SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 Special Meeting Draft Minutes



SEPTEMBER 24, 2010

A Special Meeting of the Livingston City Council was held on September 24, 2010, in the City Council Chambers with Mayor Espinoza presiding.


Mayor Espinoza called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.


Mayor Rodrigo Espinoza

Mayor Pro-Tem Frank Vierra (Absent)

Council Member Margarita Aguilar

Council Member Theresa Land




1. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Appointing Interim City Attorney and Approving Legal Services Agreement with the Law Firm of Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson.

Mayor Espinoza presented the item and noted that Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver and Wilson (“Meyers Nave”) had done work for the City in the past through the Law Firm of Best Best and Krieger and the firm comes well recommended.

Mayor Espinoza asked if any Council Member had questions regarding the contract.

Council Member Aguilar commented that the Council had received a letter from former City Attorney Hobbs regarding item 5 on page 2 of the contract and she wanted more information on that.

Adam Lindgren from Myers Nave stated the standard practice under the government code, in particular section 825, is for all particular senior City officials to provide a degree of protection in defense where there are claims and lawsuits that are filed for things that are really about their job. He said their firm functions as a member of the City’s senior staff team. Mr. Lindgren noted that their job is to perform at the same level of responsibility that one of the City’s other senior department heads perform. He commented that all that they are asking in this provision is to receive the same protection from the City as other senior members of City staff would receive if they got sued. Mr. Lindgren noted that is outside of their scope of duties or responsibilities and was not governed whatsoever by those provisions. He said Meyers Nave had this provision in contracts with other cities because they would hope that this provision would never have any relevance to the city or Meyers Nave.

Mayor Espinoza commented there were two points that Mr. Hobbs had and wanted to see if Meyers Nave was willing to remove them.

Adam Lindgren commented that if it was important to remove the provision they would remove it, but noted that it was normal for a City official at their level with respect to the other point. Mr. Lindgren added that he thought there was just a misunderstanding by Mr. Hobbs as to the intent of that provision. He said just to be clear they have not removed the provision completely from the contract. He added the other point that Mr. Hobbs raised was a single “S” that was inadvertently omitted from a single word and that had been corrected.

City Manager Warne stated the other issue that Mr. Lindgren was referring to allows the City to use other services. Mr. Warne explained that the City had different attorneys for the TCP litigation and the second group of attorneys related to personnel matters. He noted that for the City’s joint powers of attorneys, the City worked with Liebert Cassidy for many years as it was better to use the City’s insurance company attorneys. Regarding indemnification, Mr. Warne noted that it was not uncommon when lawsuits are filed to name individuals, Council, Police Chief, etc. He commented that it was important to understand that the government code implied that government employees would be defended if named individually. Mr. Warne added that it was important for people, especially at the senior level to have protection and for the City to defend its employees.

City Manager Warne said it was his understanding that Meyers Nave would just remove the last bullet point from the exhibit to the contract.

Mayor Pro-Tem Vierra asked was that a deal breaker to remove those items, but the City would appreciate if Meyers Nave would leave it in. Adam Lindgren said no, it was not a deal breaker, but Meyers Nave would appreciate the City leaving the provision in the contract.

Mayor Pro-Tem Vierra asked Mr. Lindgren to go over what Meyers Nave’s charges would be. Adam Lindgren explained that their agreement provides for a range of charges, a range of rates based upon the experience of the attorney and the particular expertise. He said that different specialties and different levels of expertise are charged different rates. Mr. Lindgren gave an explanation of the rate chart.

Mayor Pro-Tem Vierra noted the rate chart showed the charge for the paralegal was $135.00 per hour. Adam Lindgren commented that Meyers Nave would use very little of the paralegal’s services. He and Jose Sanchez use the same assistant and they do not charge her out.

Myra Bettencourt, 1584 Duke Drive, said Mr. Lindgren never mentioned an hourly rate. She asked where the law firm was from. Mayor Espinoza said Sacramento. Ms. Bettencourt asked if the City would pay for their mileage. Mayor Espinoza said yes.

