1969-10-07 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY EVENING- OCTOBER 7, 1969
The meeting convened at 7:30 o1clock p.m. with President La Croix presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Fore and was followed by a most inspiring Invocation delivered by
The Reverend Mervin Megill, Pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Fore, Levy, Longaker, McCall and President La Croix, Jr.,
(5), were noted present. Absent: None.
MINUTES:
1. The minutes of the regular meeting held September 16, 1969, were approved as transcribed.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. From R. Borgman Sales Co., requesting permission to stage a Fireworks Display at South Shore
on October 17, 1969, commencing at approximately 9:15 olclock p.m. and lasting thirty minutes, subject
to clearance by the Fire and Police Departments. A certificate of public liability insurance had been
furnished and approved by the City Attorney.
Councilman Levy moved that permission be granted to stage the annual Fireworks Display as requested,
subject to proper clearance with the specified Departments. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Longaker and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
3./ From Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105, signed by Mr. Bruce T. Mitchell, Secretary,
requesting approval of Warrant No. 163 in the amount of $50,000 to replenish the revolving fund.
The matter was referred to uResolutions".
HEARINGS:
In the Matter of Objections to Assessment in Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105.
The City Clerk stated there were on file Affidavits of Publication and Mailing of Notices of the
Amended Assessments to property owners in the District.
In addition to the objections submitted at the previous Hearing in the matter by Pacifica Lodge and
Mr. Kenneth Lee, objections had been received from Whitney & Hanson, Attorneys, on behalf of Mesdames
Lena Cotella, Helen Ratto and Colomba Parodi and from Benedetto E. Ratto, Teresa Ratto, Thomas L.
Ferro, Andrea Caviglia and Ca therina Caviglia.
A letter had also been received from Mr. Kenneth Lee, withdrawing his objection.
City Attorney Cunningham explained the issue before the City Council was the consideration and deter-
mination of written objections by any persons interested in land located in Reclamation District
No. 2105 upon which any charge was proposed to be assessed by the Amended Plan of Reclamation hereto-
fore filed with the City by the District.
Mr. Cunningham stated a further issue was a determination as to whether the Assessment Commissioners
had arrived at a just and fair apportionment of the assessment, whether the list of charges was valid
or whether the assessment should be amended or modified or a reapportionment of the entire assessment
should be made. The proceedings were taken pursuant to Sections 51230 and following of the Water Code
of California.
Mr. Cunningham noted the objections filed by Whitney & Hanson on behalf of Mesdames Cotella, Ratto and
Parodi had not been verified, as required by the Code. He pointed out also that on the objections filed
on behalf of Mr. Benedetto E. Ratto, et al, the references to Water Code Sections were incorrect, a
procedural defect which he thought could be overlooked.
Mr. Stanley D. Whitney, Attorney, asked to speak at this time. He stated he had been instructed by
his clients to withdraw their objections in view of the fact that they now had a letter from the District
which explained the areas proposed to be filled.
President La Croix then called on Mr. James B. Davis, Attorney with the firm of Davis, Craig &
Bartalini, representing Reclamation District No. 2105. Mr. Davis stated Mr. Charles T. Travers, Presi-
dent of the Board of Trustees of the District and Vice-President of Utah Construction & Mining Co.,
and Mr. Richard Blanchard, Chairman of the Assessment Commissioners of the District, wished to speak
briefly, after which he would be prepared to contest objections upon evidence presented.
Mr. Travers then addressed the Council and explained the position of "Utahll and the District and what
was being attempted in trying to arrive at a mutually satisfactory arrangement with all parties involved
for the benefit of the community, the City Council and the developers. He then reviewed the actions
of the Assessment Commissioners in arriving, first, at the basis for assessments on the volume of fill
and the area, the reconsideration of the formula after holding discussions with the property owners
therein, and the decision to revise the assessment list based on the volume of fill. This had resulted,
Mr. Travers said, in an increased assessment for nUtah" and in most cases a reduction for the property
owners on Bay Farm Island.
Mr. Travers commented on the negotiations between "Utah" or the District and the Bay Farm Island
property owners to satisfy various objections. He stated Utah had quitclaimed their ownership of
certain parcels on eleven or twelve acres on which there was a question of title due to the change in
the line of ordinary high tide over the years. Agreements had been made against any possible future
additional assessment for a period of thirty years with the landowners and their heirs or successors
but not to third parties if the properties should be sold; also that the drainage ditches across
certain properties would be filled by appropriate filling procedures within a period of three years.
i .
