HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 19, 1984 (92)City Clerk Rein -he presented the following letter which had
been received from Doralee A. Holes, Transit Coordinator,
County of San Joaquin, Department of Public Works:
"PERICDICSERVICE • AFIM •: •
Dear Council Menbers:
In accordance with your decision of Septerber 4, 1984, County
staff met with Mrs. McDan i e 1 s , Manager of Ac antpo' s Arbor
Mobile Home Park. The meeting was to explore the potential
for periodic service (10:00 X-1; 12:00 N"; 2:00 P.M.) to the
Park. These trips would be based on actual requests for
rides with returns based on feasible scheduling and usage.
It appears to be an acceptable plan which will afford
residents the opportunity to shop, do business, recreate and
seek medical and dental services in the City of Lodi during
usual business hours.
Based on the City's agreement to begin service October 1,
1984, a modification will be prepared In the interim to be
signed prior to the October 1. 1984 comnencement. The
cooperation and effort on the part of the City is greatly
appreciated.
Very truly yours,
s/Doralee A. Boles
Transit Coordinator"
REQS. ND. 84-141 Following discussion, with questions being directed to Staff.
Council, on motion of Council 11'wber 01 son, Hinehman second,
CITY DIAL -A -RIDE adopted Resolution No. 84-141 extending the City Dial -A -Ride
PFCGRA►4 L"UTNDID Program to i nc 1 ude Arbor Mobi 1 e Home Park. Arm-po , on a set
CN SET SCHMULE schedule (10:00 a.m.; 12:00 noon; 2:00 p.m.) to the Park.
TO AiIXF NU31LF (These trips would he based on actual requests for rides with
SIE PARK returns based on feasible scheduling and usage.) Council
further authorized the appropriate City officials to execute
the amending contract, to provide the aforementioned service
to Arbor Mobile Home Park effective October 1, 1984.
49HRY M. HIRATA
04"Cr"
September 13, 1984
City of Lodi
Lodi City Hall
Lodi, CA 95240
r-
" [UO[N[ •. DCLUCCHI
�.
o[►uTr oIoscToo
JOHN A. HAUO
06PUTT DIRECTOR
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
F. O. SOIL 1810 — 1810 [. HA2[LTON AV[NU[
STOCKTON. CALIFORNIA 85201
12081 844.2281
PERIODIC DIAL -A -RIDE SERVICE TO ARBOR MOBILE HOME PARK - ACAMPO
Dear Council Members:
In accordance with your decision of September 4, 1984, County staff set with
Mrs. HcDaniels, Manager of Acampo's Arbor Mobile Home Park. The meeting was to
ekplore the potential for periodic service (10:00 AM; 12:00 NOON; 2:00 PM) to
the Park. These trips would be based on actual requests for rides with returns
based on feasible scheduling and usage.
It appears to be an acceptable plan which will afford residents the opportunity
to shop, do business, recreate and seek medical and dental services in the City
of Lodi during usual business hours.
Based on the City's agreement to begin service October 1, 1984, a modification
will be prepared in the interim to be signed prior to the October 1, 1984
Commencement. The cooperation and effort on the part of the City is greatly
appreciated.
Very truly yours,
r
JA.1
�Doralee A. Boles
Transit Coordinator
DAB:jh
J -L -COL
c: Henry M. Hirata, Director of Public Works
George L. Barber, Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Mrs. HcDaniels
Council of Governments
CITY COUNCIL
JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER. Mayor
DAVID M. HINCHMAN
Mayor Pro Tempore
EVELYN M. OLSON
JAMES W. PINKERTON. Jr.
FRED M. REID
C
0
CITY OF LOLI
CITY HALL. 221 WEST PINE STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 320
LODI. CALIFORNIA 95241
(209) 334-5634
October 3, 1984
Dora 1 ee A. Bawl e s
Transit Coordinator
County of San Joaquin
Department of Public Works
P. O. Box 1810
1810 East Hazelton Avenue
Stockton, CA 95201
{
HENRY A. CLAVES. If.
