Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_1983-01-24 Regular Meeting MinutesAG Dat MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 24, 1983 RECREATION HALL - 7:30 P.M. A NO. Action Mayor Shelton called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: P RESENT: ABSENT: S TAFF: Eugene R. Shelton Rodger Anderson John Lemons Bruce Risley Bud Zeuschner None. Gary Napper Michael LeSage Andy Anderson Murrel Crump Dave Howell Gere Sibbach S teve Wolter Bernie Zerr N ellie Cecil P RESENTATIONS/REPORT Mayor Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Asst. to City Administrator City Attorney Acting Public Works Director Community Development Dir. Police Chief Finance Director Recreation Director Fire Chief Community Devi. Secretary 1. Presentation of Employee Service Award Pins (Cont. from 1/10/83) Mayor Shelton presented five year service award pins to Jim Miller, Police Detective, (7 years); Bill George, Chief Building Inspector, (9 years); and a ten year pin to John L inhares, (14 years). A. PUBLIC HEARINGS, REPORTS AND APPEARANCES A-1 PRESENTATION OF EMT II PROGRAM BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT Chief Zerr introduced Fire Engineer Greg Dilirnan who has completed the EMT II Training Program. Mr. Dillman gave a brief. presentation regarding what the EMT II training was all about and demonstrated the equipment on Mayor Shelton. A-2 REPORT REGARDING THE PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT IN THE $3.60 MANDATORY REFUSE RATE Mr. Napper stated that the Refuse Franchise Board has reviewed the request by Morro Bay Garbage Company for a rate increase and has found that since the City has transferred 1 billing responsibilities back to the Garbage Company, that increased costs have been incurred. The Refuse Board recommends that Council approve a rate increase of $.40 a month for minimum service; or in the alternative, the City resume billing for the mandatory rate. Mr. Napper stated financial information '.iad been submitted to staff for review and Mr. Sibbach would be able to answer questions regarding this. Mr. Napper also stated a survey had been done to allow for comparative rate of other cities in the County. He noted Mr. Rubaloff was available to respond to any further information which may be requested by the Council. Staff requested the Council hold a public hearing and then give them a policy recommendation on the rate. Mayor Shelton requested informational reports be given by Mr. Rubaloff and Mr. Sibbach. Mr. Rubaloff reviewed the recommendation presented to the City Council from the Refuse Franchise Board on December 13, 1982, relating to an adjustment for the mandatory refuse rate. He noted at that time, the City Council requested that Staff go back and obtain some financial data from a certified public accountant, an outside CPA, and stated the information was presented in the report to the Council_ tonight. Mr. Sibbach stated the Wagners had presented a report by an independent Certified Public Accountant, showing a statement of ✓ evenues and expenses for the years ended December 31, 1982 and 1981. Mr. Sibbach stated after reviewing the report, he felt IL safe to say that the Wagners have been running a loss for the last two years. He commented that the problem with the net loss o ver the two years, is not just a function of whose doing the billing, there were other reasons for this also. Mayor Shelton opened the hearing to the public. Ray Kaltenbach, 473 Sicily Street, questioned the meaning of "mandatory". He wondered if they (the garbage company) picked up e verything that was set out, or just one can? He noted in his block alone, there were seven people who did not live in their homes, but came over once a month, and stated they must pay the same mandatory rate. He complained that if the people put out a little more than one can at the time they come over here once a month, it was not picked up. He felt it was a lousy contract. He wondered how the people could know whether this was a cheap contract as it was never put out for bid, and stated he felt the contract should have been set out for public bid. He stated the ✓ aise seemed reasonable to him, but he had no way of knowing whether this was the best bid. Ms. Mary Phillips stated she hoped this Council would not 2 subsidize a private company. She stated she was not paying for garbage. She noted that she had collected garbage, cans, etc. for two years and had talon it out co the hump where she was charged $4.000. She stated in comparison to that, the City's rate o f $7.00 a month was ridiculous. Ms. Phillips stated she felt it should be the people's choice as to whether they wished to ✓ ecycle cans, papers and save tax -payer money. She stated the S tate was concerned that there would not be any landfill in future years and sne felt that we should encourage people to save their aluminum cans, glass and papers. She stated she was t alking about all things working together for good and felt Mr. Wagner should work for the good of the people instead of increasing rates to the people. Ms. Peggy Lipe stated she was a member of the Morro Bay Refuse Franchise Board and would like to say that