HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1994/05/10 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, May 10, 1994 Council Chambers
6:01 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Hotton, Rindone (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), and Mayor
Nader
ABSENT: Councilmember Moore
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly
A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 26, 1994 and May 3, 1994
MSC atorton/Fox) to approve the minutes of April 26, 1994 and May 3, 1994 as presented. Approved 3-0-2
with Moore and Rindone absent.
4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY:
4a. Oath of Office: John Munch - Economic Development Comrmssion (Ex-Officio). Mr. Munch was not
present to be sworn in.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: 5a, 6, 10, 12, and 14)
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OIq(ERED BY COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the text
was waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Moore absent.
5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
5a. Letter in response to City Council request for joint meeting with Southwestern College Governing
Board regarding building/locating a Transit Center at Southwestern College - Joseph M. Conte,
Superintendent/President, Southwestern College, 900 Otay Lakes Rd., Chula Vista, CA 91910. The Staff and City
Attorney recommend: (1) That Council accept the conditions for the meeting; and, (2) that the City Manager be
directed as follows: (a) communicate the acceptance of the conditions to the Governing Board and
Superintendent/President of the College; (b) develop a framework with the concurrence of the
Superintendent/President for selecting the three local community residents who would be "dias" participants in the
deliberation, and have same approved by the Governing Board (if they so desire) and Council prior to the meeting;
(c) meet with the staff' of Southwestern College for the purpose of selecting a time and place for the meeting that
will be mutually acceptable to the "active participants", Superintendent/President and City Council; (d) notice the
meetings in a manner required by law, and provide suitable special notice to local residents; and, (e) have
preliminary meetings with the staff of the College for the purpose of generating the appropriate data and
Board/Council reports. Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Continued to the meeting of 5/24/94.
Minutes
May 10, 1994
Page 2
6. ORDINANCE 2591 AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH
THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM (second reading, and adontion - Memorandums of Understanding with the Chula Vista Employees
Association, Police Officers Association, and International Association of Fire Fighters contain provisions whereby
the City agreed to amend its contract with the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to include the optional
benefit known as Military Service Credit as Public Service for local miscellaneous and local safety members. Staff
recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Personnel) Pulled from
the Consent Calendar.
· Joseph Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, questioned the term "local miscellaneous" as included
in the agenda, He felt items should be more specific so the public would understand. He questioned the
discrepancy in the report regarding the fiscal impact,
Mayor Nader felt it was referring to the category of employee not to the category of benefit. Two categories were
set forth, i.e. safety and non-safety. The first line of the report stated there was no fiscal impact and the report then
went on to speculate how that could change in the future. Changes in the future could change the fiscal impact,
under current circumstances there was no fiscal impact.
City Manager Goss responded that was correct. Everyone covered by public safety was basically sworn police
officers and sworn firefighters, everyone else was miscellaneous. That would include dispatchers, middle managers,
gardeners, everyone that was a City employee. That applied to other jurisdictions that were a part of PERS.
ORDINANCE 2591 PLACED ON SECOND READING AND ADOPTION BY COUNCILMEMBER
RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-0~1 with Moore absent. ~..
7. ORDINANCE 2592 AMENDING SECTION 17.10.100 TO PERMIT PAYMENT OF
REQUIRED PARK FEES 60 DAYS APTER MAP APPROVAL BUT BEFORE MAP RECORDATION, AND
AMENDING SECTION 18.16.100 TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE ALLOWING BONDS TO BE PROVIDED
AFTER MAP APPROVAL (second readin~ and adoption) - On 1/19/93, Council apprnved the Tentative
Subdivision Map for Tract 93-03, Telegraph Canyon Estates. The fourth final map for said tentative map is now
before Council for approval. The developer has requested that payment of Park Acquisition and Development
(PAD) fees be deferred until after map approval. The proposed Municipal Code amendment would allow the
alternative. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Public
Works, Director of Planning, Director of Community Development, and Director of Parks and Recreation)
Mayor Nader stated the revised staff recommendation to continue the second reading to the meeting of 5/17/94
would be incorporated into the Consent Calendar. Baldwin had also contacted him and concurred with the staff
recommendation.
8. RESOLUTION 17479 APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
CONCERNING WAGES AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE
WESTERN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993/94 AND APPROVING THE
ACCOMPANYING SIDE LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING - Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
(Deputy City Manager Krempl)
9. RESOLUTION 17480 APPROVING BOOKING FEES LITIGATION SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR SETTLEMENT AND ONGOING EXPENSES
RELATED TO BOOKING FEES - Staff of the County and the staff of the litigating cities of the County of San
Diego have agreed upon a proposed settlement of the booking fees litigation by which cities, except the City of San
Diego, will pay $154 per booking for the bookings between 4/1/91 and 12/31/93, plus interest at the County's
Minutes
May 10, 1994
Page 3
average interest earnings rate durng each quarter of such period. Shaft recommends approval of the resolution.
(City Attorney) 4/Sth's vote required.
10. RESOLUTION 17481 APPROV1NG SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH
REMY AND THOMAS FOR LITIGATION REPRESENTATION SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CHAPARRAL GREENS LAWSUIT, AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME - When the City
of Chula Vista and County of San Diego approved the final version of the Otay Ranch Project, part of the approval
was an indemnification agreement by Otay Vista Associates, indemnifying the City and the County in the event of
an attack on the project approval. Chaparral Greens thereafter sued, alleging inadequacies in the final program EIR
and/or violations of CEQA. On 1/4/94, Council ratified a Three-Party Agreement whereby Remy and Thomas
would represent the City pursuant to that indemnification agreement, at Otay Vista's expense. On 3/29/94, Council
approved the First Amendment to the Agreement. Approval of the resolution and agreement will authorize Remy
and Thomas to continue to represent the City in that litigation at Otay Vista's expense, and further increase the
maximum compensation. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Assistant City Attorney Rudolf) Pulled
from the Consent Calendar.
City Attorney Boogaard requested the resolution be amended so the proceeds received from Baldwin were
appropriated to the item.
