Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1985-05-20 5-13-85 / 5-20-85 Approved: I Attest: Seal Beach, California May 20, 1985 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:09 p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL present: Mayor Brownell Councilmembers Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Risner moved, second by Clift, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried COASTAL CONSERVANCY AGREEMENT - REIMBURSABLE GRANT - PIER RESTAURANT The Assistant City Manager reported that the California State Coastal Conservancy approved a reimbursable grant to rebuild the pier restaurant in an amount not to exceed $250,000. He stated the term of the agreement is for ten years at an interest rate of 8.86% compounded annually, that the annual payment would be $38,716 should the total $250,000 be utilized. Mr. Joseph explained that the low bid for construction of the restaurant was approximately $181,000, not inCluding interior furnishings, therefore the final grant amount is not known at this time. Risner moved, second by Clift, to approve the Agreement with the California State Coastal Conservancy for the reimbursable grant not to exceed $250,000. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried 5-20-85 PROPOSED 1985/86 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET The Ass~stant CIty Manager presented copies of the proposed 1985/86 budget to the Council and requested that a workshop session be scheduled. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a budget workshop for Thursday, May 30th at 7:00 p.m. I WORKSHOP - GROUP W CABLE The Assistant City Manager stated that Group W Cable requested to make a presentation relating to their proposal, after which there would be a period for questions and answers. Mr. James W. Bequette, District General Manager for Group W Cable, stated he is responsible for fifteen Group W franchises in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and wished to address two issues, quality in cable as westinghouse envisions it rather than the public utilities attitude, and the prOfitability of their cable system. He reviewed the background of their cable system since acquiring it from Teleprompter in late 1981 and the current corporate structure of their organization, noting the required attendance of their management at the nationally known "Quality College." Mr. Bequette reported eight quality measures put into operation in January of this year and reported to management monthly by each cable system, the first being service calls in the home with the objective for 1985 that this be below 4% from a previous 20% for some systems, stating he believed Seal Beach presently at 4.19%, secondly, service call backlog, the objective being no more than an eight hour wait with the bulk of service provided the same day, the objective for installation backlog of three days, with the same objective for disconnects. He cited errors on billings as a problem which is expected to be less than one-half of one percent by the end of the year, computer monitoring for major and minor outages before they occur, monitoring of the average customer call waiting time with an objective that a telephone ring no more than three times before being answered and no wait thereafter, he also acknowledged the recent replacement of the General Manager for the Seal Beach system. Mr. Bequette reported a feasibility study is being conducted to provide a twenty-four hour, seven day per week, service call system manned by Group W people, also that a cable systems training school has been established in Upland and that all customer service personnel will be required to attend. With regard to profitability, he stated that many companies, without the support of the parent company, are now in trouble, filing bankruptcies. Mr. Bequette stated that in the early 1980's there were unrealistic expectations of what cable revenues would be, large sums from burglar and fire alarm systems, which is not economically feasible, data transmission systems, which will be subject to legal challenges, advertising, which is starting to come into being, and pay for view, which is now in its infantcy, noting that all of those revenue projections mentioned were included in the proposals but have not been realized. He stated that in the proposal for Seal Beach about thirty-two percent of the 1985 revenue was to come from these sources. Mr. Bequette offered that cities were as much a party to this short sightedness as the cable companies, noting that consultants would not have considered a proposal realistic that did not contain those revenues, therefore the expected revenues from cable were a mutual mistake. He stated that in their discussions with the City staff they have indicated they are willing to absorb their fair share of this mutual mistake by accepting a less than fair return, noting that without I I 5-20-85 those additional revenues the local programming budget in 1985, if they were on the budget, would require $9.20 from each and every subscriber. Mr. Bequette reported that one requirement of his job is to dispose of assets that have no long term benefit to westinghouse, even if at a substantial discount, and stated he would solicit the City's cooperation in rectifying this mutual mistake made in the early 1980's. Mr. John Monson, General Manager, I Seal Beach Group W, referred to their quality approach standards, stated that Seal Beach has been ranked number one technically for the overall quality of the plant operation, and has received national recognition for same. Also considered to be first in Orange County in terms of signal quality, outages, customer service, follow-up, and programming. Mr. Monsen reported service calls in Seal Beach are handled the same day, usually within two to three hours, customer service calls answered within the first three rings, that the quality of staff has been upgraded, and that