City Manager
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
RONALD M. STEIN
City Attorney
Subject: Periodic Dial -A -Ride Services to Arbor Mobile Hone Park,
Acampo
Dear Nis. Bowles:
Ibis letter will confinn the action taken by the Lodi City Council at
Its regular meeting of September 19, 1984 whereby the Council adopted
Resolution Ib. 84-141 Extending the City Dial -A -Ride Program to
Include Arbor Mobile Home Park on a Set Schedule as set forth in your
letter dated September 13, 1984 and authorizing the appropriate City
Officials to execute the Amending Contract on behalf of the City of
Lodi.
We have enclosed a copy of the authorizing Resolution and would ask
that you provide this office with a copy of the Amending Contract at
the earliest possible time.
Should yol! have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
AM:ii
Enc.
RESOLVrICN NO. 84-141
• ac• t I 11914:641DWWi r •
•, r • •:•• •: • •MOW• IDIf jM
RMILVED. that the City Council of the City of Lodi does
hereby approve extending the City of Lodi Dial -A -Ride program to
Include Arbor Mobile None Park. Acampo, on a set schedule (10:00 a.m.,
12:00 noon, 2:00 p.m.) to the park. These trips would be based on
actual requests for rides with returns based on feasible scheduling
and usage.
RE IT FUMIER MSMVFD, that the City Comet 1 of the City of
Lodi does hereby authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an
Amending Agreement for extension of Dial -A -Ride service to Arbor
Mobile Home Park, which service is to commence October 1, 1984.
Dated: Septent)er 15, 1984
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 84-141
was passed and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held
Septwber 15, 1984 by the following vote:
Ayes: Comet l Nimbers - Reid, Hinchman, Olson,
Pinkerton, & Snider (NUyor)
Noes: Comet l Members - None
Absent: Council Qimbers - None
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
HENRY M. HIRATA
owecTow
R
F,
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
P. O. SOX 1010 - 1010 E HA2ELTON AVENUE
STOCKTON. CALIFORNIA 10201
12001 944.2201
August 28, 1984
Mr. .ferry Glenn
Assistant City tanager
City of Lodi
221 gest Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95241
Dear Mr. Glenn:
EUGENE S. CCLUCCHI
D[PUTV D*OZCTOO
JOHN A. HAUO
090-UTV 011t[CT04
Ps you are aware, in the 1983-84 Unmet Transit Needs Determination adopted
by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (COG), the Arbor Mobile Home Park in
the Lodi unincorporated area was determined to have an "unmet transit need".
According to an Acampo "reasonableness" survey conducted by the COG it was
concluded that the need was "reasonable" to meet. This reasonable criteria is
bzsed on the ability of the Countv to negotiate with the City of Lodi for ex-
pansion of the City's existing Dial -A -Ride service.
In accordance with the Board of Supervisors direction of July 3, 1984, (see
attached ) Public Forks staff has been directed to negotiate extension of
service to Acampo.
Fnclosed you will find a copy of COG's Acampo Dial -A -Ride survey with its
resulting conclusions. Pursuant to our conversations and rased upon the survey,
it is proposed that the County contract be modified to include the Arbor hbbile
HGme Park area under the same provisions and format as the t-!oodbridge area with
the County responsible for the cost of the Acampo service area.
The County remains indebted to the City of Lodi for its continued cooper-
ation and support of this effort to accommodate Lodi area residents.
Very truly yours,
HENRY H. HIPATA
Director Of Public Works
HW : DAB : j h
Enclosures
c: Supervisor George L. Barber
Council of Governments
Before the Board of Supervisors
County of San Joaquin. State of California
B - 8.4_J.9. f. 4
(NOTION: WILHOIT/ALVA
WOODBRIDGE/LODI TRANSIT SERVICE
THIS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS does hereby authorize and
direct the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to sign
the attached one-year operating agreement between the
County of San Joaquin and the City of Lodi to continue
service to Woodbridge for fiscal year 1984-85, and
FURTHER, authorize and direct the Public Works
Department to negotiate with the City of Lodi, the extension
of service to the Acampo area, and
FURTHER, authorize and direct the Public Works
Department to prepare a Transportation Development Act
Claim based on the negotiated agreements, for signature
and submission by the County Administrator or his designee.