RESOLUTION 17481 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed
and approved 4-0-1 with Moore absent. Motion to include the appropriation of the receipts from Baldwin
to pay the expense.
11. RESOLUTION 17469 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
"PLACEMENT OF VARIOUS TYPES OF STREET SURFACING (ASPHALT CONCRETE, ASPHALT
RUBBER HOT MIX, ASPHALT RUBBER AND AGGREGATE MEMBRANE WITH SLURRY SEAL) FOR
THE 1993/94 OVERLAY PROGRAM AND CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK RAMPS ON VARIOUS
STREETS IN THE CITY (STL-206)"; AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO INCREASE QUANTITIES TO
EXPEND ALL AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT - On 3/23/94, bids were received for placement of
1-1/2 inch thick asphalt concrete overlay, asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane with slurry seal and asphalt
rubber hot mix overlay. The work also includes removal of alligatored pavement areas and replacement with asphalt
concrete; the milling of street pavement in certain areas; signal loops, traffic control, adjustment of manholes and
storm drain cleanouts; adjustment of survey well monuments; removal of curbs, gutter, and sidewalk; and the
construction of pedestrian ramps, and other miscellaneous work shown on the plans. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 5/3/94.
12. RESOLUTION 17482 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO
SOUTHWEST SIGNAL SERVICE FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT GOTHAM STREET
AND OTAY LAKES ROAD IN THE CITY AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS - On 4/20/94, four sealed bids
were received from electrical contractors for the installation of traffic signals at Gotham Street and Otay Lakes
Road. The low bid of $79,361 was received from Southwest Signal Service and is below the Engineer's estimate
of $86,970. Shaft recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required.
Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Continued to the meeting of 5~24/94.
13. RESOLUTION 17483 MAKING APPOINTMENTS, APPROVING THE
ACQUISITION/FINANCING AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE
ACQUISITION/FINANCING AGREEMENT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 94-1 (EASTLAKE
GREENS II) - EastLake Development Company has informally petitioned the City to use assessment district
financing for improvements to be located in EastLake Greens II. The resolution makes the formal appointment of
Minutes
May 10, 1994
Page 4
the Director of Public Works as Superintendent of Streets, makes other administrative appointments, and approves
the acquisition/financing agreement. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
14. RESOLUTION 17484 APPROV1NG AN AGREEMENT WITH D. J. SMITH
ASSOCIATES FOR ADVOCACY AND PLANNING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND APPROPRIATING $90,000 FROM THE
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE FUND -The item involves retaining a consultant with expertise in
funding of transportation facilities. The consultant, working with staff and the property owners, would develop a
program for funding transportation facilities from sources other than developer fees, and would then aggressively
seek such funding. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/Sth~s vote
required. Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Continued to the meeting of 5117194.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
CLOSED SESSION
Council met in closed session at 6:47 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
15. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING:
1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9
· Chaparral Greens vs. the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, and Baldwin
16. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No report was given.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
17. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING THE WAIVER OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE PROPOSED MARINA GOLF CENTER (ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 760-048-059) - Johnson International is a prospective lessee of 14.7 acres of an 18 acre parcel
located at the northeast comer of the intersection of "J" Street and Marina Parkway. The prospective lessee is
requesting that Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PDIF) be waived for the proposed temporary golf driving
range. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works)
RESOLUTION 17485 APPROVING THE PARTIAL PAYMENT OF PUBLIC
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE PROPOSED MARINA GOLF CENTER
(ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 760-048-59) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO
EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE PUBLIC
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE IN YEARLY INCREMENTS
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Louis Wolfsheimer, 530 "B~ Street, San Diego, CA, representing Johnson International, stated they had
conceptual approval from the Port District for a driving range on the property behind Rohr Industries, across the
street from Jake's. They would have either a three or five year no-cut lease with the Port and then five one year
options if it was a five year lease. The lease definitely terminated in ten years. They would invest over $500,000
Minutes
May 10, 1994
Page 5
in the facility. The active area was only about 4.2 acres for the driving range, parking lot and putting green, the
rest would be grass. The City would receive the full amount of DIF fees when the final user pulled their building
permit. If the Council felt the waiver was impossible, they requested consideration of payment of police and fire
fees for the eqinvalency of one dwelling unit in the amount of $376.00 X 4.2 acres which equaled $1,580 total
impact fees. The staff recommendation on the one City fee was equal to 10% of the cost of the project. The other
City fees added up to a total of $64,000, which was approximately 13 % of the cost of the project.
Councilmember Fox questioned whether they would object to Council waiving the fees, but adding a provision to
the agreement that if the lease should extend beyond the ten year period, or alternatively to the five year period,
that some sort of fee would be imposed after either one of those times.
Mr. Wolfsheimer responded they were willing to pay reasonable DIF fee, but they felt $45,000 was not reasonable.
To get on the agerids he had requested a waiver, but if Council would not entertain a waiver he would then request
that it be reduced to something less dramatic than $45,000.
Councilmember Horton questioned if it would be acceptable if the fee was reduced from $45,000 to half which
would bring down the total costs to about 5% of the total project.
Mr. Wolfsheimer responded that would be very reasonable and if they could pay that over the twenty year period
rather than a ten year period that would seem appropriate.
Councilmember Rindone stated the proposal was for three to five years and questioned why they were suggesting
to pay it over twenty years.
Mr. Wolfsheimer responded that twenty years was the period in the City policy for the recapture of the fee.
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, requested clarification of the request, i.e. was it 5% of the $45,000 for the
twenty year period.
Councilmember Rindone felt when public policy was made it had to be done by establishing principles and concepts
that Council could rely on in the future and be consistent. He felt there were extenuating circumstances that could
make an adjustment approachable. Unless it was clearly based on principles that were consistent staff would not
know what the Council direction was. If it was a successful business and went beyond the original period of time
the full impact fees should be paid.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Councilmember Horton stated if the company decided to stay and they had a lease for over ten years they would
be liable for the full DIF amount. She felt it had to be reviewed on a case by case basis. Her recommendation was
based on the fact that it would have a positive impact on the waterfront. The property was now vacant and due to
the economic climate she did not feel the property would be developed for a long time. The project would result
in a green space that would enhance the marina area. The 10% charge for fees appeared excessive.