they are developing a customer field program for periodic telephone or personal customer contact to further upgrade customer services. Mr. Monsen stated he believed that their proposal will increase the audience for community programming, provide a means to monitor revenues at a lower cost, and allow the quality of service to be retained in Seal Beach at rates lower than those throughout the County. He stated he is seeking the City'S support in allowing Group W to combine the public access, governmental, and local origination channels to facilitate promotion of local programming and increase its audience. He stated there are no commercial plans for the unused local channels and if the six channels are ever required they will remain available for use. He stated it has been found to be more cost effective to concentrate local programming on one I or two channels for greater ease of selection by the subscriber. with regard to underwriting the Cable Foundation, Mr. Monsen stated that their proposal limits Group W's contribution to the $225,000 already provided, with Group W refunding the money the Foundation has provided for local programming to this point. He noted that Group W has not suggested repayment of the $225,000, nor that the City spend its own money on local programming. Mr. Monsen pointed out that the ultimate affect of continuing the contribution to the Foundation would lie with the subscriber, about $1.20 additional per month, stating that given the changed financial status of Group W, they are not in the position to continue to fund the Foundation, and that it is their belief that few subscribers would prefer to pay additional money per month for local programming if given the choice. He stated, however, that Group W still proposes a strong commitment to local programming services which includes telecasting of local events, maintenance and operation of the studio, access training, cable casting, public access and governmental programs, equipment, personnel and assistance necessary for same. Mr. Monsen stated their proposal will allow Group W to control their own local programming resources, freeing the Foundation to determine how its resources would be spent under their guidelines, I and eliminating additional funding of Group W for local programming. He stated the proposed audit statement in lieu of a full audit would reduce their cost by approximately $10,000, producing a saving of about $2 to the subscriber. Mr. Monsen reported that financial figures through 1984 indicate a shortfall of almost $5,000,000 under current trend and if that trend is projected through 1986, the cost of building the system will exceed bid by $4,000,000, that the major difference in revenue projections relates 5-20-85 I to the new services/revenues which were anticipated but did not develop. Also, that the penetration rate was projected evenly throughout the City, which is the case except for the Leisure World area which is approximately 32% under the projection, noting that it is not foreseen that the penetration will be increased beyond 5% to 6% in the next few years. Mr. Monsen stated that Group W is only proposing to raise the rates through 1986 to levels below the current Orange County average, that under the Cable Communications Act of 1984 pay services are deregulated, with the basic rate deregulated in eighteen months. He stated he is seeking the City'S support to raise rates more evenly now across the basic and pay services to moderately increase Group W's revenues and to avoid a major raise to the subscriber when basic rates are deregulated. He suggested that if the City appreciates Group W's financial circumstances it will refrain from directly opposing the deregulation under State law, which will allow Group W to get a solid financial footing in Seal Beach by increasing their revenues from the current 51% of revenues bid to about 55% by the end of 1986. He offered that it would not be in the best interest of the City for Group W to achieve such low revenues since the City receives a percentage of those revenues, also, that the best way to insure that the prepaid franchise fees are repaid within the life of the franchise is to assist them in becoming a successful business. I Mr. Steve Bullock, Manager of Rate and Regulatory Reporting for the Southwest region of Group W, stated he wished to explain their overall approach in preparing the financial statements, reporting that the operating results and balance sheet for 1983 reflect the final accounting statements issued by Price Waterhouse last year, and from that point the actual operating results were added for Seal Beach for the year 1984 and forecast for 1985, and for 1986 they worked with the local system management to forecast the subscriber growth, revenues and expenses. Mr. Bullock referred to the rates for basic and pay services, adjusted to reflect a rate increase in June of each year, the result of which is a reduction in the revenue where only 58% of any rate increase put into effect is realized in the current year, explaining that the ala carte rate effective at the end of the year is slightly higher than the rate listed, for basic service the assumed rate increase in 1985 is $2, bringing the ala carte rate to $9.95, in 1986 the basic going to $10.95, in 1987 to $11.95, thereafter basic rates increased at 6% per year to keep up with inflation. He stated pay rates have been treated in the same manner, in that the ala carte rate at the end of the year is somewhat higher than the rate listed, for 1985, assuming a $2 increase to go into effect in June, bringing the ala carte rate to $10.95, thereafter the rates are increased by 5% per year or approximately 60 cents per year for the next several years. For the ancillary services, Mr. Bullock explained the rates shown are less than the actual ala carte rate, and in this case the affects are not so much related to having a mid-year rate increase but the impact that packaging and its associated discounting has on the actual revenue that is earned by Group W, explaining that Group W is proposing no change in the pricing of these services in 1985 as reflected in the financial proformas, after 1985 the price of these services would be increased by either 5% or 6% in order to keep up with inflation. Mr. Bullock referred to the revenue detail for Seal Beach, which basically reflects the number of subscribers, times the I . 