HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/05/21Thursday, May 21, 1992 Council Conference Room
4:08 p.m. Administration Building
Regular Worksession/Meeting
CALL TO ORDE~
PRESENT: Councilmembers Shirley Grasser Horton, David L. Malcolm, Leonard M. Moore,
Jerry R. Rindone, and Mayor Tim Nader.
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager John D. Goss, City Attorney Bruce Boogaard, and City Clerk Beverly
A. Aur~qelet.
BUSINESS
BUDGET OVERVIEW
Mayor Nader turned the meeting over to the City Manager for overview of the Operating BudgeL Using
overheads as visuals, Mr. Goss went over the following:
Cost Containment Measures which have already been implemented with an annual cost savings of
$624,480.
Total sr~ff per 1000 population among eight of the larger cities in San Diego County as of 1/1/92.
Chnla Vista stands at 5.6 with only La Mesa being the only city lower.
Use of discretionary funds by Division.
Proposed general fund expenditures for employee services (81.8%), Supplies and services (17.8%),
and capital outlay (.4%).
Staff positions by department. Twenty one new positions are being recommended for FY 92-93.
Changes in the Non-General Fund versus the General Fund. It was pointed out that the number of
new positions has been decreasing each year since 1989.
New budget proposals for 92-93 for consideration. One of the items being proposed was an addition
of nine full rime employee positions in Plauning and Engineering for the processing of O~ay Ranch.
Councilman Rindone questioned the loyalty to the City and the potential for conflict of interest since
the developer would be paying for these employees. Mr. Goss responded that the employees will
actually be paid by the city and supervised by city staff with the developer reimbursing the city. In
other words, the developer will not have any direct contact or influence with the employees.
Reg~xding the City revenues, Mr. Goss highlighted the following with the use of overheads:
Cost of Police and Fire versus Property and Sales Tax Revenue from 1982 to 1993. These have been
approximately the same since 1982 with police and fire expenses being slightly higher than the
revenues.
Major sources of revenue for 1992-93.
Minutes
May 21, 1992
Page 2
In conclusion, Mr. Goss went over some future revenue options which staff had compiled, and lastly, he
presented the general fund summary.
Mayor Nader asked if there were similar comparisons avafiable of expenditures by other cities in the area
as there were of revenues per capita. Mr. Goss responded that it is hard to make those comparisons with
expenditures because there are diverse services provided within various cities. By comparing the number
of employees per capita, assuming that the cost of labor in various cities is pretty comparable and given that
the cost of a budget is approximately 80% personnel, then a good measure is the number of employees per
capita. We can make the point that our costs are low compared to other cities because we have among the
lowest number of employees per capita in the County.
Mayor Nader stated he was referring to overall expenditures and felt it should be fairly easy to get the
budget figures from other cities. It would be interesting to see how other cities are controlling costs.
Counc~man Malcolm stated that there is a slight surplus being shown. If we gave a raise in the amount that
we did this year to non-contracting employees, what would that wtal? Budget Manager, Dawn Herring,
responded that it would be a range from about $200,000 to $350,000. Mr. Malcolm asked how much was
it this year? Mrs. Herring responded that she did not know.
Councilwoman Grasser Hotton asked why Oceanside had more propert7 tax revenues than Chula Vista since
their population was less? Councilman Malcolm answered that in 1978 when Proposition 13 passed, taxes
were divided between counties and cities based upon the existing tax rate. Because Chula Vista had a very
low tax rate and Oceanside had a very high tax rate, we get a smaller percentage for assessed valuation.
Today we have more population and more assessed valuation and yet Oceanside receives more in property
tax revenue because in 1978 they had a higher tax rate.
Councfiman Moore asked for a supplemental report regarding staff members that are fully supported by fees.
Mr. Goss responded that it may be done by depaxhuent or sections.
Councilman Moore asked if we were going to talk about the SDG&E loan -- the IDBs. Mr. Goss stated that
we were not planning to talk about it.
Councfiman Moore asked what staff was doing regarding changing the policy of property tax on utilities
which is spread county-wide when they are in one specific city. Mr. Goss responded that we have been
working with the legislative consultant in an attempt to get legislation to enact that.
There being no further Council discussion, Mr. Goss went over the Capital Improvement Budget. Slides were
presented of the completed CIP projects.
Discussion on New Projects:
East H between the 1-805 and Paseo del Rev. Councilman Malcolm stated that the real problem is that the
road was not installed properly. He wanted to know why we were paying for this and not the developer.