the Wagner's h ad originally requested an increase of $4.16. She questioned t he billing process and cost by the City. She stated she would personally like to see the Council require the City take back the billing for the garbage service. She felt a lot of money had been wasted by the City for not continuing on with the billing after the initial cost was made to do so, and would rather see the billing taken back by the City rather than to give the Garbage Company a raise. Ms. Lipe noted there was a special arrangement for handicapped people. Ms. Dorotha Deutsch stated she agreed with Ms. Lipe in that the City should be doing the billing service and felt the Council h ad negated the mandatory status by letting the billinj go back to the Garbage Company. She also stated the Council is also costing the public another $.40. She stated it was difficult for h er to understand why the Council took the billing away from the City when it was the most economical way, most reasonable and most assured way of showing people that they had to have garbage service when the majority of the people in Morro Bay voted for it. Katie Woods, 2940 Greenwood, spoke against the raise in the garbage rates. Ms. Dorothy Birkhead, 525 Piney Way, stated she was Vice - Chair of the Refuse Board, and they had studied this very thoroughly and it made good sense to grant this $.40 raise. MOTION: Councilman Zeuschner moved the public hearing be closed. The motion was seconded by Councilman Risley, and unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Anderson, Lemons, Risley, Zeuschner and Mayor S helton. N OES: None Councilman Risley suggested that the Council send this back t o the Refuse Board for further detailed study. He stated that when the Refuse Board first considered the rate increase, they did not have the financial report that had since been presented. 3 Councilman Risley noted that many letters had been received ✓ egarding the Morro Bay garbage service, and read one of the letters. He stated the Refuse Board should consider the factor o f a salary comparison. He had made a salary comparison of what City workers are paid, and with the limited data that he had, it appeared to him that the garbage company employees are considerably higher paid than the City employees that do comparable types of work. Councilman Risley suggested the Refuse Board make contact with places like Decatur, Georgia, to find out w hat types of vehicles they use to be more efficient. He did not w ant to go back and submit the City to the turmoil and harrassment which they got and the public relations received during the time the City was collecting for the garbage company. He felt the Company had a public relations problem and he did not think they could solve it by the City giving them more money. Councilman Risley stated in the report showing the rates in surrounding Cities, there was a big difference in how the rate structure was made up and noted the pickups in other Cities was for whatever was put out, up to six packages, In Morro Bay, that is not the case so he felt the rate comparison was not comparable and felt the Refuse Board should look intofff this in detail. Councilman Zeuschner stated )ne of the things that was interesting to him was the basis of comparison. He noted four speakers had indicated the company had been running at a loss for t wo years and if that were correct virtually none of that would be due to the fact that the billing went back to the company, since the billing only went back to them in November. He felt t his was not an issue. Councilman Zeuschner stated he was interested in recycling and would like to see this considered into the company's decision making policy at some future time. He felt that if the fee were increased to $4.00 or even $5.00 and the people would get reliable courteous service for all that w as placed at the curbs, it would cause a celebration in town. He wondered if this should not be looked into _rather than a piecemeal of $.40 increase at a time. Councilman Zeuschner noted t hat at other places he had lived, the garbage fee was put on your property tax and you could put out whatever you wanted to. He questioned the lack of confidence expressed by the auditor in t his particular transmission. He questioned the salary of the garbage workers as compared to the salary of the City workers. He also would like to know about the comparable rates. Councilman Zeuschner stated until 'ie had received some answers on t hese questions, he would delay his vote. Councilman Anderson stated it was his understanding that the question before the Council tonight was to discuss the $.40 increase to the billing cost that Mr. Sibbach said according to his investigations were justified. Councilman Anderson commented t hat all the other things that had been brought up concerning service problems could be brought up before the Refuse Board. He n oted there were ways of restitution if property is damaged by bringing it to the attention of the Refuse Board and going t hrough proper channels. Councilman Anderson emphasized that all that was being heard tonight was if the Garbage Company's cost had increased $.40 by going back to