Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1986/06/05 MINUTES OF BUDGET SESSION ~2 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA June 5, 1986 Council Conference Room 4:15 p.m. City Hall ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Cox; Councilmembers Malcolm, Moore, Campbell, McCandliss MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Goss, Assistant City Manager Asmus~ Assistant City Attorney Gill FIRE DEPARTMENT - ,4,017,720 City Manager Goss submitted the budget for the Fire Department noting the increase of $3,520,970 to $4,017,720 was an increase of 14.1%. This includes as full year cost for fire services in the newly annexed area which accounts for 20% of the proposed budget. For the 1986-87 budget the City Manager recommended the staffing level be decreased by 1 position from 81.5 to 80.5 positions. This proposed staffing level includes the 16 positions absorbed into the Department in conjunction with the Montgomery annexation. City Manager Goss then explained the staffing levels of the Department; noted the recommendation to join the joint powers of the Unified San Diego County Hazardous Materials Emergency Response program; the increase in the overtime expected from ,92,260 to $236,590 or an increase of 156.4%. In the equipment purchases proposed, Council discussion centered on the physical fitness program whereby Director of Public Safety Winters explained it was a 9-hour program sponsored by Southwestern College (three 3-hour sessions). The firefighters taking this program would be paid overtime. Each firefighter would then, upon completing the program, be assigned a personal physical fitness program. Director Winters stated he would bring a report back to the City Council at the next budget evaluating this program. MSUC (McCandliss/Campbell) to approve the Fire Department budget as submitted by the City Manager. Minutes - 2 - June 5, 1986 Budget Session 2 POLICE $8,076,790 City Manager Goss explained the Fiscal Year 1986-87 budget was increased from $7,600,400 to ~8,076,790 or an increase of 6.2%. The expenses are directly related to the annexed area, total $1,186,700 and account for 14.6% of the proposed budget. For this 1986-87 budget the City Manager is recommending the staffing be increased by a net of 7.2 positions; from 164.3 to 171.5 positions. This staffing level includes the 27 positions added to the Department to provide the services to the Montgomery area. City Manager Goss stated some of the major recommendations are: making the Crime Suppression Unit a permanent one with the addition of 4 people and adding a Police Agent to respond to the Narcotics Task Force. Council discussion involved the many drug arrests now being made in the City. Director Winters explained the new law stating all equipment and monies confiscated during drug arrests can now be kept by the enforcing department, 80% of which would stay with the City and 20% would go to the Task Force. City Manager Goss commented on adding a Crime Analyst and the efforts being made to obtain a State grant to fund this position. He then submitted graphs showing: (1) the staffing levels in the Police Department before annexation Fiscal Year 1985-86, after the annexation and that recommended for Fiscal Year 1986-87. City Manager Goss then submitted graphs discussing the principal shortcomings of officers per capita measures and the workload analysis as discussed in the formula in the PSO Study. He is recommending some changes in the staffing schedule such as overlapping on Friday and Saturday evenings from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. In answer to Councilman Malcolm's question, Director Winters stated that he agrees that priorities in the department are less than desired too much money is spent on jails and not enough on education. Councilman Malcolm noted the serious problem involved in the City with the amount of stolen vehicles. He felt visibility was very important and questioned whether more officers should be added to patrol. City Manager Goss stated that his staffing recommendation at this time was "a comfort level" and it would be evaluated prior to January 1, 1987. Councilwoman McCandliss stated no one on the Council disagrees with Councilman Malcolm - the money is available and the Council has made a commitment to give the Police Department the amount of staff it needs. She added she hopes the Crime Suppression team would step up their liaison with the schools. Minutes - 3 - June 5, 1986 Budget Session 2 Mayor Cox questioned the $3,500 for the Neighborhood Watch Program. Director Winters agreed the budgeted amount was small because there doesn't seem to be any motivation out there to stimulate more Neighborhood Watch Programs. Fur'ther Council discussion centered on the amount of stolen cars in Chula Vista which is approximately 100 per month and Councilwoman McCandliss' suggestion that areas of high crime such as Chula Vista Shopping Center be posted warning people of this