the
cost to the City for a subsidy so that
BRIDGE could accomplish the desired pro-
ject; that the City had pledged $125,000
of the housing funds for the utilities
work, which left a balance of $60,000
available now; that money was available
in the future; that it was not known what
type of a subsidy was required; the
Developer's time restraints; that the two
Bodies would meet for further discussion
3 - 4 weeks from now; Staff is to come
back to the two Boards with solid infor-
mation and alternatives for a joint
meeting in January to effect the three
goals.
Mr. Sullivan reiterated his understanding
of what the two Boards wanted from the
architect: alternatives, i.e., staying
within the construction type; assuming
that the bungalow stays, what does that
mean; assume the same number of units and
the cost factors.
Discussion followed: moving the bungalow
to another location on the same site or to
another site; the legality of the pro-
cess; that the City could give density
bonuses, density transfers from one piece
of property to another; could use tax
increment monies to help subsidize the
cost of the construction of the housing,
but the City could not use the money to
move the bungalow.
Boardmember Braschi suggested seeking
State funds to assist the City in the
restoration of the bungalow by making
application through the School District.
He stated that there might be State funds
available for a restored school and/or
historical building.
12/18/85
Page 10
A G E N D A A C T I O N T A K E N ~.~
AGENDA REVIEW
Joint meeting with the School Board
for discussion of Magnolia Center -
Continued.
AGENDA REVIEW
Councilman Drago stated that if a
building was designated as an historical
landmark, then the State waives the Code
standards which would reduce the pre-
construction costs.
Mr. Sullivan stated that this evening's
discussion did not preclude the School
District from signing an option agreement
with BRIDGE, to motivate BRIDGE to move
forward and effect a resolution within
the gO day working agreement.
Councilman Haffey stated that he wanted
to see negotiations for the best advan-
tage of the School District and meet the
City's goals of senior housing with pre-
servation of the bungalow. He questioned
if the District's Staff had any problems
with the direction taken in the discus-
sion of the two Bodies.
Superintendent of Schools Gaffney stated
that if the Board agreed with the Council
he had no problems and would work with
City Staff on the project.
Boardmember Latham questioned if the
Superintendent of Schools had any legal
problems with spending the District's
money for a project such as this.
Superintendent of Schools Gaffney stated
that the Board had set up a cap of
$72,000 of which $36,000 was the
District's which was mainly from
insurance, and he did not have any legal
problems. He stated that a number of
projects had been done with the City
through a joint powers agreement.
Mayor Teglia stated that by the third
week in January there would be infor-
mation for the two Boards to act upon.
Mrs. Edna Harks stated that the
Historical Society was very interested
in saving the exterior of the bungalow
even if the interior could not be used by
the Society.
12/18/85
Page 11
AGENDA
ACTION
TAKEN
AGENDA REVIEW
Joint meeting with the School Board
for discussion of Magnolia Center -
Continued.
RECESS:
RECALL TO ORDER:
RECESS:
AGENDA REVIEW
Ms. Evelyn Martin, 534 Commercial Avenue,
expressed appreciation to the Council for
its on-going support of the Historical
Society. She stated that the BRIDGE
Corporation would be making money on this
project and it would be a nice gesture if
they donated the bungalow to the City.
Councilman Haffey pointed out the fact
that BRIDGE was a non-profit company that
specialized in building low and moderate
income senior housing for and was not in
business to make a profit.
Ms. Martin stated that the Magnolia
Center had been closed in 1968, and with
the many surveys made by the City on the
property the bungalow could have been
purchased four times. She stated that
she hoped this project would be completed
in 1986 and not delayed to future years
She stated that in other cities there had
been handsome donations from companies
for historical societies, yet this City's
Society did not even have a building to
house its historical documents and arti-
facts. She stated that if the Society
had the bungalow it could put the City
on the map by having students come in and
research historical documents and
artifacts.
Vice President Rodondi stated that the
School District's budget was severely
controlled for educational purposes and
it could not make a donation of a
building or of property.
The School Board as a Body adjourned the
joint meeting at 7:18 p.m.
Mayor Teglia recessed the meeting at 7:18
p.m.
Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to
order at 7:29 p.m., with all Council
present.
Mayor Teglia recessed the meeting to the
Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 7:29 p.m.