Lneir own billing which Mr. Sibbach had attested to, the rest of the discussion was irrevelant. Councilman Lemons agreed with Council_rnan Anderson. He felt all the other things were not related but there haci been chang3s t o the contract as IL now exists. Councilman Lemons stated the City had changed the rules of the game by handing back the billing to the garbage company after having set up a rate structure which was based upon one can and which was based upon the fact that the City was going to do the billing. He felt there was no justification in his mind to not making a decision on that specific issue. A discussion followed with regard to the issues related to t he rate increase. Mayor Shelton stated he felt the discussion had gone awry and noted that not too long ago, the Council had made a decision that the City billing for garbage was onerous, it was a burden on the staff,Fit created a lot of bad problems within the City that we did not wish to continue attempting to resolve, so the City Council turned it back over to the garbage company. Mayor S helton stated the information that had been presented indicated that the garbage company was certainly working at a loss and t here was no justification for that, and the Council did not know why the loss was being incurred. He felt that was something important for the Refuse Board to look into -- was the operation being run efficiently in a comparable analysis? Councilman Lemons commented that the fact remains the only issue that the Council was talking about this evening was when t he City returned their billing to them, did we increase their cost of operation and if we did, how much? MOTION: Councilman Risley moved that the rate increase question be referred back to the Refuse Board and that we ask them to ✓ eport back to us as soon as possible after further study. The motion was seconded Mayor Shelton. Councilman Anderson offered the following substitute motion: MOTION: Councilman Anderson moved that according to the information that the Council was given from the City fianancial staff, that being the only issue here tonight, that we grant the $.400 increase to the garbage company. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemons. Councilman Lemons questioned Mr Fred Glenn , Certified P ublic Accountant, who had audited the books, as to the reason he had stated in effect that the garbage company's method of keeping books was not in accordance with accepted accounting practices and was questionable. Mr. Glenn stated the American Institute of CPA's had given them required wording tnat they have to use and 5 t here were three types of financial statements: the audited financial statement, the review financial statement and a compilation. He explained the three types of financial statements and noted that in a financial statement that does not include a statement of changes in financial resources, you must state in your opinion that it is not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals, and that was the reason that this statement was in there. He stated he was not implying any improprieties, otherwise he would have had to have a disclaimer o r an adverse opinion. Councilman Risley questioned Mr. Glenn as to whether the statement he prepared showed the expenses for 1981 and 1982 in o ne category "office salaries", to be increased from 1981 to 1982 by 19.7% and asked him to verify those figures. Mr. Glenn confirmed this. Councilman Zeuschner stated it was getting to be very clear to him that we have two issues here, one is the forty cent billing fee and the second, are we getting the value for our money? Mayor Shelton called for the vote on the substitute motion: AYES: Councilman Zeuschner, Anderson, and Lemons. NOES: Councilman Risley, and Mayor Shelton. ABSENT: None. MOTION: Councilman Zeuschner moved the entire question continue t o be reviewed by the Refuse Franchise Board including financial ✓ eports, the salary comparisons, and other details on comparability, recycling, etc. and report back to the Council in a timely fashion. The motion was seconded by Councilman Anderson and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Anderson, Lemons, Risley, Zeuschner and Mayor Shelton. AYES: None. ABSENT: None. A-3 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMMEND COASTAL LUP BY REDESIGNATING CERTAIN PROPERTIES EAST OF HIGHWAY 1 FROM 'AGRICULTURE" TO "MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" AND 'DISTRICT COMMERCIAL' Mayor Shelton noted this item had been pulled at the request of t he Community Development Department and will be rescheduled at a later date. B. UNFINISHED BUSINESS B-1 CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 58 (SIGN ORDINANCE) (SECOND READING) Mayor Shelton stated this is a second reading of the o rdinance which would allow placement of directional signs by the 6 Business Irnprovement Committee. MOTION: Councilman Lemons moved that this Ordinance be read by t itle and number only, and that it constitute the second reading. The motion was seconded by Councilman Anderson and carried by t he following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Anderson, Lemons, Risley, Zeuschner