Myra Bettencourt further asked about Meyers Nave’s hourly rate. Adam Lindgren explained that Mr. Sanchez would charge the City for services at $215.00 per hour, their lowest rate including travel time. He noted that is the same rate they understood that Mr. Hobbs was charging the City previously. Mr. Lindgren added that many specialists would be on the lower end. Only a few people would be on the higher end of the rate scale. Mr. Lindgren said they would evaluate the best attorney and would work with the Mayor and City Manager to pick the best people. He added that if they ever had anyone work with the City and the City didn’t like how they communicate with them, they would find the City the right person.

Katherine Schell Rodriguez, P.O. Box 163, Livingston said that from information she had gathered a rate of$215.00 to $220.00 per hour was fairly standard for a municipality the size of Livingston. She said the citizens have repeatedly heard about the new attorneys getting these high fees and that what the previous attorneys had been charging was outside the range of industry standard, when in fact, they were within the same range as this firm.

Estella Martinez, P.O. Box 281, Livingston noted that Mr. Lindgren referenced providing the City with more experienced lawyers and asked how this was saving money. Ms. Martinez noted the citizens only learned of Mr. Hobbs’ resignation on September 21 and questioned how the Council had enough time in a day and a half to get a new lawyer, or were they already on the Council’s list. Her concern was that the Council didn’t have enough time to go through all the information that was provided.

Estella Martinez (in Spanish) stated, “It seems they already had them on the list ahead of time. The previous City Attorney barely resigned on Tuesday, then on Thursday they received the letter from the attorneys and today they are already going to put them into service. What a coincidence.”

Debra Lopez, 1543 Monte Cristo Way asked if the new attorneys would be able to handle the current pending law suits. Mayor Espinoza explained their contract was an interim month to month contract.

David Blevins, P.O. Box 176, Livingston commented that in the past the City requested that an attorney be present at all Planning Commission meetings. He asked if this was still the case. City Manager Warne said staff recommended that the City continue to have an attorney present at Planning Commission meetings. He noted it was important for the Planning Commission to have legal counsel available in order to make accurate decisions.

Luis Flores 707 Almondwood Drive noted that although the lawyer was already on the payroll, the previous attorney was fired and the new one was hired in closed session. He added that he hoped that whatever legal advice was given in the future that items regarding resolutions and ordinances are consistent with the law.

Motion: M/S Aguilar/Land to adopt Resolution No. 2010-53, appointing Jose Sanchez as the Interim City Attorney and Adam Lindgren as Special Counsel, and to delete the last bullet point from Exhibit A and leave the contract as is. The motion carried 4-0 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members: Aguilar, Espinoza, Land, Vierra

NOES: Council Members: None

ABSENT: Council Members: None

Mayor Espinoza welcomed Jose Sanchez. Mr. Sanchez said it was a pleasure to serve the Council. He is from the neighborhood and graduated from Gustine High School. Mr. Sanchez added that he was confident that he and the Council would serve the community at a high level and their goal was to provide the best services possible. He noted that he would understand all public comments whether they were in English or Spanish.


Debra Lopez, 1543 Monte Cristo Way asked for the outcome of the closed session held on September 21 regarding the Foster Farms appeal? City Manager Warne explained that the Council voted 3-0 to direct the City Attorney to abandon the appeal. He said that other action taken in closed session was the resignation of Jonathan Hobbs as the City Attorney. Further discussion was held regarding the appeal of the Foster Farms lawsuit, how the process of abandoning the appeal worked and the amount paid by the City to the Attorney to litigate this case.

Katherine Schell Rodriguez, P.O. Box 163 Livingston in summary, spoke in regard to the appeal of the Foster Farms lawsuit, the ruling of the court of appeal, Proposition 218 hearings on water rate increases, the amount of money spent on the rate studies, the deficit in the enterprise funds due to increases in water, wastewater and sanitation rates and the future financial status of the City in light of the recent lowering of utility rates.

Mario Mendoza, no address given, addressed the Mayor and said that 80 percent of the community voted for him and whatever decisions he and the Council made, the community supported him. He also spoke in regard to the recall election and the subsequent recall of Mr. Varela and Ms. Nateras.

Myra Bettencourt, 1584 Duke Drive said she was sad to see the water rates go back to what was charged in 1995. She warned the citizens that the community was headed towards bankruptcy if the charges continued at the current rates.

Luis Flores 707 Almondwood Drive, asked for an update on the skate park. City Manger Warne noted that Donna Kenney was working on the first community meeting on the skate park and information would be available soon.


2. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Filling a Vacancy on the City Council by Appointment.

Mayor Espinoza commented the agenda item was to fill the seat that he vacated when he was elected Mayor and normally the person filling the vacancy would serve for the remainder of his term as Council Member. Discussion followed.

Motion: M/S Aguilar/Land to adopt Resolution No. 2010-54, filling the vacancy on the City Council by the appointment of Warren Urnberg. The motion carried 3-1 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members: Aguilar, Espinoza, Land

NOES: Council Members: Vierra

ABSENT: Council Members: None

Myra Bettencourt, 1584 Duke Drive asked if nominations could be taken from the floor or if nominations had to come from the Council. City Attorney Sanchez explained that the community could suggest, but the actual nomination and appointment had to come from the Council.

Warren Urnberg thanked the Council for selecting him to fill the unexpired term on the City Council. He noted he served as a Planning Commissioner for eight years and a Commissioner had to follow the same rules as the Council.

3. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Selecting a New Mayor Pro Tempore.

Mayor Espinoza presented the agenda item for the selection of a new Mayor Pro Tempore.

Myra Bettencourt, 1584 Duke Drive asked why the Council was appointing a new Mayor Pro Tempore. Was it because Mr. Vierra had not done his job? Mayor Espinoza commented that it was up to the Council to decide if it would like to have a new Mayor Pro Tempore.

Motion: M/S Urnberg/Espinoza calling for the removal of the current Mayor Pro Tempore. The motion carried 5-0.

Motion: M/S Land/Espinoza to adopt Resolution No. 2010-55, selecting Margarita Aguilar as the new Mayor ProTempore. The motion carried 5-0 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members: Aguilar, Espinoza, Land, Urnberg, Vierra

NOES: Council Members: None

ABSENT: Council Members: None

4. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Repealing Resolution No. 2009-32 (Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Establishing Water Service Rates).

Mayor Espinoza presented the agenda item requesting that the Council repeal Resolution No. 2009-32 establishing water service rates.

Estella Martinez, P.O. Box 381, Livingston commented that by repealing this resolution the fees would go back to the 1995 rates and by doing this the City would have a deficit.

Estella Martinez made the following statement in Spanish, “What I asked Mr. Espinoza is that by repealing what was done before, are we going back to getting charged for water in the same amount we were being charged in 1995? He responded, “Yes.” I only asked him what is going to happen if they go back to that price. How are we going to maintain the City funds? Are we going to remain stable or are we going into a deficit? Obviously, he doesn’t know how to answer that.”

Mayor Pro Tempore Aguilar commented that the rates were going to be rolled back as noted and the Council would be reviewing the rates before making any future increases. She assured the citizens that their voice would be heard before any changes were made.

Katherine Schell Rodriguez said there was a clause in the resolution that gave the City the right to move forward, but the appeal had nothing to do with revisiting the rates or conducting a new water study. She said if the water rates go back to 1995, this would create a deficit. She felt the Council should have let the appeal go forward, as they did not have to pull the appeal in order to let the numbers go through again.

Anna Galvan, no address given, stated in Spanish, “Congratulations for being in your new positions. I see a lot of people here tonight that were not here before, and some are finding small pebbles in their shoes. Regarding the water rates going back to 1995, I agree with that. The lady says we are now going into a deficit, but it’s not just us going into a deficit. Merced is in the clouds with a deficit. Mr. Richard Warne has put in more grass than ever before. He put in grass over on F Street and Robin. The City owes a lot of money for making the new buildings over on Walnut Avenue. Where did they get the money for that? They got the money from the garbage rate increase we were being charged and that contract has not even expired yet. And the sewer rate is so high. In no other city is the sewer rate as high as here in Livingston, and Mr. Varela never did anything about the sewer. He built new sidewalks, he made new basketball and tennis courts and yet he always talks about the deficit. The City workers take longer time resting than working. They use City trucks to visit people. I myself have seen it. Many of them drive by talking on the telephone. On August 16, they installed a new water meter at my house. I watched them because I had just gotten home from work when they got there. There was a man there, I don’t know his name, but I think he already retired because he suffered a stroke. There were two white guys there. One of them, his phone rang about ten times while I was there watching. Then the lady in charge of the water department came by to help them, too. There were four people there. His phone rang many times and he would just look at it every time it rang. I was waiting for him to answer the phone to tell him that he was working and not to talk on his cell phone.”