Councilmember Fox felt it was important to remember that it was not a waiver of fees, the City would ultimately
receive the full amount of fees. The final user would also have the benefit of not having to pay the fees that the
temporary user paid. He did not want an undue burden on a temporary user that he felt would benefit the area.
Mayor Nader stated staff had recalculated the fees downward to take into account the actuality of the use. Even
on the recalculated fee the City would only get fully paid if they stayed for ten years or longer. The staff
recommendation did give a considerable break to the project both in terms of the total amount of fee and payment
schedule.
Mr. Wolfsheimer stated there was a precedent set for lower the fees as it was done for EastLake golf course.
Minutes
May 10, 1994
Page 6
Councilmember Rindone stated there was merit to the argument, but the acreage accumulated by the project was
not potentially developable and prevented those fees from being paid should someone else be interested in the
property. He agreexl the benefit to the area, the economy, and the green belt were substantial factors in support
of the project. He was not certain that a full 50% reduction from the reduced calculated fee was appropriate since
there was a break in excess of $130,000 that would not be paid during the life of the project. He agreed with staffs
calculation formula for the project.
MS 0torton/Fox) to amend the resolution to reflect a reduction of one-half of the proposed fees, if the
company stayed for more than ten years the full impact fee (as proposed by staff) would be due. Failed 2-2-1
with Nader and Rindone opposed and Moore absent.
RESOLUTION 17485 OFI~'ERED BY MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived, failed 1-3-1 with Fox,
Horton, and Rindone opposed and Moore absent.
MS (Rindone/Fox) to amend the resolution to reflect a reduction of one-third and the full fee of $45,150 to
be paid on the commencement of the first day of the tenth year should the business be in operation.
Mr. Wolfsheimer questioned the term of payment for the fees in the motion.
City Attorney Boogaard responded that the staff proposal was to figure out the number of firm years in the lease
and have the rate X the number of years so the City would get a single payment up front. If there was a lease
extension it would have to be paid at the beginning of the new term and each year after that they would pay 2/3rd's
of the DIF rate until 2/3rd's of the staff recommended fee was paid in ten years.
Mayor Nader stated he was against the motion. Staff had already recommended a substantial break for the project
and he was inclined to support an even greater break if they were talking about a much greater impact in terms of
job generation. He felt a further reduction in fees resulted in a subsidy.
Councilmember Horton felt there would be positive spin-offs from the project, i.e. more people coming into the
area and the generation of more sales tax revenues.
Councilmember Rindone felt the option proposed by staff was less business friendly and perhaps there would be
no project at all. The incentive of what staff proposed was appropriate and a further reduction sweetened the deal
and indicated the City did care and was willing to make a compromise during a difficult economic time.
City Attorney Booganrd questioned if the intent of the motion was that at the end of the tenth year of occupancy
the developer would pay the then current public facilities DIF times the 4.2 (prorated acreage) less all prior
payments made at the 2/3rd's rate.
Councilmember Rindone stated that was correct.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 3-I-1 with Nader opposed and Moore absent.
18, PUBLIC HEARING HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS FOR
1994-1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM, INCLUDING
CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - The City will receive $1,812,000 in CDBG entitlement funds for Fiscal
Year 1994/95 and will have available $9,000 in reallocation funds making a total of $1,821,000. The City proposes
to use the funds for public facilities and improvements, social services, fair housing, and other community needs.
The activities will primarily benefit low and moderate income families, with a minimum of 70 percent of the funds
targeted to benefit low income households. Staff recommends Council accept the report and direct staff to return '
on 5/24/94 with a funding recommendation report. (Director of Community Development)
Minutes
May 10, 1994
Page 7
Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated it was the City's 20th year of participation in the
program. The allocation was $1,821,000 and was divided up into a number of categories established by national
objectives and local criteria. The categories were: 1) administration and planning; 2) capital improvement projects;
3) community development projects; and 4) social services. He then reviewed the process utilized. Staff would
return on 5/24/94 with recommendations for consideration by Council.
Councilmember Holton stated the Chula Vista Connection, a child care facility, did not receive full support and she
would not vote for the budget unless the programs for youth were included.
Mayor Nader stated the Commission on Aging not only gave the Council their minutes and recommendations but
also under each recommendation they gave the rationale fbr the recommendation. He felt that format should be
utilized in the future by other boards/commissions for their recommendations.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
· Greg Cox, 647 Windsor Circle, Chula Vista, CA, Board of Directors, South Bay YMCA, in support of
the Eastern Aquatic Complex, requested that consideration be given to implement a Section 108
loan guarantee program in the amount of $250,000 with the remaining $200,000 to be paid back
from future CDBG funds.
· David Malcolm, 509 Beacon Place, Chula Vista, CA, Board of Directors, South Bay YMCA, in support
of the Eastern Aquatic Complex.
· Laurine Baxter, 2467 E Street, San Diego, CA, Director for Domestic Violence, Center for Womens
Studies and Services, in support of Project Safehouse.
Mayor Nader questioned how many individuals they were able to shelter.
Ms. Baxter responded they could accommodate fifteen women and children and also utilized motel vouchers. They
hoped to enlarge with a HUD grant.
Councilmember Rindone questioned what percentage of clients were from Chula Vista.
Mr. Baxter responded that 10% of their clients were fi'om Chula Vista and they would increase the outreach in the
area with the additional funds.
Councilmember Rindone questioned whether there were any other programs that dealt with battered women in Chula
Vista or support services. In a case where the program was the only one in the area for a specific targeted
population, he hoped staff would look at that very carefully when bringing back their recommendations.
· Elizabeth Stillwagon, 1512 Melrose Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, in support of the Chula Vista Connection
Daycare.
Councilmember Fox stated he could not support a CDBG budget without attention being paid to programs such as
the Chula Vista Connection. He wanted to see the actual budget for the Chula Vista Connection which would
include expenses. He also wanted to see the minutes and reasons why the Child Care Conumssion had denied their
request.
· Tina Williams, 50 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, South Bay YMCA, in support of: 1) Eastern Aquatic
Center; 2) Youth Action Program; 3) Summer Day Camp Program; and 4) Sunshine Company
Childcare.
· Candelia Ryan, 1012 C Street, San Diego, CA, Director of Battered Womens Services, YWCA, in support
of Domestic Violence & Treatment Program.
Councilmember Rindone questioned how their program was different than Project Safehouse.
Minutes
May 10, 1994
Page 8
Mayor Nader stated that Project Safehouse was a shelter program for victims and the Domestic Violence &
Treatment Program was for counseling.
Ms. Ryan stated 29% of their clients were from the Southbay with 10% from Chula Vista.
Councilmember Rindone hoped that staff would look very closely at Project Safehouse and the Domestic Violence
& Treatment Program when making their recommendations to Council.
· Coralee Anderson, 78 King Street, Chula Vista, CA, Southbay Community Services, in support of
Thursday's Meal.
® Maribel Melchor, 262 B Rancho Court, Chula Vista, CA, Southbay Community Services, in support of
Casa Nuestra Youth Shelter.
Mayor Nader hoped they would be able to come through with adequate support as Casa Nuestra was an extremely
worthwhile program.
· Richard Soberanes, Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Southbay Community Services, in support of Casa
Nuestra Youth Shelter.
· Chonita Soberanes, 428 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Southbay Community Services, in support of
Casa Nuestra Youth Shelter.
· Mary Ann Stro, 1130 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Sweetwater Union High School District, in support
of Gang Prevention/Intervention Program.
® Norma Sandoval, 1130 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Sweetwater Union High School District, in support
of Gang Prevention/Intervention Program.
· Kathy Flores-Ortiz, 2859 El Cajon Boulevard, San Diego, CA, San Diego Home Loan, in support of
General Organizational Support was not in attendance.
· Dick Perrier, 6195 Blair Place, La Mesa, CA, Chula Vista Boys & Girls Club, in support of Targeted
Outreach.
Councilmember Fox stated the City had previously supported the Educational Enhancement Program and they were
not asking for funding for the existing program. He felt one of the goals of the program was to have the programs
become self-sufficient and that should be recogniP. xl.
· Gail Edwards, Director, YMCA Family Stress Center, in support of Child Abuse Treatment Services.
· Ed Thomas, 2627 Granger Avenue, National City, CA, Chula Vista Fire Department, in support of the
Fire Safety House.
Councilmember Horton questioned whether they had looked at other alternatives that could be less expensive.
Mr. Thomas responded that the trailer was constructed in Pennsylvania and would have to be towed to Chula Vista.
The $32,000 included the travel costs. Scotty Trailers was the only manufacturer they were aware of, but staff
would look at other options.
Councilmember Rindone stated he was in support of the project. He questioned why the one time request was in
the Social Service classification as it was not for a service, but a capital expenditure. He felt staff should be very
creative to address the request and freeing up monies in the Social Service classification.
Juan Arroyo, Housing Coordinator, responded that the request was under that category because Public Safety
Services was a subcategory. Staff would look at the Community Projects category to see if it would qualify.
Mayor Nader stated due to the lack of resources in area that staff should contact other jurisdictions regarding the
project in order to maximize resources.
Minutes
May 10, 1994
Page 9
· Start Cole, 4080 Centre Street, San Diego, CA. AIDS Foundation of San Diego, in support of Case
Management & Social Services.
Councilmember Fox stated he would like to see continued support for the AIDS Foundation of San Diego.
· Bill Molina, 825 7th Avenue, San Diego, CA, Salvation Army, in support of the Senior Nutrition Center.
· Sophia Sanchez, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Southbay Community Services, in support of Kidz
Biz\Teencenter.
· Chris Holmes, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Southbay Community Services, in support of Kidz
Biz/Teencenter.
Mayor Nader stated he hoped staff would be creative regarding the funding for the Kidz Biz/Teen Center as it was
one of the most exciting new programs being developed in the City and the Council needed to show support for it.
Councilmember Rindone stated he supported making an alternative source of funds available in order to support the
program.
· Sgt. Mike Becker, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Chula Vista Police Department, Police Activities
League and the Otay Golden Hands Center.
Mayor Nader stated he hoped to see funding available for the PAL.
· David Solano, 519 E Street, Chula Vista, CA, Chula Vista Library, in support of the Chula Vista Literacy
Team.
Mayor Nader stated he wanted to see the program continued.
· Jorge Rios, 1295 University Avenue, San Diego, CA, Access Center of San Diego, in support of Chula
Vista Job Club.
Mayor Nader stated one of the issues facing the City was ADA compliance and Council was looking at the routing
street maintenance program. There was a letter on the dins claiming, perhaps accurately so, that doing the routine
street maintenance triggered in a requirement for curb cuts that met certain standards under ADA and that it could
not just be a wheelchair accessible curb cut, but had to be at a specified grade. He questioned if programs described
by Mr. Rios were actually providing a more desperately needed service to many of the disabled population than to
take a curb cut a one grade and wheelchair accessible and to put it at another grade.
Mr. Rios stated they were two different issues. The question was addressing the accessibility issues as required by
ADA compliance. One of things that should have been done was the establishment of an Advisory Board to review
the transition plan and make recommendations as to what was most critical and important to the disabled community.
Mayor Nader stated it had been suggested by some that there be curb cuts everywhere and that the existing ones
that were wheelchair accessible were not adequate and if there was any maintenance on the streets, the City was
required to regrade those particular curb cuts. He questioned if such an advisory board recommended to the City
that it was not the best use for funds to promote access and opportunities with disabilities that the City would be
on firm legal ground in using the funds elsewhere.
Mr. Rios responded that as long as it was part of the self-evaluation transition plan the allocation of funds for the
CIP or major maintenance plan would have to be looked at. He stated he was available to provide services on a
fee for service basis.
· Frank Long, 311 Del Mar Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, American Red Cross, in support of the F.A.C.T.
Puppet Theater.
Minutes
May lO, 1994
Page 10
· Hedi Hoag, 1744 Euclid Avenue, San Diego, CA, Director of the Fair Housing Council of San Diego, in
support of Housing Counseling.
· Raymond Fellers, 3101 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, CA, Lutheran Social Services, in support of Project
Hand Emergency Services and the Christian Neighbor Program.
· Jean Serafy, 3776 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, CA, Episcopal Community Services, in support of Outreach
Health Education.
Mayor Nader questioned if they provided low cost health services as well as education.
Ms. Serafy responded that they provided health services, there were M.D. 's and nurse practitioners at the facilities.
· Dr. Roger Bailey, Executive Director Senior Adult Services, in support of Meals on Wheels.
Councilmember Horton stated it was an exceptional program and questioned why the Commission on Aging
recommended hnding for the Meals on Wheels program and no funding for the Salvation Army program.
Mr. Sahimone responded that the request from the Salvation Army was for a $26,000 one time expense for a
vehicle. The commission felt the program was on-going and working without the vehicle.
Councilmember Rindone felt it was a vital program and noted the CDBG allocation was the only public funding in
support of the program.
· Nancy Hitchock, 1421 Nolan Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Adult Protective Services, Inc., in support of
South Bay Adult Health Care Center.
Mayor Nader questioned if it would be more efficient to give the agency Handytrans tickets rather than take money
from the scarce CDBG Social Services funds. He requested that staff address that issue prior to the item returning
for Council review.
· Frank Landerville, 655 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, CA, Regional Task Force on the Homeless, in support
of Research, Planning, and Analysis of the Homeless from the Planning and Research budget.
· Kathryn Lembo, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Southbay Community Services, in support of
Chula Vista Police Department Intervention Team.
· James Stancil, 6607 Imperial, San Diego, CA, Triple Crown Youth Coalition, in support of Graffiti
Abatement Program.
Mayor Nader referred to the CIP program and the improvements for Otay Park for the current year and the
gymnasium for the next year and questioned whether that could be changed around. It was his understanding there
were different recommendations from the Parks & Recreation Commission and the community in the area.
Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks & Recreation, responded that funds were allocated for the 1993/94 fiscal year
to master plan the park and put together construction documents. As a result of meeting with the community, they
identified the gymnasium as being a very important park amenity and staff planned on returning to Council in two
weeks with that item, i.e. the phasing of the park and how the gymnasium fit into that phasing. The funds being
asked for in the CDBG process would probably pay for park improvements. The gymnasium would be in excess
of $1.2 million and the funds were not currently available.
City Manger Goss stated it was one of the issues he would be discussing with the Council during the CIP budget
review. He felt there were some choices for the Council that needed to be addressed,
Mayor Nader suggested staff look at a similar mechanism as recormnended by Mr. Cox for the aquatic facility for
Otay Park as it was an extremely important to the community.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Minutes
May l0, 1994
Page 11
* * * Council recessed at 10:15 p.m. and reconvened at 10:30 p.m. * * *
MS CNader) to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m. to hear Oral Communications,#19, and Closed Session
items and continue the rest of the agenda to the 5/17/94 meeting.
City Manager Goss stated Item #6 was time sensitive, action needed to be taken to ensure that the City was in
conformance.
Councilmember Rindone requested that Item #20 be heard.
Mayor Nader slated he would incorporate Item #6, but would not incorporate Item #20 into the motion.
Motion Seconded by Councilmember Fox.
Councilmember Rindone stated he would not be at the 5/17/94 meeting and wanted to hear the presentation.
Councilmember Fox stated he would not support the motion unless Item #20 was included.
Mayor Nader stated he would not include the item as it was lengthy and he felt the public should have it heard in
prime time. It would be recorded whenever it was heard and everyone would have the opportunity to listen to the
recording if they were not in attendance.
VOTE ON MOTION: failed 1-3-1 with Fox, Horton, and Rindone opposed and Moore absent.
MSC (Rindone/Horton) to continue the meeting past 10:30 p.m. to hear Oral Communications,//19,//20, and
Closed Session items and continue the rest of the uganda to the 5/17/94 meeting. Approved 3-1-1 with Nader
opposed and Moore absent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
· Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacion Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing INDWELLER, stated she had arranged
for a presentation from Urban One, Inc. to the Conservation Commission and that meeting had been cancelled due
to a lack of quorum. She then read from an article entitled Doing Good Business regarding citizenship and charter
of incorporation.
· Mark Whillock, 346 Front Street, El Cajon, CA, representing Whillock Contracting, Inc., was not present
when called to the dais.
BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
None submitted.
ACTION ITEMS
19. REPORT UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE ISSUES AND FINAL REPORT ON
PROPOSALS FOR SERVICES ~ The report concludes the Request for Proposal process for alternative solid waste
services which was begun in December, 1993 and first reported at the 4/5/94 meeting on the preliminary evaluation
of the five proposals received. On 4/26/94, Council received the results of an economic analysis of the cost of
staying in the County system. The report for that meeting also included a comparative analysis of the cost of six
proposal options (three prospective contractors and four landfill sites) to the County system costs. Staff recommends
Council: (1) Approve, in concept, the staff recommendation to proceed with a transfer station; and (2) direct staff
to return on 5/24/94, during the report on the proposed solid waste JPA, with an outline of the process to begin
implementing Council's preferred course of action. (Deputy City Manager Krempl)
Minutes
May 10, 1994
Page 12
Tracy Swanborn, Brown, Vence & Assoc., presented a summary of the economic analysis, the costs for ratepayers,
and assumptions. She noted there was very little difference in the analysis originally presented on 4/24/94. New
material was incorporated in the report in response to the questions raised by Councilmembers on 4/24/94. BVA
performed a sensitivity analysis that tried to address the impact of some of the uncertainties in both the County
system and the options to leave the system. That had been summarized on Table 4-2 of the report.
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager, reviewed the costs for the ratepayers and the assumptions. Six
recommendations were outlined for what to do at the current time: 1) participate in the County system; 2) leave the
County system; build transfer station; 3) phased approach; City takes initiative on transfer station; 4) phased
approach; selected proposer takes initiative on transfer station; 5) delay decision; and 6) rebid RFP. The
recommendation was a combination of either #3 or #4, which was the phased approach which staff recommended
Council approve in concept to proceed with the transfer, at least the initial steps and direct staff to return on 5/24/94
with an outline on what steps would need to be taken to implement that. There was also the outstanding issue of
what to do with the JPA and whether or not to join the County system. Staff intended to come back to Council on
5/24/94 with a full report on the analysis and recommendations regarding the JPA.
