Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 1996-05-21 109 City Council, Regular Meeting City Council Chambers 1313 California Street Redding, California May 21, 1996 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Administrative Services Director Starman. The Invocation was offered by Principal Planner Keaney. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kehoe with the following Council Members present: P. Anderson, R. Anderson, Kehoe, Murray and McGeorge. Also present were City Manager Warren, Assistant City Manager Perry, City Attorney Wingate, Director of Public Works Galusha, Director of Electric Utility Lindley, Principal Planner Keaney, Director of Administrative Services Starman, Interim Building Official Gungl, Senior Planner King, Housing Program Supervisor Garrity, Personnel Analyst Sciarra, Assistant Planner Thompson, Plan Checker White, City Clerk Strohmayer, and Secretary to the City Council Rudolph. PRESENTATION RE 1995 ASSURING COMPLIANCE WITH ENERGY STANDARDS AWARD (A-050-250-030) On behalf of the California Energy Commission, Michael Moore presented the City of Redding with a 1995 Assuring Compliance with Energy Standards (ACES) Award. He explained that the ACES Award is the California Energy Commission's way of thanking building departments which support the efficient use of energy in their communities. He could not think of another city where the targeting effort is more effective. He noted that, out of the 500 plus building departments in the State of California, awards are only presented to the top 25 building departments. He specifically acknowledged the efforts of Interim Building Official Gungl and Plan Checker White. Interim Building Official Gungl and Plan Checker White accepted the plaque on behalf of the City. Mayor McGeorge also presented Mr. Gungl and Mr. White with Certificates of Recognition from Senator Johannessen and Assemblyman Woods. On behalf of the City Council, he thanked both individuals, as well as the Building Division, for their hard work. Mr. Gungl stressed that this is not an award which is earned by one or two individuals, but is one that was earned by the entire department. CONSENT CALENDAR The following matters were considered inclusively under the Consent Calendar: Approval of Minutes - Special Meeting of February 20, 1996; Regular Meeting of February 20, 1996; Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 23, 1996; Special Meeting of February 26, 1996; Special Meeting of March 5, 1996; Regular Meeting of March 5, 1996; Special Meeting of March 7, 1996; Regular Meeting of March 19, 1996; and Regular Meeting of April 2, 1996. Approval of Payroll and Accounts Payable Register (A-050-100-500) It is recommended that Accounts Payable Register No. 21, for the period May 2, 1996, through May 16, 1996, check numbers 232493 through 233093 inclusive, in the amount of$3,414,676.61, and Payroll Register No. 23, check numbers 417945 through 418588 inclusive, and electronic deposit 05/21/96 110 transaction numbers 29350 through 29613, totaling $1,232,677.58, for the period April 21, 1996, through May 4, 1996, be approved. TOTAL: $4,647,354.19 Owner's Participation Agreement - re Realignment of Del Monte Street/Industrial Street/Churn Creek Road Intersection (S-070-100 & R-030-200-700) It is the recommendation of the Assistant City Manager that the City Council approve the Owners Participation Agreement by and Between the Redding Redevelopment Agency, City of Redding, Read Investments, a California General Partnership, 4 Links, Inc., a California Corporation; Charles R. Chain, and Ellen B. Chain, Trustees; Dennis J. Riley and Judith K. Riley, Trustees, Robert J. Dicker and Dolores J. Dicker, Trustees; and James J. Bauman and D. Jeanne Bauman, Trustees, Edward R. Berges, Trustee, Dennis C. Barry and Diane C. Barry and Management Personnel Investment Co. , a California General Partnership, and authorize the Mayor to execute document after all the aforementioned parties have executed said agreement Resolution - re Relocation Plan for the Westside Road/Railroad Avenue Intersection Relocation in the Market Street Redevelopment Project Area (R-030 & S-070-100) It is the recommendation of the Assistant City Manager that Resolution No. 96-096 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving the Relocation Plan for the Westside Road/Railroad Avenue Intersection relocation in the Market Street Redevelopment Project Area. Resolution - Property Exchange Agreement with Signature Northwest Partnership and Redding Redevelopment Agency (C-070-010 & C-070-200 & R-030-145-010) It is the recommendation of the Assistant City Manager that Resolution No. 96-097 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving the Exchange Agreement between the City of Redding, Signature Northwest Partnership, and the Redding Redevelopment Agency to facilitate the Railroad Avenue realignment portion of the Market Street Redevelopment Project and authorizing the Mayor to sign all documents pertaining to the same. Resolution - Appropriating Funds for Lake Redding Bridge Project * (B-130-070 & B-050-020 & S-070-050-100) It is the recommendation of the Administrative Services Director that Resolution No. 96-098 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving and adopting the 40th amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 95-153 appropriating $2,851,750 for the Lake Redding Bridge Project. Award of Bid - Bid Schedule No. 3007, Photocopy Equipment (B-050-100 & A-070-090) It is the recommendation of the Administrative Services Director that the Copier Company, a local authorized Xerox agency, be awarded the five-year lease contract for 25 new Xerox photocopiers as required per Bid Schedule No. 3007, photocopy equipment, and the City Manager be authorized to execute the required documents. This action will result in a monthly expenditure of$2,058.00. Annual Aviation Day - Request by Experimental Aircraft Association (A-090-020) It is the recommendation of the Development Services Director that the City Council approve the Experimental Aircraft Association's request to hold its Annual Aviation Day at Benton Airpark on June 16, 1996, beginning at 7:00 a.m. until mid-afternoon, contingent upon review by the City Attorney and Risk Manager as to proof of adequate insurance. Development Services Monthly Activity Report- April 1996 (A-050-250) It is the recommendation of the Development Services Director that the City Council accept the Development Services Department's Monthly Activity Report for April 1996 which covers the following areas: (1) Zoning, Subdivision, and General Plan Amendments; (2) Building and Population; (3) Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation; and (4) General Plan Update. 