12/18/85
Page 12
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
AGENDA REVIEW
RECALL TO ORDER:
0
Staff Report 12/18/85 recommending
adoption of a Resolution authorizing
a reimbursement agreement between
the City and Agency for funds ad-
vanced by the City for the U.S.
Steel Site Redevelopment Project ~
(Shearwater). ~q~
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF A LOAN AND REPAYMENT
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY
OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Recommendation that the Council
adopt a Resolution authorizing
deposits and withdrawals from the _~l~
Local Agency Investment Fund.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DEPOSIT
IN AND WITHDRAWALS FROM THE LOCAL
AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
(G.C. SECTION 16429.1)
®
Recommendation that the Council
adopt a Resolution which calls for
a Special Election to fill the
vacancy in the Office of the City
Treasurer; and adopt a Resolution
requesting County Clerk of San
Mateo County to render specified
election services.
A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A SPECIAL
ELECTION TO FILL THE VACANCY IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CITY TREASURER
(GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 36512)
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING COUNTY
CLERK OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TO
RENDER SPECIFIED ELECTION
SERVICES
AGENDA REVIEW
Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to
order at 7:34 p.m., with all Council
present.
City Manager Birkelo stated that this
Resolution, unlike that adopted by the
Redevelopment Agency, provided that the
Mayor rather than the City Manager will
enter into the Agreement.
M/S Haffey/Drago - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 261-85
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
City Manager Birkelo stated that this
Resolution would substitute the name of
the Interim City Treasurer for the name
of the late City Treasurer Bonalanza.
M/S Addiego/Haffey - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 262-85
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
City Manager Birkelo stated that at the
last meeting Staff had been directed to
explore the possibility of having the
election date in June rather than April
1986. He stated that after substantial
conversations with the County Clerk, the
decision was still the same, that April
1986 was the general election date and
furthermore Mr. Church stated that the
County has never allowed a candidacy on
the primary ballot - only issues.
Vice Mayor Addiego questioned what the
April date would be and the nomination
period.
City Clerk Battaya stated that the elec-
tion date was 4/8/86 and that the nomina-
tion period would open on 1/12/86 and
12/18/85
Page 13
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
AGENDA REVIEW
Recommendation that the Council
adopt a Resolution which calls for
a Special Election to fill the
vacancy in the Office of the City
Treasurer; and adopt a Resolution
requesting County Clerk of San
Mateo County to render specified
election services - Continued.
AGENDA REVIEW
close on February 2nd (the Clerk later
notified the Council in writing that the
proper nomination period was 1/9/86
through 1/30/86).
Vice Mayor Addiego stated that he was
very much in favor of having this remain
an elective office and having the
election.
He stated that there were some who saw
the appointive process paving the way for
someone -- for some control of the
office; that there were others who
believed that having the April election
would pave the way for someone else to
assume the office. He stated that he
fell in neither category, and was
interested in the office being maintained
primarily to enjoin the status within City
government that was already established.
He questioned the City Attorney: if the
City Council were to appoint an indivi-
dual, a City employee, with the under-
standing that before the next regular
Council election in 1987, that person
would be cajoled into resigning the offi-
ce - could the City then hold an election
for the office.
City Attorney Rogers stated that his
memory of the Government Code Section~
that related to appointment of elected
officials, was that the term will be to
the end of the term of the elected offi-
cial. He continued, so when the person
was appointed he was not going to be
serving at the Council's pleasure type of
situation. He stated that if the Council
filled the appointment without any pre-
conditions in the term, and for whatever
reason, this person decides that he can
no longer serve and resigns - then the
Council is back where they are today.
He stated that if the Council appointed a
Staff member as a City Treasurer, where
there would be control, he may be in a
position to leave City employment and
12/18/85
Page 14
ACTION TAKEN
AGENDA
AGENDA REVIEW
Recommendation that the Council
adopt a Resolution which calls for
a Special Election to fill the
vacancy in the Office of the City
Treasurer; and adopt a Resolution
requesting County Clerk of San
Mateo County to render specified
election services - Continued.
CASSETTE NO. 2
AGENDA REVIEW
would still be City Treasurer.
Councilman Haffey stated that he would be
agreeable to having a ballot issue at the
next regular election to make the City
Treasurer appointive and give the people
that option.
Vice Mayor Addiego expressed concern:
over the cost of the special election;
how many candidates would take out
papers; that in the November election
there had only been one challenger. He
stated that he would like to hear some
discussion on the possibility of having
an appointment.
Councilman Nicolopulos stated that he
believed that candidates would come for-
ward and was in favor of having an elec-
tion in April of 1986 to fill the office.
Councilman Drago questioned what would
happen if only one candidate filed his
papers at the close of the nomination
period, could the election be cancelled
or must the City conduct the full
election.
City Attorney Rogers stated that there
were options in the Elections Code to
provide for that situation and avoid the
cost of an election.
Councilman Haffey stated that if this was
a vacancy on the Council, early after an
election, he would probably lean towards
a special election; or if it was that the
remainder of the term was six months to a
year he would lean toward an appointment.
He continued, because in this case it was
a City Treasurer and the statewide trend
was such that they were appointed posi-
tions; that he would make an appointment
now and then put it on the ballot for the
people to decide whether it should be
appointive or elected.
City Attorney Rogers stated that if the
people voted in 1987 to make the City
12/18/85
Page 15
AGENDA
ACTION
TAKEN
AGENDA REVIEW
0
Recommendation that the Council
adopt a Resolution which calls for
a Special Election to fill the
vacancy in the Office of the City
Treasurer; and adopt a Resolution
requesting County Clerk of San
Mateo County to render specified
election services - Continued.
Be
Adoption of a Resolution authorizing
compensation for the Deputy City
Treasurer.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
COMPENSATION FOR THE DEPUTY CITY
AGENDA REVIEW
Treasurer's office appointive it would
then begin to be effective at the end of
the present term in 1989.
City Clerk Battaya explained: on the
63rd day, which would he 2/4/86, if there
are no more candidates than seats to be
filled, the City Clerk will submit a cer-
tificate of these facts to the Council
that it may appoint the person nominated;
appoint any eligible elector, if there is
no nominee, or hold the election.
M/S Nicolopulos/Drago - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 263-85
Carried by majority roll call vote,
Haffey and Teglia voted no.
City Clerk Battaya stated that the second
Resolution called for the County Clerk to
assign precinct workers and consolidate
precincts.
M/S Haffey/Addiego - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 264-85
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
City Manager Birkelo stated that at the
1/8/86 meeting he would like to present
recommendations concerning the job duties
and compensation prior to the opening of
the nomination period.
City Manager Birkelo stated that adoption
of the Resolution would provide compen-
sation to Deputy City Treasurer Ford for
interim services at an hourly rate of
$20.00 an hour, which would not exceed
$500 in total.
M/S Naffey/Addiego - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 265-85
12/18/85
Page 16
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
AGENDA REVIEW
Be
Adoption of a Resolution authorizing
compensation for the Deputy City
Treasurer- Continued. ~ql
Adoption of a Resolution commending
"Bill" Koeppen upon his ret irement~
from the City.
A RESOLUTION COMMENDING WILMER D.
"BILL" KOEPPEN
iTEMS FROM STAFF
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
GOOD AND WELFARE
CLOSED SESSION
Closed Session for the purpose of
the discussion of personnel
matters, labor relations and
litigation.
RECALL TO ORDER:
ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA REVIEW
Councilman Drago questioned if this would
set a precedent in the future for Deputy
City Treasurers to be compensated.
City Manager Birkelo stated that it
could, however that would be planned for
in the budget process.
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 266-85
Mayor Teglia read the Resolution aloud.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
No one chose to speak.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
No one chose to speak.
GOOD AND WELFARE
No one chose to speak.
CLOSED SESSION
Council adjourned to a Closed Session at
7:59 p.m., to discuss litigation: O.C.
Jones vs. City of South San Francisco.
Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to
order at 8:12 p.m., all Council present,
no action was taken.
M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adjourn the
meeting.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Time of adjournment was 8:12 p.m.
12/18/85
Page 17
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
taya, City Cler~'
City of South San Francisco
APPROVED.
['~]~berta Cerri Tegl i a,' M~6r
City of South San Franc~'sco
The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose
of an item. Oral communications, arguments and comments are recorded on tape. The tape
and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are
available for inspection, review and copying.
12/I8/85
Page 18