Bill Ingram, 565 F Street, congratulated Ms. Aguilar for her appointment as Mayor Pro Tempore. He noted that he served as a Council Member for eight years and knew the agony of making difficult decisions. Mr. Ingram felt there was not one person in the room that didn’t think that rates had to be raised. He recommended that the Council go back and review the rates and then make their decision in an open meeting so the public and the water consultants could be present to comment and express their concerns.

Manuel Mercado, 1449 Second Street, commented that the water rate issue would not have escalated to the point it was now if Mr. Varela had listened to the people.

Luis Flores 707 Almondwood Drive said he hoped a new water study would be done and to cut costs that restricted watering days be implemented. He noted that Colette Alvernaz had suggested that people use water resistant turf so there are other ways to conserve water.

Debra Lopez, 1543 Monte Cristo Way commented and raised questions on water rates, water usage, the past increase and current decrease in water rates, the potential deficit in the water fund and the possible use of monies from other City funds to cover the deficit.

Myra Bettencourt, 1584 Duke Drive spoke in regards to not increasing water rates in the past, recently increasing the rates and now decreasing the rates which could eventually lead to the City going bankrupt.

Council Member Vierra commented on past water rate studies and noted the firm that conducted the most recent study was not selected by the City, but by former City Attorney Subramanian. He said both studies cost the City about $100,000. He further elaborated on the water rate increases and decreases, the cost for water well improvements, businesses that would or could be affected if improvements are not made and the impact to the City if water rates were not kept at a certain level.

Mayor Espinoza noted that the first study was completed by Dan Bergman and in order to justify the study, former City Attorney Subramanian requested a second opinion from another consultant. He commented on that rate analysis, the water rate increases imposed by the majority of the Council and the water rate tiers which he opposed because the costs were too high and the gallonage of water that could be used at the same rate in the past did not compare to the water usage allowed when the rates were raised.

Discussion followed on the rate studies, water usage, well improvements and future rate adjustments.

Council Member Vierra asked if Meyers Nave was one of the law firms that supported the City in its appeal of the Foster Farms lawsuit and asked if they had an opinion on the case. City Attorney Sanchez said he would have to look at the opinion as he did not write the document.

City Manager Warne commented that Well No. 15 was tested for manganese and tested positive for arsenic along with brown water. He noted that at the July 7, 2009, Council meeting the Council voted to approve well treatment costs which at that time were $1 million. Mr. Warne said the water fund had a negative balance and if there was a deficit it made it impossible to treat. He further noted that funds had been budgeted to proceed with the engineering, but as long as the water fund is still in the negative the City cannot move forward. Mr. Warne further elaborated on the well problems and capital issues and noted that if the Council voted to roll back the rates he would urge them to conduct another Proposition 218 study.

Council Member Urnberg said that in the past he had recommended that water rates be raised about $10-$15 and also recommended restricted watering days.

5. Motion: M/S Aguilar/Urnberg to adopt Resolution No. 2010-56, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Repealing Resolution No. 2009-32 (Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Establishing Water Service Rates). The motion carried 4-1 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members: Aguilar, Espinoza, Land, Urnberg

NOES: Council Members: Vierra

ABSENT: Council Members: None

6. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Repealing Resolution No. 2009-33 (Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Establishing Domestic Wastewater Service Rates).

Mayor Espinoza presented the agenda item requesting that the Council repeal Resolution No. 2009-33 establishing wastewater service rates.

Debra Lopez, 1543 Monte Cristo Way asked if the Council could promise her that if they adopted and changed the rates to an affordable amount that they would be able to make the water enterprise fund self sufficient. There was no response to her question.

Myra Bettencourt, 1584 Duke Drive said she had heard some Council Members speak badly about Mr. Warne, but she felt he was the best City Manger the City has had.