05/21/96 111 Award of Bid-Bid Schedule No. 3003, 15kV Cable(#2, #4/0, 750 KCM and 1000 KCM Aluminum) (B-050-100) It is the recommendation of the Electric Utility Director that Bid Schedule No. 3003, 15kV Cable (#2, #4/0, 750 KCM and 1000 KCM Aluminum), be awarded to Pirelli Cables North America in the evaluated amount of$264,549.00. Funds for this purchase are included in the proposed 1996-97 budget. Award of Bid - Bid Schedule No. 3004, Treated Wood Poles (B-050-100) It is the recommendation of the Electric Utility Director that Bid Schedule No. 3004, treated wood poles, be awarded to Koppers Industries, Inc. in the evaluated amount of$91,868.00. Funds for this purchase are included in the proposed 1996-97 budget. Resolution - Eliminating Commercial Heating and General Power Service Rate Schedule (E-090-100) It is the recommendation of the Electric Utility Director that Resolution No. 96-099 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding eliminating the outdated Commercial Heating and General Power Service Schedule contained in the City of Redding Municipal Utilities Schedule of Rates, thereby moving those customers to the lower rates contained in the standard Commercial Service Schedule. Award of Bid -Bid Schedule No. 3005, Electric Power Metering Equipment (B-050-100) It is the recommendation of the Electric Utility Director that Bid Schedule No. 3005, electric power metering equipment, be awarded as follows: (1) Bid Group 1, metering equipment, be awarded to the evaluated low bidder, ACE Supply, in the amount of$25,604.37; (2) Bid Group 2, metering equipment, be awarded to the evaluated low bidder, ACE Supply, in the amount of$25,019.00; and (3) Bid Group 3, metering equipment, be awarded to the evaluated low bidder, Ingalls Power Products, in the amount of$6,616.71. Funds for these purchases are included in the proposed 1996- 97 budget. Resolution Awarding Bid - Bid Schedule No. 2993, Combustion Turbine Unit No. 1 Selective Catalytic Reduction Ductwork Conversion at Redding Power Plant Resolution - Appropriating Funds * (B-130-070 & B-050-020 & E-120-150) It is the recommendation of the Electric Utility Director that Resolution No. 96-100 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding awarding a Public Works Construction Contract to Cal Electro, Inc. in the amount of$558,000 for the conversion of Redding Peaking Power Plant Unit No. 1 to "cold-wall" construction (Bid Schedule No. 2993), and authorizing Project Change Orders not to exceed $55,800. It is further recommended that Resolution No. 96-101 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving and adopting the 38th amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 95-153 appropriating $613,800 to convert Unit No. l's SCR to cold-wall construction. Resolution - re Purchase of Vehicles for Electric Department (B-050-100) It is the recommendation of the Electric Utility Director that Resolution No. 96-102 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding authorizing the purchase of three vehicles for the Electric Department through the Department of General Services of the State of California, specifically two new mini pickups from Folsom Ford in the total amount of$22,798.78 and one van from Swift Auto World in the amount of$18,408.39, and a 1 percent service charge of$398.34 paid to the State of California for administration. Funds for these purchases will be charged to Job Order No. 9190-01. Resolution - Amending the 1992-93 Delinquent Assessment Foreclosure (A-170) It is the recommendation of the City Treasurer that Resolution No. 96-103 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Exhibit "A" to Resolution No. 95-22 ordering 05/21/96 112 the juridical foreclosure of delinquent assessments, thereby including delinquent assessments for tax year 1994-95. Benefit Consultant Services - Award of Bid Schedule No. 2991 (P-100-150) It is the recommendation of the Human Resources Manager that the City Council authorize staff to negotiate a contract for the City Council's consideration with the Epler Company (Bid Schedule No. 2991)to provide insurance consulting services during the 1996-97 fiscal year and further direct that staff notify CEB Business Insurance Services of its intention not to renew its contract beyond June 30, 1996. Resolution - Appropriating Funds re Regent Avenue/Placer Street Drainage Improvement Project * (B-130-070 & B-050-020 & S-060) It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that Resolution No. 96-104 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving and adopting the 39th amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 95-153 appropriating $35,000 for the Regent Avenue/Placer Street Drainage Improvement Project (Bid Schedule No. 3018). Resolution Accepting Streets and Acceptance of Improvements - Northbrook Subdivision Tract No. 1747 * (S-070-230 & S-101-019) It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Works that Resolution No. 96-105 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding accepting for maintenance and operation Kinene Court in the Northbrook Subdivision, Tract No. 1747. It is further recommended that the improvements in the Northbrook Subdivision be accepted as satisfactorily completed and the City Clerk instructed to return the securities to the developer, Azi Barzin. Notice of Completion - Bid Schedule No. 2970, Court Street and South Street Traffic Control Revision (B-050-020 & T-080-700) It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that Bid Schedule No. 2970 (Job No. 9525), Court Street and South Street traffic control revision, awarded to Terry Hansen, be accepted as satisfactorily completed and the City Clerk authorized to file a Notice of Completion. The final contract price is $29,163.19, of which 90 percent funding is provided by the Federal High Hazard Elimination Program. Resolution - Appropriating Funds for Lake Redding Bridge Project (Bid Schedule No. 2893) * (B-130-070 & B-050-020) It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that Resolution No. 96-106 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving and adopting the 42nd amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 95-153: (1) appropriating an additional $144,830 for the Lake Redding Bridge Project; and (2) accepting an additional $228,450 in revenue. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member R. Anderson, that all the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved and adopted as recommended. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, R. Anderson, Kehoe, Murray& McGeorge Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members -None Resolution Nos. 96-096, 96-097, 96-098, 96-099, 96-100, 96-101, 96-102, 96-103, 96-104, 96-105 and 96-106 are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. PRESENTATION BY B. ROBERT TIMONE,EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HAVEN HUMANE - re Proposed Changes to Redding Municipal Code Title 7 (Animals) (A-130-150) City Manager Warren stated that he and the Director of the Haven Humane Society, Robert Timone, discussed the possibility of amending the City's existing ordinance to allow Haven Humane Society 05/21/96 113 (Haven) to do its job better. Mr. Warren explained that the City's contract with Haven Humane Society costs the City approximately $300,000 annually. He related that in order for Haven to do its job more efficiently, the City needs to provide the necessary legislation. He indicated that Mr. Timone will be presenting concepts he would like to see the City pursue/implement. Mr. Warren requested that the City Council provide its comments on the proposed concepts prior to staff developing any ordinances or resolutions for the City Council's consideration. Robert Timone related that Haven has provided animal enforcement services for the City since 1982. He stated that in 1984 the shelter received 5,664 animals, of which over 3,600 came from the City. In 1995, the shelter received 11,485 animals, of which 6,480 plus came from the City. He pointed out that the City's population has increased from 47,000 to approximately 80,000 in the same respective time period. He explained that animal related issues increase in direct relationship to population growth, i.e., animal bites. He asked that the City Council consider the following recommendations: (1) Limit the number of animals an individual can own in the City; (2) Using the license fees, create a Spay/Neuter Assistance Program for City residents, thereby reducing the number of animals on City streets; and (3) Increase the penalty fee for non-compliance with licensing requirements. He opined that legislation and education can