JUL 3 1984
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above order was paned and adopted as
by the Wkwing vols of the Board of Supervisor., to wit: _.
AYES: YOSHIKAWA, WILHOIT, ALVA, COSTA, BARBER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE ,may
ABSTAIN:
Copies to: Board Clerk - Orig.
Co. Admin. - 1
Co. Counsel - 1
Auditor - 1
Public Works - 2�
COB 12 City of Lodi - 1
COG - 1
i
JORETTA J. NAYDE
Geek of IL& Dosed of S►er►i
c...� .r s.. )o•as.
Mea W caluoesia
DEBBIE CHAPMAN
ti
-
�xP.R��u`7�'3'
fir,
ACAMPO DIAL -A -RIDE SURVEY
Background, Methodology, and Response Rate
At the December 13, 1983 unmet transit needs hearing in Woodbridge, a
petition was submitted to COG staff. The petition, which was signed by
202 residents of the Arbor Mobile Home Park (Woodbridge Road and
Highway 99, Acampo), requested the use of Dial -A -Ride in the Acampo
area. In response, COG staff determined to administer a survey
(attached) to the Arbor Mobile Home Park to help determine the
feasibility of expanding the Lodi Dial -A -Ride to Acampo. The purpose
was notrriim�arily to estimate demand - a separate analysis was carried
out for that - but rather to give the COG more information about the
characteristics and specific transit needs of Park residents.
The survey was designed, pretested, and then substantially revised. On
February 22, 1984, 173 surveys were mailed out, one to each unit in the
Arbor Mobile Home Park. A cover letter was rejected in favor of an
introductory paragraph in the survey itself. Each survey was addressed
only to the Resident(s) of Unit #1, #2, etc. but the return rate was
increased by including a short message on the front of each envelope
below the return address. The message read:
"Please fill out and return to me when you pay your rent"
Your Manager,
Sandy McDaniel
Since most residents pay their rent in person to Mrs. McDaniel,
returning the surveys was facilitated.
The surveys were returned to Mrs. McDaniel over a 5 -day period from
March 1 - March 5, and were subsequently collected by COG staff. A
total of 112 surveys were completed and returned. Of the remainder, 5
were rejected by the Post Office as being undeliverable, and 56 were
delivered but not returned. The response rate was thus 173 - 5 - 168
divided into 112 - 66.67% (2 out of 3 were returned).
Analysis
Analysis of the survey results were greatly facilitated by entering the
data into the COG's new IBM Personal Computer, and then having the
computer sort and manipulate the data in various ways. in general, the
respondents were divided into two groups depending on their answer to
the first question:
Question 1: Would you or any member of your household
actually use the Lodi Dial -A -Ride?
A total of 5 people returned questionnaires but did not answer
Question 1. These "maybes" have been entered into the computer, but
will be omitted from the present analysis. Of the remaining 197
n
households, 46 (43.0%) claimed they would actually use the Lodi
Dial -A -Ride should the service be provided. These households have been
labeled the "user" group. In contrast, 61 households (57.0%) stated
they would not use the service. These households have been labeled the
"non -user" group.
Summation: In all probability, the above figures overstate the number
of actual passengers which could be expected should the Lodi
Dial -A -Ride be made available. Nevertheless, there are significant
differences between the user and non -user groups, as the latter part of
this analysis will show. Those differences tend to lend credence to
the stated intention to actually use the service.
Question 2: If you answered "yes" to Question il, where would
your household go on the Lodi Dial -A -Ride?
Destination Number (Users Only) Percent
Lodi 37 80.4%
Around Acam po 5 10.9%
Lodi and Woodbridge 2 4.3%
Did not answer 2 4.3%
Totals 46 100.0%
Summation: Not surprisingly, most users want to go to Lodi, with
"Around Acampo" being a distant second. No one chose Woodbridge as a
sole destination, and it was chosen only twice in conjunction with
Lodi.
Question 3: If yo. answered "yes" to Question ►1, for what types
of trips would you use the Lodi Dial -A -Ride?