Councilmember Rindone stated he wanted the assessment on the JPA to include analysis of the indemnification and
any questions of large liabilities.
Mr. Krempl stated staff would forward to Council the schedule of cities that intended to consider the JPA.
· Teresa Aland, 1433 Nacion Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing Mother Aland, stated she was a
proposer to the RFP and a representative of Green Business. She stated the BVA report was incomplete due ~ the
multitude of assumptions, but there were several options available to the City that would be advantageous with the
assumed transfer station development. The action of pursuing the transfer station and hauling contract would be
premature. She felt the elected officials had to make a long term financial commitment to facilities and land use
issues could be addressed at that time. The Mother Aland proposal did provide a comprehensive approach, but it
would take further action from Council in that direction to expand the cost analysis. She then read a letter regarding
her proposal to BVA from Urban Ore, Inc. regarding the serial MRF.
· Gretchen Brewer, 7648 I/2 La Jolla Boulevard, La Jolla, CA, representing Urban Ore, Inc., Berkley, Ca,
stated they operated a 14 year old reuse/salvaging/building materials recovery company in Berkley and worked in
cluster with other companies and in cooperation with the City of Berkley transfer station. She stated there were
other similar facilities in the country which paralleled in concept the Mother Aland proposal. Urban Ore supported
that proposal. She felt it wise to look at the alternative where the City wouId not participate in the JPA but remain
in the County system as a user. Even if the decision regarding a JPA had to be made she was not sure that it
necessarily followed that it was imperative to decide on a conventional transfer haul disposal arrangement for the
City. Urban Ore wanted to, as a public service, return next week and make an informational presentation to
Council regarding the alternative types of transfer facilities that could greatly reduce the need to haul things by rail
or truck. The report did not delineate provisions for the full potential of recycling, composting, reuse, salvaging,
waste reduction, commercial recycling, construction demolition recovery, etc. Therefore, she felt the other options
needed to be looked at rather than making the whole decision on the basis of cost in the context of many
uncertainties. She felt there was a need for further information.
Mayor Nader questioned whether she was familiar with the Prison Industries Authority proposal and if that would
be compatible with the facility Ms. Brewer was referencing. He further questioned if Ms. Brewer was familiar with
the La Paz proposal and if it would be a feasible proposal if the City did not want to use either the County system
or the Campo landfill.
Ms. Brewer responded that there could be a role for the Prison Industries Authority to upgrade certain material
strains that would come into the facility. The concept of the serial MRF relied on a very close interaction with the
public and private haulers, all of whom realized a rate advantage by rearranging how they threw things away. She
felt it would be premature in answering the question regarding La Paz County.
· Donna Tisdale, P.O. Box 1275, Boulevard, CA, representing B.A.D., stated the BVA report did not state
that Campo and Mid-American had fought B.A.D. every step of the way for two years to avoid State jurisdiction
and if the State decided that Campo's permit to operate was not equivalent and they decided to move forward, it
Minutes
May 10, 1994
Page 13
would be up to the citizens to force the State to sue Campo for breech of contract. She questioned how long the
price to dump at Campo was guaranteed. It was her understanding that the transfer station would require an EIR,
especially if hauling to Campo. The BIA determined that a separate CEQA review process would be required for
any transfer stations, therefore, she was asking to be placed on the mailing lists for any CEQA related documents,
including Notice of Determination, Negative Declarations, Notice of Preparations, etc. The BVA report did not
recognize that the County of San Diego, as well as the Mexican government, were also fighting the Campo landfill.
She questioned the quote in the report which stated "Campo landfill did not pose any significant environmental
problems or regulatory issues". The Campo EIS stated there was a long term potential for groundwater
contamination commencing at operational phase and extending beyond the post closure maintenance phase. She felt
there were significant environmental issues involved. She provided Council with articles regarding the continuing
groundwater contamination problems where San Diego sewer sludge was dumped at the Torres Martinez reservation
and a letter from the Executive Director of the Regional Water Board addressing the continuing deterioration of their
ability to effectively regulate on tribal lands.
Mayor Nader felt that meant an environmental legal problem if all the permits were issued. He questioned whether
they were stating that there were no environmental problems.
Mr. Brown responded that the scope of work did not allow them to look into the environmental issues associated
with Campo. They were not making that statement.
Ms. Tisdale informed Council that Mid-American's executive officer would go on trial on racketeering charges on
8/15/94.
Councilmember Rindone felt if the City looked at the transfer station siting issues staff should look at the LEA being
located in the City, it did not have to be in the County. That should be analyzed and included in the report. He
did not believe the Council was advocating the use of Campo, but was in search of the most viable option.
Mr. Kxempl stated staff would provide more information regarding the La Paz landfill. Staff viewed La Paz as one
of the many alternatives available. One of the key decision points for Council was whether to continue further with
the current RFP process or close that process, in which case Council may want to reopen the RFP to other
alternatives.
Councilmember Fox questioned if staff knew whether the City would be paying the same tipping fee as a user.
Mr. Krempl stated that was yet to be determined. Staff would not know that information by 5/24/94 as it was up
to the County or the JPA to make that determination.
Councilmember Rindone stated at the meeting of 5/24/94, 12 of the 18 cities would had met and staff could include
a chart of the cities that had made a decision, what the tonnage was of those respective entities, and the potential
impact on the projected tip fee. He felt it was advantageous to the City to look at staying in the County system as
a user rather than an owner. He also felt it was a wise move not to commit the wasteflow to any system or
alternative at the present time. The City needed to take the initial steps to proceed with siting, conceptual design,
environmental review, and permitting of a transfer station, either as a City-owned facility or ultima~ly with a
public-private partnership. He felt a private entrepreneur may be more cost effective and expedient in accomplishing
the project than a public agency. Therelbre, he pret~::rred Option #4 over Option #3.
MS (Rindone/Fox) to adopt the staff recommendation, Option #4, a phased approach; selected proposer takes
initiative on transfer station with the #1 ranked proposal according to the BVA study.
Councilmember Rindone stated if Council adopted Option #4. he wanted to see a proposal where the City would
own the transfer station, it could be built privately, but ultimately the City would own it.
Mayor Nader questioned whether it was premature, as Council did not know who the selected proposer would be,
to chose between the selected proposer or the City taking the initiative. Maybe Council should state they supported
either Option #3 or Option #4 and leave flexibility until they knew who they would select. He did not want to
narrow down the option as to which proposer was selected based on their ability to actually construct and site a
transfer station.
Minutes
May 10, 1994
Page 14
Councilmember Horton stated she agreed with the motion as it was more beneficial to have a selected proposer take
the initiative of the transfer station. She felt it would be faster.
Mayor Nader stated the problem was that even if a private enterprise company was pursuing the siting and
construction and operation of the transfer facility, they would still have to go through a governmental siting process
which was the City. He questioned whether the City needed to be locked into having the facility within the City
limits of Chula Vista. If there was a regional or subregional JPA then it would follow that the City was not
necessarily committed to a transfer facility located within the City. He felt staff and the consultant should have the
flexibility to pursue either a City sponsored or private industry sponsored transfer station, whichever was in the best
interests of the City.
Councilmember Rindone stated by going to the phased approach and having the selected proposer take the initiative
on the transfer station, that process could begin to be examined and obtain answers for Council in a timely manner.
If the JPA did not work there would probably be action regarding bifurcated rates for users remus owners and he
felt that difference would be substantial. Council could always stop the process at any time if it was not competitive
or conducive to what was being done with the County.
Mayor Nader questioned if the motion allowed either the City or a private proposer to take the initiative on a
transfer station and which proposer the City would begin immediate negotiations with.
Councilmember Rindone stated that was correct, but the motion was direction to begin immediate negotiations with
the number one proposer to take the initiative, if Council did not want that it could be stopped. He recommended
the one that ranked the highest by BVA, i.e. Sexton Chula Vista Sanitary Service.
Mr. Krempl emphasized that by proceeding with negotiations, the way the project had been packaged, it did not
commit the City to that proposer for the rest of the services. All they would be doing would be assisting the City
in the location, design, and permitting of the transfer station. He felt it would be less than $25,000, however the
consultant contract cumulatively had exceeded $25,000 which put it where the Council needed to take action.
Mayor Nader stated he was suggesting a separate contract for that specific item so it could begin as soon as
possible.
Councilmember Rindone stated that was the intent of the motion.
Mr. Brown stated the gist of the recommendation was to leave the options open to the City. They felt the City
should protect its position and start the planning process immediately for siting a transfer station. They felt that
process could take approximately twelve months if everything went well. By that time the County situation could
then be re. assessed and the City could decide to either go forward with the transfer station or go with the County.
They anticipated the process taking more than two or three weeks to get anything meaningful to take back to
Council.
Mayor Nader felt staff should provide whatever information was available in two weeks. He did not feel the motion
meant that staff would conclude a deal on the transfer station in two weeks but that staff would initiate the process
of identifying more specifically what the City's options were and get further direction from Council on how to
proceed with those negotiations.
Councilmember Rindone felt it would be preliminary discussions to obtain parameters and issues that would be
related to the transfer station. The City was not tied into any specific consultant for that project and he felt it would
give Council the option of seeing if that was what they wanted to do.
Councilmember Horton questioned how much it would cost.
Mr. Brown responded that it depended on how far they would go with the negotiations, the contract could go
anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000 as it was a time and material type of activity,
Councilmember Horton questioned if staff was requesting just a scope of work to be performed, i .e. a guideline or
if the City Attorney wanted the consultant to be part of the negotiations.
Minutes
May 10, 1994
Page 15
City Attorney Boogaard responded that he wanted to be involved in the negotiations.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Rindone/agreeable to the Second of the Motion) to set a CAP of $5,000 for
consultant fees.
Mayor Nader did not feel that they needed to be tied down to a facility within the City limits of Chula Vista or a
facility that would accommodate one proposal at the exclusion of another. He wanted clarity that the staff and
consultant would have flexibility to develop information that would be used in negotiations and not confining staff
to any particular location, particular configuration, or specific proposer. Staff would be directed to develop and
bring back information for Council to help develop what the negotiating position would be.
Councilmember Rindone referred to the Executive Summary, page 6, which described negotiations with a selected
proposer, Option #4, and felt the pro's and con's of locating a transfer station sited within or outside the city limits
could be included. There were some advantages if it was within the City limits, i.e. host fees for a JPA which
would mean a reduction in rates for the ratepayers. The report should include what the issues were and what was
involved in the siting of a transfer station and design.
Mayor Nader stated they needed to know if it was more economical to put a transfer station in the City limits to
get host fees versus whether it was more economical to put it near the prison where there might be more
opportunities for source separation and recycling; or if was more economical to put it near rail facilities and what
the criteria and considerations were if they had a serial MRF or a more extensive source separation prior to transfer
and landfilling rather than something more conventional. There was a lot of information Council still needed to
settle on to determine exactly what it was they were trying to build. If it was understood that the motion was not
tying down the staff and consultants to any greater extent than gathering preliminary information he would support
the motion.
City Attorney Booguard suggested that Council authorize staff to begin preliminary conversations with Sexton as
to the options involved in siting, design, constructing and/or selling a proposed transfer station to the City; options
would be within or outside the City in terms of the siting, expanding the scope of services for the consultant to assist
the staff and authorize the maximum compensation limit in the consultants contract be raised by $10,000 from its
existing limit, appropriate $10,000 for the expenditure of same, and report back to Council in two weeks to provide
the Council with the information learned in the preliminary conversations. It was a time and materials contract that
allowed the City to require additional work at the same rate structure.
Mayor Nader stated it would be up to a maximum of $10,000 and not a fixed amount of $10,000.
Councilmember Rindone questione~l whether it was realistic to assume that could be done if they did not negotiate
wi~h a single proposer at the current time.
Mr. Krempl responded that staff could structure it so it did not preclude options from occurring and still proceed
with negotiations with a single proposer.
Mr. Krempl felt staff would be proceeding with one of the proposers to do the three steps outlined, i.e. identify the
location for a transfer station, design, and permitting and then it could stop there. He felt the transfer station was
generic. Staff had stipulated in the RFP the size of the transfer station, the acreage, amount of waste it had to
accept, a MRF alternative which could accommodate those things discussed. If Council proceeded with the initial
steps for a transfer station they were not designing it for any particular landfill but would be available as part of
the system.
Mayor Nader stated it had to be understood that it would be flexible, if staff felt Sexton was best staff should return
to Council with their reasons. They had submitted a proposal that was tied to specific assumptions and that may
not ultimately be the ones chosen. The RFP should only be viewed as an invitation to present Council with what
they had to offer. If they had something to offer that was better than what the RFP envisioned, then Council should
be open to that.
Mr. Brown stated Sexton was rated number one in the report based on the evaluation process, interviews, and
discussions with staff. The recommendations were trying to keep the options open for the City in the event that
Minutes
May 10, 1994
Page 16
the County did not work out. They could have discussions with Sexton to modify the transfer station MRF to satisfy
whatever additional requirements were set by Council.
Mayor Nader stated he wanted it clear that Sexton was not the only people they could talk to within that two weeks,
they could talk to others if they chose to. He questioned if it was the intent of the motion to talk to Sexton
exclusively.
Councilmember Rindone stated the motion was to talk to Sexton and if the consultant wanted to talk to others within
that two weeks that would be fine.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 4-0-1 with Moore absent. Councilmember Rindone stated there was a CAP
of not to exceed $10,000 and the appropriation of $10,000.
20. REPORT BUDGET OVERVIEW - An oral report will be given by staff. No
report given.
City Manager Goss stated there were basically two budgets, the operating budget and the Capital Improvement
Program. Them were three City Council directives followed in the preparation of the budget: 1) maintain the
service levels; 2) no employee layoffs; and 3) to protect City reserves. Those objectives were being met by the
proposed budget. The proposed operating budget was $55,122,000 versus $55,292,000 for the current year which
was $170,000 less than the currant year. He reviewed the funds taken by the State over the last five years from
the City and Redevelopment Agency. He was proposing balancing the budget in part with a transfer of $500,000
from the Equipment Replacement Fund of the General Fund.
Mayor Nader felt it would be helpful if copies of the transparency showing what could be funded if the State had
not taken revenues from the City could be distributed. The alternative budget should be adopted as an addendum
in case the money was restored.
City Manager Goss stated it was not included in the budget report, but would be in Supplemental Budget Memo #1.
Even with the austere budget presented the City had been fortunate to balance the proposed budget without major
reductions in services which had occurred in other cities. He referred to Attachment A which included innovative
items utilized by various departments. He then reviewed the projected revenues and expenditures for FY 1994/95.
Police, Public Works, and Fire accounted for about 64% of the total operating budget. If Parks & Recreation and
Library were added it would account for approximately 79% of the total operating budget of the City. The total
change in number of employees was an increase of 1.24 and those requiring General Fund support were .57. The
increases were in Police, Parks & Recreation, and Library. Other positions were recommended to be frozen and
the numbers given were a combination of those new positions and those recommended to be frozen. The net
increase would be approximately eight positions. One option to be presented to Council was a right-sizing process
which staff felt should be done through a participatory process with employees at all levels within the organization
on how to down-size or right-size the organization to react to the various negative factors that were impacting the
organization. Subsequent to that there could be a need to have some type of community review or response. The
number of positions recommended to be frozen were 15.3 with the deletion of 4 full time positions all together.
Besides cutting back in the supplies and services accounts to balance the budget, staff was recommending Council
look at the beginning of down-sizing of the City organization. The basic General Fund reserves had declined
somewhat. One of the major reasons for the decline was because one of the major revenues expected, i .e. host fees,
did not occur. Staff projected that going into next year the City would have reserves of $7.2 million and end up
with about the same amount. He then reviewed the basic overview issues. There would be a need to look at
specific issues when reviewing the individual department budgets. Budget meetings/workshops were scheduled for
5/23/94 from 6:00 - 9:00 p.m., 5/26/94 from 4:00 - 7:00 p.m., and 6/1/94 from 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room. The GMOC was to be scheduled for the 5/26/94 meeting. The total budget was $88,600,000
which included the CIP, operating, Agency, and transit budgets etc. which was down $7.8 million dollars from the
current year budget.
21. REPORT UPDATE ON CLEAN WATER PROGRAM ISSUES - An oral report
will be given by staff. No report given.
Minutes
May 10, 1994
Page 17
22. REPORT CONCERNING THE CITYWIDE GRAFFITI ABATEMENT
PROGRAM, A PROPOSED GRAFFITI EDUCATION PROGRAM AND A GRAFFITI, ADOPT-A-BLOCK
PROGRAM - On 1/4/94 and 2/8/94, staff was directed to return to Council to address graffiti abatement activities
currently conducted within the City. Staff was instructed to prepare a report outlining current enforcement of the
Property Defacement Ordinance and provide applicable recommendations, if any, for improved modifications to the
Ordinance. Council also instructed staff to investigate the potential for establishing an Adopt-A-Block or Adopt-A-
Community Graffiti Program and consider awards for civic groups and/or schools which contributed to graffiti
abatement programs or which were most successful in keeping their areas graffiti free. Staff recommends Council
accept the report. (Director of Building and Housing) Continued to the meeting of 5/17/94.
ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Items pulled: 5a, 6, 10, 12, and 14. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order.
OTHER BUSINESS
23. C1TY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) - No report given.
24. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) - No report given.
25. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Fox
25a. Regional Open Space and Park District. Continued to the meeting of 5/17/94.
CLOSED SESSION
26. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: - No closed session was held.
27. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No report was given.
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 1:12 A.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on May 17, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk
by: ....
Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy City ~.