assist in the Haven's ability to do its job and stabilize some of the costs associated with animal regulations. He asked that the City Council consider the recommendations he has proposed. Mayor McGeorge pointed out that if the number of animals per individual was limited to three, an individual would be violating the ordinance if they were to have a litter of puppies. Mr. Timone replied that the number of permitted animals referenced (three) was only meant as a starting point. He noted that Shasta County currently limits the total number of animals to six. Regardless of the number, he requested that the City restrict the number of animals per household, thereby enabling the animal regulation officers to deal with difficult issues. Council Member P. Anderson concurred with Mayor McGeorge that some type of provision should be made for litters of animals for a specified period of time. Mayor McGeorge recommended that a specific number of animals per household be selected and individuals required to obtain a permit when that number is exceeded. Mr. Warren stated that staff could contact other cities to ascertain how other cities have implemented similar regulations. In response to Council Member Murray, City Attorney Wingate stated that the ordinance could contain amortization provisions which give individuals who own more animals than the allotted number a specified period of time to reduce the number of animals they own. Council Member Murray questioned whether a policy restricting giving away animals in front of businesses and along the roadside would create different enforcement problems, i.e., animals being placed in dumpsters, etc. Mr. Timone stated that the proposal attempts to place a value on an animal's life. Mayor McGeorge suggested increasing all dog license fees by $1 in order to establish a Spay/Neuter Assistance Program. Mr. Timone strongly recommended increasing the differential fee between altered and unaltered animals. Council Member Kehoe questioned whether Haven's contract with the City would decrease if the aforementioned suggestions were implemented. Mr. Timone replied that the regulations would assist in stabilizing future animals regulation costs as they increase on a per capita basis. Council Member P. Anderson recommended that Mr. Timone make a similar presentation to Shasta County, as the Haven Humane Society also accepts animals from residents within Shasta County. 05/21/96 114 This matter was referred back to staff for an analysis and recommendation for the City Council's consideration. GARDEN TRACT PETITION - re 924-942 Yuba Street (L-010) Senior Planner Keaney provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated May 15, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, concerning the receipt of a petition containing 296 signatures from the Garden Tract Neighborhood. He related that the petition lists several concerns regarding the "operation of a drug and alcohol recovery complex" at 928-942 Yuba Street, owned by John Elmore. Mr. Keaney summarized that the petitioners object to this activity for the following stated reasons and are requesting that the City take action to cause the owner to cease operation: (1) It will concentrate up to 30 men with a history of substance abuse within three blocks of Sequoia Middle School; (2)The owner has not obtained a use permit and has not complied with City Building Codes; (3)The owner has intensified the use from single-family cottages to a use that is incompatible for the neighborhood; and (4) The owner refuses to consent to an inspection of the units to verify Building Code compliance. Mr. Keaney noted that the owner has resolved Building Code problems cited by both the Shasta County Health Department and the City Building Division, and has expressed a willingness to solve other Building Code violations as they are noted. At a May 13, 1996, meeting with the owner and neighborhood residents, staff offered to try and reach some middle ground between the two sides. Residents agreed to compile a list of prioritized concerns regarding the facility's operation and the appearance of the property. The owner has consented to work with staff in formulating an action plan and a schedule to resolve the concerns based on what he can afford. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council accept the report as submitted. Eloise Felch, 710 Lincoln Street, related that the Neighborhood Pride Program was started in May 1995 when residents in the Garden Tract Neighborhood noticed that the neighborhood was deteriorating. She stated that in one year, a considerable amount of effort has gone into making the neighborhood a more pleasant environment, i.e., elimination of old cars, etc. She indicated that this particular Yuba Street facility was targeted at the first neighborhood meeting because of the activities occurring at the location and the deteriorating condition of the buildings. She stated that Mr. Elmore has indicated that he will attempt to make improvements to the facility, however, his funds are limited. Ms. Felch related that the neighborhood is concerned about this particular facility for the following reasons: (1) Mr. Elmore is proposing that each house have four to six residents. These houses have no yards or activity area, thereby possibly causing these individuals to walk around the neighborhood for activity; (2) The neighborhood fears these individuals might be aggressive and are concerned about the close proximity of the school and the children walking to and from it; (3) This particular property is right on the perimeter of the City's new Downtown Plan; and (4) The residents are attempting to prevent the Garden Tract Neighborhood from becoming another Parkview area and are striving to be good neighbors to the downtown area. Mayor McGeorge explained that the City has no legal rights to prevent the operation of this facility. John Elmore stated that he met with representatives of the Garden Tract Association about a week ago and, through Jim King's mediation, came to a mutually beneficial solution. He indicated that the facility never intended to have more than 20 residents, instead proposes four residents per two- bedroom house, which does not appear to be an unreasonable density. He explained that in December, the City determined a Use Permit was not required and the decision was later reenforced by the City Attorney's Office which determined the use was compatible with the neighborhood. In addition, he noted that the City has inspected each of the units in the Hope Street Ministry and they are in compliance with the City's Building Codes. He indicated that anyone familiar with the project knows that the aesthetics of the facility have improved and better controls are currently in place than previously existed when it was rental property. He stressed that the plan is to improve the facility, comply with the regulations, and get along with residents in the neighborhood. Council Member Kehoe stated that the Garden Tract Neighborhood has worked hard and has received a great deal of publicity for the activities it has conducted to upgrade the neighborhood. He acknowledged the frustration when situations such as this are encountered; however, he also 05/21/96 115 understood the City's position. He recommended that the City take a more proactive position which is consistent with the law and advise the Garden Track Neighborhood of activities it should undertake to keep this presumed problem localized. Council Member Murray suggested that representatives from the City's Housing Authority contact Mr. Elmore to ascertain whether any of its programs might be utilized to assist in mitigating some of the neighborhood concerns. City Manager