Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCDC Minutes 06/18/20011 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 June 18, 2001 City of Petaluma, California Minutes of a Regular Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting Vol. , Page 1 Monday, June 18, 2001 Council Chambers The Petaluma Community Development Commission met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Vice Chair Cader-Thompson, Commissioners Healy, Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien, and Torliatt ABSENT: Chair Thompson PUBLIC COMMENTS None CORRESPONDENCE None COMMISSION COMMENTS. LIAISON REPORTS None AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 16, and June 4, 2001 (PCDC portion) June 4, 2001: Commissioner Torliatt noted that on page 15, line 5 "commended" should be "recommended." On page 22, lines 10-13 she asked that the City Clerk's Office review the audio tape and clarify that portion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Vol. Page 2 June 18, 2001 Commissioner Healy noted that the enormous amount of work the City Clerk's Office devoted to producing detailed minutes underscored the need to move to "action minutes." Commissioner Maguire concurred and added that he thought the Commission/Council had agreed on that previously. Vice Chair Cader-Thompson did not necessarily agree, as she thought it important to have more detailed minutes for public record. Commissioner Healy stated that the Commission/Council had agreed to keep the videotapes of meetings for eight years to meet that requirement. MOTION: Commissioner Healy moved, seconded by Moynihan, to approve the minutes of April 16, 2001 and June 4, 2001, as corrected. MOTION PASSED: 6/0/1 (Chair Thompson absent) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Continued Discussion, Possible Direction and/or Resolution Adopting FY 2001- 2002 PCDC Budget. (Marangella) Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment Paul Marangella directed the Commissioners' attention to a document they had received at places, which contained final budget adjustments that had occurred since the preparation of the budget. The adjustments included transferring $95,000 from Economic Development Promotion to General Plan Update to augment funding for the Economic Element of the General Plan, adjustments to Administrative Expenses in the CBD and PCD Project Area Funds and the Low & Moderate Income Housing Fund. In addition, Mr. Marangella explained that regarding the Polly Klaas renovations, legal counsel recommended that the $50,000 not be allocated because findings would have to be made to expend funds outside the project area. Vice Chair Cader-Thompson suggested that the Commission review the document entitled "Responses to PCDC FY 2001-2002 Budget Issues" and ask any questions they might have on the items. She asked if anyone had questions about items 1, 2, or 3. Question 2: "Have Findings Been Determined for Expending PCDC Funds on the Polly K/aas Center?" June 18, 2001 Vol. , Page 3 1 Commissioner Maguire asked Mr. Marangella if City Management could return 2 with alternate funding sources for those improvements. He thought this was an 3 important project in which many people had an interest. 4 5 Mr. Marangella agreed. Since the General Fund expenditure for the Economic 6 Element of the General Plan was being reduced by $95,000, funds could be 7 allocated from that account. He stated City Management would come back with a 8 recommendation. 9 10 Commissioner Torliatt stated that she was not privy to the consultation with legal 11 counsel regarding the Polly Klaas Center renovations, but thought the three 12 findings that would be required were appropriate for funding the renovations. She 13 wanted to move forward with the $50,000 allocation unless there was a legal 14 reason not to. 15 16 Mr. Marangella explained that the concern was with the third criteria, which 17 required that, `the payment of funds for the cost of improvements will assist in the 18 elimination of one or more blighting conditions, inside the project area, and is 19 consistent with the implementation plan."This was the largest stumbling block. 20 The PCD project area — not the CBD project area, would have funded it. To 21 "make the leap"that this would somehow affect the blighting conditions inside the 22 PCD project area would be difficult. They were being conservative and careful in 23 not recommending those findings. 24 25 Commissioner Torliatt asked if it would be appropriate for the CBD project area. 26 27 Mr. Marangella replied that it would be more appropriate for the CBD because of 28 its proximity. 29 30 Commissioner Torliatt wanted to find way to fund the renovations from the CBD. 31 She asked for a show of hands to determine if the Commission wanted to do 32 that. 33 34 Commissioner Healy did not think there would be any debate on the merits of 35 moving forward with the proposed repairs. The question was could the City make 36 legally defensible findings? Even if the work was funded out of the CBD, he was 37 unclear how a finding could be made on the downtown area with respect to the 38 third criteria. He asked Mr. Marangella to explain what that finding would say and 39 if it would be legally defensible. 