5-20-85 effective rate, times twelve months, noting the only major adjustment being in pay revenues which is affected by packaging, approximating a 5% reduction in revenues. He reported on the line item expenses, actual expenditures that occurred in previous years and a forecast of those expenses for future years, the majority inflated by 6% for each year to account for inflation, and a number of which are affected by the number of subscribers to the system. He explained the expense for corporate overhead as a charge by the parent company for services provided, accounting, legal, data processing, purchasing, etc., that Seal Beach's portion is allocated on a weighted average of homes/number of subscribers for the past year. He reported this cost dropped over the last year because Seal Beach, as a percentage of the total company is smaller than the previous years, expenses being less than 10% of the annual revenues which falls within the 7-15% range which is acceptable to the consulting firm for cable TV. Lastly, Mr. Bullock reviewed the capital expenditures to build the Seal Beach system, the majority of those expenses in 1982-83, some in 1984, and future capital expenditures primarily relating to the subscriber growth projected for Seal Beach. Mr. Bullock stated that as far as profitability of the Seal Beach system, it is very clear that as of this time the system is not prOfitable, and that operating results greater than those currently projected will be needed in the long run. He noted that if you add the cash profit for the franchise period, 1983-1997, it approximates $4,000,000, compare that with the $8,000,000 invested to build the system, that shows Group W will not recoup their initial investment nor the continuing infusion of money needed for the system year after year. Councilman Clift referred to comments on mutuality as it relates to revenues, asking how one could attribute mutuality to cost overruns for the installation of the system, or attribute that to anyone other than the company who initiated the construction, noting the overruns constitute fifty percent of the problem. As to the number of miles constructed, Mr. Bullock confirmed that 74 miles were constructed in 1983, two additional miles in 1984, primarily in Sunset Beach. Councilmember Risner inquired if the City gets credit for revenue accrued in Sunset Beach toward the franchise agreement, if that was included in the expense sheet, noting that the City would not want the burden of the Sunset Beach expense. Group W representatives stated that the report includes the system miles in Sunset Beach, that subscriber revenue as well as the expenses are included, that a franchise fee is paid to the County for that portion of the system, and noting that as far as profitability of the system, it actually improves with Sunset Beach due to the larger number of subscribers to spread costs over. They also noted that part of the overrun is somewhat due to the fact that Sunset Beach was not a part of the budget proposal. Mr. Dick Waterman, Director of Corporate Affairs, summarized that the proposal demonstrates the need for changes to their business conditions, that if Group W is operating at sub-normal profit levels, ultimately the customer will suffer due to poor service or perhaps the system would have to be sold. He stated that if revenues can not be raised as proposed, other alternatives must be looked into, also that it is important to note that all changes being requested do not invoke State or Federal law, stating that they have offered to invoke State deregulation which would put any rate increase on Group W's shoulders without requiring any Council action, however nothing would prevent the City Council from granting a rate increase without I I I 5-20-85 I invoking State or Federal law. Acknowledging that a rate freeze does exist, he suggested that alternatives would be for the City to amend the franchise and award a rate increase, or acknowledge that they meet the state deregulation qualifications and allow Group W to invoke deregulation without challenge. Mr. Waterman stated that if the Council chooses to deny the request for rate relief, Group W has the option to reconfigure the proposed rate structure by increasing non-basic rates, explaining that Group W believes that there should be little question from a legal point of view that they have the right to increase basic rates by 5% under Federal law and increase non-basic rates by any amount. He stated that in order to make up for not achieving the reasonable rates being requested, it would be necessary to adjust the premium rates by $3 per month rather than $2, noting that approximately 72% of Seal Beach customers subscribe to one or more premium services, and if the basic were increased not more than 5%, the approximate cost is nearly the same as what is proposed, however it is felt it would be more equitable to spread the rate between basic and pay, thus avoiding the inevitable occurrance in December 1986 when all rates are deregulated. He stated they are trying to approach a reasonable progression of rates that will yield the revenue necessary to increase the profitability of the system rather than a foreseeable large increase at the end of eighteen months. Mr. Waterman again pointed out Group W is below the County average, $11.58 for basic and $11.04 for pay service, noting that the rates proposed would not reach those levels until 1987. Mr. Waterman stated that although they are seeking to resolve their financial difficulties through negotiation, if Group W were to deregulate under state law and the City were to challenge such action or if litigation were otherwise initiated, there would be some downside risks to the City and ultimately to the customers. He noted that one issue that would have to be made is the question of the 5% franchise fee which Group W is paying to the City, and since a question had previously been raised as to whether the City had requested a waiver for the 3% to 5% franchise fee, to their knowledge that waiver was not sought, and if matters were litigated that would be an issue they would be concerned about. He stated that what was agreed to at the time of the franchise agreement was that they would support any waiver that was filed by the City, however the waiver had to be requested by the City, which they were prepared to support. Mr. Waterman also cited commercial practicability in light of the amount of money spent for local programming and for support of the Foundation, that would be examined under a legal process, as well as expenditures for capital equipment, institutional network, drops for City facilities, etc., to possibly be considered as part of the franchise fee. He concluded that they are trying to accomplish a solution that would benefit Group W to achieve the return on their investment, to minimize forecasted future losses, and with the least amount of impact on the customer. The City Attorney clarified that under the Federal Act, it does provide that if a city is engaged in rate regulation for the grace period of approximately two years, that there is an automatic five percent increase that is allowed unless the franchise agreement in effect on the effective date of the Act, such as the Seal Beach agreement, provides for a fixed rate for a fixed period of time. He explained that in the City'S case, it does provide for a fixed rate for a fixed period of time, therefore the automatic five percent increase is not applicable to the City of Seal Beach. Mr. Waterman I I 5-20-85 responded that while that is the opinion held by many cities, they also have an opinion that would lead Group W to believe that the five percent is allowable and that pay rates are deregulated regardless of any phrase in a local franchise. Mr. Stepanicich clarified that with respect to pay channels, there is no question regarding the deregulation, that the point is the basic service rate, explaining that under I the City'S franchise agreement pay channels were not regulated, only the basic service. Councilmember Risner requested to make a statement for clarification by the City Attorney. She stated that after reviewing the agreement between Seal Beach and Group W, specifically the waiver of Group W's rights under Government Code Section 53066.1 as it existed at the time the franchise ordinance was adopted, which Group W maintains is invalid as being against public policy, to which no citable authority has been found sustaining Group W's position. She stated that despite Group W's claim, there is no California Attorney General opinion indicating that a waiver in 1980 would be invalid, although there is an unpublished letter of the legiSlative counsel indicating that said waiver may be invalid, however the legislature acknowledged the potential validity of the waiver when it adopted an amendment to 53066.1 in 1982, and read Section 53066.1 (e) of said amendment relating to waivers. Councilmember Risner stated she could see no reason or compelling evidence presented by Group W to believe that the waiver would be ineffective or unenforceable. The City Attorney responded that until there is a clear court decision, the issue of waivers is presently unclear, that at this point it would be a policy question on the City'S part as to whether or not it would be in the best interest of the City to deregulate prior to the effective I date of the Federal deregulation. Mr. Stepanicich stated he felt there are strong arguments that the waiver is valid, however it is not possible to give an opinion with certainty at this time and pending the outcome of current litigation in the federal court, being pursued by the City of Fullerton. Mrs. Risner also inquired as to what is covered under the Federal and State deregulations, as an example, basic rates, remote control devices, installation, etc., and what Group W is allowed to do without City Council approval. The City Attorney suggested that an assumption be made that the waiver is effective for the purposes of discussion, therefore the City would have the ability to regulate the basic rates under the Federal Act, which, to his understanding, would include everything in terms of actual service, except the pay services, and with regard to remote facilities and equipment, that would not be included under basic services. He explained that pursuant to Section 623(c) of the Act there are three types of regulations that a city may control until the two year period expires in December, 1986: I) regulate rates, to the extent that it is provided for in the franchise, for basic cable service; 2) require the provision of any service tier provided without charge, disregarding any installation or rental of equipment charge necessary for receipt of such tier; and 3) rates I can be regulated for the initial installation or rental of one set of the minimum equipment necessary for the subscribers receipt of basic cable service. It was clarified that Tier One is a mini-basic service offered in Leisure World only, and Tier Two is the City's basic service. Mr. Stepanicich added that the City could continue to regulate rates for initial installation of equipment necessary for basic cable service, which is Tier Two, also that there is no provision in the existing franchise requiring any Tier to be provided without charge, and 5-20-85 I reported he had not reviewed the franchise application to determine