danger. Councilman Malcolm asked the Director to come back with some suggestions or report to the Council telling the Council how they can help him to make his job easier. City Manager Goss indicated a report will be coming to the Council prior to the end of September. MSUC (Moore/McCandliss) to increase the Neighborhood Watch funding by ~10,000 for improved communications. MSC (Malcolm/McCandliss) to approve the Police Department budget as submitted by the City Manager and as amended. The motion carried with Councilman Malcolm voting POLICE COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Cy Humphreys and Mr. Glen Marin from Alta Consulting Services, Inc. referred to their written reports submitted to the City Council which were: (1) Phase I Baseline Report, (2) Project Overview and, (3) Phase II Master Plan. Using slides, they submitted statistics as to the 45,000 Police calls and the 9,200 Fire calls for service. Mr. Humphreys showed several slides of the existing dispatch office which he noted was in a vulnerable location; the radio equipment was obsolete; it was in very crowded and quite congested area. He then presented slides of other cities' communication operations which showed modern consoles and a state of the art computerized dispatch system. He then detailed the process of receiving calls in the Operation Dispatch Center. In answer to Councilwoman McCandliss' query, Mr. Humphreys stated the proposed system would not have any interference with the ARGIS System - it is a different type of system altogether. Their recommendation is that their proposal be reviewed in a Master Plan approach. This would be integrated into a CAD Program and with ARGIS. Mr. Humphreys then briefly summarized the consultants recommendations: (1) relocate the Communications Center to an area now used as a courtyard, lounge, and offices. This Communications Center should occupy approximately 1,200 to 1,500 square feet, or about 2-1/2 times its present size, (2) To replace Minutes - 4 - June 5, 1986 Budget Session 2 the 3 existing dispatch consoles with 4 consoles plus additional telephone only positions, (3) to install a computer aided dispatch system to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the dispatchers, (4) change the staffing of the Communications Center to establish a Communications Center Manager position, a Lead Dispatcher position and locating the Desk Sergeant away from the Communications Center, (5) increase the number of dispatchers from 16 in 1986 to 19 in 1996 if the CAD system is adopted, (6) to develop a more detailed comprehensive training program for the dispatchers, (7) adopt a policy charging a monthly fee for monitoring security alarms at the Communications Center, (8) improve the planning, training and organization of Emergency Command Center Operations, (9) develop a Data Processing Master Plan for automating the department's record function, (10) replace the existing obsolete radio equipment, (11) improve the coverage of the radio systems and add one more Police channel for tactical use, (13) enlarge the Electronics Shop and, (14) purchase additional test equipment and add one more technician. Mr. Marin reviewed the necessity for the modernizing Communications System and discussed the cost which would be from $908,900 to $1,109,200. He added that recent technical development in the Computer Aided Dispatch Systems field have the potential for significantly reducing the system cost from the recommended amount - it could conceivably be reduced from $75,000 to ~100,000. In answer to Councilman Malcolm's question regarding mobile terminal radios in each car, Mr. Marin stated this is a proposal for the year 1991-92 since space is needed to put this into the Communications Center. City Manager Goss noted the ~900,000 figure does not include the mobile terminals. He added the staff recommendation would be (1) to accept the consultant's report, (2) approve, in concept, staff's responses to the consultant's recommendations, and (3) approve, in concept, the development of a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System and authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a CAD System during Fiscal Year 1986-87 with funding to be considered in the Fiscal Year 1987-88. MSUC (Cox/McCandliss) to approve the staff recommendations. The Council recessed for a dinner break at 6:25 p.m. and reconvened the meeting in the Council Chamber at 7:08 p.m. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS City Manager Goss submitted the budget, which he stated was an increase from $17,560 to ~21,090 or an increase of ~3,530 or 20%. The increase considers the entire budget including the mid-year appropriations for the' recent Montgomery annexation. The budget provides for 12 Boards and Commissions for a total of 78 members. Generally, the major increases are for increased costs of material and supplies, additional funds for travel, and a full year of support to the Montgomery Planning Committee. Minutes - 5 - June 5, 1986 Budget Session Z His recommendation would be for approval of all the Boards and Commissions with the exception of those who are requesting more money for travel. Councilman Malcolm said he would like to again try to give the Planning Commission business cards, use this as a trial basis for the Commission, and if it works out, it could go to other Commissions. MS (Malcolm/Campbell) to include in the budget a dollar amount necessary to fund for business cards for the Planning Commission. Councilwoman McCandliss commented this was a frivolous expenditure and was meaningless to their role as Commissioners. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Campbell, Malcolm NOES: McCandliss, Cox, Moore ABSENT: None MSUC (Moore/Cox) to approve the budgets for the Planning Commission, Human Relations, Civil Service, International Friendship, Safety, and Resource Conservation Commissions as recommended by the City Manager. BOARDS OF APPEALS Requested amount - ~2,110; City Manager recommendation - ~1,580 MSUC (Moore/McCandliss) to approve the budget for the Board of Appeals as recommended by the City Manager. LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES Requested amount - ~1,260; City Manager recommendation - $800 MSUC (Malcolm/Campbell) to approve the budget for the Library Board of Trustees as recommended by the City Manager. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Requested amount - ~1,510; City Manager recommendation - ~790 MSUC (McCandliss/Campbell) to approve the budget for the Parks & Recreation Commission as recommended by the City Manager. Minutes 6 June 5, 1986 Budget Session 2 COMMISSION ON AGING Requested amount - ~9,100; City Manager recommendation - $1,130 MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) to approve the budget for the Commission on Aging budget as recommended by the City Manager. MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE Requested amount - $4,050; City Manager recommendation - ~4,050 MSUC (McCandliss/Campbell) to approve the budget for the Montgomery Planning Committee budget as recommended by the City Manager. Mr. Phil Schurer voiced his opposition of any funding for the Montgomery Planning Committee declaring they are exceeding their role as Committee members. He discussed the Lauderbach Community Center and the plaque proposed for that Center, commenting the Committee has taken a role in this which is outside their jurisdiction. They are addressing issues the ordinance requires them not to address and are not aware of what their responsibilities are. City Manager Goss explained that the monies for the plaque are left over from the Campaign Committee. This is not included anywhere in this particular budget. A report will be submitted to Council withing 2 weeks. Mr. Bob Fox, a member of the Montgomery Planning Committee, stated it is true the Community still comes to the Committee for all matters relating to that area. The Committee has tried to refer these requests and concerns to staff. MSUC (McCandliss/Campbell) to approve the budget for the Montgomery Planning Committee as submitted by the City Manager. COMMUNITY PROMOTIONS - ~12,550 City Manager Goss submitted the Community Promotions budget which totals ~12,550. It includes funding for summer concert series (~5,000), Jaycees, Miss Chula Vista Contest, and Fiesta de la Luna Parade (~5,580), Library Concert Series (~2,000), Jobs for Youth ($2,500), and UN Day Activities ($380). In addition, $250,000 was budgeted on a matching funds basis loan to the Girls' Club and $5,000 for playground equipment for Hazel Goes Cook School. The budget does not include a request for funding onstage productions nor for a promotional proposal from the Chamber of Commerce. MSUC (Moore/Campbell) to approve the Community Promotions budget as recommended by the City Manager. Minutes - 7 - June 5, 1986 Budget Session 2 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROPOSAL Miss Sherry Huffman, Chairman, Visitor Development Committee of the Chamber of Commerce introduced Mr. Greg Severson, Marketing Agent for Pacific Group. Mr. Severson presented a proposal to the Council for a visitor bureau which would increase tourism and revenue. He discussed Chula Vista's hotel/motel expansion and the new developments made in recent years noting the City is emerging as a viable, marketable Southern California resort community. Los Angeles and Phoenix have primarily been the drive markets and based on that, he would recommend using at least 65% of that marketing budget in those two markets. San Diego tourism is #3, coming right behind the military and manufacturing. They are presently receiving revenues of $2.25 million per year. Chula Vista is 9th in the County in motel/hotels. The average hotel cost in San Diego is ~69.89, whereby Chula Vista averages $33.84. Mr. Severson noted the traffic coming from the north to Mexico which must pass Chula Vista and proposed attracting these people to come into the City through consumer advertising. Councilwoman McCandliss noted the cost of the promotion, totaling approximately $130,000. She discussed the spectacular plan for the Bayfront area, noting she could not justify that $130,000 expense until after the Bayfront has been developed and Chula Vista does, indeed, become a resort community. Mr. Severson responded that the Council should focus on creating the image of Chula Vista long before the Bayfront plan is completed. People should know where Chuta Vista is and be aware of that. He noted the $130,000 includes costs of ads such as a 1/2 page ad in an L. A. magazine, which would cost $4,000. His plan would be to boost the off-season visits to Chula Vista rather than the summer. Public Information Coordinator Cox noted staff is getting together some alternatives for Council for reports due in 30 days and whether or not promotions should be privately or publicly funded. Council discussion ensued regarding the TOT tax revenue coming into the City which will approximate $900,000 in the next Fiscal Year and having the motel/hotels contribute to this promotional activity. Mr. Niek Slijk, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce stated the amount of money they are talking about is substantial; however, the goal is to have Chula Vista attract the higher class hotels such as the Sheraton and Merriott so that they can see Chula Vista is investing money in the tourist industry; therefore there is a need to make the investment now. He added it would be unfair to ask the hotel/motels in the City to invest in this proposal. Minutes 8 June 5, 1986 Budget Session 2 Mayor Cox noted the efforts by the City in promoting tourism in this City such as the groundbreaking for the ~2.5 million Trolley/Visitors Center. He noted the benefits to the hotel/motel industry with the Bayfront plan and the proposed beaches along the Bayfront indicating that with all of the money being spent by the City, there should be some joint effort on the part of the hotel/motels to participate in the promotional activity. He suggested having the Chamber call a meeting with all the hotel/motel owners in the City and discuss this proposal. Councilwoman McCandliss said there is a need to look at the timing of this proposal. She felt this was premature until such time as there is an established environment in the City for the tourist industry. She suggested perhaps setting aside a little amount every year to bhild up the Promotional Activity Fund; however, this should be done in conjunction with the hotel/motel industry. Councilman Malcolm declared the City of Chula Vista should join San Diego's CONVIS. They have a very aggressive campaign which would benefit Chula Vista in the long run. In answer to Councilman Campbell's question, Mr. Slijk stated it is true the Chamber of Commerce is not contributing any money to this proposal because they cannot afford to do so. MSUC (Cox/Campbell) to refer this proposal to staff for evaluation and bring it back at the time Council is presented with the proposal for the operation of the Visitors Center of which the Chamber is charged with this response. Also included in the motion is to refer the proposal back to the Chamber of Commerce and have them come back with a report on this and they should do this as a joint review with the hotel/motel owners. Councilman Moore asked if the motion would include the ~7,500 for promotional activities. Mayor Cox stated that is included in the motion. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:13 p.m. to the CIP Tour scheduled for Saturday, June 7 at 8:00 a.m. ~'City Clerk 0814C STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss OF ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Adele A. Sarmiento, being first duly sworn depose and say: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista. That the adjourned regular (budget) meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was held Thursday, June 5, 1986, and said meeting was adjourned to the time and place specified in the Order of Adjournment ATTACHED HERETO-: That on Wednesday, June 4, 1986 at the hour of 4 p.m. I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of June 5, 1986, was held. . Adele A. Sarmiento Deputy City Clerk Subscribed and sworn to be~re me this day of . /~, MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday, June 5, 1986 The City Council met in the Council Conference Room, City H a 11 , 276 Fourth Avenue on the above date at 4 p.m. with the following: Councilmen Present: Cox, Malcolm, Moore, Campbell, McCandliss Councilmen Absent: None ADJOURNMENT The Mayor adjourned the meeting until Saturday, June 7, 1986, at 8 a.m. for a Tour of CIP projects in the City of Chula Vista, I, Adele A. Sarmiento, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that this is a full, true and correct copy of an order by the City Council at the meeting of June 5, 1986 Adele A. Sarmiento Deputy City Clerk City of Chula Vista, California