HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-16 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting
July 16, 2001
1. Finance Committee recommendation re Utility Users Tax (UUT) Refund .......................................................291
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m...................300
RECONVENED TO THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 7:45 P.M.......300
2. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for Planning and
Transportation Commission ....................................300
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................300
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................300
3. Resolution 8076 entitled “Resolution Declaring Intention to Reimburse Expenditures from the Proceeds of Bonds to be
Issued by the City” ..........................................301
4. Ordinance 4709 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02 to Correct the Municipal Fee Schedule for an Omitted Fee Change” 301
5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Blymyer Engineers,
Inc. in the Amount of $148,900 for the Design of an Integrated Fueling Facility and Public Compressed Natural Gas Fueling Dispenser at the Municipal Services Center ...........301
6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Keyser Marston in the Amount of $76,000 for Services Related to Redevelopment
Agency 301
7. Approval of Expenditure of Asset Seizure Funds in the Amount
of $36,500 ...................................................301
PUBLIC HEARINGS..................................................301
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. to a Closed
Session. .....................................................304
07/16/01 92-289
CLOSED SESSION...................................................304
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.............304
07/16/01 92-290
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Burch, Eakins, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler ABSENT: Beecham, Fazzino, Kleinberg
ADJOURNED TO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AT 7:07 P.M.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Mayor Eakins announced that the report would be treated as a Finance Committee recommendation and action could be taken.
1. Finance Committee recommendation re Utility Users Tax (UUT) Refund
City Manager Frank Benest asked the Council, staff, and community to reflect on a major achievement. During the
impassioned discussions on the libraries at the budget hearings, he felt that a key accomplishment was overlooked. A year prior,
the City faced a major problem. The Council and staff identified and evaluated the existing non-utility infrastructure and found after that assessment that the City had a $100 million backlog in maintenance and renovation of the existing infrastructure. Consequently, the Council approved a ten-year program and as
part of that program the City began to accumulate over ten years $78 million over ten years, which left a $22 million problem. With the $78 million, the Council directed staff to involve the
community in a series of dialogues to address the City’s financial priorities, and address the specific problem. During
the dialogues, the City Council at the June 11, 2001, budget hearing, approved a solution. The City had a ten-year plan to accumulate $100 million to eradicate the backlog of infrastructure. There was still a major effort to be undertaken regarding the libraries, the police building, new or expanded
infrastructure, and public facilities. He encouraged everyone involved in the community dialogue process to celebrate the fact that together they formulated a plan, which he believed was now ready to be put into motion. The proposed Utility Users Tax has been incorporated into the budget, which Council directed staff
to bring back as an agenda item.
Deputy Director of Administrative Services Joe Saccio presented an overview of key points regarding the (UUT). On May 24, 2001, a recommendation was brought to the Finance Committee on a
proposed temporary UUT rebate. The recommendations included a temporary rebate for gas and electric customers beginning on
07/16/01 92-291
August 1, 2001, and ending on December 31, 2001. The rebate would be limited to high volume users to the first 5 percent
threshold, which was a step down on the threshold to 3 and 2 percent for large utility users. At the May 29, 2001 Finance Committee meeting it was suggested to extend the rebate period from August 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002, and evaluate the program at the end of fiscal year 2001-2002. Council reviewed
the Finance Committee recommendation on June 11, 2001 and the action was tabled until that evening’s meeting. The key points to consider is that the rebate was a temporary measure and would
partially relieve the gas and electric customers due to the significant increases the City and customers are facing for the
commodity cost for gas and electric. The rebate would be reviewed periodically by Council and if the rate stayed the same throughout the year, the review would be held on June 30, 2002. If the rates decreased, staff would come back to Council with a recommendation, but if the rates increased, staff would return
to Council for a decision. It is important to realize that the UUT is a key General Fund revenue source and was used to support Palo Alto schools. The estimated annual amount of the rebate was $2.2 million. If it were to run from August 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002, it would be approximately $2 million. The
expected rebate for the average utility residential customer is $27 annually and approximately $2.20 per month. The rebate
would appear on the utility customer’s monthly statement as a credit beginning August 1, 2001. The Council would review the recommendation from the Finance Committee that clarified the
action recommended but not in the motion. The recommendation from the July 17, 2001, Finance Committee meeting was that the
rebate program be extended through June 30, 2002. Staff asked that it be included in that evening’s motion and that the program be evaluated on that date. The motion further asked for
Council’s direction on how to proceed if the motion passed.