Warren also recommended that the Police Department meet on a regular basis with Mr. Elmore and area residents to discuss any problems or difficulties. Council Member Kehoe emphasized that he did not want the Garden Tract Neighborhood to feel it has been abandoned by the City. It was the consensus of the City Council to refer this matter back to staff. PUBLIC HEARING-re Appeal of Conditions of Approval for Tentative Subdivision Map S-1-96, Lancer Hills Estates, Unit No. 4, by Laura Baker (S-100-433) The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor McGeorge opened the public hearing regarding the appeal of conditions of approval for Tentative Subdivision Map S-1-96, Lancer Hills Estates, Unit No. 4, by Laura Baker. The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: Affidavit of Mailing -Notice of Public Hearing Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Public Hearing Planning Commission recommendation dated May 10, 1996 City Clerk Strohmayer advised that no protests were received. Principal Planner Keaney provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated May 10, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, concerning the appeal of approval of Tentative Subdivision Map S-1-96, Lancer Hills Estates, Unit 4, by Laura Baker. Mr. Keaney explained that subsequent to the Planning Commission's approval, the applicant submitted an appeal requesting a modification to Condition 17, which limits the height of fill slopes along the south property line of the project. He stated that the lot was previously mass-graded, resulting in steep slopes with an approximate 10-to 14-foot grade differential from the bottom of the slope to the top of the building pad along the south property line. He related that the Cinemark property is located directly to the south of the subdivision, and an eight-foot-high block wall has been constructed along the property line. In summary, Mr. Keaney stated that Condition 17 limits the grade change to no more than five feet between the building pads and a drainage gutter along the south property line, which is necessary to intercept storm water and carry it east toward Browning Street. He indicated the applicant objects to the limit of five feet and has requested that the grade differential along Lots 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 be increased from five to eight feet. He explained that staff is concerned that an eight-foot-high block wall and an eight-foot-slope would create the effect of a "drainage alley" along the rear of the property. In addition, it is believed that this would result in an area for collection of discarded debris, thereby creating problems for the property owners, the City, and Cinemark. Mr. Keaney explained that since the staff report was prepared, staff has had discussions with the applicant and a letter was received which focuses on drainage and how the drainage would be handled. He stated that in staff's opinion, the issue is the slope and what will be done in that location regardless of where the drainage goes. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council deny the appeal and that the Planning Commission's approval of a maximum five-foot slope along the south property line should not be changed. 05/21/96 116 Council Member R. Anderson questioned whether the letter from Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard dated May 21, 1996, had any bearing on the City Council's action this evening. City Attorney Wingate related he was having difficulty connecting the letter with this evening's action, as drainage is not an issue of the appeal. Mayor McGeorge questioned whether the applicant's proposal is within the parameters of the existing grading regulations. 111 Mr. Keaney replied that there is no question that the depth of the slope would meet the minimum requirements of the grading ordinance. He explained that the grading ordinance is essentially designed to address erosion control and engineering standards. He stated that the grading ordinance is not the real issue here, and the real issues are the design of the subdivision, the community's long- term wishes and the definition of an attractive subdivision. Applicant Laura Baker stated that her main concern involves the condition imposed relative to the grading ordinance. She indicated that it is her desire to develop her project in a manner which is consistent with the City's grading ordinance and without having to incur a substantial expense to remove the dirt from the property as required by the City's current condition. She pointed out that this is the same quantity of dirt that was on the site prior to the Cinemark development. She opined that it would have been more appropriate for the City to address this issue prior to approving Cinemark's grading plans and construction occurring on the site. She related that the Cinemark grading plan is almost identical to the plans submitted for her project, whereby the City approved fill on her site up to 12 feet. She noted that the work actually completed on her site by the Cinemark developer was not according to the plan. With regard to the area becoming a dumping location for debris, she doubted, that given the cost of the units(in excess of$300,000), that the property owners would allow this to occur. In an effort to alleviate these concerns, she expressed a willingness to enter into some type of maintenance agreement for an easement in the drainage area to allow debris to be removed and to fence both the east and west sides of the drainage ditch to keep people out of the area. Ms. Baker stated that one of the options to complete the grading in the manner suggested by staff is to construct a retaining wall across the southern boundary of the site. She related that according to an estimate she received, she is being asked to add an additional $48,000 to the project for something staff considers to be aesthetically pleasing, or an extra $8,000 to each of the back lots. As the developer, she asked to retain the right to make aesthetic decisions, which ultimately result in added project costs. She opined that the grading ordinance should not be changed on a case-by-case basis, but should go through a formal process which is eventually approved by the City Council. She stated that permitting the grading ordinance to be enforced in a more stringent manner effectively sets a precedent for allowing staff to redesign projects based on something other than the written grading ordinance and creates an uneven playing field. Ms. Baker disagreed with staff's statement that the Cinemark project did not cause drainage problems on her property. She stated that the Cinemark project diverted the water from its original path, but the question of when and who constructed the ditch has not yet been resolved. She indicated that discussions are underway with Cinemark and she anticipates that the issue will be resolved in a manner that will result in Cinemark extending its storm drain system to the southerly edge of her property. She noted that the concept of a shared slope solution was not offered by the Cinemark developer or the City. She stressed that had it been known that the height of the fill on the rear of her property would be limited, she would not have objected, but welcomed the shared slope solution. Ms. Baker asked the City Council to allow her to construct her project in a manner which is consistent with the City's grading ordinance and the surrounding area. In response to Mayor McGeorge, Mr. Keaney related that Condition 28 was added at the Planning Commission hearing. He explained that the Planning Commission was concerned about debris accumulating in this location if there was a fence at the