and Mayor Shelton, N OES: None. ABSENT: None. Mr. Napper read the Ordinance by title and number only. MOTION: Councilman Lemons moved that Council adopt the O rdinance as read. The motion was seconded by Councilman Zeuschner and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Zeuschner, Risley, Lemons, Anderson and Mayor Shelton. N OES: None. ABSENT: None. B-2 CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 54 (REMOVING EX-OFFICIO MEMBER FROM THE RECREATION COMMISSION) (SECOND READING) MOTION: Councilman Anderson moved that this be read by title and number only, and that it constitute the second reading. The motion was seconded by Councilman Risley and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Lemons, Risley, Zeuschner, Anderson and Mayor Shelton. N OES: None. ABSENT: None. Mr. Napper read the ordinance by title and number only. MOTION: Councilman Anderson moved that Council adopt the O rdinance as read. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemons and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Anderson, Lemons, Risley, Zeuschner and Mayor Shelton. C. NEW BUSINESS C-1 CONSIDERATION OF SUBLEASE BY RON MYERS TO GOLD NUGGET S EAFOOD, INC. (RESCHEDULED FOR 2/14) Mayor Shelton noted this item on the agenda had been rescheduled for the next regular meetig of February 14, 1983. C-2 CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT OF PARKHURST LEAS L IFE OF TWENPY YEARS E TO LEASE Mr. Napper stated the operator of Robert Pyle Gallery had been granted a fifteen year extension to the City lease and was 7 n ow asking for an additional extension of five years, for a total o f twenty years. Mr. Jack Wallace, the City's Property Management Consultant, has reviewed this request and has found it to be in the best interest of both parties concerned. Staff recommended the Council approve the request submitted and authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the amendment to the lease allowing for a twenty year life. Councilman Risley requested the City Attorney's opinion as to whether the City had a legal right to extend that contract. Mr. LeSage stated he had submitted a memo since the last meeting stating the City did have a legal right to extend this contract. MOTION: Councilman Zeuschner moved to adopt this amendment. The motion was seconded by Councilman Risley. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Lemons, Risley, Zeuschner and Mayor Shelton. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman Anderson. ABSENT: None. C-3 CONSIDERATION OF TRANSFER OF MARICULTURE LEASE TO DAVE WARDLOW Mr. Napper explained that in the past, the City has leased approximately 100 acres of water bottom for raising of oysters. This operation has been in conjunction with the leasing of approximately 1,000 acres from State Fish and Game further south in the bay. The current leasee, Mr. Ralph Johnson of Morro Bay O yster Company, is in default of provisions of his lease, in fact t he lease expired June 30, 1982. Mr. Wallace has negotiated with a new operator or new lease holder. At this time, it is unknown whether or not Mr. Johnson will pursue legal action against the City to prevent us from considering a new lease as he has against Mr. Myers. Mr. Napper stated in addition, Mr. Wallace has drafted the lease for Councils review and would like their input regarding the language t hat he has included in the lease. Mr. Napper stated one additional provision that Mr. Baxter is recommending and which should be included in the new lease, is t hat anyone who leases the one hundred acres by the City should also be the same individual who leases the 1,000 acres from the Fish and Game Department, to avoid boundary disputes. Staff is requesting Council input regarding this lease and once this has been received, it would be appropriate to submit the matter to the City Attorney for his ultimate review and then bring back a final draft for Council's adoption. 8 Mr. LeSage stated his main concern was that although the lease has ended by its terms, this was not a simple lease in that even though the leasee may move out, he still has a lot of o ysters there and that raises some complex issues as to who ✓ emoves them, what is done with them, what can be done to prevent t heir loss. Mr. LeSage stated, therefore, the City must approach t his very carefully. Not only does the leasee have a lot of money invested here, but also other people have apparently put money in and have never seen any money come back to them. Mr. L eSage stated as a lease, it had been a disaster for the City because we have not seen very much money either so he did not want to get into a protracted legal battle over what should have happened at the end of this lease. Jack Wallace stated as for as the inventory as to what was in the hay, that had not been completed yet, there is an audit u nderway by the State of California. He stated what did disturb him as far as the allotment referring to the lease area, letters had been since since 1972, saying they were in default in their lease, they hadn't paid their rent. Mr. Wallace said Fish and Game tickets were the basis for determining the amount of rent t hat was paid on $.02 per gallon of oysters removed or harvested, $100 per year as paid for the minimum. He noted on the h arvesting, the City had never received adequate number of fish and game tickets in all of the time of the life of the lease. He could not tell whether he was looking at something unpaid here in the neighborhood of $1,000 or $10,000. He explained the procedures of farming and harvesting the oysters. He stated he did know that within the last three months, there had been an accelerated effort to remove all of the oversized large oysters from there, and he was told by their attorney that the money was being held in trust. Mr. Wallace stated he was also told by t heir attorney that they are going to declare bankruptcy during t he later part of this month - January. Dave Wardlow stated it was a mess out there, Ralph Johnson became involved with a Canadian group who put together an investment situation that paid $20,000 for 160,000 babies and seed that was to be brought to Morro Bay, raised and within three years would be taken out as a product; the investors would get $5.00 per gallon and Johnson would get the remainder. Mr. Wardlow stated it never worked. He stated after talking to the Canadian group and the investors, nobody had any answers. Mr.Wardlow stated they had asked him to go in with them but he felt it would be better for him to wait this out. He stated he was in line through Fish and Game to pick up the other acreage. He stated they did not know what would happen out in the bay. He stated if there was an abandonment, the State of California takes o ver. He noted that Johnson could not really sell to anyone but t he Canadians because he owns the lease but does not own the o ysters. Mr. Wardlow stated he ran the Alexander Ranch, five miles north of Cayucos, as the U. S. Ocean Farms Company. A discussion followed with regard to the raising of oysters, leasing, and solutions to transferring the oysters. 9 Ron Myers stated he would like to make a recommendation to t he Council that they approve Mr. Wardlow s assignment of these leases in concept and then possibly after the 8th of February, t ake it up and make actual assignment. Mr. Myers stated on February 8, 1983, they were having a court hearing on Mr. Johnson's sublease 18 and he thought that the outcome of this hearing would have a great bearing on the leases in the bay itself. He noted that the outcome of this hearing could possibly determine that Mr. Johnson does not have a salable item for his sublease on a portion of 18. Therefore, he felt Mr. Johnson would drop the hazzle on the 1,000 acre, and make the 100 acre City controlled lease a lot clearer. Ms. Patricia Colinan stated she felt the oyster beds precluded clamming and wondered if the $100 value was greater t han the recreation value. She questioned if it was the best use of the area because we are recreation oriented. Mayor Shelton stated this would come before a Public Hearing before any final decision would be made. MOTION: Councilman Lemons moved the Council express its approval of this idea in concept and ask the staff to be ready after February 8th to report back whether it seems feasible to go ahead with this or not, and if so, to have these questions expressed by members of the Council answered. The motion was seconded by Mayor Shelton. The motion carried with Councilman Anderson abstaining. (4-0-1) RECESS: 9:20 p.m. RECONVENED: 9:35 p.m. C-4 CONSIDERATION OF TRAINING ADDITIONAL FIREFIGHTERS FOR THE EMT II PROGRAM Mr. Napper stated that a memorandum from Chief Zerr which indicates that the training for additional firefighters for EMT II is winding down as far as availability within close proximity t o the City. After a certain period of time, only EMT II training will be available outside of this area, requiring increased cost and additional time away from the jobsite. Chief Zerr is recommending that we send our additional firefighters through the program at this time. This would be an increased level as far as the training requirements of the department. Mr. Napper stated in essence there will be more tuition and books and also some overtime expenditures to fill in when the people are being trained. Chief Zerr has estimated the total cost to be about $5,000. Staff recommends Council's approval for the increased training service and also that the funds be appropriated from the fire department budget with the u nderstanding that if he needs supplemental appropriation, staff w ill be back to the Council for appropriation at that time. 10 MOTION: Councilman Risley moved that the Council adopt the ✓ ecommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemons and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Anderson, Lemons, Risley, Zeuschner and Mayor Shelton. N OES: None. ABSENT: None. C-5 AWARD OF BID FOR NEW FIRE ENGINE Mr. Napper stated in the budget this year, the City appropriated approximately $80,000, for the purchase of a mini - pumper. On December 22, 1982, bids were submitted for a new fire e ngine and the low bid came in at approximately $81,463.25 In addition to this base bid, Chief Zerr is requesting that an additional optional item (front suction pump) be added since it would be cheaper to have this piece built in during construction o f the engine rather than reconstructig it after the engine has been delivered. Adding this additional item will bring the total bid amount to $83,901.25. Staff is requesting an additional $3,901.25 from the general funds contingencies so that the fire department can order a new engine. MOTION: Councilman Risley moved the Council adopt the ✓ ecommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemons and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Risley, Lemons, Anderson, Zeuschner and Mayor Shelton. N OES: None. ABSENT: None. C-6 CORRESPONDENCE FROM FAY L. LUZADER REGARDING VARIANCE FOR FENCE Mr. and Mrs. Luzader, residents at 301 Fairview Avenue, live adjacent to the Morro Bay Golf Course. There is a large screen (wire fence) erected by the County which protects his property from golf balls being sent off of the property. However, through deterioration and wear and lack of replacement, that protective fence is no longer capable of providing the safety that it once did. In addition, Mr. Luzader earlier erected his own screen for protection in front of his house on public right-of-way that had since been blown down by recent storms. Mr. Napper stated the owner has attempted to address the problem by reconstructing a 14 foot high chain link fence in the front of his house. However, because the fence was reconstructed in public right-of-way, the Public Works Department contacted Mr. L uzader who requested an encroachment permit and was denied. Mr. N apper stated in discussing the matter with Mr. Bressan, it was t he Public Works Department's position that the erection of improvements in public right-of-way, in particular something as precedent setting as this, is more within Council's purview than staff. 11 Mr. Napper stated the applicant was advised that he would have to come before Council for a Variance as far as the fence being in the public right- of- way. Staff has reviewed this and finds that the fence serves a purpose to protect Mr. Luzader's property, however if Council so finds tonight, that perhaps if the golf course reconstructs their fence, reconsideration of the fence on public right-of-way in front of Mr. Luzader's property could be re-evaluated at that time. Staff requested a policy determination by the Council Mr. Luzader stated that the name "fence" is a misnomer, it was not a fence but a screen. He stated it had been there since they bought the property. It was constructed by redwood 4 x 4's. He explained they had replaced it in exactly the same place that it was in. Mr. Luzader stated that even with the screen that t hey had put up originally, the tall posts, the golf balls still came over the top. He noted the lady that previously owned the house was hit by one of those golf balls. He worried about his grandchildren being hit by balls and stated he needed the protection. Councilman Risley stated he had inspected the property and found the County screen in deplorable condition. He questioned t he applicant if he had made any direct contact with the manager o f the golf course about replacing it. Mr. Luzader answered he had not. He stated the County had o rigially three screens, that were shorter, but were right against his property, that were put in there to protect their windows, and they went down. Mr. Luzader stated they had ✓ equested the Golf Course Manager to replace that and they would n ot. He noted this was about three years ago. Councilman Risley stated he felt the City should contact the County to see if they would replace the fence. Councilman Anderson stated he felt a Variance is justified in this case as it would not be that everyone in town would want t o set up a screen in front of them. He stated the Public Works Department was justified in their actions as they should not be making policy directions, and when they find that there is an e ncroachment, he felt they did the right thing in not saying they could go ahead. Mr. LeSage stated the City had an encroachment permit which t hey could modify to meet this request. He noted there were conditions within the permit which the Council could determine. Mr. LeSage stated that an encroachment permit would not have to go before a public hearing, but a variance request would. MOTION: Councilman Zeuschner moved the Council authorize and e ncroachment permit for Mr. Luzader as requested with the 12 stipulation that if we ever need it for a City street, the fence will come down and that we accept payment for the encroachment permit in cash or in lieu of payment, a claim against the material he has already paid for. The motion was seconded by Councilman Risley. Mayor Shelton requested an addition to the motion that Staff send an inquiry to the County to ask about what they were intending to do with the rest of the barriers that are permitting some liability by allowing balls to come through the fence. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Anderson, Lemons, Risley, Zeuschner and Mayor S helton. N OES: ABSENT: None. None. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D-1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM ADJOURNED MEETING OF JANUARY 6, 1983 Mr. Napper recommended that subject to any changes, Council approve the minutes of your special meeting of January 6, 1983, as submited. D-2 WORKER'S COMPENSATION DISABILITY AWARD Mr. Napper stated a former fireman engineer with the Fire Department has filed a workman's compensation claimalleging t he job gave him hypertension due to the stresses of the job. He stated the attorney which represents the City in the claims for Worker's Compensation is recommending that the City agree to stipulations of 60% permanent disability with future medical care awarded to this individual. Staff recommends that Council agree t o this stipulated award on this individual. D-3 PROCLAMATION OF "NATIONAL WOMEN'S HISTORY WEEK" MARCH 6-12, 1983 Staff recommended that Council approve the proclamation and authorize the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City. D-4 REPORT REQUESTING CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FOR CITY TO RECEIVE FUNDS FOR PREPARING A 5 YEAR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT P LAN Mr. Napper stated this matter had been pulled due to technical problems and will be rescheduled at a later date. D-5 RECOMMENDATION BY REFUSE FRANCHISE BOARD TO GRANT HARDSHIP REFUSE VARIANCE Mr. Napper stated a recommendation had been received from the Refuse Board to grant hardship refuse variances for John 13 Gallagher and John Wye and the board is forwarded these to the Council for their ratification. Staff recommends Council approve the ratification of the hardship variances on refuse franchise collections. D-6 INFORMATIONAL SUBMITTAL OF STREET ENDS CONSTRUCTION PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY. Mr. Napper stated this letter had been pulled and will be submitted to both the Harbor Advisory Board and Planning Commission for formal hearings prior to being brought to Council for adoption. D-7 REJECTION OF BIDS FOR WATER PIPE LINE BID PW83-5 Mr. Napper stated prior to being contacted by the local Contractors' Association, staff was preparing a bid package for t he Water Line Replacement Program. He noted that due to the fact that the City s current status of Water Line Replacement P rogram being suspended, it was not necessary to acquire additional pipe. Staff recommended the Council approve a ✓ esolution rejecting all bids for water lines. D-8 PRE -BUDGET WORKSHOP TO BE HELD FEBRUARY 14, 1983, at 5:00 P .M. Mr. Napped stated the Finance Director had outlined the tentative budget calendar for preparation of the 1983-84 budget. He stated this had been brought traditionally to Council review t o prepare in advance for the budgetary process. Staff ✓ ecommended the Council adopt the 83-84 tentative budget calendar as submitted including a pre -budget workshop to be held February 14, 1983 at 5:00 p.m. D-9 RESOLUTIONS OF COMMENDATION FOR BRUCE ELSTER, JUNE CUNNINGHAM, ARDIS SCHROEDER, AND RON MYERS. Staff recommended Council approve the resolutions commending these persons for their time and efforts spent on behalf of the City of Morro Bay so that they could be presented to these individuals at the next Council meeting. Mr. Robert Lane stated he would like to speak on some of the ✓ amifications of D-7. Mayor Shelton requested D-7 be pulled until later. MOTION: Councilman Risley moved to adopt the Consent Items with t he exception of D-7. The motion was seconded by Councilman Zeuschner and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Zeuschner, Lemons, Anderson, Risley and Mayor Shelton. D-7 REJECTION OF BIDS FOR WATER PIPE LINE BID PW83-5. 14 Robert Lane stated it was his understanding that the City is not proceeding with the water main replacement. It was further his understanding that three people took it upon themselves to bring this situation on the City. He further understood that if t he water replacement program does not proceed, the City would go back under the water moratorium and there would be no more building permits. Mr. Lane stated he had made an investigation and he understood that the water main replacement program had been terminated. He also understand that the City does not have the money to proceed with a Union job, and that effectively if t he City had to go out to bids, they would be in very bad shape, and that the water allocation would be slowed way down. He felt t hat an item like this deserved a public hearing and requested t hat the Council put this on public hearing. Councilman Lemons questioned Staff as to why the City had to ✓ eject the bids for the pipe. He felt that the fact that they w ould have to go to contract on these jobs, does not preclude the City from furnishing the pipe. He felt that if the City had ✓ eceived good bids, they could write the contract where the City w ould furnish the pipe. Mr. Napper stated he believed the rationale behind rejecting t he bids, in talking to the City Administrator, was perhaps that money that we would otherwise expend to purchase this pipe, could be used in making our own internal bid upon the contract against the other contractors unions that may be proposing to do the same w ater line replacement program which the City is doing right now. Andy Anderson