40 41 Mr. Marangella said that he could not at this time. He had been told that for 42 expenditures outside the project area that were not a loan, there should be some 43 environmental review completed before the findings were made. If it was going to 44 be a loan, City Management could return to the Commission with findings. 45 Vol. , Page 4 June 18, 2001 1 Commissioner Healy asked if Mr. Marangella was referring to a California 2 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process when he referred to "environmental 3 re view. " 4 5 Mr. Marangella replied that he was. If the expenditures were not a loan, the 6 environmental review would be done as part of the development process. 7 8 Commissioner Healy suggested that the Commission ask City Management to 9 propose findings that they would be comfortable supporting. 10 11 Commissioner Maguire agreed. 12 13 Commissioner Moynihan noted that City Attorney Rich Rudnansky had provided 14 the Commission with a memo, dated May 29, outlining the three findings dealing 15 with spending money outside the project area. From that memo, it did not appear 16 that "environmental came into play." He wondered if there was something the 17 Commission was not aware of. 18 19 Mr. Marangella clarified that the point he was making was that if the City was 20 going to expend funds outside the project area, not as a loan, but as a straight 21 expenditure, the environmental review would have to be done prior to making the 22 findings. If it was going to be done as a loan, i.e., the PCD was going to loan 23 funds to the CBD, the environmental review would be done prior to start of 24 construction. 25 26 Commissioner Moynihan thought this brought into question a number of budget 27 assumptions. Would an environmental review be required first for any project 28 benefiting areas outside the project area? 29 30 Mr. Marangella confirmed that such a review would be required where the funds 31 were not a loan. 32 33 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson requested that the Commission move on to items 4, 34 5, and 6. 35 36 Question 4: "Can interest be forgiven on the PCDC Project Area Fund loan to 37 the CBD Project Area Fund?" 38 39 Commissioner Torliatt wanted interest forgiven on this loan. 40 41 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson agreed, as it benefited the community. 42 43 Commissioner Moynihan pointed out that the City adopted an interfund loan 44 policy over a year ago, which would provide that interest be paid. He thought it 45 prudent to continue to show interest. He did not think the interfund loans were June 18, 2001 Vol. , Page 5 1 necessary. If the projects were funded from PCD instead of CBD, it would enable 2 the City to avoid the complex bookkeeping that funding from CBD would involve. 3 4 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson asked Commissioner Moynihan to restrict his 5 comments to the current question: did he support the requirement that interest be 6 paid. 7 8 Commissioner Moynihan countered that the question was not just whether 9 interest should be paid, but also should the loan be made? That question was not 10 answered in Mr. Marangella's responses. 11 12 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson replied that the Commission needed to move 13 forward with the questions. 14 15 Commissioner Moynihan replied that he did not support interfund loans. 16 17 Commissioner Maguire stated that he was ambivalent and suggested that 18 Finance Director Bill Thomas should decide what would be easiest for accounting 19 purposes, in accordance with standard practices for municipalities. 20 21 Commissioner Healy would support booking interest in accord with the interfund 22 loan policy and if a future commission thought they should waive interest in the 23 future, they would have that option, as long as the account was maintained in 24 such a way that the interest and principal could be separated. 25 26 Commissioner O'Brien thought that unless Mr. Thomas had a compelling reason 27 why interest should waived, the interfund loan policy should be followed. He 28 agreed with Commissioner Healy that there should be the option to waive interest 29 at some point in the future. 30 31 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson asked Mr. Thomas if he would return to the 32 Commission with any compelling reasons for or against charging interest. 33 34 Commissioner Torliatt thought that if the Commission could not reach a 35 consensus, that they should defer to Mr. Thomas's recommendation. 36 37 Commissioner Moynihan asked if he could ask questions other than those on the 38 list. 39 40 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson asked that the Commission continue with the list. 41 42 Question 6: "What are the assumptions for the Keller Street Parking Garage 43 Assumptions?" 