Trip Types (ranked)
# Responses
Percent*
Medical & Dental
40
87.0%
Shopping
35
76.1%
Personal Business
28
60.9%
Rail/Bus Connection
14
30.4%
Recreation/Visiting
7
15.2%
Social Services
7
15.2%
Employment
0
0
Education
0
0'-_
Other
0
0
*The percent figures refer to the percent of the 46 users who
checked the given category. Since more than one category could be
checked, the figures au not add up to 100%. Th- instructions
specified that "no more than 3" of the above categories could be
checked. Actual average number of categories checked was 2.85 for
each of the 46 users.
Summation: The ranking tells the story. Somewhat surprising is the
desire for intercity travel, as expressed in the ;4 ranking (14
responses) of the transportation connection choice (access to Amtrak,
Greyhound, or Trailways). Also of interest is the fact that none of
M
the users were interested in transportation to education or employment
destinations. This is probably due -to the advanced age of the
population (see Questions 6 and 7).
The following questions were answered by both users and non-users. The
responses are reported by group, so that the differences which exist
between groups can be highlighted. Combined responses for both groups
are also included.
Question 4: How many people in your household drive?
* The average number of drivers per household was calculated by
assuming that 2+ - 2. This assumption seems warranted because the
actual choices were "none", "one", "two", and "three or more." So
few people checked "3 or more" that the category was eliminated,
the very few responses being lumped together into the "two" column
which was then renamed "two or more."
Summation: The "average" figures in the last column illustrate the
differences between users and non-users. Highlighting this difference
are the 3 user households with no drivers.
Question 5: How many cars does your household own?
No
Group
None
One
Two+
Answer
Totals
Average*
Users
3
23
20
0
46
1.37
Non -Users
0
23
36
2
61
1.61
Totals
3
46
56
2
107
1.50
* The average number of drivers per household was calculated by
assuming that 2+ - 2. This assumption seems warranted because the
actual choices were "none", "one", "two", and "three or more." So
few people checked "3 or more" that the category was eliminated,
the very few responses being lumped together into the "two" column
which was then renamed "two or more."
Summation: The "average" figures in the last column illustrate the
differences between users and non-users. Highlighting this difference
are the 3 user households with no drivers.
Question 5: How many cars does your household own?
* Based on 2+ : 2
Summation: As with Question 4, the final column points up the
differences.between groups. Not surprisingly, the two user households
having no cars are the same ones that have no drivers (see Question 4).
Apparently, one household has a car but no one is capable of driving
it (compar.e the "None" columns in Questions 4 and 5).
Questions 6 and 7: How many people in your household are 60 years
of age or older (Question 6) or under 60
years of age (Question 7)?
These questions are considered together, as they both deal with
household age. The table at the top of the next page summarizes
the survey findings.
W4
No
Group
None
One
Two+
Answer
Totals
Average*
Users
2
35
9
0
46
1.15
Non -Users
0
35
25
1
61
1.39
Totals
2
70
34
1
107
1.30
* Based on 2+ : 2
Summation: As with Question 4, the final column points up the
differences.between groups. Not surprisingly, the two user households
having no cars are the same ones that have no drivers (see Question 4).
Apparently, one household has a car but no one is capable of driving
it (compar.e the "None" columns in Questions 4 and 5).
Questions 6 and 7: How many people in your household are 60 years
of age or older (Question 6) or under 60
years of age (Question 7)?
These questions are considered together, as they both deal with
household age. The table at the top of the next page summarizes
the survey findings.
W4
f
Households
#
Individuals Age:
% Offering Comments
Average
10
Giving Age
46
Non -Users
Household
Group
of Members
1-59
60+ Total
$60+
Size
Users
46
9
71 80
88.8%
1.74
Non -Users
57
26
73 99
73.7%
1.74
Totals
103
35
144 179
80.4$
1.74
• based on the assumption that 2+ = 2 (see Question #4 for
explanation of this assumption)
Summation: The above chart reveals that the average household size of
1.74 persons is identical for both users and non-users. However, the
user households contain a higher percentage of people aged 60 and older
- 88.8% compared to 73.7% for the non -user households. The overall
figure of 80.4% aged 60 and older reveals the retirement character of
the Arbor Mobile Home Park.
Question 8: Do you have any additional comments?