stated what they were proposing to do in t ublic Works was to proceed full speed with the preparation of a contract so that they could go out for bid. He stated the City w ould furnish materials for this contract and the City would also provide a bid on the contract. He felt that without having to make a profit, without having to worry about overhead, the City could make competitive bids and by going with a small contract to start with, if it worked it would be a very simple matter to go immediately with additional bids to continue on with the program. Mr. Anderson stated there certainly was no intent to stop the upgrading of the water lines in the City. A discussion followed with regard to whether or not the City should buy the pipe or include this in the bid. Herminia Ward stated if the City already has a bid or contract for this, she could not see any reason why it shouldn't be pursued. She hoped the water line replacement is not delayed any more than it already has because the problem still exists and felt the City should pursue it with whatever funds available. Councilman Zeuschner stated that if there was a good, low bid on the pipe, he felt the City should go ahead and buy it unless the City Administrator felt he could get a better price. 15 Councilman Risley felt this should be continued to the next Council meeting for a public hearing. After questioning by Councilman Lemons, Mr. Napper stated the low bidder may have stated that his bid would be good for t hirty or sixty days and if that were so, Staff could agendize t his as unfinished business and bring back more justification as t o why this action is being recommended as it was. MOTION: Councilman Zeuschner moved this item be continued to t he next meeting for consideration. The motion was seconded by Mayor Shelton and unanimously carried. (5-0-0) E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION Councilman Zeuschner requested a closed session be held following the public meeting. Mayor Shelton stated he had received a letter from the State Department of Parks and Recreation indicating there were some specific things that needed to be done relating to the City t aking over the golf course. Mayor Shelton stated they had also indicated in their letter that the golf course could be taken over by the City on July 1, 1983. Mayor Shelton stated the t tate had suggested that the City constitute the advisory committee over the golf course, give them their charge, and let t hem begin to make policy decisions. Councilman Risley felt that staff should conduct a complete investigation and bring back to the Council details that would include the cost of the operation, the revenues, where the people who play on the golf course are from, what percent are from Morro Bay, from the County, and from the State or out of State. He felt they should find out what type of present management the County has for organization of the golf course. Staff should exam the different potential of organization within Morro Bay, i.e. should it be under the function of the Parks and Recreation Department, Public Works or under a separate advisory commission. Councilman Lemons stated all that information was obtainable at the County and the City Staff did not have time to do this. He suggested an ad hoc committee be constituted to consider this information. MOTION: Councilman Risley moved the Council request staff to bring back a report on the details on the proposal for acquiring t he golf course. The motion was seconded by Councilman Zeushner. Councilman Lemons stated he would like to add to the motion t hat at the next City Council meeting of February 14, 1983, the Council appoint an ad hoc committee to do those things which need to be done, and that staff procure the answers which the committee can not do themselves. The motion was seconded by Councilman Anderson. 16 A discussion followed. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilman Anderson, Lemons, Zeuschner and Mayor S helton. N OES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilman Risley. ABSENT: None. E-2. City Attorney None. E-3 City Administrator Mr. Napper stated Mr. Crump had a short presentation with regard to the Fisher project. Mr. Crump stated the consultant proposals on the Fisher P roject, corner of Highway 41 and Ironwood Avenue, would be received by January 28, 1983. He noted that since the Council had been directly involved in scoping the content of the EIR, Staff was requesting the Council participated in the review of t he proposals to insure the desired products was achieved from t he report process. For the purpose, Staff requested two Councilmembers be chosen to review these proposal before a contract for full authorization was brought to the Council. Mayor Shelton suggested that all Councilmembers review these proposals. MOTION: Councilman Zeuschner moved to adjourn to the Executive Session, and from there to adjourn to 5:00 P.M. Pre -budget Workshop Meeting on February 14, 1983. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lemons and unanimously carried. (5-0-0) The meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, N ELLIE CECIL Community Development Secretary 17