Cliff Swanson, City Engineer, stated the problem is the time which has lapseal since it was accepted. Mayor
Nader asked if there was a statute of limitations which had expired? Mr. Swanson responded, no, but it
probably has been about seven or eight years since it was accepted. Council concurred that this would be
a good subject for a supplemental memo. Mr. Goss stated that in this situation there are two issues: one
part is the expenditure and the work needs to be done; the second part is the revenue. Gas tax money has
been identified so we can proceed with the project. If there is an ability to substitute that money from
another source, that would be the avenue to approach. However, we should not delay doing the work.
Minutes
May 21, 1992
Page 3
Councilman Rindone felt the most recent repair at the corner of K and 5th Streets was dangerous. The
repair on the road was very lumpy and should be looked at,
Councilman Moore had the following concerns:
· Alley Reconstruction Project. Councilman Moore asked if the alley in the vicinity of the old
Windmill Farms will be subsidized by the City at all? Cliff Swanson, City Engineer, stated it would not be
subsidized. This is par~ of the alley program which was started a few years back. Councilman Moore stated
the intent was for the business area and was not supposed to go into the residential areas. Mr. Goss
responded that this is pan of the five-year CIP but is not proposed until 93-94.
· Sidewalk Safety Program. Is this talking about E Street coming up the hill by the mid-
project area. Mr. Goss responded part of it was, but there was also another pan by Third Avenue.
Councilman Moore stated he had a problem priority wise putting in a sidewalk at E Street and Bonita Road
with the number of people seen walking there versus the amount of sidewalks missing at Third Avenue and
the number of people seen walking there. He felt the priority was wrong. Mayor Nader felt the safety
hazard presented on E Street, although it was a smaller number of people using it, was much greater than
most areas.
The other project was Third Avenue by Anita which Councilman Moore pointed out during
the CIP tour. At this site you can't walk in the dirt path holding a suitcase because the suitcase would bump
in the fence so you would have to walk in the street. He knew that the owner was willing to donate the
land for this project. Mr. Swanson stated that this project takes in the entire stretch of Third Avenue from
Artira to Main Street. Councilman Moore felt this type of safety was more critical than the 'E',/Bonita site.
Mr. Goss stated there is no way one can walk safely on either side of E Street which is one of the reasons
you never see anyone walking there. Councilman Moore felt there were other streets not on the list where
many people used them which were unsafe. He could not support this project.
· Traffic Si~:nal Uv~rade. Upgrading to a larger lens was not a high priority. This is a nice
thing to do when you have plenty of money.
· TeleEraDh Canyon Channel Repair. Councilman Moore felt something was wrong when a
major street or concrete project needs repairs after only a few years. Mr. Swanson stated the $70,000 was
to investigate the cause of the erosion. We don't know if there is a broken sewer line or sunken sewer line
or some other cause to allow the dirt to wash away underneath it, nor do we know at this point how
extensive it is. The money is to fmd out the problem, seek a solution, and design it.
· Park Acquisition West of 1-805. Counc~men Moore felt that we should not buy land end
raze buildings to develop a park because that was very expensive. He felt there was an area along the
Regional Park that would be appropriate for a park with people somewhat available from the north. Mr.
Goss responded that there were a couple of things being considered. One was to do something adjacent to
the proposed regional park. The other was parkland that we will be getting through subdivision exaction
once developers start developing their property. Another park area which was identified in the General Plan
fronted on Third Avenue by Rice School.
Councilman Rindone had the following comments:
· He was pleased to see that the drainage at 616 G Street was included in the budget because
it is a major problem.
Minutes
May 21, 1992
Page 4
,I
· Remodeling of Women's Restroom and Lounge Area at Fire Station No. 1. Councilman
Rindone asked if women were assigned to all fire stations or just Station No. 1. Mr. Goss stated that the
Central Station is the one where multiple crews were assigned. Currently, the facility can only accommodate
one female fire fighter at a time. This project would expand that. At the other stations, there will be female
fire fighters; they do have facilities available, but usually only one female is assigned at a time at the
outlying stations.
· Acquisition of a Gymnasium for Montgomery. Councilman Rindone stated that a gymnasium
for the Montgomery area was not included in the budget, but should be considered next year. Mr. Goss
stated that indirectly it was included in the budget through the park implementation planning process which
was designed to fred where we should put it.
· Parkland Acquisition. Councilman Rindone suggested that the public works yard and
facilities be considered for a park site since we already own the land.
Councilman Malcolm's concerns:
· Sewer Line to the Nature Internretive Center. Councilman Malcolm asked why should we
install the sewer line now when it could be done cheaper when done in conjunction with the Bayfront
development. Mr. Nydecker stated only the portion which crosses the National Wildlife Refuse is being
proposed. Since the Army Corp of Engineers is going to have to pave the road and underground all of the
other utilities with the exclusion of the sewer lines, it is proposed that the sewer be done at the same time
the road is done; the rest would be put in at the time of the Bayfront development.
