Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1979/10/11 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR METING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday - 4:07 p.m. October 11, 1979 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 4:07 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, City Ball, 276 Fourth Avenue. ROLL CALL Councilmen present: Mayor Hyde, Councilmen Gillow, McCandliss, Scott, Cox Councilmen absent: None Staff present: City Manager Cole, Assistant City Manager Asmus, Assistant City Attorney Harron, Development Services Administrator Rohens, Director of Finance Grant, City Engineer Lippitt, Administrative Analyst Swartfager PURPOSE OF MEETING Mayor Hyde announced that the meeting has been called to hea~ a presentation by staff on the City's financial picture, an update on AB 8 including the users utility tax exemption and a briefing on the Gann Initiative (Proposition 4 on the November 6, 1979 ballot). Director of Finance Grant Mr. Grant, using flip sheets and referring to the handouts submitted to the Council, detailed the financial status of the City. AB 8 Mr. Grant explained that under the AB 8 allocation of propert tax revenue, 45% of this revenue goes to local agencies and SS% to the schools. The 45% allocation is divided as follow~ 60% to the County, 12% to Special Districts and 28% to the Cities. Bail-out Funds The City received $766,479 in bail-out funds for 1978/79; however, the Legislature is planning to give the cities 82.91% of the amount received in 1978/79 for the second year percentage allocation which means the City will receive $635,488 plus 1.15% adjustment for estimated percentage increase in property taxes for 1979/80 or a total of $730,81] Mr. Grant added that there will also be cutback of $21 milli¢ statewide (City's share of business inventory tax) so that the estimated additional property taxes will be less this amount ($60,816) or a total of $669,995. Features of AB 8 Mr. Grant, answering the Council's queries, discussed some of the features of this legislation noting particularly that in the event of annexation, negotiations must be held betweer the City and the County over the property tax revenue transf~ Detailed financial report Mr. Grant then detailed the City's operating budget noting the reserve balance, revenues, and expenditures giving a comparison of the figures from the years 1978 through 1980. Revenue Sharing In discussion of revenue sharing, Mr. Grant noted that September 30, 1980 will be the last payment on the revenue sharing program. The Federal Government has not decided whether or not this program will be continued, but they are planning to make their recommendation in January. (A copy of the report discussed by the Director of Finance is on file in the office of the City Clerk.) Held Thursday - 4:07 p.m. - 2 - October 11, 1979 ANALYSIS OF GANN INITIATIVE Administrative Analyst Debbie Swartfager explained the proposed Initiative indicating that it was very unclear and, if passed, would take a great deal of interpretation. Generally, blrs. S~artfager's remarks were as follows: WHAT DOES INITIATIVE SAY? 1. Defines and Limits appropriations 2. Voters may change limit 3. Must return excess revenues to taxpayers RECO~qENDATION OPPOSE THE INITIATIVE WHY?: 1. Because the Initiative: a. Lacks specificity Raises yore questions than it ~nswers ¢. Requires adjustments and exemptions -- impact on City indeterminable 2. Great concern with related issues: a. Reduced local control h. Disincentives for growth and development c. Increased accounting requirements SUMMARY OF GANN 1. Limits appropriations a. Consumer Price Index/Calif. Per Capita Personal Income PLUS b. Population - 1978-79 base year 2. Exemptions: a. State or Court mandates b. User fees and charges and regulatory licens c. Refunds of taxes d. Debt service e. Investments of indebtedness funds 3. Adjustments due to: a. Services shifted from tax supported to fee supported basis b. Transfer between governments c. Transfer from public to private d. Emergency e. Voter approval 4. Surplus revenues must be returned 5. Reserve funds can be created RELATEO ISSUES a. Reduced Local Control h. Growth and development c. Accounting requirements GANN "WILL" PASS -- WHAT NOW? 1. No specific action immediately a. Any action may be counter-productive 2. Legislature must implement 3. Court will interpret 4. State Controller will analyze 5. Staff will monitor FINAL COUNT 1. Staff does not oppose any spending limitation 2. Staff o~ o--~ose an unclear Initiative Held Thursday - 4:07 p.m. - 3 - October 11, 1979 City Manager's Mr. Cole stated that the staff is recommending opposition recommendation to the Initiative because of its lack of specificity - staff has been unable to determine what impact the Initiative woul¢ actually have on the City's budget and on the delivery of City services. Assistant City Manager Asmus added that the staff is not opposed to spending limitations but cannot determine the impact of this Initiative -- and neither can the experts. Motion to oppose It was moved by Mayor Hyde and seconded by Councilman Gillow that the staff prepare a resolution for consideration by the City Council for the next Council meeting, which would oppos~ the Gann Initiative as the official position of the City Council stating as succinctly as possible the reasons theref( Included in motion Mayor Hyde included in his motion the summary which the staff presented - that they feel it is reasonable and appropriate to have some mechanism for limiting the expenditl of funds, and that they feel this is not the proper one. Councilman Gillow agreed as the second to adding this to the motion. Discussion of motion Councilman Cox noted that in the past, the City has taken a neutral position on matters that have a significant financial impact, such as the Montgomery Annexation. He indicated thai sometimes a position taken by the City can be almost counter. productive - people would expect the City to take a position in opposition of spending limitations. He added that he has no concern about this Council controlling spending, but this Initiative does relate to ail levels of government. Council~ Cox added that he feels, at this point, the City should actively refrain from supporting or opposing the Initiative. Motion carried The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Mayor Hyde, Councilmen Gillow, McCandliss, Scott Noes: Councilman Cox Absent: None Utility Users Tax Exemption It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded by Mayor Hyde scheduled for next and unanimously carried that the utility users tax exemption Conference matter be scheduled for the next City Council Conference. CPO Meeting Mayor Hyde reported that the CPO meeting on the water issue is scheduled for Monday, October iS and asked how many Councilmen would be attending the afternoon session which starts at 1:30 p.m. in the Silver Room, Community Concourse. Councilwoman McCandliss stated she would attend and Councilm~ Gillow indicated he might. Introduction of Mayor Hyde introduced Miss Nancy Patrick, STAR-NEWS reporter Nancy Patrick ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hyde adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m. to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, 1979 at 7:00 p.m.