Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING <br />OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE <br /> CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />April 1, 1974 <br /> <br />The meeting was called to order in Room 831, City Hall, 20 Civic <br />Center Plaza at 12:15 P.M., by Mayor Jerry M. Patterson, proper <br />Notice and Posting having been accomplished, with affidavits on <br />file in the office of the Clerk of the Council. The following <br />Councilmen were present: J. Ogden Markel, John Garthe, Harry <br />K. Yamamoto, Vernon S. Evans, James E. Ward, Lorin Griset and <br />Mayor Jerry M. Patterson. Also present were the following mem- <br />bers of the Personnel Board: Thomas K. Griffiths, Waldo Haug, <br />Martin Mora, Irene C. Phillips and Richard Vogl. Mr. James E. <br />Speigel, representing the Firemen's Benevolent Association; Mr. <br />John O'Malley, representing the Santa Ana City Employees' Asso- <br />ciation; and City Manager Bruce C. Spragg, City Attorney James <br />A. Withers, Director of Public Works Ronald Wolford, Director <br />of Planning Charles C. Zimmerman, Assistant City Manager Thomas <br />Andrusky and Clerk of the Council Florence I. Malone were also <br />in attendance. <br /> <br />EMPLOYEE RESIDENCY Mayor Patterson reviewed <br /> the existing employee <br /> residency policy; the <br /> action taken by the <br />Personnel Board, following a public hearing, to sustain that <br />policy, to allow employees to reside anywhere within Orange <br />County; and the notification and recommendation from the Board <br />to the City Council on March 11, 1974. <br /> <br />Councilman Griset stated he would be interested in considering <br />three or four alternatives or possible compromises between the <br />action of the Personnel Board and the requirement of City <br />residency. <br /> <br />Mayor Patterson stated that he would not vote for a City resi- <br />dency requirement, but that it was important to encourage <br />employees to live in the City, possibly by implementation of <br />incentive programs; and that he would favor all department <br />heads living in the City. <br /> <br />Councilmen Yamamoto, Markel and Evans stated that they were in <br />favor of a City Council public hearing on the matter. <br /> <br />Mr. Speigel stated that the Personnel Board hearing had lasted <br />over four hours; that everyone had been given an opportunity to <br />be heard, and that Council should abide by the recommendation <br />of the Board. <br /> <br />Council reviewed and discussed the summary of the testimony <br />presented at the Personnel Board hearing which had been provided <br />in a report dated March 22, from the Director of Personnel. The <br />report included a history of employee residency restrictions and <br />a survey of City Employee Residence Requirements of California <br />Cities between 100,000 and 300,000 population. <br /> <br />Councilman Ward stated that he favored a compromise somewkere <br />between City and Countywide residency. <br /> <br />Mr. Vogl stated that the Board kad been ready to listen to any and <br />all sugges~ons and was ready to respond; that the issue con- <br />sidered was whether or not a change would benefit the City; and <br />that the Board was not convinced benefits would result. <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 111 APRIL l, 1974 <br /> <br /> <br />