exactly what charges, other than the basic rate, such as the charge for installation, that had been frozen pursuant to the franchise. Councilmember Risner stated that if the City has no control over other charges, such as installation or second sets, etc., and Group W does, it would then seem there are alternatives available to them outside of breaking the franchise contract, adding that she also feels Group W has not adequately promoted cable television in the City, especially in Leisure World. Mr. Monsen stated that the reason Group W is trying to work with the City to raise basic rates rather than on other services, is to establish a reasonable rate structure for all services offered, noting that they could have raised rates for pay services and in other areas since last December without coming to the City, however they feel it is not the best way to market cable in Seal Beach. It was also noted that the basic service is not as price sensitive as the pay services. Mr. Waterman referred to the cable service in the Rossmoor community located in south Orange County where the basic rate is $12.25 per month with one hundred percent mandatory penetration. He stated that at the time of the cable proposal, a long term contract existed with Leisure World providing for a $3.50 per month rate for twelve channel service, that Group W has since rebuilt the Leisure World system, which accounted for a large amount of capital costs, and now provides many new services at the same rate, which is intended to continue for the Tier One service. Mr. Waterman stated he felt they had put forth a good effort to attract customers in Leisure World, given the fact that they could not put door- to-door salesmen in that community, however they have worked with the Mutuals and held numerous promotional events to maximize participation, stating he would like to develop a package of programming and services for Leisure World similar to that in south County. A member of the audience suggested the Leisure World newspaper be utilized to provide the promotion of the cable service. Mr. Monsen added that they want to promote public access in Leisure World, they want to be involved in that community, develop a program that will attact those residents to the cable service, however the concern remains that the penetration may not exceed 25-26 percent. A member of the audience offered that there is great potential for subscribers in Leisure World, given the more than two hundred clubs and numerous activities to draw from. Group W representatives concurred, and offered to meet with representatives and pursue more active progamming in Leisure World. with regard to package services, Mr. Monson explained that the reason they do not wish to veer from the packages is that they are good for marketing and the majority of customers subscribe to the package services. Mr. Frank Laszlo, 4480 Candleberry Avenue, referred to considerations given and extras offered at the time the award of the franchise was considered. He stated it is a general feeling that Group W provides a quality service, however stated that HBO and Showtime should be deleted due to their poor programming, and with regard to revenue deficiency, suggested only pay channel rates be increased. Mr. Laszlo reported that when the franchise was awarded, public access was an important issue as was the requirement for the cable foundation, and expressed his concern that the annual $75,000 may not continue to be forthcoming to the Foundation. He inquired as to what is occurring in other cities with the Group W system with regard to public access, what b~neflts have been taken away, stating it is his U~ndlng that Los , I I " 5-20-85 Alamitos receives a five percent franchise fee plus seven percent that is spent on public access. Mr. Monsen acknowledged that the pay channel programming has been a problem, offering that pressure is being applied to improve those services. with regard to public access, he stated it will continue to be offered in Seal Beach, the equipment will remain, funding will continue, that no changes are planned, and with regard to Los Alamitos he stated he I understood both the City and cable company contribute to public access. Mr. Bequette suggested that if the current public access monies, $225,000, was placed in an investment program at eleven percent, an additional $25,000 could be available to the Foundation annually, noting that if all of the local programming budget was spent, it would cost $9.20 per subscriber per month for local programming if it were necessary to implement those numbers upon deregulation. Mr. Pete Arnold, 1613 Seal Way, member of the Foundation Board, expressed his concern with the proposed discontinuance of the $75,000 annual grant, urging that the grant continue, administered by the Foundation. He stated he had no objection to consolidation of the local programming channels, and if handled properly, public access will increase subscribership, ultimately to the benefit of Group W. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to recess the meeting at 9:10 p.m.; the Council reconvened at 9:18 p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order. Mr. Jay Covington, 4260 Dogwood Avenue, member of the Foundation Board, noted Group w's purchase of the system from Teleprompter, stating the importance of I determining what portion of this situation is Group W's responsibility in terms of capital cost overrides, poor penetration, etc., and what was beyond their control, however stated it is also important to thoroughly determine what is taking place in other cities where Group Wand other cable companies are trying to renegotiate their contracts. Mr. Covington offered that it is important to not give up a favorable contractual provision without receiving something equal or better in return, that it would be unwise to enact a permanent solution to something that may only be a temporary problem, which