44 45 Commissioner O'Brien thought that basing the assumed revenues on 80% 46 occupancy was not realistic. Vol. , Page 6 June 18, 2001 2 Commissioner Healy agreed, but regarded the number as a `placeholder" until a 3 more thorough proposal was developed. He thought they all agreed that the 4 Keller Street Garage was "in need of attention, and has been for some time." 5 6 Commissioner Torliatt noted that she also thought $100,000 projected revenue 7 for the fiscal year was an unrealistic assumption. Regarding security needs in the 8 parking garage, it was her personal experience that security was not an issue 9 during afternoon hours. She would like City Management to take another look at 10 that. 11 12 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson would like to keep the figure as a placeholder, if 13 possible. 14 15 Commissioner Maguire regarded the staff report as self-explanatory. City 16 Management had previously heard the Commission's concerns, and was clearly 17 working their way through them. He was comfortable with the figure as a 18 placeholder. 19 20 Question 9: "Why is the widening of three bridges included in the Five -Year 21 Implementation Plan?" 22 23 Commissioner Torliatt wanted to maintain the existing allocations for each of the 24 three projects, not for a potential interchange, but because of needed upgrades 25 to those overcrossings, particularly Corona, because it was a safety hazard 26 27 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson noted that Public Facilities and Services Director 28 Rick Skladzien had stated that Corona was "one of the worst roads in Petaluma." 29 30 Commissioner Healy remembered that during the last discussion of this issue, 31 the Commission was told that because the overcrossings at Old Redwood 32 Highway and Corona did not meet current design standards, and modification 33 would require they be demolished and completely rebuilt. If City Management 34 had different information, he would be willing to leave specified money in the 35 plan, but otherwise he thought it would be more prudent to state that the funds 36 were for "infrastructure or transportation improvements." 37 38 Commissioner Maguire recalled a recent Caltrans memo stating that Caltrans 39 could grant themselves exemptions. If that was the case, he thought it a realistic 40 possibility that some construction could be done without completely rebuilding 41 the overcrossings. 42 43 Commissioner Moynihan stated that the issue brought up the larger issue of the 44 direction of the Five -Year Implementation Plan and Five -Year CIP. City 45 Management was at a disadvantage as the Commission had not yet set their 46 goals. He did not think that at this point the Commission could agree on a Five- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 June 18, 2001 Vol. , Page 7 Year Implementation Plan or a Five -Year CIP with the current budget process. He suggested disengaging the Five -Year Implementation Plan from the budget, dealing with the current year's budget for both PCDC and the City, and coming back to address this question as part of the goal setting. Commissioner O'Brien would like to see the funds allocated to a general line item such as "Circulation Improvements" instead of for specific projects. Vice Chair Cader-Thompson noted that the Commission seemed to be split 3/3 on the issue. Commissioner Torliatt thought it would have to be discussed again. Commissioner Maguire did not think the issue was one `Yo let blood over." He thought it more important to adopt the budget and Five -Year CIP in a timely manner. Question 14: "Could the process for soliciting design firms for the improvements to both the Gateways and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area be comprehensive and include architectural firms as part of the RFP process, not just engineering firms?" Commissioner Torliatt clarified that the question should read "design firms," not necessarily just "architectural firms." Question 17: "With regard to the funding of the Petaluma Visitors Bureau (PVB) with redevelopment funds instead of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), why is this necessary and will this set a precedent? Commissioner Torliatt would like to consider some sort of loan from the redevelopment agency to TOT and when the TOT is increased, the redevelopment agency would be reimbursed. Commissioner Moynihan thought it better to make $300,000 in cuts to the budget. He noted that it was PVP (Petaluma Visitors Program), not Bureau. The way the TOT funds were handled was to eliminate any reference to PVP, and show it as a loan to the TOT fund. Commissioner Healy supported City Management's recommendation and thought it important to free up otherwise restricted dollars for General Fund purposes whenever possible. Commissioner Maguire agreed wholeheartedly Commissioner O'Brien agreed. Vol. Page 8 June 18, 2001 1 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson agreed. 2 3 Question 20: "Could percentages of funding be established in the PCDC budget 4 for each classification/type of project?" 