top of the property, as well as the bottom, thereby creating a box, and the question of who would be responsible for the maintenance. He stated that the Planning Commission believed a safety railing would at least provide a perception or obligation to maintain the area. 05/21/96 117 Council Member P. Anderson noted that the applicant appears willing to provide alternatives to this problem and the project appears to be in compliance with the City's grading ordinance. She opined that the problem regarding the sound wall is not one which was created by Ms. Baker. Duane Miller, the applicant's engineer, depicted the difference between a five-foot slope and an eight- foot slope. He stressed that the applicant is requesting permission to design the project in a manner consistent with the latitude provided to other developers. Mayor McGeorge determined that there was no one else present wishing to speak on this matter and .11 closed the public hearing. Council Member Murray stated that he visited the site in question and noted that the existing block wall stops in approximately the middle of Ms. Baker's property, at which point the slope begins to increase. He also pointed out that there is a flat area approximately 20-feet wide at the bottom of the existing slope. He explained that some type of ditch will be required regardless of whether the appeal is upheld or denied and has nothing to do with the conditioning of this particular project. Council Member Murray noted that the water is washing out the dirt from underneath the sound wall at the Cinemark location. Mr. Keaney related that the Cinemark developer has until the end of June to address the landscaping and drainage problems on the property or the City will utilize the developer's performance bond to have the work completed. Council Member Murray stated that the applicant makes a compelling argument for overturning the Planning Commission's decision. He believed that if the City is going to have a grading ordinance, developers should be able to rely on it when making long-range property decisions. He opined that the grading ordinance is not the appropriate method in which to address aesthetic concerns. He favored upholding the applicant's request. In response to Council Member R. Anderson, Mr. Keaney stated that the applicant will be required to address grading and drainage when the final plans are submitted. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, to uphold the applicant's request and permit grading in Lancer Hills Estates, Unit 4, as per the minimum requirements of the City's grading ordinance. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes PUBLIC HEARING - re Landscape Maintenance District A (A-170-075-050) The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor McGeorge opened the public hearing regarding Landscape Maintenance District A. The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public Hearing Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Public Hearing Staff recommendation dated May 9, 1996 City Clerk Strohmayer advised that 18 letters of protest were received. Senior Planner King provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated May 15, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, concerning the ramifications if the property owners within a landscape maintenance district choose to dissolve the district. Senior Planner King highlighted the Report to City Council dated May 9, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, concerning the proposed 1996-97 assessment for Landscape Maintenance District A in the amount of$25.37 per lot. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council adopt the necessary resolution levying the 1996-97 assessment for Landscape Maintenance District A in the amount of$25.37 per lot. 05/21/96 118 James Wirth, 2572 Western Oak Drive, provided the City Council with a packet of information containing photographs and an inspection report of various properties within Landscape Maintenance District A, incorporated herein by reference. He related that if the City Council, City management, the contractor, and the residents are not adequately communicating, no significant improvement will be seen with regard to the maintenance being provided in the various landscape maintenance districts. He stated that in speaking with residents in Landscape Maintenance District A, he did not encounter anyone particularly pleased with the maintenance being provided. He noted that everyone agreed that the concept is good and should continue, however, there is concern regarding the cost. He opined that if systemic changes are not made in the scope of work and the way the districts are managed, costs will continue to escalate. He stressed the need for the City to provide an oversight function over the maintenance work being performed, as the property owners have no recourse. He stated that restrictions also need to be placed on developers as to the type of landscaping utilized and consideration should be given to the maintenance level required and its ultimate cost impact on future property owners. He recommended that cost saving measures be implemented and the contractor's bond utilized to resolve any damage created the past two years, thereby restoring the districts back to their original conditions. Pat Wirth related that the scope of work the contractor is required to follow is very thorough, and questioned why the contractor is not held to that contract, i.e., 24-hour response, weekly litter pickup, etc. She stated that a review of approximately two-thirds of area comprising District A shows that the problem is not isolated to her particular subdivision. Jim Wirth offered to provide the City pro bona consulting and become involved in trying to solve problems relative to the landscape maintenance districts. City Manager Warren accepted Mr. Wirth's offer and recommended deferring action regarding the award of the 1996-97 maintenance contract. He stated that deferring this action would allow staff time to meet with Mr. Wirth and residents in the area to review the contract, the scope of work, and the numbers which affect their assessment. Mr. Wirth stated that due to the small window period, he would prefer to meet and discuss ways to reduce next year's assessment. Jim Patterson, owner of The Yard Manicurist, opined that the major problem with the landscape maintenance districts is that fact they are under funded and the wrong material is utilized in a number of areas. He stated that irrigation vandalism occurs daily and related that when the timers were turned on in District A, it was necessary to replace 100 bubblers. He recommended that the City mulch the beds every three years so the irrigation is covered up, thereby eliminating some vandalism, and improving the districts' overall appearance. He related that the plants which are utilized should be hearty and able to withstand the weather. In addition, he stated that the City needs to ensure that the irrigation system and plants are properly installed and staked before assuming responsibility for the area. He indicated that his company provides 24-hour service, however, it sometimes takes considerable time to locate the problem. He also explained that the City's procedures make it difficult to replace plants. He offered to also meet with residents in the areas to discuss ways service can be improved, however, he cautioned that increased maintenance will increase the price. In response to Council Member Murray, Mr. Patterson clarified the term he used, "under funded," meant that more than weekly service should be provided. Mayor McGeorge determined that there was no one else present wishing to speak on the matter and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, that Resolution No. 96-107 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding confirming the assessment diagram and ordering the levy of Landscape Maintenance District A's annual assessments for fiscal year 1996-97, in the amount of$25.37 per lot, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. 