Katherine Schell Rodriquez. P.O. Box 63, Livingston stated she had looked at the audit reports and had seen the deficits. She noted that one of the things that Foster Farms sued about the last time was that the City raised the rates too much and another law suit said the City didn’t raise the rates and that was mismanagement by the City. She asked what is going to stop Foster Farms from suing because the City is going back into deficit spending and that was the basis of one of their law suits. Ms. Schell Rodriguez said the City can do another water study, but the City could have waited until the court ruled so we could know if we can actually talk about it. She thought that with Proposition 218 the City could not just raise a utility bill by $10 or $15; it has to have a water study. The rates have to be based on their fair share. The City cannot just base increases on a certain dollar amount in a consumer class or just tack on an arbitrary dollar amount.

Council Member Vierra stated that a judge had just sided with the City on the Foster Farms lawsuit against the City Manager for deficit spending. The judge determined that he was not. He said that Foster Farms, just two days after the City approved their newest expansion to the rendering plant, they have appealed the judge’s ruling on deficit spending that the City Manager was supposedly doing. Mr. Vierra commented that the City is reversing the rates and are now going back to deficit spending, so that means Foster Farms was going to win another law suit.

Motion: M/S Land/Urnberg to adopt Resolution No. 2010-57, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Repealing Resolution No. 2009-33 (Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Establishing Domestic Wastewater Service Rates). The motion carried 4-1 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members: Aguilar, Espinoza, Land, Urnberg

NOES: Council Members: Vierra

ABSENT: Council Members: None

7. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Repealing Resolution No. 2009-15 (Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Establishing Rates for Solid Waste Service Fees).

Mayor Espinoza presented the agenda item requesting that the Council repeal Resolution No. 2009-15 establishing solid waste service rates.

Kathryn Schell Rodriguez, P.O. Box 163, Livingston stated that deficit spending means spending more than you take in. She noted the City would be taking in 1995 rates and paying out 2010 costs. The City is not taking in enough money now to pay for the daily operations and maintenance, state compliance regulations and everything that they want, and to buy a new street sweeper that is EPA certified with the new clean air regulations. Ms. Schell Rodriguez stated that if the City is not taking in enough to cover the costs going out where is that cash coming from, but the general fund. She asked how long before the City runs out of cash and how long before someone decides to sue the City’s deficit spending again which is mismanagement of funds?

Debra Lopez, 1543 Monte Cristo Way stated that rates haven’t been raised since 2003 causing a loss of $141,000. She was glad to see that there is a new Council Member on board who says he is well aware that the rates need to be raised. He did say he made some suggestions at several meetings so now since he is sitting in a position of power and even though it is only going to be for about 40 days; maybe he can make some interesting comments. Ms. Lopez asked can the City promise her that they can give citizens affordable rates. She said the Council has yet to come forward to explain how it is going to do this. Ms. Lopez addressed the Mayor and said, “Mr. Espinoza you have been on the City Council since 2005 and you are pushing this, and if this is what you want, you would think by now you would have figured out some answer to this question.”

Mario Mendoza, no address given, asked how could Ms. Lopez say that the City was losing money when the waste management company had never increased the rates to the City?

Estella Martinez, P.O. Box 281, Livingston said it didn’t matter what the citizens say or come up with; the Council’s mind is made up. But it is very disgusting to see their powers being flaunted. She stated they are the Monte Cristo “gang” and it was sad to have someone say to them that “you have only a few years to live.”

Estella Martinez (in Spanish), “Thanked the Police for being there to defend them from people who go to offend their elders. They should bite their tongue for saying that they only have a few years to live or that they should come and see him if you want to get your refund. That is badly done. What kind of respect is that? They also have seniors. Thank you.”

Myra Bettencourt 1584 Duke Drive stated, “Well another swipe at Mr. Warne. The City has an excellent City Manager and she knows the Council is waiting to fire him. Mr. Warne, I am behind you. God bless you. I will pray for you.”

Council Member Vierra commented that since 2003 Gilton had sent the City a letter every year requesting an increase. He said there were not three votes on this Council and past Councils to increase the rates. Mr. Vierra noted the City just received a letter from Gilton wanting to increase rates by 37%. The Council prior to 2000 set a contract for 12 years and then the City wanted to give notice that it wanted to go out to bid. Gilton had it in the contract and the Council approved it back then that the City had to give a reversal. So the City had to give 8 years, 7 years, 6 years, 5 years notice, and the City could not get out of that contract until 2012. He said there are other Councils a in the past that made errors in their judgment. Mr. Vierra said he would like to ask Mr. Urnberg, Ms. Aguilar, Mr. Espinoza and Ms. Land do they at their homes spend more than they take in. Because that was what they were asking the City to do.

Mayor Espinoza asked Mr. Warne if he was correct in saying that residents pay about $14.00 per month and the City charges $28.00.

City Manager Warne said he didn’t have the paperwork in front of him, but the sanitation enterprise fund includes much more then just trash pickup. It includes street sweeping and a lot of other things. Except for the last fiscal year, rates had not been increased for some time. The sanitation fund did not lose money. It is not as simple as what Gilton charges. Mr. Warne said he was glad that Council had not raised the rates and staff had advised them not to, because if you are deficit spending, it is really impossible to pay the people to pick up the trash. He added that the City had done everything it could to cut costs, but unfortunately, with the rates going back; the next billing would go out at $58.50 if the Council passed this resolution.

Mayor Espinoza agreed that Gilton had asked for CIP increases every year, but for the last five years the Council had decided not to do that.

Council Member Vierra noted that some of the things in the sanitation fund are Christmas tree pickup, the spring pickup, etc.; all of those were extra charges that Gilton charges the City for. He said there are a lot of other surcharges and the City was in need of another street sweeper. He asked where the City is going to get that money.

City Manager Warne said that if anyone had a question regarding those funds, they could look at the City’s budget which is online.

Motion: M/S Land/Aguilar to adopt Resolution No. 2010-58, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Repealing Resolution No. 2009-15 (Resolution of the City Council of the City of Livingston Establishing Rates for Solid Waste Service Fees). The motion carried 4-1 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members: Aguilar, Espinoza, Land, Urnberg

NOES: Council Members: Vierra

ABSENT: Council Members: None

8. Selection of Renter for City-Owned House at 2949 Tehama Drive and Approval of Lease Agreement.

Mayor Espinoza made a presentation on the selection of a renter for the City-owned house at 2949 Tehama Drive, Livingston.

Mayor Pro Tempore Aguilar wanted to move this item to the next meeting.

City Manager Warne commented staff is getting a lot of calls from the applicants because they are trying to make a decision in their lives and he would encourage the Council to make a decision.

Myra Bettencourt 1584 Duke Drive asked how many applications were received. City Manager Warne said three. He said the Council had a copy of the applications along with the credit scores and background checks.

Both Council Member Land and Mayor Pro Tempore Aguilar said they only receive this information last night.

Debra Lopez, 1543 Monte Cristo Way replied that once again they had the applications since last night and were able to read enough information on whether or not to get a new City Council Member, a new Mayor Pro Tempore and reestablish the water, domestic sewer and sanitation rates, but they were having a problem with making a decision on selecting a renter.

Mayor Pro Tempore Aguilar stated that in regard to some things the Council talks about in closed session there was information that the Council could not share with the public. She commented that this is a home that was previously rented by a City employee and a citizen came forward for the Council to consider as to what to do with the home. Ms. Aguilar noted that at the moment the house was being advertised for rent in the newspaper. The Council had no knowledge that this house was going to be rented. She added that the Council had talked to Mr. Warne about selling the house and using those funds for another purpose so it wasn’t necessarily that the Council didn’t know what it wanted to do with the home, the Council didn’t have an option to say if they were going to rent or sell it.

Kathryn Schell-Rodriguez, P.O. Box 163, Livingston said that regarding the lease, that what the ladies were pointing out is that this was a small decision as to where are these people going to put their deposit and move to and not put it off to another meeting.

Further discussion followed.

Motion: M/S Aguilar/Vierra to approve and enter into a lease agreement with Mr. Benjamin Garcia rental of the City-owned house at 2949 Tehama Drive. The motion carried 5-0.


The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:29 p.m.


City Clerk of the City of Livingston

APPROVED: January 4, 2011


Mayor or Mayor ProTempore

The written meeting minutes reflect a summary of specific actions taken by the City Council. They do not necessarily reflect all of the comments or dialogue leading up to the action. All meetings are digitally recorded and are an official record of the meeting’s proceedings. Digitally recorded verbatim minutes are available, upon request, and may be obtained at Livingston City Hall.


3 thoughts on “SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 Special Meeting Draft Minutes”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s