Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/03/14 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, March 14, 1995 Council Chambers 6:06 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Fox, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Mayor Horton 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: March 7, 1995 Councilmember Fox requested that the minutes of March 7, 1995 be amended to show that his abstention on the Bonita Hotel was due to his possible assistance with financing of the project. MSUC (Moot/Rindone) to approve the minutes of March 7, 1995 as an~ended. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: None submitted. CONSENT CALENDAR (Item pulled: 6) BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no observed reportable actions taken from the Closed Session of 3/7/95. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed. b. Letter requesting financial support to attend the National Youth Leadership Forum on Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts at Simons College from July 31, 1995 to August 10, 1995. Annette M. Austin, 744 Paseo del Rey, Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is reconunended that the request be denied. c. Letter requesting financial support to cover basic rental expenses for the EastLake High School After- Prom on May 9, 1995 - Natasha Martinez, Co-chairman, EastLake High School After-Prom '95, 1031 Park Meadows Road, Chula Vista, CA 91915. It is recommended that the request be denied. 6. RESOLUTION 17830 REJECTING LOWEST BIDDER AS NON-RESPONSIVE; ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF A TRACTOR LOADER WITH BACKHOE - On 1/18/95, bids were received for a tractor loader with backhoe for Public Works Operations. Staff recommends approval of the resolution awarding the bid to Bengal Equipment. (Director of Public Works) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 2 Councilmember Moot stated the report referred to a smaller piece of equipment that could be purchased for a savings of $6,000 and questioned why the City should not purchase it. David Byers, Deputy Director of Public Works/Operations, replied when the specifications were first drafted staff was trying to replace two existing pieces of equipment. They were heavier pieces of equipment than the Case 580 Super L. Staff tried to indicate to Council that if they were not going to award the bid to Bengal Equipment, but were going to consider the Case 580 Super L, staff recommended that the specifications be redone and the item be readvertised. Staff recommended that the award be given to Bengal Equipment for the larger equipment. Councilmember Moot questioned whether staff needed the larger equipment. Mr. Byem stated staff recommended the larger piece of equipment. If they had to they could get by with the Case 580 Super L as a single machine. They would not want to change out any of the other backhoes for smaller equipment. He felt the larger machine would be better for the City in the long ran. Councilmember Padilia felt the issue was the operational necessity or utility dift~rence between the two pieces of equipment. He questioned what the impacts would be if the larger equipment was not purchased. Mr. Byers responded he could not specifically say what those impacts would be. Councilmember Padilia was not certain that it was prudent for Council to approve a lager piece of equipment at a higher cost if it was not something that staff could not absolutely do without. Mr. Goss recommended that the item be continued for a more complete report from the Street Maintenance staff as to the analysis of the need for the larger piece of equipment. i.e. the utility of one size versus the other. MSUC (Horton/Fox) to continue the item to the meeting of 3/28/95. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES * * * Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting * * * 7. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Fox __, Moot __, Padilia __, Rindone __, and Mayor Horton __ Commissioners Fuller __, Martin __, Ray __, Salas __, Tarantino __, Willett __, and Chair Tuchscher __. 8. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: February 22, 1995 - No action taken. 9. PUBLIC HEARING GPA 95-01 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DESIGNATING 20-ACRE SATTERLA PARCEL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; GPA 95-02 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DESIGNATING 21.84-ACRE LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR OPEN SPACE; GPA 95-03 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DESIGNATING SAN DIEGO CITY WATER RESERVOIR, OTAY WATER DISTRICT PROPERTY AND OTAY LANDFILL AS PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC - In January of 1994, Council directed staff to prepare a Sphere of Influence Update Study for the City. That Study, along with several associated General Plan Amendments and a Second Tier Program EIR, are up for Planning Commission and Council consideration. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Project) COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17831 AND PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION EIR 94-03 CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM (SECOND TIER) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FPEIR 94-03) FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 3 UPDATE STUDY MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT, ACCEPTING THE DRAFT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE STUDY AS AMENDED AND DIRECTING ITS SUBMITTAL TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR ADOPTION Mr. Goss stated staff was working with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) regarding the report and requested that the public hearing be continued. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. MSUC 0torton/Padilla) to continue the public hearing to the 3/21/95 meeting. * * * Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting will adjourn. * * * The Regular City Council Meeting will re. convene 10. PUBLIC HEARING PCC-95-16; REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON THE SITE OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT WATER TANK, LOCATED AT THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF GOTHAM STREET - AIRTOUCH CELLULAR - AirTouch Cellular is requesting permission to construct an unmanned cellular communications facility at the southwest comer of the water tank parcel located at the easterly terminus of Gotham Street. Staff recommends the oublic hearing be continued to come back at a later date. (Director of Planning) Continued from the meeting of 2/14/95. MSUC (Fox/Moot) to continue the public hearing. 11. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF RATE INCREASE FOR COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF REFUSE - A temporary rate increase is being requested by Laidlaw Waste Systems to recover increased land fill disposal costs paid to the County from October 1994 through January 1995. This issue was first considered at a public hearing on 2/28/95 and continued until 3/7/95 pending additional information from the City Attorney regarding the impact of the recommended action upon the City's current legal action against the County to, among other things, seek reimbursement for differential rates paid during that period. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Deputy City Manager Krempl and Principal Management Assistant Snyder) Continued from the meeting of 3/7/95. RESOLUTION 17824 APPROVING RATE SCHEDULES FOR COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF REFUSE EFFECTIVE 3/1/95 Mr. Boogaard informed Council that he prepared a confidential memorandum for Council which was being reviewed by the Manager's office. He requested that the item be continued until later in the meeting. Mr. Boogaard stated the Manager's Office had agreed with his recommendations and he was prepared to give a report. if Council felt it necessary they could go into Closed Session regarding potential litigation associated with denial of a rate increase. Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 4 * * * Council met in Closed Session at 7:01 and reconvened at 7:18 p.m. * * * Mayor Hotton stated that no reportable actions had been taken in Closed Sessions. Jim Weaver, 328 Greenwood Place, Chula Vista, CA, representing Laidlaw Waste Systems, gave a history of the reimbursements requested. He felt Laidlaw had worked as a partner with the City in going through a difficult issue due to County actions. They asked for Council approval in supporting the reimbursement to Laidlaw. Both the residential and commercial customers were aware of the County's actions in increasing the rates. The pass- through was not new information to the ratepayers due to a variety of information, i.e. television, newspapers, and Laidlaw and City communications on past billing statements and invoices. They had in good faith postponed their adjustment back in October and asked for Council consideration as the amount was currently in excess of $500,000. Councilmember Moot questioned if Laidlaw continued to take all of the Chula Vista trash to the County landfill during the period of time the County had artificially increased their tipping rates. Mr. Weaver responded that they did. Councilmember Moot questioned if their costs were directly increased proportionally to the increase in the tipping fee or if there was a way they were able to reduce costs during that four months. Mr. Weaver replied that their expenditures for landfill disposal expenses was in excess of 34.5%. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Mr. Boogaard proposed the resolution be amended, last paragraph to read "Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve on the condition precedent that Laidlaw enters into an agreement with the City granting an assignment of any cause of action that they may have against the County for charging a differential rate between October 1994 and January 1995 and cooperate with the City in any prosecution of the City's differential rate case against the County in a form that meets with the satisfaction of the City Attorney and City Manager and on the condition subsequent that they demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Manager, within thirty days, actual cost increase in landfill costs ......... The City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the rate schedules for collection and disposal of refuse effective 3/1/95 as set forth in Attachment A". MS (Fox/Horton) to amend the resolution as recommended by the City Attorney, last paragraph to read "Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve on the condition precedent that Laidlaw enters into an agreement with the City granting an assignment of any came of action that they may have against the County for charging a differential rate between October 1994 and January 1995 and cooperate with the City in any prosecution of the City's differential rate case against the County in a form that meets with the satisfaction of the City Attorney and City Manager and on the condition subsequent that they demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Manager, within thirty days, actual cost increase in landfill costs ......... The City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the rate schedules for collection and disposal of refuse effective 3/1/95 as set forth in Attachment A". Councilmember Rindone stated there was a 34 % temporary increase