05/21/96 119 Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, R. Anderson, Kehoe, Murray and McGeorge Noes: Council Members -None Absent: Council Members -None Resolution No. 96-107 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. PUBLIC HEARING - re Landscape Maintenance District B (A-170-075-051) The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor McGeorge opened the public hearing regarding Landscape Maintenance District B. The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Public Hearing Affidavit of Publication -Notice of Public Hearing Staff recommendation dated May 9, 1996 City Clerk Strohmayer advised that one letter of protest was received. Senior Planner King highlighted the Report to City Council dated May 9, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, concerning the proposed 1996-97 assessment for Landscape Maintenance District B in the amount of$69.28 per lot. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council adopt the necessary resolution levying the 1996-97 assessment for Landscape Maintenance District B in the amount of$69.28 per lot. Mayor McGeorge determined that there was no one present wishing to speak on the matter and closed the public hearing. Council Member Murray recommended that the Planning Commission review the standard conditions of approval for these landscape maintenance districts. Mr. King stated that the number of protests the City of Redding receives is minimal in comparison to other cities. Council Member Kehoe stressed that a disproportionate amount of time is spent each year on these districts, and it appears no progress is being made to solve the problems. MOTION: Made by Council Member R. Anderson, seconded by Council Member Murray, that Resolution No. 96-108 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding ordering the annexation of additional territory, namely Forest Homes Estates Subdivision, Phase 3 (Area 11), into Landscape Maintenance District B, confirming the assessment diagram and ordering the levy of an annual assessment for fiscal year 1996-97, in the amount of$69.28 per lot, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members -P. Anderson, R. Anderson, Kehoe, Murray and McGeorge Noes: Council Members -None Absent: Council Members - None Resolution No. 96-108 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. PUBLIC HEARING - re Landscape Maintenance District C (A-170-075-052) The hour of 7:00 p.m. having arrived, Mayor McGeorge opened the public hearing regarding Landscape Maintenance District C. 05/21/96 120 The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: Affidavit of Mailing -Notice of Public Hearing Affidavit of Publication -Notice of Public Hearing Staff recommendation dated May 9, 1996 City Clerk Strohmayer advised that no protests were received. Senior Planner King highlighted the Report to City Council dated May 9, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, concerning the proposed 1996-97 assessment for Landscape Maintenance District C in the amount of$7.46 per lot. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council adopt the necessary resolution levying the 1996-97 assessment for Landscape Maintenance District C in the amount of$7.46 per lot. Mayor McGeorge determined that there was no one present wishing to speak on the matter and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Made by Council Member R. Anderson, seconded by Council Member Murray, that Resolution No. 96-109 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding ordering the detachment of Phase 3 of the Forest Homes Estates Subdivision (Area 7); confirming the assessment diagram; and ordering the levy of Landscape Maintenance District C's annual assessment for fiscal year 1996-97, in the amount of$7.46 per lot, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, R. Anderson, Kehoe, Murray and McGeorge Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council Members -None Resolution No. 96-109 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. At the hour of 8:55 p.m., Mayor McGeorge declared the meeting recessed. At the hour of 9:05 p.m., Mayor McGeorge reconvened the meeting. APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENTS TO CITY COMMISSIONS (B-080-010 & B-080-600-100 & B-080-150 & B-080-300 & B-080-350 & B-080-450) MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member R. Anderson, to reappoint Lars Stratte and Lucille Muns to the Airports Commission to serve four-year terms expiring May 1, 2000; appoint Leo Graham to the Community Development Advisory Committee to fill an unexpired term ending December 1, 1996; reappoint John Dunlap, Richard Green, and Alan Hill to the Economic Development Corporation to serve two-year terms expiring June 30, 1998; reappoint Dave Rutledge and Dallas Brown to the Planning Commission to serve four-year terms expiring May 1, 2000; reappoint Terry Quibell and Patrick Moty to the Recreation and Parks Commission to serve four-year terms expiring May 1, 2000; and reappoint Ken Seamans as the Recreation and Parks Representative and Al Oertel as the Citizen-at-Large Representative to the Senior Citizens Facility Advisory Commission to serve two-year terms expiring May 1, 1998. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes PRESENTATION REGARDING CIVIC CENTER SCHEMATICS (C-050-025) Les Melburg, of Nichols, Melburg&Rossetto, showed slides depicting Schematic Site Plan Scheme D dated May 21, 1996, as the preferred site plan, the space studies for each floor dated May 21, 1996, and the computer generated schematic elevations. He also displayed various buildings styles and architectural features, i.e., roof types, glazing systems, exteriors, water features, etc. City Manager Warren asked that the City Council convey their comments regarding the schematics to the City Manager's Office. He stated he will keep the Council apprised of any comments or recommended changes. Mr. Warren stated that the Citizens Committee and the Builders' Exchange will review the plans after the construction documents have been prepared. 05/21/96 121 Council Member R. Anderson stressed the importance of having the Project Manager's input as soon as possible. In response to Council Member Murray, Assistant City Manager Perry related that the next stage of design includes considerable interaction among City departments (including employees), the Project Manager, and the architect, with the City Manager's Office making the final determinations. This was an informational item and no action was required. SELECTION OF CIVIC CENTER ARCHITECT (C-050-025) City Manager Warren provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated May 17, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, concerning the selection of an architect for the Civic Center project. He noted that the next phase in the design of a new City administration building will involve several steps leading up to construction. Based upon preliminary discussions with Nichols, Melburg & Rossetto (NMR), staff has developed an outline for a new contract which would accomplish these important steps: design development (May 1996 to October 1996), construction drawings (October 1996 to May 1997), bid phase (July 1997 to August 1997), and construction review (August 1997 to November 1998). Mr. Warren summarized the advantages and disadvantages of