Mayor Eakins invited the public to speak. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said he was unclear about the total amount and timeframe that Mr. Saccio mentioned in his presentation. He asked for clarification on whether the cost
would be $2.2 million for five months or $2.2 for twelve months. Based on the information in the staff report (CMR:249:01), he believed the rebate was supposed to be the increase in the UUT
based on the increase in the rate. He calculated what it would take in terms of conservation for a customer to have the same
deduction on their bill and for those he calculated it would be one to one and a half percent based on the marginal rate. He could not do the calculations for the larger commercial
07/16/01 92-292
customers because they had a capacity and usage charge which was at a lower rate and that would mean adjusting both charges. It
would be 1 to 2 percent conservation for those he did the calculations for. The gas rate was very high because the commercial customers wanted stability. The spot rate on gas was currently less than the rate that was locked in on our contracts. Large customers could pass it on to their customers
but residents could not. The electrical rate charge was based on the assumption that Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) would receive a higher rate than on the contract we have with Western
Area Power Agency (WAPA). The City was hedging by buying more power than it needed which the City then sells later. The prior
week, for the first time, the quarterly report for Electric and Fiber did not show any financial numbers. The city was told that the estimate for the term of the contract would put the City in a good position as far as utility usage was concerned. Mr. Borock noted that on July 6, 2001, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission froze the spot price at 9.1 cents per kilowatt-hour. The City was told prior that the price would be 12 and 13 cents, at least in the short term. He would like to see the calculations for those numbers. The staff’s statement was correct regarding the money that was collected as it was for the
General Fund. To say that it was for the schools was not correct because it would then be a special tax. He agreed with Bob Moss
that if the City wanted to rebate money it should not be done in that way because it was not permitted in the initiative measure that was adopted. He provided a letter to the Council from the
previous time the item was on the agenda. The letter stated that according to the State Constitution, if the city adopted a
utility tax by the voters, as long as it is in the maximum, it could be raised back to the maximum.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, elaborated on the July 15, 2001, e-mail he sent to Mayor Eakins regarding the rebate. He stated he
would rather see a straight reduction to the percentage rather than go through the rebate problem. He agreed with Mr. Borock that it was simple to cut the rate and allow modest adjustments in the percentage without going through a lot of effort in how much money came back and how it would be adjusted. It allowed
the City to simply and rapidly raise or lower the gross rate depending upon what the commodity prices were. Another aspect he found attractive about his plan was that it was simple for
everyone to understand. He was concerned about the City giving rebates because it would raise questions in the public’s mind as
to what the tax was and why they were receiving it. He felt this was the most efficient way and it could be adjusted in three to six months depending on how the commodity market did. He
07/16/01 92-293
suggested that it not be reduced the full 1⅛ percent which would be equivalent to a $27 rebate in order to allow some margin for
error. If at the end of the period the Council found that commodity rates were lower, a significantly lower rebate or tax rate for the previous quarter could be given. Council Member Mossar wondered if staff would respond to the
suggestion to change the rate rather than offering a rebates. Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats said that the City
had been accused of not having automated systems that had the capability to track how business was conducted. In that
instance, the City had an automated system for utility billing that allowed the Utility Department to track usage and how much was billed by category. Being able to give the rebate categorized by electric and gas, the City could track how much the rebate would cost and how much the City would rebate to the
customers. If the tracking system showed inaccuracies, staff would report it to the Council. It also allowed staff to report the correct amount that was in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) of 5 percent and collect that amount in the Utilities accounting system. During an audit the City could show that it
adhered to the PAMC. Based upon the rebate we were bated out of the portion collected by the Electric and Gas Funds that came
out of those subcategories in our accounting system. That method would allow for tracking and reporting.
Council Member Lytle asked why the amount would be tracked and reported as a rebate but not tracked and reported as a
reduction. Mr. Yeats said a rate reduction would spread across all the
utility tax collected, so it would be in a broad category and the City’s accounting system had it labeled by fund and sub-
fund. Funds and sub-funds could be tracked individually for electricity and gas and how much the City was rebating. If it was done at the higher level at 3 percent, 30 percent, or some other percentage rebate, it could only be tracked at the higher level. He reiterated that the UUT was on gas, electric, water,
and telephone. Council Member Lytle asked what the typical rebate was for small
and large commercial users.
Mr. Yeats said the rebate for a small commercial user would be approximately $14 a month and for a large commercial user, $780 a month.
07/16/01 92-294
Council Member Lytle asked whether it was possible to base a
rebate on economic hardship. She said the City had a hardship rate Assistance Program for residential users and asked whether the City would be able to devise a similar program for small businesses.
Mr. Yeats said staff would have to investigate that possibility. The current Rate Assistance Program applied to residents only with a discount of 15 to 20 percent. If the City did the same
for small businesses the discount would be greater than the five percent UUT rebate, and he believed that would be a much better
way of dealing with someone that needed assistance in paying their utility bill. He believed if Council recommended an assistance program for small businesses, the Utility Department could formulate an assistance program.
Council Member Lytle asked whether it would be possible to base a rebate on a conservation incentive basis as opposed to merely a straight across rebate. Thus, those that cut back their utility usage significantly on a percentage basis would then be eligible for a rebate.
Mr. Yeats said at that time, the discussion would be about
rebating a portion of the amount collected for the commodity cost and not necessarily related to the UUT. He believed that Council would want to look at how it was being rebated out of
the Electric, Gas, and Water Funds based on the decreased usage, which he thought was more related to the commodity cost.
Council Member Lytle asked whether it could be done based on the commodity amount.
Mr. Yeats said he believed that would be a rebate that would
target the utility and not the General Fund, and it would not be related to the UUT. That amount would automatically go down based upon their decreased consumption. If the City wants to rebate based upon conservation the City would have to look at the utilities to pay for that amount or a rebate that would come
out of those individual enterprise funds. Council Member Lytle asked whether any of the 100 percent
solution that City Manager Frank Benest asked the Council to consider, was based on new revenue sources for Palo Alto and a
need recognized by several years of public discussion required in the City’s Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs).
07/16/01 92-295
Mr. Yeats said a portion of the original $78 million was based on increased Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)revenues.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the $22 million was based on any new revenue sources. Mr. Yeats replied it was based on growth in revenues but more on
savings and limiting the growth in programs. Council Member Lytle asked whether one of the original purposes
of the UUT was for sidewalk replacement in addition to what the media reported as being schools and Cubberley Community Center.
Council Member Wheeler said yes Council Member Lytle asked what the latest count was for resident population versus workforce population.
Mr. Yeats said he had heard that the daytime population increases by 150 percent. Mr. Benest said the nighttime population was 60,000 versus the
daytime population of between 120,000 – 150,000.
Mr. Yeats said regarding Council Member Lytle’s question, he had a sample ballot for the UUT election from November 3, 1987. The arguments in favor of conservation were: open space for surplus
school sites; protect neighborhoods from over-development; provide additional revenues to Palo Alto Unified School District
(PAUSD) so Palo Alto could continue to have excellent schools; make substantial repairs to streets and sidewalks; and provide affordable space for cultural organizations. Another point
frequently discussed was the duration of the rebate. The sample ballot’s rebuttal stated that, "the tax lasts forever even after
the termination of the fifteen year lease.” This statement was in reference to the Cubberley site. Mayor Eakins asked Mr. Yeats if what he read was from the Argument and not from the ballot measure language itself.
Mr. Yeats said that was correct.
Mayor Eakins asked Mr. Yeats to read the ballot measure language and clarify whether there were two measures or one.
Mr. Yeats said there were two measures, Measure B and Measure C. Measure B was the approval of the UUT itself and Measure C was
07/16/01 92-296
to approve increasing the appropriation limit on the Gann appropriation’s limit. If the proceeds from taxes exceeded that
limit, then they could increase the appropriation’s limit by a vote of the residents of the City of Palo Alto. If we would have exceeded that in four years, the City would need to return to the voters for additional approval on the appropriation’s limit. The city had not exceeded that during the timeframe.
Mayor Eakins said it was refreshing to hear the authentic version instead of the hearsay version the Council had come to
rely on.
Mr. Yeats said a staff person was instrumental in locating the sample ballot. Council Member Wheeler added that at the time of the 1987 election, the City thought it would have been Jordan Middle
School instead of the Cubberley site. In 1987, it was the site available to site it would have been Jordan Middle School the City and after the Measure was passed, the PAUSD school board decided to reopen Jordan Middle School, and the City switched to the Cubberley site. The other item funded out of the proceeds of
the tax was the guarantee of space at each elementary school for a child care facility. Her question was also raised by Herb
Borock, which she wanted to confirm with staff, that the $2.2 million rebate assumed taking the tax from the rebate from August 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002.
Mr. Yeats said Mr. Saccio had clarified in his presentation that
if the rebate extended from August 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002, it should be $2 million. If it went for twelve months, it would be $2.2 million.
Council Member Burch noted that the report stated the rebate
reduced a key General Fund revenue source that had been used for school support. He asked whether there would still be money for school support if the City gave the rebate. Mr. Yeats said the revenue the City currently received based
upon the projected increase would stay relatively flat. When he looked at most of the City’s revenue sources, they had grown somewhat close to the pace of inflation over ten years. The UUT
had not grown. The demand for the commodity had stayed relatively constant, and therefore the revenue remained
constant. With the increase in commodity cost, the revenues went up because they were based on the cost of the commodity used. Based on giving the rebate the budget contained numbers that
07/16/01 92-297
allowed the City to pay the lease at Cubberley and support streets and sidewalks.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian, seconded by Council Member Mossar
to: 1. Approve a General Fund Utility Users Tax (UUT) rebate
to gas and electric customers as follows: a. the rebate would be a refund in the form of a
credit on the bills of gas and electric customers; and
b. the credit will appear on bills beginning August 1, 2001, and will be equal to the UUT amount that customers would have paid as a result of the June 1, 2001, gas rate increase of 67 percent and the
July 1, 2001 electric rate increase of 43 percent. The rebate or credit will continue through June 30, 2002. 2. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance to implement this
action in the General Fund budget, and present it to Council on July 23, 2001.
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Beecham, Fazzino, Kleinberg absent.
Mr. Benest emphasized Mr. Saccio’s point that staff would periodically return to Council for future recommendations. He
suggested at mid-year and when the City reviewed the following year’s budget. He wanted it to be understood that the City was in a very volatile situation in terms of energy use. He also
wanted it recognized that staff might suggest a change in the amount of the rebate depending on the marketplace.
Vice Mayor Ojakian also wanted his motion to state that staff would update the Council on the rebate status every six months. Mr. Yeats said staff would return with a mid-year report in
January of the following year. Staff would perform a monthly internal audit and bring anything out of the ordinary to Mr. Benest’s attention and he would notify Council in whatever
manner he chose.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said it would be part of the ordinary course of business for the Finance Committee to review the mid-year and year-end reports. He was happy that the City approved the
07/16/01 92-298
rebate. He stated that the process was initially started when he and Council Member Beecham had discussions about the rising rate
of individual utility bills. The Council believed it was a fairness issue and the Finance Committee unanimously approved it. He believed it was important but would not reiterate the remarks that were contained in staff report (CMR:249:01) on page 35 of Attachment C, where he pointed out that Council did not
want to make it a windfall situation for the City in what was an extraordinary market. Hopefully, that market would go away and people would get back to a stable situation. The UUT rebate was,
currently, a temporary measure, while the City monitored the rebate. He reinforced a comment that several others had made
during the evening. The City was looking at it as a General Fund revenue and in that regards he thought the Council was allowed to have some discretion in crediting back residents or issuing a rebate. He was delighted that Mr. Yeats brought the ballot arguments because at the time there was a clear indication, or
an assumption, that some of those budget funds could be used on things such as preserving open space areas or items that related to school sites where the City was spending money. It was important because the situation had not changed and the City needed to continue with that particular source of revenue
because it was being spent the way it was agreed to. When that situation was altered, the Council could look at additional
steps. Currently, there was no reason to do that and the rebate was a fair thing to do.
Council Member Lytle queried about the rebate. She believed she could be persuaded to go along with it temporarily, but she
wanted to express concerns because it seemed that the rebate was more beneficial to the large commercial users than to the residential customers. Knowing that staff would be able to work
on a program based on economic need would be a much more appealing long-range rebate program from her perspective or one
that could be tailored on preservation as an incentive. Another concern was that the increasing daytime population put an incredible burden on the infrastructure. That revenue source was intended for use to help take care of the infrastructure. The City had not been able to come up with new revenue sources for
doing that and the UUT had stayed flat through time. There had been much direction to develop new revenue sources to address those needs and that had not happened. She would, however, lend
her support to the rebate and urged colleagues to closely examine the rebate when it was brought back to Council for
evaluation.
07/16/01 92-299
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Beecham, Fazzino, Kleinberg absent.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
RECONVENED TO THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 7:45 P.M. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for Planning and
Transportation Commission City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Cedric de La Beaujardiere, Michael Griffin, Karen Holman, Leannah Hunt, Sarah Jones, Bonnie Packer, and Jonathan Schink received six votes and
would be interviewed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Wayne Martin, 368 Bryant Street, spoke regarding the use of
eminent domain.
John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding tennis project. Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, spoke regarding Winter Lodge sound wall.
Sophia Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding socialism and the redevelopment agency.
Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in
government. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve
the Minutes of June 11, 2001, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Beecham, Fazzino, Kleinberg absent. CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Mossar preceded the motion on the Consent
Calendar with comments on Item Nos. 3 and 5. For Item No. 3, she was concerned that the Council was not factoring in the State’s sale of $12.5 billion of bonds this summer. She felt staff should pursue the bond measure before them as well as other bonds they might consider in light of what happened at the State
07/16/01 92-300
level. For Item No. 5, she was concerned about the mention of ethanol as a possible fuel given the air quality concerns in
California. As staff proceeded with the project, all efforts should be made to consider the environmental impact, in particular, air quality impacts of whatever fuels the City chooses in the future.
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3-7.
LEGISLATIVE
3. Resolution 8076 entitled “Resolution Declaring Intention to Reimburse Expenditures from the Proceeds of Bonds to be
Issued by the City”
4. Ordinance 4709 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001-02 to Correct the Municipal Fee Schedule for an Omitted Fee
Change”
ADMINISTRATIVE
5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Blymyer Engineers, Inc. in the Amount of $148,900 for the Design of an Integrated Fueling Facility and Public Compressed
Natural Gas Fueling Dispenser at the Municipal Services Center 6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Keyser Marston in the Amount of $76,000 for Services Related to
Redevelopment Agency
7. Approval of Expenditure of Asset Seizure Funds in the Amount of $36,500 MOTION PASSED 6-0, Beecham, Fazzino, Kleinberg absent.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider recommendations regarding the R-1 Ordinance Amendments and Enabling Legislation for Single Family Individual Review and Design Guidelines.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Adopt
07/16/01 92-301
Changes into the Single Family (R-1) Zone District Regulations
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Implementing and Enabling Legislation to Add a New Chapter 18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) (Individual Review Process for Two-story Residential Construction
Projects)
MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Lytle, to continue the item to the Regular Council Meeting of August 6, 2001. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Beecham, Fazzino, Kleinberg absent.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Mossar stated that she visited 4000 Manzana Lane regarding the structure of the property. She also discussed the Finance Committee staff report for July 17, 2001, regarding the
Los Altos Treatment Plant site. She asked that the item return to the Council as a Committee of the Whole and requested that
concerned residents be notified. Mr. Benest said there were some serious environmental issues regarding the Los Altos Treatment Plant. The Corp of Engineers had identified a significant buffer area because of the
environmental concerns and protecting the bay. These issues as well as the financial concerns would be brought up at the Finance Committee meeting. When this issue returned to Council,
staff would like a full Council discussion about financial matters and other issues. He would work with the Mayor and Vice
Mayor to schedule a Committee of the Whole or another type of meeting so there could be a full Council discussion. That was his recommendation instead of referring it to two committees. Council Member Mossar asked whether Mr. Benest would like to
leave it on the agenda for the Finance Committee. Mr. Benest replied yes. Council Member Mossar said there was a list of citizens
interested in the site. She had a concern that citizens be duly notified about the meeting.
Mr. Benest asked Council Member Mossar whether the list pertained to a particular hearing so that he could advise staff
on where to locate it.
07/16/01 92-302
Council Member Mossar said that before she was elected to the Council she attended a walk at the site. There were
representatives and environmental organizations that participated, and she was aware of conversations between staff and those groups. She advised Mr. Benest to ask the Public Works Director Glenn Roberts if he had such a list. She felt it was important to include those persons who had historically been
involved in such decisions. Mr. Benest said staff would be happy to notify citizens and the
environmental groups.
Council Member Lytle said the Tree Technical Manual that staff prepared was an outstanding product. Vice Mayor Ojakian queried staff regarding a storm drain increase from San Mateo County without an election as it related
to a federal mandate. Mr. Benest said he could not comment on San Mateo County’s ability to institute the fee without an election. He planned to bring the storm drain issue back to Council and the community.
The Palo Alto community could not avoid the storm drain issue. It would involve discussion on breaking up the existing fee into
several parts and one part was mandated portions. The fee related to mandated activities and one of the activities was the federal run off control issue. The Public Works Department was
reviewing that issue with the City Attorney’s Office. It had been the legal opinion of San Mateo County that it is not a
matter for election because it is related to a federal mandate. Staff was looking at that whole issue because several of the staff in San Mateo County received the same notification.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said the point he was trying to make was that
there could be some other factors that determined the maintenance of storm drains. Mr. Benest said it is not only that issue, but there was a case being litigated at the appeal level with respect to a decision
involving the City of Salinas. The combined sewer storm drain fee was not submitted to the voters and the courts initially upheld that decision which was now being appealed. There could
be case law that suggested a combined fee, under certain circumstances, could be approved by the City Council. That would
be similar to other fees related to utilities. Mr. Benest assured the Council that people were very concerned about the City doing something about storm drains. He believed it was
07/16/01 92-303
necessary to return to the community with a solution regarding that matter.
Council Member Burch reminded Council that Monday, July 23, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. there would be a reception in the lobby for Sister Cities Albi, France; Enschede, The Netherlands; and Oaxaca, Mexico, with a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Council Member Mossar noted there was a San Francisquito Creek Joint Power Agency meeting on Monday, July 23, 2001, and she
might not be able to attend the Council meeting.
Mayor Eakins mentioned a proclamation about Block Parties Month during the month of August through Labor Day, 2001. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. to a Closed Session.
CLOSED SESSION
9. Conference with City Attorney – Potential/Anticipated Litigation
Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation on One Matter
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) & (b)(3)(A) The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters
involving Potential/Anticipated Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 9. Mayor Eakins announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 9. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
07/16/01 92-304
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with
Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are
available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
07/16/01 92-305