Group
Yes
No
Totals
% Offering Comments
Users
10
36
46
Non -Users
23
38
61
37.7%
Totals
33
74
107
30.8%
Summation: Interestingly, many more comments were offered by the
non -user group. Many non-users mentioned that Dial -A -Ride would be
great for others, and over half mentioned a possible personal future
need for the service. One non -user even volunteered to "pay a nominal
fee per month added to our rent" for the service. No hostile or
totally negative comments were received, although one person mentioned
that the service would be "very time consuming" and another stated that
he could "not be sure of ... being able to make proper connections"
and that the service "would be rather expensive over a period of
time."
Among the user group, the ten comments varied greatly. Some clearly
indicated a strong personal need; for example, a 77 year old woman who
"never did drive" and whose 86 year old husband is "sometimes sick and
can't drive." Less critical - but still transit dependent - is the
younger woman who does not drive and whose "Sales Rep." husband is
often out of town. On the other hand, a few people revealed by their
comments that they had no intention of immediately using the
Dial -A -Ride (notwithstanding their earlier statement to the contrary).
As one person explained, "There may come a time in the future when we
may need this service - that's why I've answered the questions the way
I have."
Conclusion
In the COG's officially adopted definition, "transportation needs" are
defined as "the trips required by those persons recognized as
transportation disadvantaged to provide themselves with the essentials
necessary to maintain a minimum standard of living." This includes
trips necessary for medical and dental services, shopping, employment,
personal business, education, social services, and recreation." In
turn, "transportation disadvantaged" persons are defined as "all
Individuals who, by virtue of their age, income, or handicap, are not
adequately served by the automobile."
The Arbor Mobile Home Park is not a low income development, as even a
casual stroll through the well -kept grounds and modern recreation room
and office building will reveal. As a result, it is perhaps not too
surprising that only one person commented on the cost of the
Dial -A -Ride as being a possible deterrent to usage, and that person was
speaking of _frequent usage ( 5 days a week) . Thus, transportation
needs cannot be found on the basis of income, for the Arbor Mobile
Home Park.
The primary basis for suspecting that transportation needs exist in the
Arbor Mobile Home Park - besides the fact that a petition was received
is the age of Park residents. As the preceding analysis has shown,
more than 80% of the Park residents who answered the survey are 60
years of age or older. This is five times the percentage for all of
San Joaquin County, which lists only 15.9% of its total population as
being 60 or older (1980 census). Among those Park residents saying
they would actually use the Dial -A -Ride, the percentage of people 60+
is even higher - 88.8%.
The above figures tend to support the contention of Park residents who
claim to have transportation needs. In most cases, it is true, those
needs are currently being met by private automobiles. However, the
survey responses jnd the comments received indicate that many Park
residents are an,:ious about their ability to continue to drive. In
particular, many in the user group appear to be clinging to their
automobiles at least partially because no alternative form of
transportation currently exists. Also three households have already
"crossed over the line," and contain no people ablo to drive. As a
result, COG staff recommends that unmet transit needs be found to exist
for the residents of the Arbo-: Mobile tiome Park. (For a discussion of
the reasonableness issue, see EVALUATION section).
Concerning the specifics of unmet transit needs in the Arbor Mobile
Home Park, the survey responses revealed a strong need to travel to
Lodi, with secondary travo-,l desired around Ac%%mpo. The three most
desired trip purposes, as measured by Question #3, are for medical and
dental, shopping, and personal business needs. Each of these
categories was checked by at least 69% of user households. Finally, a
sizable minority (30.4%) of user households desired travel to Lodi to
connect with Amtrak, Greyhound, or Trailways.
a 4.
M
r�
ACAMPO DIAL -A -RIDE SURVEY \
A petition with 202 signatures has been received from the Arbor Mobile
Home Park. The petition asks for dial -a -ride transit service in the
Acaspo area. To help the transportation planners, please complete this
survey. Return it to your manayer, Mrs. Sandra McDaniel, when you next
pay your rent. Thank you for your help!