issuing a Request for Proposals for architectural services. He summarized the advantages of entering into a new contract with NMR as follows: 1) Project consistency; (2) Performance guarantee - NMR has agreed to include language wherein the project will be bid within budget or NMR will redesign, as necessary, at no cost to the City; (3) Change Orders - With the exception of the changes made by the City to the project after design, changes will be performed at no charge; (4) Fixed Fee - NMR has agreed to perform the balance of the remaining tasks for $762,000; (5) Local factor - He noted that there are advantages to keeping dollars local; and (6) Avoids time delays (minimum four months). Mr. Warren cited the following disadvantages to entering into a contract with NMR: (1) Potential for perception of favoritism; (2)Does not"test the market" - It will not be known whether the work could have been completed for a lower cost; and (3) Does not provide other local firms an opportunity to bid the project. Mr. Warren stated that financial consideration must be a part of any and all decisions the City makes. To this end, he related that the continuity and financial advantages are very strong in continuing with the present architectural firm for the design and development of the Civic Center. Coupled with these facts and the agreement/guarantees the City has received from NMR, he said the reasons to stay with NMR become compelling. He doubted whether the costs could be substantially lowered, if at all, or that any other firm would be able to do more for the City, particularly because NMR has a vested interest in being a local firm and has significant knowledge of the project. He explained that an outside firm, and even local firms which would compete successfully, would have to bring themselves up to speed on the project, perhaps even changing the schematics, at a cost to the City. Given the reasons stated in the Report to City Council, Mr. Warren recommended that the City Council direct staff to negotiate a contract with NMR to design the new Civic Center. In response to Council Member Kehoe, City Attorney Wingate recommended that, due to the time lapse since the original contract and the specific design work, the City enter into a more detailed contract with NMR. Mayor McGeorge pointed out that NMR made a very generous offer in agreeing to redesign the project if it does not come in within budget. He questioned at what point a change order would become billable to the City. Mr. Warren stated that NMR would need something in writing from the City authorizing the change order for it to become billable. He related that this would be detailed in the final contract with NMR. 05/21/96 122 Council Member P. Anderson agreed that an RFP should be issued, however, she believed it should have been done earlier. She also questioned the willingness of another architect to follow through on another architect's preliminary design. She related that she is persuaded to vote for issuing a new contract to NMR because of the financial numbers specified by the City Manager. She noted that the following features of the proposed contract with NMR are rare: a fixed fee, whereby NMR will redesign the project if it comes in over budget and change orders which result because of an oversight on the architect's part will be covered at no charge. She explained that while these figures are hard to quantify, she believed it would ultimately result in significant savings to the City. Dr. Allen Krohn stated that as a business owner who has been in involved with the bid process, business owners are constantly asking that the City be run like a business. He opined that the City is ultimately being requested to make the best business decision, which may not always result in the lowest price. He related that the reason an RFP is issued is to obtain the best price. In the case of the Civic Center architect contract, he did not believe it would be the best decision to issue an RFP due to the inherent risks, i.e., NMR would no longer be bound by the proposed agreement, NMR could increase their fees, thereby resulting an even higher cost. He saw no clear advantage for issuing an RFP and recommended that the City Council award the contract to NMR. Fran Jenkins stated that staff is recommending a contract be entered into with NMR in spite of the City's written business philosophy. She opined that had this work been subjected to the RFP process, NMR would probably come out ahead of any other firm for a number of reasons. It would, however, made the process cleaner and eliminated any appearance of favoritism. She regretted that a project which is so dear to many individuals in the community was handled in this fashion, and it should have been presented as an opportunity for others to submit a proposal on the work. She understood that staffs recommendation would probably be approved, as it represented terrific negotiation on the part of the City Manager, but questioned when the City Manager was authorized to negotiate such a contract. She hoped that in the future, the City Council would give more consideration to its business philosophy regarding the competitive process. Joe Cerami, 10582 French Creek Road, General Partner in Cerami Construction, conveyed that Cerami Construction will not be submitting a bid on the Civic Center Project, therefore, it has no monetary prejudices concerning the project. He stated that the only decision the City can make which will ensure the involvement of a local business is the selection of the design team. He stressed that this decision can mean the difference between a well-run project and a disaster. He indicated that the City has chosen NMR to complete the preliminary design stages of the project, therefore, it only seems logical that it also be retained to see the project through to completion. He explained that over the past ten years, he has had the opportunity to work with both local and out-of-town architects and has found that, without exception, working with local architects is an advantage, i.e., problems are identified and resolved quicker. He stated that the City can maximize local involvement and instill a greater sense of civic pride by electing to take advantage of local architectural services. Council Member R. Anderson stated that NMR is a qualified local firm which has worked on the Civic Center project since its inception in 1987. He indicated that by retaining NMR the salaries will be paid to local people, who in turn will spend local. He believed that the City Manager had formulated some very good terms which the architect has accepted and will be incorporated into the final contract. He concurred that the process should have possibly been handled different at the beginning, however, he believed it would be counter productive to select a different architect at this point unless the City was not satisfied with NMR's work. He concluded that it is in the City's best interest to stay with the same architectural firm. Council Member Murray stressed that the action before the City Council is to authorize the City Manager to negotiate a contract. He viewed the terms presented in the Report to City Council as a beginning, and not the completion of negotiations. Council Member Kehoe focused on the inconsistencies the proposed action has with the City Council's past practices and policies, i.e., the City's Business Philosophy and City Council Policy 1501. He further noted that the action is inconsistent with past City Council actions, namely the request by the Chamber of Commerce for a local five percent preference. He stated that it comes down to the fact that the City Council either believes in the competitive process or