5 6 Commissioner Moynihan asked what this would involve. 7 8 Mr. Marangella noted that the question came up with Commissioner Moynihan's 9 suggestion to make allocations based upon categories such as street 10 improvements. This would be a policy direction from the Commission, if they 11 would like City Management to come back with another method of allocation. 12 13 Commissioner Moynihan asked if it was possible to come back with a suggestion 14 to discontinue interfund loans. 15 16 Mr. Marangella said that he wasn't quite clear what Council Member Moynihan's 17 thinking was on the subject, so the answer was left quite general. City 18 Management would be happy to work with the Commission to refine the question 19 and come up with some options. 20 21 Commissioner Moynihan thought the interfund loan was "unorthodox."He asked 22 if Mr. Marangella knew of other communities that used interfund loans of this 23 size. 24 25 Mr. Marangella did not, off hand. He pointed out that redevelopment law provided 26 for the loaning of redevelopment funds for a variety of purposes. These projects 27 had a long life so there was a high degree of certainty that they would be repaid. 28 There was nothing to preclude the agency from loaning from one district to 29 another. In smaller cities, there were not typically several project areas — there 30 was only one project area. 31 32 Commissioner Moynihan agreed that $20,000-$25,000 loans had been done in 33 the past. However, $3 million was being proposed for this fiscal year alone. He 34 did not think the smaller district could repay even the principal on that amount. 35 36 Mr. Marangella pointed out that in the Seifel report, over the life of the CBD, there 37 would be over $54 million of net tax increment available to repay the loan. He 38 referred to Table A4 attached to the responses document. 39 40 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson asked Mr. Marangella if he would prepare the 41 answer in writing, so the Commission could move ahead to the next question. 42 43 Commissioner Maguire stated that the question of interfund loans had already 44 been discussed, and said he would prefer to proceed. 45 June 18, 2001 Vol. , Page 9 1 Question 21: `As an alternative to relying upon the U.S. Army Corps of 2 Engineers to keep the Petaluma River channel open, should the City Council 3 consider forming an assessment district to finance and perform the work? 4 Alternatively, should additional funding for emergency dredging be added in the 5 PCDC budget?" 6 7 Commissioner O'Brien was in favor of having funding available for emergency 8 dredging of the river, from an economic standpoint, both commercially and 9 recreationally, and from the standpoint of flood control. If the river were kept 10 open, if would lessen the likelihood of flooding during peak storms. Hopefully, 11 the funds would never need to be used. 12 13 Commissioner Healy agreed with City Management's response that all legal and 14 legislative remedies for funding the dredging should be exhausted before 15 formation of an assessment district was considered. He would like to see a time 16 frame for the process so it could be brought to some kind of conclusion. The 17 situation in the turning basin in particularly was "pretty bad,"and he thought it 18 was impacting the boats coming up from the Bay Area. 19 20 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson mentioned that she had learned while in 21 Washington D.C. that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Marina 22 del Rey have a partnership, a 50/50 split, with dredging done regularly. The 23 Corps seemed to be more aggressive about regular dredging if there was a 24 partnership with a city, especially smaller cities where the primary use of 25 waterways was recreational. She asked Mr. Marangella if that was correct. 26 27 Mr. Marangella did not recall. 28 29 Director of Water Resources and Conservation Tom Hargis explained that the 30 Corps periodically dredges the river, and the federal government funds this. 31 There may have been two or three times that the City had done interim dredging 32 around the turning basin and received partial reimbursement from the Federal 33 Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The City considered buying a dredge 34 several years ago. It was not economically feasible. They were reevaluating the 35 idea, partly because of the responsibility that will fall to the City for maintenance 36 of the Corps project, once it is completed. The Sonoma County Water Agency 37 (SCWA) will pay the cost of the silt removal, but is looking to the City to 38 implement the removal. At the last Petaluma River Authority Meeting, he and 39 Parks and Recreation Director Jim Carr raised the possibility of creating a local 40 method of funding either partial or full dredging. He did not remember how the 41 Marina Del Rey agreement worked. 42 43 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson thought it was a 50/50 split. 44 45 Mr. Hargis agreed that the federal government was moving into more 46 partnerships wherever they could. If a local agency could bring some funding to Vol. , Page 10 June 18, 2001 1 the table, they undoubtedly improve their chances of obtaining assistance from 2 the government. He was going to be in Sacramento in the next few days at a 3 California Maritime and Navigation Conference. They would be asking the state 4 legislature to lobby the federal legislature to fund navigation and dredging 5 projects. He hoped to find out while he is there what other local agencies had 6 done to obtain funding that had been successful. 7 8 Mr. Marangella mentioned that Senator Barbara Boxer has submitted a letter of 9 support asking for the $2.5 million in the next cycle for dredging the upper 10 Petaluma River, as does Congresswoman Woolsey. This would go in next year's 11 budget for the Corps project. 12 13 Commissioner Healy asked if Mr. Marangella and Mr. Hargis were referring to the 14 2001-2002 budget or the 2002-2003 budget. 15 16 Mr. Marangella replied that he was referring to the fiscal year starting October 1, 17 2001. 18 19 Commissioner Healy agreed that it would be wonderful if it were successful. 20 Given the realities of the federal budget, and how it was being squeezed for a 21 variety of reasons, the administration would be looking for places to reduce 22 expenditures. The last time FEMA helped the City off -cycle was on an 23 emergency basis because there had been flooding. He would prefer not to have 24 to go that route in the future. 25 26 Question 24: "Should the PCDC allocate $13 million toward a cross-town 27 connector?" 28 29 Council Member Moynihan was very interested in having the $13 million 30 rebudgeted to a cross-town connector, as in previous PCDC budgets. He 31 referred to the last conversation the Commission/Council had on the cross-town 32 connector, and the direction given to City Management to go forward in 33 evaluating the alternatives relative to the new traffic study, when that was 34 completed. That would require a certain level of funding, even if it were a review 35 of work that had been done in the past. He thought a placeholder of $100,000 36 would be appropriate for the interchange and cross town connector review or 37 study. 38 39 Commissioner Torliatt believed that Question 9 of the document, which had 40 already been discussed, referred to the budgeted $10 million for circulation 41 improvements. She thought that would suffice. 42 43 Commissioner Moynihan replied that as long as the line item "Highway 44 Interchange and Cross Town Connector - $200,000" was budgeted in that 45 category, he concurred. 46 June 18, 2001 Vol. , Page 11 1 Several Commissioners replied "no." 2 3 Commissioner Moynihan stated that he must have misunderstood. He asked 4 Commissioner Torliatt to clarify what she meant. 5 6 Commissioner Torliatt referred to Question 9, the Commission was 3/3, but she 7 assumed they would go forward and have the $10 million programmed under a 8 general line item called "Circulation Improvements." 9 10 Commissioner Moynihan asked if Commissioner Torliatt was referring to the 11 Five -Year Implementation Plan. 12 13 Commissioner Torliatt replied that she was. 14 15 Commissioner Moynihan explained that he was talking about this year's PCDC 16 budget. 17 18 Commissioner Maguire said he would not support that. 19 20 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson said that she would not support that. 21 22 Commissioner Healy noted that Council had recently discussed the fact that 23 there would be options to make mid -course adjustments in the General Plan 24 process. 25 26 Commissioner Torliatt asked if that could be dealt with at the mid -budget review 27 for PCDC and for the General Fund, if necessary. 28 29 General Plan Administrator Pamela Tuft agreed. 30 31 Commissioner O'Brien thought a budget line item for the cross-town connector 32 should be included in the budget, but he was willing to wait for the mid -year 33 budget review if that's what it would take to get a consensus. 34 35 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson asked if there were any questions on any of the 36 other responses. 37 Commissioner Moynihan asked again if he could ask questions that were not on 38 the list. 39 40 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson replied that he could, but if they were complex, she 41 suggested he give them to Mr. Marangella in writing so that he could come back 42 to the Commission with the answers. 43 44 Commissioner Moynihan explained that his questions had been given to Mr. 45 Marangella on paper in advance. He wanted a clarification on some areas. 46 Vol. Page 12 June 18, 2001 1 Commissioner Maguire suggested that City Management respond in writing. 2 3 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson thought the questions had already been answered. 4 She asked for a consensus from the Commission: should Commissioner 5 Moynihan's questions be answered once again? 6 7 Commissioner Moynihan stated that he was not asking to have his questions 8 answered again. There were errors in the way the budget was prepared — it was 9 inconsistent with past years. He was asking that when direction was given to City 10 Management, their responses come back in the correct format. 11 12 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson asked Commissioner Moynihan how much time he 13 needed. 14 15 Commissioner Moynihan asked for ten minutes. 16 17 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson replied that he could have five minutes; however, if 18 he was questioning the competence or integrity of City staff, perhaps an 19 independent audit was in order, as Mr. Stouder had mentioned last week, so that 20 this "conspiracy theory" could be addressed. 21 22 Commissioner Moynihan replied that he was not suggesting that. He referred to 23 the budget summary and the transfer from the storm drainage fund of $2 million 24 to the PCDC and the City fund. This showed up in the City budget but did not 25 appear in the PCDC budget as a transfer in from the City. He asked that this be 26 corrected. 27 28 Finance Director Bill Thomas explained that the amount was placed in a fund 29 summary for flood mitigation in the general operating budge, with the assumption 30 that the City would receive $2 million reimbursement from the State Department 31 of Water Resources for prior expenses relating to flooding. If that money were 32 received, it would be transferred out to the PCDC. This was an accounting 33 function. Mr. Marangella did not reflect that because it was an estimate. The City 34 had requested state reimbursement, and if it was granted, this was the way it 35 would be account for. 36 37 Commissioner Moynihan asked if it shouldn't show as a transfer in to the PCDC 38 budget. 39 40 Mr. Thomas replied that it could or could not; it had not occurred yet. 41 42 Regarding transfers out, Commissioner Moynihan referred to the East 43 Washington/North McDowell line item. The project was budgeted as an 44 expenditure in the PCDC budget, but did not show as a transfer out. 45 June 18, 2001 Vol. , Page 13 1 Mr. Thomas explained that it was because it was reasonably assumed that this 2 would happen; that project was approved. 3 4 Commissioner Moynihan asked if it was a transfer into the City fund. 5 6 Mr. Thomas replied that he was correct. 7 8 Commissioner Moynihan asked for confirmation that it should show as a transfer 9 out of the PCDC budget. 10 11 Mr. Thomas agreed. 12 13 Commissioner Moynihan pointed out that it did not. He added that this was what 14 troubled him: last year there were over $6.7 million of expenditures that were 15 transferred out to the City funds, and this year the budget showed zero. This is a 16 different approach to the way this has been handled in years gone by. He did not 17 understand why the City was not consistent with the format that has been used in 18 the past. 19 20 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson noted that Commissioner Moynihan had come 21 before the Commission/Council for several years asking that the format of the 22 budget be changed. Now that it had been changed, City Management was being 23 accused of "changes." 24 25 Mr. Marangella explained that the budget showed an expenditure in the PCDC 26 fund of $1.3 million for those improvement. It was being shown as an expenditure 27 instead of a transfer out. 28 29 Commissioner Moynihan pointed out that in the CIP it was being shown as a 30 transfer in, which is under the direction of Public Works, and Mr. Evert. The 31 normal way of accounting that would be a transfer out to that project fund. 32 33 Mr. Marangella acknowledged that perhaps there was a difference in the way it 34 was being reflected. He was showing it as an expenditure; the CIP was showing 35 it as a transfer in. He apologized and said he would synchronize that. 36 37 Commissioner Moynihan said that was really what he was asking: that the 38 transfers in and transfers out be corrected so that they reflect the CIP and reflect 39 the City funds. He then referred to the updated Capital Improvement Plan. The 40 Central Petaluma Specific Plan projects had been tagged on to the CIP. In the 41 CIP, all the projects showed $0 expenditures for the fiscal year. The budget they 42 had in front of them showed what they would be expending this fiscal year. He 43 wanted the CIP to be corrected to show funds budgeted to be expended this 44 fiscal year, and show the appropriate transfers out, so there were not `Two 45 disconnected, disjointed budgets going in two directions." He knew Mr. Thomas 46 was working on the Sources and Uses Summary, which he thought would be a Vol. , Page 14 June 18, 2001 1 good method of checks and balances. He wanted the Commission/Council and 2 City Management to work together to bring the budget back in a "better format." 4 He went on to say that the interfund loan process being proposed was 5 "unorthodox." He thought it unnecessary and poor policy to go forward with such 6 a large interfund loan, when the findings could be made now, and funding could 7 be made directly from PCD. He requested that City Management lay out the 8 same budget, with the same expenditures and revenues, in such a way that the 9 findings could be made and monies could be paid out of the PCD. He asked for 10 input on this from other Commissioners. 11 12 Commissioner Maguire pointed out that this budget process has evolved over 13 many years. He has pushed for longer term budgeting procedures and clearer 14 format for some time. He thought Commissioner Moynihan's suggestions about 15 the interfund borrowing were good, but it would take some time for the City to get 16 to that point. If staff could, without expending hundreds more hours, do a review, 17 he would be happy to consider that. He urged the Commission not to lose sight 18 of the improvements that have been made. He pointed out that between his 19 understanding and Commissioner Moynihan's understanding of the budget, there 20 was ample room to disagree about what were "standard budgeting procedures." 21 It was important to keep an eye on the "bottom line,"which was to get the budget 22 adopted. 23 24 Commissioner Healy thought that there would have to be substantial cutbacks in 25 programs to accomplish what Commissioner Moynihan was suggesting. He 26 asked Commissioner Moynihan where he envisioned making those cutbacks. 27 28 Commissioner Moynihan replied that he had just indicated that projects could be 29 funded as proposed using PCD funds instead of CBD funds, avoiding the 30 interfund loan. 31 32 Commissioner Healy asked again where Commissioner Moynihan suggested 33 cutbacks be made to the net expenditures of the PCD. 34 35 Commissioner Moynihan answered that they wouldn't have to be cut. 36 37 Commissioner Healy stated that the revenue was not in the budget to support 38 Commissioner Moynihan's suggestion. 39 40 Commissioner Moynihan countered that it was — "cumulatively, it's the same." 41 42 Commissioner Healy asked if Commissioner Moynihan was proposing to defer 43 projects. 44 45 Commissioner Moynihan replied that he was not. 46 June 18, 2001 Vol. , Page 15 1 Commissioner Maguire thought Commissioner Healy was saying that income 2 came into individual districts at different rates, and that's why it was necessary to 3 loan from one district to another. The income didn't come it at a sufficient rate to 4 support the projects that have been approved. 5 6 Commissioner Moynihan stated that it 'Was not rocket science." He was 7 suggesting that the funding mechanism be the way it always has been, and 8 projects be funded directly out of the project areas. He had talked with Mr. 9 Thomas regarding this, and he thought they saw eye to eye. It was just a matter 10 of finding the time to get everything correct. Last year, the budget was done 11 differently. This was not an improvement. This was doing something completely 12 different. 13 14 Mr. Marangella explained that the issue, as legal counsel had explained it to him, 15 was that in order to make findings and no loans, the environmental review work 16 must be complete before the findings were made. By going through a loan 17 process, the City was not expending funds, and environmental work would be 18 done before construction began. 19 20 Commissioner Healy understood Commissioner Moynihan to be saying that the 21 funds were available in the PCD to fund these projects without grants or 22 transfers. 23 24 Mr. Marangella clarified that the large district (PCD) was going to loan funds to 25 the small district (CBD). The small district doesn't have the funds now, but over 26 the life of the district, can repay those loans. 27 28 Commissioner Moynihan noted that in the summary, under the CBD project area, 29 there was a subtotal shown for the six-year period of almost $27 million in 30 expenditures. If that rate of expenditures continued, the CBD would not have the 31 money to pay back the PCD. 32 33 Mr. Marangella disagreed. 34 35 Commissioner Moynihan reiterated that his request was that this budget be 36 presented the way last year's budget was presented and show which projects in 37 the CBD could be done under the PCD. 38 39 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson pointed out that Commissioner Moynihan had been 40 speaking for almost twenty minutes. She asked to continue with the public 41 hearing as the agenda was very full and she did not think there was a consensus 42 of the Commission to change the budget process. 43 44 Commissioner Moynihan asked to raise a point of order 45 Vol. Page 16 June 18, 2001 1 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson repeated that she wanted the Commission to 2 continue with the public hearing. 3 4 Commissioner Maguire asked Vice Chair Cader-Thompson if she would like the 5 Sergeant at Arms to restore order. 6 7 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson announced a five -minutes recess. 8 9 RECESS: 4:09 P.M. 10 11 RECONVENE: 4:12 P.M. 12 13 PUBLIC COMMENT 14 15 None 16 17 ADJOURN 18 19 The meeting was adjourned at 4:13 P.M. 20 21 22 23 24 25 ATTEST: 26 27 28 Claire Cooper, Recording Secretary 29 30 31 32 Janice Cader-Thompson, Vice Chair