Mayor Nader presented the following issues:
· Drainage and Flood Control. Mayor Nader named several CIP projects, such as curbs and
gutters for the Rohr Park Phase II and Rohr Manor Service Yard, which he wanted to defer in order to put
the funds toward flood control projects which he considered one of the highest priorities for capital
improvement projects. Mr. Goss stated that we could not use those funds for flood protection since they
came from the Park Acquisition Development Funds.
· Municipal Parking Lot. Mayor Nader asked what the $5,500 was for. Mr. Salomone
answered that two office projects and a theater expansion project have generated parking concerns,
particularly along the Landis Avenue parking lots. These projects have paid parking in lieu fees. Therefore,
an analysis of the use of parking lots in downtown is being requested along with the location of possible
sites for additional parking lots.
· Broadway Improvements from F to I Streets. Mayor Nader asked if this was strictly
reconstruction or are there other improvements included. Mr. Goss responded it was just the improvement
of the street. Mayor Nader requested a more detailed breakdown on this project.
· Freeway Interchange Mapping. Mayor Nader asked what was this? Mr. Swanson stated
that it is a project in cooperation with Caltrans. Caltrans requires the City do a Project Study Report which
includes detailed aerial photographs of the area. Mayor Nader requested a supplemental or a more specific
breakdown for this request.
· Traffic Signal at 1-805 and Orange. Mr. Swanson stated this is the same problem we face
with Caltrans. Even with just the installation of a signal, we are required to provide u~affic data and aerial
Minutes
May 21, 3.992
Page 5
photos. Mayor Nader requested a breakdown on what we were paying for. He felt that we should talk to
our lobbyist about encouraging the State to tell Caltrans we don't need aerial photographs of such a wide
corridor every time, when a simple traffic count would show the need for an interchange signal.
· Traffic Signals at Third/Anita Street and East Orange/Loma Lane. Mayor Nader asked why
it cost $6,800 more to install a traffic signal at Orange/Loma than at Third/Anita? Mr. Goss responded that
each intersection costs different amounts because they are different sizes, different geometrics, different
problems. Mayor Nader requested that the differences be identified.
· Study for Bicycle Path System with Greenbelt Tra~ System. Mayor Nader was surprised it
will cost $70,000 but agreed it should be integrated into planning for the greenbelt. Mr. Goss stated that
we were trying to identify money to plan the greenbelt, and this is the first specific amount we have been
able to identify, so we would like to set it aside.
· Library Air Conditioner. Mayor Nader wanted to be assured that this was the most energy
efficient system. Mr. Goss stated that this is not a replacement. It is basically a repair of the current system.
This has been reviewed by Jim Bell.
· Library Parking Lot Reconstruction. Mayor Nader stated that if this, along with a few other
projects, could add up to some flood control improvements in another part of the City, he would be willing
to see this deferred.
· Geographic Information System. Mayor Nader asked if we were on a contract which
obligates us to pay over $674,000. He would like to defer if possible. Mr. Goss responded that this is
supported by Development Impact Fees. The public facilities DIF has certain subcomponents one of which
is the GIS.
· Link between Planning and Engineering Departments for Penit Tracking System. Mayor
Nader asked why is it going to cost 50% more to link the Engineering Division. Mr. Vignapanio stated there
is a centralized network being installed which is hooked up by twisted telephone wire. This has to be done
for every computer terminal separately.
· Montgomery Street Improvements. Mayor Nader requested a supplemental on the street
improvements in Montgomery since annexation.
MOTION: Moved by Moore, seconded by Malcolm and unanimously approved to give the CIP Budget
conceptual approval subject to supplemental information and final ratification at the public hearing.
OTHF, R BUSINESS
GI'IY MANAGERS REPORTS. There were none.
MAYORS REPORTS.
Requested that not every depanrnent head be present unless it was felt r_he Council would be able
to hear their budget. Mr. Goss stated they would n'y to work out a schedule.
Minutes
May 21, 1992
Page 6
One item which did not appear on the Wish List was the Child Care Coordinator. It was felt by the
Chair that even a part-time coordinator would be of benefit. Mr. Goss stated that this would not have any
implications in the budget until 1993-94.
COUNCIL CO~.
Councilman Malcolm requested a list of seventy-one books and periodicals which would be cut back
along with a list of those which would be retained.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:22 p.m.
Respectfuily submitted,
evefly A. Authelet, CMC
City Clerk