Mr. Travers said he felt the majority property owner wanted at all times to be eminently fair with the
1
, other owners involved. He wanted the project to start off in the right atmosphere and to have a situation
where there was mutuality of objective and performance and he expressed the hope that this could be
realized. He felt the assessments made against the individual properties were eminently fair and Travers
pointed out that through the cooperation and diligence of the City Council and the City administration
and other interested parties who wanted to get the Bay Farm Island project underway, it had been possible
to get the fill started prior to the passage of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission Act.
Mr. Travers said he hoped the Council would find the approach and procedure had been fair and he welcomed
discussion on the subject. He said he recognized the function of the Council in having to approve the
work of the Assessment Commission and wanted the Council to feel that its action would be proper and fair
in the light of all the facts.
Mr. Travers then acknowledged the other members of the Board of Trustees of the Reclamation District:
Messrs. Franz S. Collischonn, former Mayor; Raymond P. Kranelly, also a former Mayor; James S. Hughes
and James B. Davis.
Mr. Richard Blanchard, Vice-President of Western Title & Insurance Co., 1510 Webster Street, Oakland,
one of the Assessment Commissioners, then addressed the Council. He reviewed the actions of the Commis-
sioners in connection with the spreading of the assessment as presented to the City Council on Septem-
ber 2, and the amended assessment list, subject of the Hearing this evening.
Mr. Davis, at this time, stated he had talked with Mr. Lawrence P. Surano, President of Pacifica Lodge,
one of the objectors, and Mr. Surano had informed him that he did not wish to press his objections.
Mr. Surano, on request, stated his Company would stand on the adjusted assessment, and formally withdrew
its objections.
President La Croix invited legal counsel for the objectors to speak. Mr. William D. Corbett, Attorney,
350 Twentieth Street, Oakland, appeared on behalf of the remaining objectors, Benedetto Ratto, Teresa
Ratto, Thomas L. Ferro, Andrea Caviglia and Catherina Caviglia.
Mr. Corbett accepted the corrections Mr. Cunningham had noted in the Sections of the Water Code set
forth in the objections filed on behalf of the property owners he represented. He said it seemed to him
i what must be determined was whether the assessment had been spread in accordance with the Water Code,
which states that the assessment must be made according to the benefits which would accrue to each parcel.
He questioned that applying the assessment on the basis of volume was correct in view of these provisions.
Mr. Corbett stated there had been misunderstandings on the part of the Bay Farm Island property owners
as to the role of Utah Construction & Mining Co. in the project. He pointed out that the actions to
correct objections such as quitclaiming certain areas and filling the drainage ditch had been taken since
the last-noticed Hearing. He felt the statements made in the objection filed on behalf of his clients
should have been taken care of by the Trustees of the District rather than to have them brought up in
this Hearing.
Mr. Corbett called attention to an Agreement of 1967 passed around by Utah Construction concerning
Reclamation District No. 2105, saying the land would be filled for forty cents per cubic yard. He
pointed out an element of distrust existed and contended that the assessment question shoul d be sent
back to the Reclamation District for a public meeting to iron out any problems which still remained and
this Hearing should therefore be continued.
Mr. Corbett referred again to his clients1 objections and the claim that there had been a promise to
fill the land without charge, and also a possibility that the land not be filled at all and be diked off.
It was determined that diking would be more expensive than filling and this was the basis for the fact
that there would be no charge. He also pointed out there was doubt that the value of the land would be
changed by the.fill, as it did not need filling, but it was more convenient to do so in view of the
engineering problems.
To questions by members of the Council, Mr. Corbett replied he believed that if the objectors were
allowed time to digest the changes which had been made recently, some of the differences could be
i reconciled.
,
Mr. Cunningham asked Mr. Corbett if he had any oral or written testimony he wished to put into evidence ,
,
'
in support of any of the points contained in the written objections.
Mr. Corbett stated he had a copy of the Agreement of 1967 stating the fill would be made for forty cents
per cubic yard. Mr. Cunningham requested that this document be submitted to the City Clerk as "Benedetto
Ratto Exhibit No. 1." He then asked if Mr. Corbett had any witnesses or any other evidence in support
of the objections.
t :
Mr. Thomas L. Ferro, Attorney, 2704 Bayview Drive, one of the co-owners of the land in question, stated
he had not opposed the fill but the signers of the objections felt they had an equl table right in the
matter and he had prepared the objections for them. He said he felt the facts as set forth in the
affidavit could be supported by Mr. Benedetto Ratto. He said that while on the other tidelands there had
been a question of title, on the land under discussion this was not true. Part of the consideration for
the fill price was the quitclaim deed and on the land in question this was not involved. Mr. Ferro added
that Utah Construction & Mining Co. had been most cooperative with the people on Bay Farm Island.
Mr. Benedetto Ratto was sworn and stated he had been under the impression that it would be cheaper. to
fill their land than to go around it.
On rebuttal, Mr. Davis stated he had seen no evidence to support the Ratto objection, the written
objection was not verified nor was there an affidavit, as required by the Code. He also noted Mr. Ratto
had declined to testify and give evidence concerning the allegations contained in his objections. With
reference to statements by Mr. Corbett, he had made several untrue claims, for the reason that, due to
his late entry into the matter, he was unaware of what had transpired in the last several months. He
related the statements to which he referred, in refuting Mr. Corbett's claims. Mr. Davis objected to
introduction of the blank, unsigned Agreement submitted by Mr. Corbett as evidence.
Mr. Davis expressed the opinion that it would be extremely unfair to continue the Hearing on the basis
of the Ratto objection. He requested that the assessment be approved at this meeting, adding that any
delay would incur tremendous cost and was not warranted.
Mr. Cunningham asked if there was any testimony that would support Mr. Davis' statement that nobody had
ever signed the Agreement submitted as evidence. Mr. Davis again objected to admission of the Agreement
as evidence.
Mr. Travers was then recalled and, after being sworn, was questioned by Mr. Davis as to the document in
question. Mr. Travers stated, to his knowledge, he had never, as Vice- President of Utah Construction &
Mining Co., executed a document such as the one under discussion, nor as the President of the Board of
Trustees of Reclamation District No. 2105 had he done so. He said he knew of no other employee of "Utah"
or the District who might have executed such a document.
To a question by Mr. Corbett, Mr. Travers stated he believed the document had been prepared by "Utah ".
Mr. Corbett submitted that he had said in his objection that "Utah" and /or the Reclamation District had
made public representations that they were willing to fill at the rate of forty cents per cubic yard.
Mr. Davis then requested the opportunity to submit testimony concerning the value of the Ratto fill.
Mr. Calvin M. Jones of Jones - Tillson & Associates, Civil Engineers, was sworn and answered questions
regarding the amount of fill deposited on said parcel and the probable cost if the District had not
been in operation and the rest of the fill and dike were not in place. Mr. Corbett questioned Mr. Jones
on the same subject.
President La Croix asked Mr. Davis if any request had been made by the objectors to have their land
diked. Mr. Davis replied that, to his knowledge, this was not done. He commented that such a request
should have been presented at the time of formation of the District.
Councilman Longaker asked Mr. Davis if he could state the value of the property on the open market at
this time. Mr. Davis replied he knew of a recent sale which took place at a price of S15,000 per acre
over and above the fill. He felt the land was worth at least that and probably a great deal more, and
that there was no question but that the land would be benefited by the fill.
President La Croix declared the Hearing closed, and asked the pleasure of the Council.
Councilman McCall asked the City Attorney to clarify Mr. Corbett's request for a public hearing on this
subject. Mr. Cunningham replied that some statements had been made which were not relevant. This was
the time and place for hearing written objections and, in his view, that had been done.
Councilman McCall asked if it would be possible to ask that a hearing for the Ratto objectors be held
before the Reclamation District Board of Trustees, excluding all others. Mr. Cunningham said this could
be done but he felt the District would prefer not to do so, that it was up to the Council to decide on
the validity of the objections and act on the resolution if it was found the assessment was apportioned
justly.
Mr. Davis argued there was no authority in the Water Code for continued Hearings nor for the District
to hold separate hearings of objections. It was his opinion that the Council's alternatives were to
approve, modify or change the assessment list and set another hearing for further objections on the
modification. He expressed the opinion the District would not make any concession on the Ratto objection
and requested strongly that the resolution be passed. The City Attorney agreed generally with these
statements and reiterated the issues before the Council.
Councilman Fore moved the assessments be accepted as spread. Councilman Longaker seconded the motion
which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
There being no objections, the order of business was revised to "Resolutions".
RESOLUTIONS:
✓ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7537
In the Matter of the Assessment in the Sum of 523,500,000.00 Upon the
Lands Within Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105, and Order
Approving Assessment."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker.