for four months and he wanted it understood that it was an increase only for that component, i.e. the tipping fee. It changed the rate for a single family from $17.27 to $19.85 which was a change of 13%. Stephanie Snyder, Principal Management Assistant, replied that it was a 14.9 % overall increase. Councilmember Rindone stated Laidlaw was the middleman and through no fault of their own had been required to pay the higher tipping fees for four months. The City was currently in litigation with nine other cities to try to Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 5 get those revenues returned. He was still concerned that even though Laidlaw was not at fault and by increasing the rates to the ratepayers it would lessen the pressure and reduce the successful outcome of the lawsuit. Mr. Booguard preferred to not publicly discuss the City's risk regarding the lawsuit. He felt the risk of loss because of the standing was mitigated by taking an assignment. That was as close as he could go without going into confidential discussions. Mayor Horton felt that had been answered last week in Closed Session. Councilmember Rindone stated it had not been answered to his satisfaction because he was not convinced that it would reduce the ultimate risk. He was concerned that even with the asssignment it could lessen the ultimate outcome of not having to pay those fees at all which he felt was the Council's goal. Mr. Booguard stated he could not guarantee the result of litigation, but he was in concurrence with outside counsel that it was the best course of action given the circumstances, i.e. to take an assignment. RESOLUTION 17825, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the text was waived. Councilmember Fox stated it was a very difficult issue and his preference was to not vote for an increase. The County was extremely unstable and the City was forced to deal with a chaotic system. Laidlaw and ultimately the ratepayers were being victimized by that system. Councilmember Padilia stated he was also against rate increases and it was a difficult vote. He was comfortable with the recommendation due to the assignment provisions and documentation from Laidlaw regarding the proportion between the landfill costs and the actual component costs. Councilmember Moot felt all members of the Council would stand resolute in pursuing the lawsuit to get the money back for the ratepayer. He would not compromise and would go all the way with the lawsuit as the fee was unjustifiably imposed. He agreed that some of the pressure may be off the lawsuit if the pass-throughs were approved, but felt the Council could continue their pressure by standing resolute on the issue. Councilmember Rindone stated he would vote against the motion on the floor because the Council had been very tenacious on the issue and trying to fight off the costs. Continued pressure at the maximum level was what was needed and the motion before Council did not do that. If the tipping fee was actually reduced to $50 on 7/1/95 and there was no rate increase, then the difference of maintaining the current rate at $55 for a period of time would pay that back without prematurely adjusting the rate for the ratepayers. VOTE ON RESOLUTION, AS AMENDED: approved 4-1 with Rindone opposed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS · Russ Hall, 236 "K" Street, Chula Vista, CA, Chair, Parks & Recreation Commission and Scott Alvey, Vice-Chair, Parks & Recreation Commission, requested a joint workshop with the Commission on a Saturday to review a number of issues identified by the Commission. A letter dated 3/9/95 to Council outlined those issues. Mayor Horton felt it was an excellent idea and Council would consider it and try to make it a priority. Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 6 Councilmember Rindone hoped that a joint workshop could be held prior to, or simultaneously with the budget hearings. He offered the issue as a staff referral to consider a joint workshop with the Parks & Recreation Commission and return with a suggested date. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS None submitted. ACTION ITEMS 12. RESOLUTION 17832 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A POWER TO SAVE INCENTIVE AGREEMENT WITH SDG&E FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PHASE I OF A COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY RETROFIT PROGRAM; ADDING GGI49 ENERGY RETROFIT PHASE I TO THE FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM AND APPROPRIATION OF $207,674 FROM THE GENERAL FUND AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE - On 9/7/93, Council directed staff to work with Jim Bell, Director of Ecological Life Systems Institute, to coordinate with his organization to conduct a cost-free walk through energy audit and to continue working with SDG&E in developing an energy retrofit package for City buildings. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Environmental Resource Manager and Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required. Barbara Bamburger, Environmental Resources Manager, informed Council that staff had negotiated an additional $10,000 incentive package from SDG&E if the retrofit was completed within 120 days. Councilmember Moot stated the fiscal impact would be $207,000 from the general ftmd and questioned if it had been previously budgeted. Ms. Bamburger replied that it had not been budgeted and would be taken from the available fund balance of the general fund. Mr. Goss stated there were sufficient reserves to cover the project. Normally, staff would not go forward with expenditures of that type without knowledge that there would be a significant cost savings to the City over a short period of time. Councilmember Rindone questioned why the program was delayed. Ms. Bamburger stated staff had been directed approximately one year ago to work with Ecological Life Systems. Staff did that and negotiated an additional savings of up to $40,000 annually. During that period of time the incentive program from the PUC, and provided through SDG&E, decreased on a lighting-to-lighting basis. The City would see an annual savings of $40,000 which they would not have at that time. Therefore, the overall impact was quite substantial. Councilmember Rindone questioned lighting-to-lighting. Ms. Bamburger replied the PUC regulated the incentive programs and based upon that program SDG&E could provide more or less incentives per lighting item that was retrofitted, i.e. there was a different amount of incentive offered for each bulb or ballast. From 1993 to the present that amount per lighting item was decreased. Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 7 Councilmember Rindone questioned if the City had acted more expeditiously if they would have been able to obtain the bonus and not lose the $30,000. Ms. Bamburger stated that was not something staff would have recommended because the City would have had to completely retrofit all buildings and it would not have been a wise use of the funding. Starting in January 1994 the incentive program changed. If the City had acted immediately when the initial audit had been received the City would have received the total incentive package. Because the entire package was renegotiated some incentive funds were lost but the City gained an annual savings they would not have had at that time. Councilmember Rindone stated Council had authorized staff to work with an individual on the free energy audit and the staff report indicated that later his associate was then hired by the City. He questioned who made the recommendation for approval of that contract and what the cost of the contract had been. Ms. Bumburger replied that staff' had made that recommendation. There were two separate contracts for a total of $8,000-$9,000. Councilmember Rindone stated he supported the objectives of the project but was concerned with the procedure used. He wanted to ensure that someone did not offer free services and then have a partner hired by the City without competitive bid. Mr. Goss stated that on larger contracts staff utilized RFP's. Staff' had been unaware of other vendors other than SDG&E for those services. To his knowledge there was no business connection between Mr. Bell and Geo Systems. Therefore, staff felt comfortable with hiring Geo Systems. Councilmember Rindone stated the staff report said they were associates and questioned if that was not a business connection. Ms. Bumburger replied that it was not a business connection. Mr. Goss felt the use of the word "associate" was inappropriate in the report. Councilmember Rindone questioned if Geo Systems would be hired for the energy study for Phase 2 or if a competitive RFP would be utilized. Ms. Bumburger responded that staff had not made that determination at the current time. Staff hoped to start Phase 2 during the summer which would be the exterior lights for the parks, ball fields, and additional facilities not included in Phase 1. Mr. Goss stated if it was under $10,000 it was probably not worth the staff expenditure of going out with an RFP. The City did have a policy that covered that process. Councilmember Rindone questioned if the City Manager's Office would review a recommendation for a consultant prior to Phase 2 if deemed to be appropriate. Mr. Goss stated that was correct. Councilmember Rindone questioned what the aggregate total was of the loans made to the Nature Center. Mr. Goss replied that it was in the $1-$2 million range. Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 8 RESOLUTION 17832 OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived. Councilmember Fox commended staff for finding a $1.2 million savings over a 12 year period. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. 13. RESOLUTION 17833 ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL POLICY FOR DELEGATING ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF AND THE SAFETY COMMISSION - Council has expressed a desire to have staff and the City Attorney work with the members of the Safety Commission in developing a process that would provide greater authority to staff and the Safety Commission in dealing with traffic safety issues. The intent of the policy is to eliminate the need for minor day-to-day issues relate/d to the operations aspect of Traffic Engineering going before Council and have staff and the Safety Commission as the final decision-making authority. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Councilmember Fox questioned if the Commission would be granted decision making authority regarding the placement of pylons within the City. Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, replied that technically it would, but because the Council had indicated they did not want pylons within the City any action would go before Council before pylons would be installed. Councilmember Padilia stated as a past member of the Safety Commission he was pleased to sea a policy brought forward. He felt it was a solid policy and would take some of the load off the Council in terms of routine requests. It also provided an adequate system for appeals that was reasonable and forced the Commission and staff to work closely together. In reviewing the original Council policy establishing the Commission's role there was language which indicated that the Commission could be responsible for looking at other public safety issues aside from just pedestrian and traffic safety and traffic engineering issues. He questioned if that had been settled from the Commission's point of view or were they still pursuing those issues. · Bob Thomas, 650 Floyd Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Chair, Safety Commission, replied that the by-laws had been reviewed by the Commission and had been battered back and forth between the Commission and Traffic Engineering. He felt them were issues and verbiage that was not pertinent to what the Commission was currently doing. Councilmember Moot stated it appeared to be clearly indicated in the policy that if the Commission approved traffic control improvements that required an expenditure of funds that they must keep within the budgetary constraints set by Council. If it required spending money above the budgeted amount he felt it appropriate for that to be brought to Council for approval. Councilmember Rindone stated street striping was not listed and he assumed if them was a controversial issue, such as across from the Boy's and Girl's Club, that it would be brought to Council for approval and not be within final authority of the Safety Commission. Mr. Swanson replied that the Commission would have a recommendation, but for projects of that magnitude it would be brought to Council. Councilmember Rindone questioned if a citizen was negatively impacted by a Commission decision if there was an ~-~ appeal process. Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 9 Mr. Swanson responded that if the Commission and staff were in agreement to deny, staff would forward a memo to Council and as with conditional use permits, one member of the Council would have the ability to appeal that decision. A person that had received a denial by the Commission could appeal to the Council and then the Council would make the appeal. Mayor Horton felt there should be a formal appeal process similar to the Planning Commission process where they were given X number of days to file an appeal to Council. Mr. Lippitt stated the policy was not currently written that way and it would have to be changed prior to final adoption. The intent was to allow the Council to appeal it. Mr. Swanson stated the appeal process was patterned after the minor CUP process in which notice of the zoning administrator's decision was forwarded to Council and then any one member of the Council could then appeal the decision on behalf of the citizen. Councilmember Padilia felt the appeal process was clear within the policy and that it was appropriate and adequate. Councilmember Rindone stated he was comfortable with the process. The purpose was to streamline government and it was a positive step. The appeal process needed to be explained to the applicant at the beginning. Mr. Swanson felt the appeal process could be placed on the Commission agenda as well as staff contact with the applicant. RESOLUTION 17833 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER PADILLA, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 14. REPORT RELOCATION OF RESTROOM FACILITY lN MEMORIAL PARK - On 9/20/94, Council was presented with a petition signed by 108 residents of One Park Apartments who were objecting to the construction of new restrooms in Memorial Park being built near their complex. Parks and Recreation was directed to evaluate other sites within the park and have the Police Department review the proposed location for safety issues. Staff recommends Council accept the report, approve the construction of new restrooms at the existing location off of Park Way, and authorize staff to solicit a consultant to prepare necessary construction documents. (Director of Parks and Recreation) Jerry Foncerada, Deputy Director of Parks, stated a comparative bid had been received from an architectural firm recommended by the City's Building Coordinator. The bid was $15,400 versus the bid from Greg Nowell for $13,875 for preparing the construction documents to reflect the change in location of the restrooms. Councilmember Fox questioned what the visual impacts into park were in Alternate B. Mr. Foneerada stated the scenic corridor between the Memorial Bowl and the parkway would be obstructed by the building and staff felt it would be a distraction to the overall aesthetics of the park. Councilmember Fox questioned staft~s preference to Alternative C. Mr. Foncerada stated in Alternative C the facility would be closer to the road for surveillance which the Police Department favored. It was also in an area that did not impact any of the residents in the general area. Staff did Minutes Mamh 14, 1995 Page 10 not support Alternative A due to the proximity to One Park Apartments and businesses. The residents in the area objected to having the restrooms on that side of the park and felt the existing location was preferable. MOTION: (Rindone) to approve the staff recommendation and approve Alternative C which would locate the restrooms in the existing location. Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks & Recreation, stated the Police Department felt Alternative B was ideal, but they did support Alternative C as a site that had good surveillance from a public safety perspective. SECOND TO MOTION: (Padilia) Councilmember Moot stated the cost impact referred to relocating the restrooms and questioned if it was an inappropriate use of the word since the restrooms would remain in the same location. Mr. Foncerada stated the consultant had been hired to prepare the construction documents which sited the restrooms at the site selected in the Master Plan which was Site A. Council then heard the protest from the residents of One Park Apartments. Therefore, the consultant was being hired to relocate the new restroom back to the existing site. Councilmember Padilia questioned the distance from the Master Planned site and the One Park Apartments property. Mr. Foncerada replied that it was approximately 50-75 feet. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. 15. REPORT UPDATE ON REGIONAL SEWER ISSUES - An oral report will be given by staff. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, informed Council that the City had not received the billings from the City of San Diego. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Item pulled: 6. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 16. CITY MANAGER~S REPORT(S) a. Scheduling of meetings. Mr. Goss stated that during his trip to Washington D.C. he had the opporturdty to meet with Congressmen Filner and Bilbray regarding the Bio Tech incubator project (Bio Share). He felt it was clear that there was not much of an opportunity for federal funding for the project. It seemed most likely that out of the $6 billion for medical research there could be an opportunity to reprogram some of that for the program. The problem was the fact that there was a lot of research going on and need for new products but a lack of capital to test the research to see if it even had a chance to become a commercial product. There may be a desire by the National Institute of Health to look at reprogramming some of those funds. There may be a need on the part of the developer, particularly a medical foundation, to help fund a person to work on it fulltime. The City did not have the time or expertise to deal with it. He felt staff needed to pursue that in light of the current Council policy. Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 11 17. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) a. Appointment of Judy Schulenberg to the Citizen at Large seat and Susan Fuller to the Volunteers of NIC seat on the Bayfront Conservancy Trust Board of Directors. MSUC (Itorton/Rindone) to appoint Judy Schulenberg to the Citizen at Large seat and Susan Fuller to the Volunteers of NIC seat on the Bayfront Conservancy Trust Board of Directors. b. Approval of the renovation and installation of security measures for the Mayor and Council offices and approval of acquisition of furniture for same. Councilmember Rindone felt Item 17b and 18a were connected and requested that the item be continued until 18a had been dealt with. Mayor Hotton agreed to trail the item. Councilmember Rindone stated the refurbishment of the Mayor's office had not been approved by Council because it was under the encumbrance practice that had been eliminated. Mayor Horton stated the items to be completed were the security wall and doors and maintenance items and she requested Council approval before going forward. Councilmember Rindone stated he was supportive of the security components but he questioned if it could be separated from the other items as he felt due to budgetary constraints the other items should have to compete with other items during the FY 1995/96 budget process. Mayor Horton stated it would be from the FY 1994/95 budget. She felt it would be appropriate to have all the work done at the same time. The Council offices were filthy and needed to be upgraded, i.e. painting and replacing the drapes with mini-blinds. MS (Horton/Fox) to approve the amount of $15,983 and to proceed with security and maintenance items in the Mayor/Council offices. Councilmember Padilia questioned if the total excluded the costs for carpeting. He stated it may not be the most politically correct decision but a lot of business was conducted on behalf of the citizens in the offices and he was concerned with the image they were displaying. The items needed to be done and he supported the Mayor's recommendation. Mayor Hotton stated the cost for the carpeting was not included. Dawn Herring, Budget Manager, stated it would be $975 for the blinds, painting, and texturizing and the security doors would be $4,600. Councilmember Rindone stated although it was not a large amount it was symbolic. While it would be preferred to have the offices updated they were adequate. Any monies not spent during the present fiscal year would go back into the general fund as per the policy just adopted by Council. He supported the security items but felt the remaining items should have to compete with other projects during the budget review. Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 12 Mayor Horton stated other than the $975 for the painting and mini-blinds the balance was for what had already been purchased. Thetotalcostofthewholeprojectwasapproximately$16,000. IfCouncilwanted to redo the carpeting the figure had been included, but it was not a part of her recommendation. Councilmember Rindone stated he was not aware of that and thought they were being asked to purchase $16,000 in new items. He appreciated the clarification and would support the Mayor's recommendation. Councilmember Moot stated that was his confusion as well. Mr. Goss stated if the intention was to approve $15,983 it would be done in the context of the recommendation on page 3 of the report. Mayor Horton stated that was included in her motion. Councilmember Rindone questioned how there could be $2,800 left from FY 93/94 as it was an encumbrance. Ms. Herring replied the funds that were saved from the City Council 93/94 budget and had already been expended. Councilmember Rindone stated that was the practice that was just eliminated. He questioned why it could not be charged to accounts from the current year budget. Ms. Herring stated staff could try to find the money within the existing Council budget to recover that amount. Additional funds could be taken out of the Council Contingency account. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Itorton/Fox) to take $2,800 from the Council Contingency account. Ms. Herring stated a combination of funds from the Council Contingency and additional funds from within the Council budget would have to be utilized. Councilmember Rindone clarified that all of the charges would be to accounts in the FY 94/95 budget. Ms. Herring stated that was correct. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. c. Mayor Horton stated she had received a letter from a Resource Conservation Committee member in which he felt that much of the work of the Cormmssion was redundant with what was being done by other commissions. In talking with the Environmental Coordinator he had agreed with many of the comments except for the siting of historical sites which he felt could be handled by the Planning Commission. Council had referred the issue to staff for review and recommendation back to Council. Since that time she had been contacted by members of the RCC and they had recommended that the Commission not be eliminated as they had specific areas of expertise. Unless otherwise directed by Council she would direct staff to discontinue work on the summary report. Councilmember Fox stated as a past member of the RCC he opposed elimination of the Commission. Councilmember Rindone stated he supported the Mayor's recommendation. He was concerned that of the current members on the RCC that they all came from a similar background and experience. The RCC was valuable, but should be composed of individuals with a variety of backgrounds and experience in different fields. Mr. Boogaard cautioned the item was not agendized and Council was getting in deliberative aspects on the issue. Mayor Horton stated she would then direct that staff discontinue prior Council direction. Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 13 18. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Moot · Councilmember Moot stated he had been contacted by a Resource Conservation Commission member who stated that the person that recommended that the RCC be eliminated rarely attended meetings of the RCC. He felt it was a pertinent factor that should have been considered when the item was first addressed. Mayor Hotton felt because the issue had been brought to her attention it was appropriate to look into it. She did not feel it was slowing down the permitting process and each member had a very scientific or environmental background that some members of the Planning Commission and Council did not have. Councilmember Rindone · Budget Process: (1) Eliminate practice of funding non-specific encumbrances from previous year's budget; and (2) Establish procedures for authorizing expenditures from Mayor/Council annual budget. Continued from the meeting of 2/28/95. Councilmember Rindone stated he had met with staff in order to get resolution to the issue before them. He had requested information in January regarding the Council contingency funds and expenditures. The staff memo in response had indicated that the Mayor's remodeling was not from the Council contingency funds, but had been incumbered from FY 1993/94. That was a practice that he was not familiar with nor had it been brought to Council's attention. In response to his questions on how funds could be encumbered for non-specific items he received a memo from staff on 1/19/95. He had discussed that process with staff and unless funds were encumbered to a specific item they would go back into the general fund at the end of the fiscal year as provided by the City Charter. Mr. Goss had assured him that he would develop a policy and procedure to remedy the situation. Encumbrances were a legal and appropriate process for specific items only. He was pleased with the tenacity by staff to ensure that the issue was resolved and put administrative regulations in place. He referred to page 18a-4, Item 3, which required that the specific purchase order would be issued to the selected vendor within 120 days from the beginning of the following fiscal year or the encumbrance would be cancelled. He recommended it be changed from 120 days to 90 days. He referred to the Administrative Procedures which stated "In all cases encumbrances to temporary vendors for the sole purpose of carrying over appropriations are not authorized" and felt that was the key. MS (Fox) to adopt the Administrative Regulations on Encumbrances on page 18a-4 and 18a-5. Councilmember Rindone stated he would second the motion if the provision for 120 days was changed to 90 days. Robert Powell, Finance Director, did not feel that change would be a problem. He expected those instances to be very limited in number. Staff would return to Council for a waiver of the regulation if there was a problem. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 8:15 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on March 21, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. · ! Minutes March 14, 1995 Page 14 CLOSED SESSION Council met in Closed Session at 8:25 p.m., reconvened at 8:50 p.m., and ac~joumed at 8:51 p.m. 19. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 ® City of Chula Vista vs. the County of San Diego regarding approval of a major use permit for Daley Rock Quarry. 2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 · Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: 1. · Metro Sewer Adjustment Billing (water reclamation and expansion costs). · Claim of Marcial Zendejas, Mercedes Zendejas, Antonio Pacheco and Maria Pacheco. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 · Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, Executive Management, Mid- Management, and Unrepresented. Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of Engineers (WCE). Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. 20. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed Session. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk Vicki C. Soderquist, De~3ity Clerk