it does not. 05/21/96 123 Mr. Warren stated that he wrestled with the same issues as Council Member Kehoe. He believed there were unusual or extenuating circumstances relative to this particular case. He indicated that if a similar situation arose, he believed that the City Council should again consider waiving City Council Policy 1501. He stressed, however, this should be considered an exception and not a rule. Council Member Murray interjected that there cannot be an absolute black and white rule if the City is going to act like a business and do what is in the City's best interest. He related that State law is very clear that the decision on an RFP for services is weighted heavily on things other than money. Given where the City is in the process, he did not believe there was any monetary impact for issuing an RFP for these services. He did, however, indicate a willingness to revisit City Council Policy 1501 with regard to service contracts at some point in the future. Council Member P. Anderson believed Dr. Krohn made an excellent point that approving a contract with NMR is the best business decision for the City. She opined that being too rigid is sometimes not financially wise. She too concurred that she would like to revisit City Council Policy 1501. Council Member McGeorge concurred that the matter could have been handled differently. He also acknowledged, however, that this particular matter had extenuating circumstances that warranted waiving City Council Policy 1501. MOTION: Made by Council Member R. Anderson, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, to authorize the City Manager to negotiate a contract with the architectural firm of Nichols, Melburg & Rossetto to design the new Civic Center. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, R. Anderson, Murray and McGeorge Noes: Council Members - Kehoe Absent: Council Members -None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING - Additional Funding (G-100-030-042) Assistant City Manager Perry related that the 1996-97 Community Development Block Grant funding was originally anticipated to be 80 percent of last year's allocation. He stated a letter was received from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) indicating that the City would receive 97 percent of the prior year's funding or $202,780 of combined new money and money to be reallocated that has not yet been programmed into CDBG funds. He indicated that after deducting various administrative costs, the balance is $170,000. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council refer these funds back to the Community Development Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation for the City Council's consideration. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member R. Anderson, to request the Community Development Advisory Committee to provide recommendations concerning the additional $202,780 (combined new money and money to be reallocated)in Community Development Block Grant monies with direction not to provide additional funding for public service agencies. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes ASSEMBLY BILL 2846 (SWEENEY) - re Annexations (L-040-300 & A-150) Assistant City Manager Perry provided an overview of the Report to City Council dated May 15, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, concerning Assembly Bill 2846 (AB2846). He related that from staff's perspective, this is important legislation as it will prevent the county from unilaterally blocking an annexation to the detriment of the property owners involved and the community and may lead to a more level playing field between cities and counties. Mr. Perry explained that the Assembly Appropriations Committee held a hearing on this Bill on May 15, 1996. In response to the facsimile received from the League of California Cities, a letter was sent to the League to support the passage of AB2846. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council ratify this action and direct staff to continue to support the passage of this legislation. 05/21/96 124 MOTION: Made by Council Member R. Anderson, seconded by Council Member P. Anderson, to ratify the City Manager's action of May 14, 1996, in sending a letter to the Appropriations Committee in support of Assembly Bill 2846 and direct staff to continue to support the passage of this legislation. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes BID SCHEDULE NO, 2989 -Maintenance Contracts for Landscape Maintenance Districts A, B, and C (B-050-100) MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member Kehoe, to defer action regarding the award of Bid Schedule No. 2989, maintenance contracts for Landscape Maintenance Districts A, B, and C to the meeting of June 4, 1996. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes Council Member R. Anderson stated the evidence shows that the current maintenance is not up to required standards. He stressed that the firm which is awarded the contract needs to understand that the maintenance will be monitored and maintenance below the cited standards will not be tolerated. Mayor McGeorge believed that neighborhood volunteers policing the maintenance should assist in improving the current maintenance. ORDINANCE - re Business License Program (L-070-100) City Clerk Strohmayer's Report to City Council dated May 6, 1996, incorporated herein by reference, addressed staff's proposal to convert the City's current business license program to an anniversary renewal date and the associated advantages. In addition, it addressed changes to Redding Municipal Code Sections 6.02, 6.04, and 6.32 pertaining to business licenses and vehicles for hire by eliminating vague or confusing language;removing obsolete provisions; adding additional information; including a penalty provision for new businesses that have resisted obtaining a business license, and providing a procedure for duplicating lost or destroyed business licenses. It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council offer the necessary ordinance for first reading and waive the full reading of said ordinance, thereby converting business licenses to an anniversary renewal date and making various "clean ups" to Redding Municipal Code Chapters 6.02, 6.04 and 6.32. Council Member Murray offered Ordinance No. 2149 for first reading, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding amending portions of Redding Municipal Code Chapters 6.02 (Business Licenses), 6.04 (License Fee Schedule), and 6.32 (Vehicles for Hire), regarding various "clean up" changes and converting business licenses to an anniversary renewal date. MOTION: Made by Council Member Murray, seconded by Council Member R. Anderson, that the full reading of Ordinance No. 2149 be waived and the City Attorney instructed to read the full title. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes City Clerk Strohmayer recognized Account Clerk Twyman for her dedication and the time she devoted to developing this proposal. CLOSED SESSION (P-100-050-124 & P-100-050) Mayor McGeorge stated that the City Council would adjourn to closed session pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6 to discuss the following: Conference with Labor Negotiator Kurt Starman regarding Service Employees International Union - Clerical, Technical, and Professional Employee Unit. At the hour of 10:21 p.m., Mayor McGeorge adjourned the meeting to closed session. At the hour of 10:27 p.m., Mayor McGeorge reconvened the meeting to regular session. No action was taken. 05/21/96 125 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 10:27 p.m., Mayor McGeorge declared the meeting adjourned. APP! !VED: Mayor ; AT EST: ayes 6.49' /I City Clerk I 05/21/96