1. Suppose the Lodi Dial -A -Ride was to serve Acampo. The Dial -A -Ride
operates like a taxi, 7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m., Monday -Friday except
holidays. The cost per round trip ride would be:
$2.00 - seniors (60+) and handicapped
$5.00 - general
Up to 3 may ride for the price of 1, if going from the same place
to the same place. The Dial -A -Ride vehicles ace full -site
Chevrolet station wagons. Drivers will help passengers into
regular seats. Folding wheelchairs can be stored in the back.
QUESTION: Would you or any member of your household actually
use the Lodi Dial -A -Ride?
Yes
No F]
2. If you answered "No" to Question il, please skip to Question 11.
If you answered "Yes" to Question #1, where would your household go
on the Lodi Dial -A -Ride?
Lod i Woodbridge 1:1 Around Acampo
3. Please think carefully about your transportation needs.
Then, check no more than 3 of the boxes below. Check only those
kinds of trips most important to you, for which you would use the
Lodi Dial -A -Ride.
Medical and Dental
El
Shopping
El
CHECK
Employment
NO
Personal Business
MORE
Education
THAN
Social Services
THREE
Recreation/Visiting
OF
Connection with
THESE
Amtrak, Greyhound,
or Trailways (Lodi only)
BOXES
Other (please specify)
(continued on back)
{. Now many people in your household drive?
None 0 one 0 Two 0 Three or more a
S. Now many cars does your household own?
None 1:1 One 1:1 Two or More
6. The Dial-AARide is much less expensive for people aged 69 and
older, or for handicapped people. How many people aged 6v and
older live in your household?
None E] One 1:1 Two 13 Three or more E]
7. Now many people under 69 years of age live in your household?
None One Two ` Three or more El
9. Comments - Please enter any additional comments you may have,
in the space below.
Please return completed surveys to Mrs. Sandra McDaniel,
Manager, Arbor Mobile Home Park, when you next_2!X�►our
rent. Thank you for your helpl
October 10, 1984
Mr. Henry E. Hi rata
Director of Public Warks
County of San Joaquin
P. O. Box 1810
1810 East Hazelton Avenue
Stockton, CA 95201
Dear Mr. Hirata:
HiNRY A. CLAVES, Jr.
City Manaller
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
RONALD M. STEIN
City Attorney
Please be advised that your August 28, 1984 letter addressed to Mr.
Glenn requesting that the Lodi Dial -a -Ride system be expanded to
include the Arbor Nbbile Mane Park was presented to the Lodi City
Cotmcil at its regular meeting of September 5, 1984. Following
discussion, Council referred the letter to Staff for further
investigation and requested that the Arbor hbbile Hare Park be
contacted about their willingness to commit themselves to a set or
modified set schedule for Dial -a -Ride ridership.
We will keep you apprised as to developments in this matter and as to
the final decision of the Council.
Should you have any questions regarding the matter, please do not
hesitate to call this office.
Very truly yours,
t1('tcc -yxck�
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
R. (Randy) SNIDER.Maya
O F L O D I
DAVICITY
DAVID M. HINCHMAN
Maya Pro Tempore
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
EVELYN M. OLSON
POST OFFICE BOX 320
JAMES W. PINKERTON. It
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241
FRED M REID
(209) 334-5634
October 10, 1984
Mr. Henry E. Hi rata
Director of Public Warks
County of San Joaquin
P. O. Box 1810
1810 East Hazelton Avenue
Stockton, CA 95201
Dear Mr. Hirata:
HiNRY A. CLAVES, Jr.
City Manaller
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
RONALD M. STEIN
City Attorney
Please be advised that your August 28, 1984 letter addressed to Mr.
Glenn requesting that the Lodi Dial -a -Ride system be expanded to
include the Arbor Nbbile Mane Park was presented to the Lodi City
Cotmcil at its regular meeting of September 5, 1984. Following
discussion, Council referred the letter to Staff for further
investigation and requested that the Arbor hbbile Hare Park be
contacted about their willingness to commit themselves to a set or
modified set schedule for Dial -a -Ride ridership.
We will keep you apprised as to developments in this matter and as to
the final decision of the Council.
Should you have any questions regarding the matter, please do not
hesitate to call this office.
Very truly yours,
t1('tcc -yxck�
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk