Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-06 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALOALTOCITY COUNCiL MEETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- FREQUENCYGO,1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting April 6, 1987 ITEM Oral Communications Consent Calendar PAGE 57-42 - 57-42 1. Six -Month Review of Council Effectiveness 5742 Guidelines -- Refer to Policy and Proce- dures Committee 2. Resolution 6600 Expressing Appreciation to 57-.42 Ruth N. Sawyer upon her Retirement 3. Contract with Zonger Johnson Construction 57-42 for Tennis Court Cleaning 4. Consultant Services Contract for Master 57-43 Plan of they Wastewater Collection System with Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. 5. Contract with Ferma Corporation for Demo -- 57-43 lition at Palo Alto Yacht Harbor • 6. Palo Alto Yact Harbor Dock Disposal - 57-43 Award of Contract with R. Trost Moving, Inc. 7. Request for Additional Compensation Authority for FY 86-87 Public Works Inspection Services Agreement with Barrett, Harris and. Associates and Con- struction Testing Services Agreement with 'terra tech, Inc, 57-43 57-40 -4/06/87 ITEM PAGE 9. Contract with Stanford Energy Systems for Installation of Passive Solar Energy Systems (Continued from 3/30/87) 10. Resolution 6601 Ao ting Under a Preliminary Injunction in U.S. District Court Case No. C-85-2168, Granting a License to Century Federal, Inc., to Construct and Operate a Cable System 11. Interim Report from City/School Liaison Committee re 1) City/School Financing; and 2) Timing of Jordan Environmental Impact Report Adjournment at 8:50 p.m. 57-43 57--4 3 57-44 57-54 Regular Meeting Monday, April 6, 1987 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:33 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:34 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Woolley removed Item 8, Ordinance Amending Park Regu- lations to Prohibit Fires Except in City Provided Barbecues, Fire Rings and Other Such Fixtures, from the Agenda at the request of staff. NOTION: Council Member Bechtel mom, seconded by Levy, dipprovel of the Consent Csletldsr. Council Member Patitucci asked to be recorded as voting *no," on .Item 4. Referral SIX-MONTH REVIEW OF COUNCIL EFFECTIVENESS GUIDELINES - REFER TO POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (701) MR:19-0175 2. RESOLUTION 6600 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY or PALO ALTO E CPRESS1NG `APPRECIATION TO RUTH N. SAWYER UPON HER RETIREMENta (701-64)' 3. TRACT WITH ZOHGER JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION FOR TENNIS 20) Rs.1923 ! Cc nt ' ct tolm toy two'iyeare . in the; asoa,nt of $17,250 per year. Staff authorised to execute change orders not to exceed $2,500 for each year of the Contract. 4. CONSULTANT SERVICES CONTRACT FOR FASTER PLAN OF THE WA SWAYER LLEC ION SYSTEM WITH CAMP DRESSER AND cKEE, INC. IN AN AMOUNT_ NOTTO EXCEED $423 571 . 1122) (.CMR:195:7 ) Staff is also authorized to execute change orders for extra work items in the amount of $42,500. 5. CONTRACT WITH FERMA CORPORATION FOR DEMOLITION AT PAL ALTO YACHT HARBOR IN THE. AMOUNT OF $25 850 (1440-022 (CMR:200:7) Staff is also authorized to execute change orders to the contract of up to $4,.000. 6. PALO ALTO YACHT HARBOR DOCK DISPOSAL AWARD OF CONTRACT WITH R. TROST MOVING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT . OF $10/677.77 (1440-Q2) (CMR:197:7) 7. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AUTHORITY FOR FY 86--87 PUBLIC W RKS INSPECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT "WITH REL NDASSOCIATESTES AND CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TERRATECH, INCe ( 0 M4R:198:7) Staff is also authorized to execute change orders to (1) the mended agreement with Barrett, Harris & Associates of up to 4 21,000 for inspection services; and : (2) the agreement with Terratech, Inc. of up to $9,000 for testing services. NOTION PARSED unanimously, ilito Pmtitucci voting "no* on Item Item 4, 9. CONTRACT .WITH STANFORD ENERGY SYSTEMS FOR INSTALLATION OF PASSIVE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS (Continued from (1 0 ) CMRsI 3:7) 87) NOTION* COOScil Neer Levy move, seconded by 111. ;t4rl, tbsat the ROM be t3tborixod to excesete the P.ssivo 9401Sr Energy System contradt with Stanford gOortill :Witten*. MOTION P ED usamimonsly. 10. RESOLUTION 6601 entitled "RESOLUTION >OP THE COUN IL OF THE CITY . OF PALO ALTO ACTING UNPR A PREL N NJUNCT ON N U.�� DIS RI COU T CAS k . C-kt 444 GR IN _. LIC «SE ENTURY F DL = AL CONS RUCT AND OPERATE A : CABLE SYSTEM (1141-61) 57--43 4/06/87 V ti MOTION: Council member Bechtel moved, seconded icy Klein, approval Resolution 6601. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Sutorius "not participating." 11. INTERIM REPORT FROM CITY/SCHOOL LIAISON COMMITTEE RE 1) '-T'R'Y/SCHOOL `FINANCING; AND 2) TIMING OF JORDAN ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT REPORT (702-08) (CMR:201:7) Mayor Woolley would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. Council Member Klein said the issue was more than "City/ - School Financing." With a lease of vacant school sites by the City from the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), the City would not be financing the PAUSD, but would enable them to get money and would be obtaining a valuable consid- eration from them. ,The proposal submitted by he and Council Member Patitucci was, nicknamed the "Grand Lease Idea." Joe Simitian's proposal was known as the "Less Gran,%. Lease." Some members of the Scheel Board believed leasing all five sites to the City would cause a loss of flexibility by the PAUSD and there were other ways to accomplish the goals. The key difference in leasing only Jordan and Jane Lathrop School in the "Less Grand Lease" was the other three sites would be the subject of a binding covenant not to develop on the part of the PAUSD so the same goal could be accom- plished, i.e., the citizens of Palo Alto could be assured all five sites would not be developed during the 15 -year period of the lease. The only difference between the "Grand Lease Idea" and the "Less Grand Lease" was that the three elementary school sites would not be managed by the City but rather the PAUSD would use them either for leasing income or for school purposes as it saw fits The payment would remain the same He referred to the next to last line on the first page of the staff report (CMR:201'7). The sentence read, "the City will pay the School. District approximately $3 million per year...." The statement was true to a point, but the PAUSD would net $3 million. The payment by the City would be $3 mi 11 i en less what the PAUSD was able to save in not having to administer the sites. The City would pay somewhere between $2.5 and $3 million. Mr. 7aner's proposal was that the City pay the PAUSD $ 3 million per year and receive some kind of right of first refusal on the buildings if the. PAUSD wished to sell them, but the PAUSD would retain control over all the buildings and the City would have cc trot over the playing fields. , He commended City Attorney Diane Northway and Senior Assistmnt City Attorney Sandy Sloan for teir efficiency. Since the PAUSD was also _ 57--44 4/06/87 As corrected 5/04/87 considering another alternative, they hoped to have the mat- ter oe ehe agenda for the last meeting in April or the first one in t'ay. The PAUSD needed to decide whether to partici- pate in putting the utility tax or parcel tax on the ballot in November. The most recent meeting of the PAUSD's Citizen Advisory Committee considered whether a tax election was feasible, andw►hether the PAUSD should participate in a par- cel tax, the lease idea, or general obligation bonds. The Committee was scheduled to report back to the School Board at the end of April. At that point, he believed it was fair to say more people on the Committee favored the parcel tax than the lease or utility tax idea. Council Member Cobb said Mr. Zaner's proposal was known as the "unlease." The "unlease" was extremely simple compared to the flexibility of the lease idea. The assignment was to work out a lease, arrangement with the PAUSD; and, since the unlease" was not a lease, it was not sensible to pursue the idea in that context. However, he believed the approach should be considered. It was agreed the "Less Grand Lease" seemed preferable to the "Greed Lease Idea," and as far as he was concerned, the "Grand Lease Idea" was not presently under consideration. Whatever document returned for final consideration would be one which everyone agreed upon and the City Council and PAUSD would have a chance to go through it in some detail. Council Member Renzel referred to the "Less Grand Lease," and asked whether consideration was given to a roll --over provision so the_ lease would continue through failure to give notice. If not, she queried what mechanism would be used to roll back the utility tax. Council, Member Klein said consideration ; was not given to a roll- over of the lease. He believed the I5 -year period was the maximum the PAUSD was comfortable with and if the lease went through, what happened after the year 2003 would be up to the people in charge then. Council Member Renzel said it they knew the lease would end in 15 years, one would assume at 14 years a plan fortransi- tion would be made. Council Member Klein assumed if the lease went through and if the two agencies wanted to renew the lease, they •would start negotiating two or three years in advance of the ter- mination date, which would really be the same thing as a; roll-over. Council Member Renzel said it seemed a notice provision could accomplish the' roll-over and would still give the PAUSD flexibility. City Attorney Diane Northway said as a general purpose._ tax; she . did not believe Council would want to tie it into any term. The City's position of a general purpose tax was strengthened by the fact that it would continue <<,beyond the duration of any lease agreement with the PAUSD. Council Member Cobb said the meetings focused on the form, structure and coverage of the lease and not how Wu the tax should be or any of the other issues. The other issues would be decided once a lease was in hand. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked whether consideration was given to any form of credit toward ultimate purchase if that became an appropriate action. Council Member Klein said the staffs were directed by the City/ School Liaison Committee to prepare a lease on the "Less Grand Lease" idea. He believed only one document would be brought forward from the Committee for the City Council and PAUSD and it would be the -`Less Grand Lease* idea assuming they could agree on the remaining points. The sub- ject of credits was brought up from time to time, and what was currently an the lease was a continuation of the credits the City was presently entitled to under the lease of the athletic fields at Jordan and Cubberiey. The City would not get.. any additional credits against any potential purchases frail the additional sums of money the City would pay to the PAUSD for the lease and the no development clause. Vice Mayor Sutorius referred to the utility user's tax and the previous estimate of what such a tax might produce in the way of revenue at various percentage steps of application. Measked whether the estimate was refined and whether any adjustments were made by reason of accounts which would not be subject to the tax or any changes with respect to the estimated sales revenue against which the utility users tax would be applied. Director of Finance MarkHarris said the earlier report esti- mated more gas and electric revenues' would total amount $86 millionnext year and that each percent would raise about $860,00. Since then more refining was done. On the pos-- tivw end, potential revenues were looked at through the tele- Phpries which were not as easy to ascertain as thek:City's own revenue. PacSell, AT&T, Sprint and MCI were the four major carriers applicable to the tax and they had a° -their: own 57.46 4/06/87 regulations. They could not charge the tax interstate and could not charge a tax if the lines were leased as private lines, but the figure came out to about an additional $15 million. On the other hand, public agencyusers were exempt by law so the City, PAUSD, Veteran's Hospital, County -and State facilities within the City would not be subject to the tax. Id addition, by law some private sector institutions could not be subjected to the tax, i.e., banks and insurance;:' companies. Given those figures, about $90 million worth o e utility revenues were potentially subject' to the tax. Oft; that, about $75 million would be the City's water, gas and', electric utilities. The previous figure of $.86 million per percent would be increased to about $.9 million per percent if the tax were applied as discussed and applied across-- the-board. Council MeMher Klein said staff was also looking at dif- ferent ways of configuring a utility user's tax rather that just a percentage across-the-board, and whether there could be different things such as lifeline rates, a cap on rates at the top end, and whether it could be configured on other than a linear basis. Mr. Harris said they considered a number of broad -based conceptual approaches like excluding lifeline or charging strictly the nonresidential customers. .They used a base of $4 million as a starting figure. If a flat rate were charged to everyone eligible to raise $4 million, the . per-- centage would have to be 4.5 percent across-the-board. It they a eluded residential customers entirely and only applied the tax to nonresidential customers, the rate ' would have to be 6 percent acr_seethe-board. They tried a differential rate but it looked like the nonresidential cus- tomers paid about 75 percent of $4. million or about $3 mil- lion at the 4.5 percent level.* if they made the rate4 per- cent, they would have to charge residential customers about 5.6 percent. If they retained the lifeline allowances cur- rently built into the electric, water and gas rates and exempted those sales from the taix, they would have to charge all other consumption 5.2 percent across-the-board.. Por residential customers, they would average less than 5.2 percent ---anywhere from zero percent if they just used the lifeline allowance. A largecustomer might see . their over- all tax approach be 4 or 5 percent depending on their con- sumption. Staff had a problem with a cap in the sense that wherever it was cut, everyone else had to Bake up for it*.: In essence, a cap betas a bill for the top two or thre users within the system. They could calculate -it,. but 1 turned out the top three users were so large, the signifi- cant revenues : would be lost. The question was whether they tax was fair at some flat rate and it probably was. Just because someone was twice as large might not be a bad proxy for them paying twice as much tax. The cap was put to the side because there were manv problems. He believed the approach should be to lower the percentage as a means of capping some of the large utility users as opposed to trying to say no one would be charged more than $100,000 or $200,000 a year. Council Member Klein said if, the rate was 5.6 percent for residential and 4.00 •nonresidential, he asked about the percentage of tax to be raised by each. Mr. Harris said about $2.6 million would be nonresidential and $1.4 would be residential. It would still be almost two-thirds nonresidential Council Member Bechtel asked about the timing of the environmental impact report (EIR). The particular item generated a lot of mail. Council Member .Klein said the EIR was not formally discussed by the City/School Liaison Committee. Rosemarie Bednar, PAUSD Property Manager, 25 Churchill Avenue, said the PAUSD urged Council to schedule',considera- tion of the EIR certification and rezoning of the Jordan site not later than the end of April. The process to revise the zoning was initiated about 15 months ago as a result of suggestions by the City/School Liaison Committee. It was in the best interests of the PAUSD for the matter to be con- sidered as soon as passihie. Alison Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, Chaired the Standing Committee on the Arts and Sciences. The Committee liked the concept of the "Less Grand Lease," and attended Planning Commission and Jordan zoning meetings along with the neigh- bors and viewed the subject as citizens and as advocates of the arts. .The Planning Commission made decisions based on faulty comparisons i.e., use of Jordan by community organi- zations might be as heavy as the Jewish Community Center use of Terman. The City was the only one who could legitimately say it was in the best interests to use Jordan with less density. Decisions were made which, assumed community organisations under the present modified proposal for zoning Jordan would be possible. When the PAUSD administered a lease, they got top dollar. Under the proposed zoning, even with its modifications, there was little chance that any of the arts or community groups could use it. A City lease of the facilities was needed. As part of the "Less Grand Lease" proposal, she urged consideration of the possibility of including the Cubberley Theatre and the Spangenberg Theatre. When Stanford Middle School was closed, Spangenberg Theatre would no longer have the technical help of high school students which it presently relied on. Cubberley Theatre was not fully available for art groups and those were fairly small items in the large list of facili- ties. They believed ways could be found to administer the facilities which were not as expensive as what might be expected. She urged they go ahead with the "Less Grand Lease" because it had something positive and satisfying to offer the community. Betty McCroskey, 4158 Oak Hill, referred to the Jordan site, and hoped the City would not lock itself into rigid high parking requirements. The requirements for parking, if the City leased Jordan, were likely to be different than if the PAUSD had Jordan. The parking requirements in the EIR report were based upon certain assumptions presented by the PAUSD as a fictional mix of tenants. The PAUSD believed -it needed to rent the space for optimum use of the site at optimum price in order to bring in the funds for the schools. The City might not have that goal in mind and could, particularly with a mini Fort Mason concept,-- need less parking requirements. She understood the current pro- posal was based on a potential overlap of users. There was no assumption that some of the users would walk or ride their bicycles. In Palo Alto, and particularly with certain nonprofit groups, there would be a lot of cycli t s. For the benefit of the community and the PAUSD, it made sense for the City to manage both Spangenberg and Cubberley audi- toriums. The Ci ty ' already managed theaters and the Cultural Center had the staff to do so. Council Member Patitucci believed the "Less Grand Lease" proposal was consistent with the original intent and improved on it from the standpoint.. of a property management. In reducing the number of properties, they were not reducing the potential for developments. A key to the original pro- posal was to try and get property out of a set of i_reum- stances where the PAUSD believed it had to maximize rev- enues, which conflicted with the neighbors and created potential problems in zoning and EIRs with the City. The four sites taken out of the proposal would still have devel- opment limitations on them only the City would be respon- sible for maintaining and managing two properties, which lowered the City's possible costs. He seconded Council Member Klein's comments and encouraged the City/School Liaison Committee to eentinue its efforts on the "Less Grand Lease" proposal. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked how Council would address the lease in the time frames discussed and how it would dovetail or cooreiinate with addressing the financing aspects of the utility user tax and the considerations in the conceptual discussions that the infrastructure would be addressed potentially via the utility user tax or some portion of it. Council Member Klein said it would be tough to consider everything if they stayed with the November election time line. There was dissent among the PAUSD members regarding the financial situation and whether November was the right time. If they assumed November was the right time, the time line established was to get things back to Council and the PAUSD to provide two months to consider the terms of the lease and to design a utility users tax if the lease looked like it would fly and would be financed in that way. From the Council's standpoint,- the two things could go- forth concurrently. The:Thet intent was to get the lease back to Council as soon as possible in order to have the maximum amount of time for review. There was time built in so if Council liked everything in the lease except one section, they could go back and renegotiate :it. Ms. Northway said if they went with a November election, the measure would have to be in place and ('n>»r•i l +"ou!d have to adopt a resolution placing the matter on the ballot on. July 13, 1987. Council would be approving the lease in concept because it would not be executed until the end of 1987 or the beginning of 1988. Council Member Cobb said conceptually the lease would estab- lish some kind of goals, if not specific dollars, in terms of a revenue stream to be_ projected back. to the PAUSD, which in turn would set a kind of minimum tax to be passed in order to satisfy the conditions of the lease as perceived by the PAUSD. If a specified stream of revenue to the PAUSD was created, plus a stream of revenue to possibly improve the City's infrastructure, it would set what the tax level would have to be. Other issues to be considered would be whether to have some kind of split rate, lifeline, etc. As the people from the PAUSD tried to decide what they wanted to do, the .nature of the proposal to be put to the voters was something they would like to know as soon as possible. He imagined the magnitude of the tax would have some bearing on whether they believed it to be a good or bad idea. Council Member Patitucci said the lease prop ,sal was an effort on the part of the City to lease land from the PAUSD in order to try and avoid the kind of conflict and neighbor- hood; dissention and problems they were starting to see 57.50 4/06/87 As corrected 5/04/87 :. result from the EIR process., If the EIR process went ahead simultaneously, he was not sure they might not be sending a wrong message to the people they wanted to vote on the utility tax/lease proposal if that was what the school dis- trict found to be most favorable. He was concerned by the request to move the matter ahead quickly since he understood the PAUSD would make a decision in early May as to whether to go with a parcel tax or a lease proposal. If they went with a lease proposal, ultimately the decisions on land use would be the City's and they might he able to avoid a lot of the anxiety and the problems inherent in processing the EIR and rezoning the property. On the other hand, if the PAUSD proposed to go ahead with the parcel tax approach, he sus- pected the parcel tax plus lease income would be important to the PAUSD. He asked about the next City/ School Liaison Committee meeting and whether Council could recommend the matter be put on the agenda so the committee members who represented two political bodies could decide where and when it was appropriate to tie in the EIR. It seemed the City/ School Liaison was where the matter should be discussed because there were considerations on both sides. NATION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Renzel, that the EIR be referred to the City/School Liaison Committee for a recommendation as to where the EIR fits in the grand schedule for the PAUSD's decision -making. Council Member Cobb believed the PAUSD was looking at sev- eral alternatives and should any of them not happen, it wanted to ensure the most revenue possible from the Jordan site and that it lost no further time pursuing the option. He heard the opinion .expressed several times over the last year that the process took a .long time, and the PAUSD was concerned that each piece of time lost was a potential loss of revenue downstream. Council Member Renzel did not believe Council Member Patitucci's proposal would delay things extraordinarily. If they were on a parallel track until it was determined whether the City would pursue the utility tax, presumably the PAUSD would not pursue leasing the site.. until the issue was resolved. Because zoning changes required a period of time to elapse before they became final, the timing could be arranged such that if the utility tax was put ors the ballot, the process would go along so the zoning would take place approximately the time of the- election so they would know prior to any final decisions the results of -the election. It did not seem it would cause undue delay if .it was the intent , of the PAUSD- to leave the sites open until an election resolution. City Manager. Bill Zaner said while the Jordan EIR was of critical importance to the PAUSD, it might also be important to the Council in determining whether it wished to proceed with any of the lease arrangements. It was understood that if the City leased Jordan, the uses to which they Ci ty put the property might be different from those to -Vhich the e, PAUSD would put the property. The ,information irt* the EIR, now being reviewed by the Planning Commission, *as basic data about kinds of uses and the relative impacts, would be F ° valuable to the Council when it looked at the lease to determine whether the types\of uses would be acceptable for the City. Council Member Klein believed the PAUSD's position was known and while there was always a chance that the two school board members on the City/School Liaison Committee might say something different, he doubted it. He did not support the motion. Council Member Bechtel agreed with Mr. Zaner. She did not believe Council should assume that if the City ultimately ended up leasing the Jordan property for example, that the planning decisions made by the City Council would be any easier: than if made : by the PAUSD;. There was a planning process in terms of certifying ari EIR and Council • should continue with the process. Council Member Patitucci said the EIR was currently scheduled for Monday, May 4, 1987. He expected the PAUSD wanted Council to consider it in April. He queried whether the date would be changed at the request . of the PAUSD. The Tuesday, May 5 greeting was the meeting at which the PAUSD was to consider a tax proposal. One of the difficulties- he, saw with the schedule .was that it could appear that whatever decision was made one way or the other might force the issue on the PAUSD. He did not believe Council wanted to be in that: 'position. The question of whether to accept the lease proposal or go with a parcel tax should, be independent of whether Council" approved certain levels of uses on the EIR site., If Council approved the same uses as the Planning Commission, some of which were fairly significant in terms of the neighborhood and would have some impacts and mitiga- tions, and if the PAUSD approved the lease proposal, he queried what ; happened if, between the time the EIR was approved and the ' time there we's a vote, the PAUED found :e tenant at one of the higher levels of use. He wanted some. clarification from the PAUSD of how it fit into the overall sehoduling depending on what decisions were made. ee 57-52 4/06/87 Council Member Fletcher believed the PAUSD would like an indication from the Council before it decided on whether to go for the parcel tax or the lease proposal because if Council indicatedit would limit the intensity of the use, it would licit the PAUSD's options in terms of what to do for the November ballot. Vice Mayor Sutorius said it was difficult to support an action contrary to what the applicant, PAUSD, requested. The PAUSD asked Council to continue to follow the schedul and do its best to get through the process, and represente t' the same position in correspondence and in oral, - communication. It .would be difficult to switch gears and make any unilateral decision because` as he understood the EIR, there were objectives and structures that were blind to whether the City or PAUSD was the applicant and _responsible for leasing. He used the term "blind" rather than °silent" because the EIR was not silent on the potential 'and there was specific reference in the EIR to what the circumstances would be if the City happened to be the possessor with the right to lease. Regardless of whether it was the PAUSD or the City, they had judgments to make based on the content of the EIR not on the content of political speculation. Council Member Levy said they did not know how the yoters would react to the various proposals and they owed `it to them to make as much infortation as possible available which was another reason for having the EIR move ahead. _ He concurred that in essence the .applicant was the one who was most concerned and trying to find a way to solve its financial problems and to have the community support it. Ultimately, whatever was done would have to go. to a vote of the community. Council Member Klein said Council Member Patitucci correctly stated the matter was scheduled for the PAUSD agenda at its May 4, 1987 meeting. No action would ba taken that evening, they were just receiving reports. Something had to first appear on the PAUSD agenda as an information item before it could be voted on. The .earliest the PAUSD would vote would be two weeks later in any event and they might want to have more than one meeting on the item. He. did not expect any action from the school board at least until May 19 and possibly later. *MOM W1TiDIUMIS BY SAM Ale MOM NO 'AMON TAUT