could be true with Group W, noting that the Group W proposal poses many permanent changes to the contract. He stated his belief that the problem is basically saturation, and that the saturation figure, outside of Leisure World, is essentially as projected, stating he felt the only way Group W will be a success in the City is to increase the saturation level of acceptance and the average value of the subscription in Leisure World. He stated that if the ability of the Foundation to fund and generate local programming is taken away, the Leisure World community is not going to SUbscribe, noting that Leisure World has the greatest potential for local programming in the City. Mr. Covington added that if rates were increased outside Leisure World to compensate for I their low subscriber rate, the penetration in the rest of the City will be lost, therefore the system will fail. He stressed the importance of increasing Leisure World subscribership, this to be accomplished through pUblic access. Mr. Covington stated he did not feel any compromise to Group W's proposal can be accomplished until there is more information and an evaluation made in order to maintain the original goal for bringing cable into the City, and if this can not be accomplished through negotiations, he would suggest the City merely wait and see what happens in the future. 5-20-85 I Lillian Nibblett, 1540 Northwood Road, member of the Leisure World port-a-pak Club, referred to the classes that have been conducted for the training and certification in the use of professional equipment, noting that Leisure World now has a camera available for their use, and reported the participant's surprise upon learning of Group W's charge of $35 for use of the camera. She stated such a charge could make a difference as to whether or not clubs in Leisure World could afford to produce their own programs, and further that such a sizeable charge was not found to be required of systems in other areas. with regard to marketing, Ms. Nibblett expressed her feeling that Group W has been negligent in their marketing and promotional efforts in Leisure World, and offered to work with Group W to alleviate this situation, and described some of the numerous clubs and activities available in that community for local programming, which in time, would encourage subscribership. With regard to service hours, Mr. Monsen reported Group W's intent to expand their service hours, that the office will be open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, and Mr. Bequette again stated they are looking into the feasibility of developing a central dispatch that would take calls after office hours instead of through an answering service. Mr. Carl Mcwade, 1551 Homewood Road, member of the Port-a-pak Club, stated Group W would have to look to themselves for the lack of marketing efforts, newspaper ads, mailers, promotionals, noting that Group W does receive advertising revenue based upon the number of viewers they have, therefore if the effort were put forth the subscribers could be doubled, hence doubled revenue. Mr. McWade pointed out that with good sales people and promotional programs, this could be accomplished. The Mayor and members of the Council expressed appreciation to the Group W representatives for the informative discussion. I I COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Risner reported water seepage in the area of Marina Park and requested that it be checked. Councilman Clift reported the most recent incident of a vehicle penetrating the wall along Lampson Avenue ending up in a residential backyard, and expressed his concern for the safety of residents of the area, potential liability to the City, and requested special consideration be given to this location. Councilmember Wilson recalled that the Bixby Company would be contributing toward a safety barrier in that area. Councilmember Risner suggested that negotiations could be pursued with Bixby to move up the engineering study and construction of a barrier, or that the City go forward and then be reimbursed by Bixby. A member of the audience stated that the amount of money to be contributed by Bixby would not be adequate, also that the City Engineer has indicated a problem with the narrowness of the sidewalk in the area to construct a barrier, and that staff did not look favorably upon a Planning Commission suggestion to make the wall unpenetrable, recommending that a solution could be to allow a special right to the homeowner to construct a barrier on the interior of a property at their expense. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. CLOSED SESSION The CIty Attorney reported that the Closed Session was being held pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 5-20-85/5-28-85 regarding pending litigation, California Coastal Commission vs. Surfside Colony, Ltd. and City of Seal Beach, and Frisbee vs. City of Seal Beach. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened at 10:40 p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed matters previously reported and one personnel matter on which no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT Risner moved, second by Clift, to adjourn the meeting at 10:41 p.m. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, wilson None Motion carried Appr~ed'~ M-<G Mayo ~. ",<1""" ~ 42.--~ Attest: I I Seal Beach, California May 28, 1985 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brownell Councilmembers Clift, Grgas, Risner, wilson Absent: None Also present: Mr. Parker, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Baucke, Director of Development Services I Mr. Hemphill, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mr. Osteen, Recreation Director Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk Mayor Brownell presented a plaque to Mrs. Risner recognizing her services to the community as Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency for 1984/85.