The City Attorney asked that the recital in the resolution indicating Pacifica Lodge and Mr. Kenneth
Lee as objectors be modified to reflect the withdrawal of these two objections and the insertion of
the Benedetto Ratto objection in place thereof.
made a part of the record.
following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
This was agreeable to Councilmen Le th
vy and Longaker. The question was then put and carried on the
A stenotype operator was in attendance and the verbatim transcript of these proceedings is, by reference,'
At this time, a ten-minute recess was called. Upon reconvening, the meeting reverted to the regular
order of business.
HEARINGS:
5./ In the Matter of an Appeal from the decision of the Planning Board to deny a variance to eliminate
the five-foot distance required between a main structure and an accessory building, on construction at
1701 Central Avenue. The Appeal was filed by Whitney & Hanson, Attorneys, on behalf of Mr. Donald B.
Bitner.
The Clerk stated the interested parties had been informed that this would be the time and place for
Hearing in this matter.
The City Attorney stated the issue before the Council was whether or not the action and findings of the
Planning Board under Section 11-161 (b) and (e) of the Alameda Municipal Code should be affirmed, modified
or reversed.
Mr. Robert Venable, Assistant Planning Director, presented a review of the action of the Board on the
application. He said the proposal was to connect the four-car carport which was to be built on the north-
east corner of the lot to the main building, eliminating the required five-foot separation between the two
structures. The purpose of the carport was to provide 100% coverage of the off-street parking facilities.
It had been the finding of the Board that there was no genuine hardship involved. Four persons had
appeared in protest at the Board Hearing. The staff had recommended approval of the variance and there
had been a feeling that the Board had not fully understood the proposal, as the applicants exhibits were
not clearly defined.
Mr. Stanley D. Whitney, Attorney, represented Mr. Bitner. He called attention to the statement of Mr.
Venable that possibly the Board had not understood what the builder intended. Mr. Whitney briefly out-
lined the proposal and called attention to the large amount of open space. He felt there was no reason
for denial of the variance. Mr. Whitney pointed out that the staff had stated the property owner to the
north would undoubtedly protest against the variance but would not be adversely affected by the construc-
tion proposed.
There were no other speakers for the proponents and on the call for opponents there was no response.
The Hearing was then declared closed. Councilman Longaker moved the Appeal be granted and the variance
be allowed. Councilman McCall seconded the motion which carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes:
Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
6. From Mayor, Assistant City Manager and City Auditor, submitting report on the Count of Money held
August 20, 1969, showing the sum of S9,466,025.61 in the City Treasury at that time.
The report was noted and ordered filed.
NEW BUSINESS:
'
7. / President La Croix commented that a new group of paintings had been installed in the Council
Chamber by the Alameda Art Association and expressed appreciation to the organization.
RESOLUTIONS:
8• The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7538
Accepting Grant of Real Property from Woodstock Homes Corporation,
and Consenting to Recordation of Deed of Conveyance Thereof."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
9._ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7539
Delegating City Treasurer Authorization to Invest and Reinvest Funds
of City in Securities or Evidences of Indebtedness Permitted by Law,
and to Sell or Exchange Securities so Purchased."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
10. / The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7540
Approving Warrant No. 163 of Board of Trustees of Reclamation District
No. 2105"
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: President La Croix, Jr., (1). Absent: None.
11.x- The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7541
Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda Four (4)
New 1970 Models, Four Door Sedans for the Police Department, Calling
for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
12.v The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Fore, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7542
Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City of Alameda Two (2)
New Model 1970 Two -Door Sedans and Three (3) New Model 1970 Four -Door
Station Wagons, Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise
Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
13./ Councilman Longaker requested an explanation of the next resolution on the agenda. Acting City
Manager Goss explained that the Gamewell Fire Alarm System presently used, consisting of 290 boxes, was
old and badly deteriorated. It had been proposed that it be replaced with a new, more flexible system
which would consist of seventy telephone units. These would be concentrated in commercial, industrial
and high density residential areas, hospitals and schools, primarily having a higher value as far as
the fire insurance rating bureau was concerned. Private parties could contract for the proposed system
in commercial or industrial outlets.
Councilman Longaker expressed concern that the number of emergency stations was being greatly reduced.
Mr. Goss stated the present boxes were rarely used and if they were used the call would be duplicated
by some other method of communication such as by a telephone. The reason for the system was to meet
insurance requirements. The proposed system would be less disadvantageous to the operations of the
Fire Department and would provide the opportunity to eliminate such things as false alarms.
Mr. Goss indicated on a map the distribution of the telephone system. The present Police call boxes
would be eliminated.
After some further discussion, Councilman Longaker introduced the following resolution and moved it be
adopted:
"Resolution No. 7543
Approving Certain Replacements to City's Fire Alarm System, and
Authorizing Expenditures Therefor."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Abstaining: Councilman McCall, (1). Absent: None.
14.,/ The following resolution was introduced by Councilman McCall, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7544
Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Appreciation and
Commendation of Sidney A. Haag for His Service to the Community."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
15. / The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Levy, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7545
Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda in Appreciation and
Commendation of Wally Jay."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Longaker and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five, Noes: None. Absent: None.
The President declared all of the foregoing Resolutions adopted.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:
16./ Councilman Fore moved the following ordinance be introduced, after which it would be laid over
under provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 2-533 Thereof,
Relating to Sick Leave for Employees Injured or Disabled in the Course
of Employment."
The motion to introduce said ordinance was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
17.-- Councilman Levy moved the following ordinance be introduced, after which it would be laid over
under provision of law and the Charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
An Ordinance Amending Certain Portions of the Alameda Municipal Code
Relating to Traffic Regulations."
The motion to introduce said ordinance was seconded by Councilman Fore and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
18. Councilman Fore moved the following ordinance be introduced, after which it would be laid over
under provision of law and the charter:
"Ordinance No.
New Series
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Articles 1 Through 7,
Chapter 12 to Title III Thereof, Establishing a Utility Users Tax,
and Providing for Collection Thereof, Penalty for Delinquency,
Remedies and Enforcement."
The motion to introduce said ordinance was seconded by Councilman Levy and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
BILLS:
19. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in the total
amount of $89,202.33, was presented to the Council at this meeting.
The List was accompanied by certification from the City Manager that the Claims shown were correct.
Councilman Longaker moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on
October 7, 1969, and presented to the City Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Levy and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL:
Mr. Frank A. Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, commented on his request at the last meeting for informa-
tion as to the number of trains crossing Webster Street on the Alameda Belt Line tracks.
President La Croix stated he had been informed that these tracks were used approximately two and one-half
times per week or one hundred thirty times per year.
City Engineer Hanna elaborated by saying he had gone to great lengths to learn the truth of this matter.
He said there were eyewitnesses and, in addition, the Engineering Department had put markers on the rails
and had found them cut at certain times. He said he could verify without question that the trains
traveled the tracks two or three times per week, into the Naval Air Station.
President La Croix stated the Naval Air Station, in conjunction with the City, was trying to see just
what could be done in the future to eliminate the use of these tracks.
Mr. Gottstein deplored any suggestion that the City Hall be replaced. He said the present building was
built like a fort and suggested, if space was a problem, that the old Webb Avenue Fire Station could be
used to house some of the City departments; also the property at the corner of Oak Street and Lincoln
Avenue could be acquired, the building razed and the land put to use for City purposes.
21. Councilman Longaker called attention to the communication received from the Marin County Board of
Supervisors requesting support of their resolution urging the President to press for immediate acquisition
of the remaining land necessary for the Point Reyes National Seashore. He urged that the Council take
action to support this effort.
The other members of the Council were in agreement and the order of business reverted to "Resolutions".
RESOLUTIONS:
22. The following resolution, to be prepared by the City Attorney, was introduced by Councilman
Longaker, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 7546
Urging Completion of Acquisition of Point Reyes National Seashore."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman McCall and on roll call carried by the
following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
FILING:
23. Specifications No. MS 10 -69 -7 - Four New Sedans for Police Department.
24. Specifications No. MS 10 -69 -8 - Two New Sedans for Building Department and Three New Station
Wagons for Engineering (2) and Purchasing (1) Departments.
25. 520 Emergency Reporting System.
26. Financial and Operating Reports - Bureau of Electricity, as of July 31 and August 31, 1969 -
Verified by Hackleman, Larzelere, McKenna & von Kaschnitz.
27. Annual Report of Alameda Free Library.
28. At the request of President La Croix that the Council meet in executive session, Councilman Levy
moved the Council meet in adjourned regular session on Thursday afternoon, October 9, 1969, at 4:00
o'clock, for discussion of personnel matters - appointments to Boards and Commissions. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Longaker and on roll call carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
29. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned, to assemble
in adjourned regular session on Thursday, October 9, 1969, at 4:00 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk