Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/07/197811 MINUTES OF MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA JUNE 7, 1978 ADJOURNED MEETING An Adjourned Meeting of the Petaluma City Council was called to order by Mayor Helen Putnam at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Balshaw, Bond *, Cavanagh, Harberson, Hilligoss, Perry, and Mayor Putnam. *Councilman Bond arrived at 8:10 p.m. 1978 -79 BUDGET City Manager Robert Meyer referred to the paper pre - DISCUSSION pared by the League of California Cities, dated May 10, 1978 entitled "Restriction of Local Government Revenue - Raising Ability ". He asked the Council to review the document. Mr. Meyer also stated the passage of the Jarvis -Gann Initiative (Proposition 13) in the June 6, 1978 Election leaves many questions unanswered. He feels the one percent limit on ad valorem taxes on real property will withstand any chal- lenge in the Courts. Mr. Meyer then referred to the document prepared by the Finance Director and distributed to the Council in March, 1978,-which reviewed the possible impacts upon the City if the'Jarvis -Gann Initiative was successful. At that time, it was predicted the net services needed to be reduced amounted to $708,747. Subsequently, the Council was presented with a Preliminary Budget for the 1978 -79 fiscal year, based upon Senate Bill 1 Restrictions. The Budget esti- mated the unrestricted money which can be used amounts to $724,000. The City realized an unexpected increase in sales taxes, amounting to approximately $300,000, and building permits also increased by $100,000. If the City receives their pro rata share of the property taxes under the Jarvis -Gann Initiative, it should amount to 12.8 percent of the property taxes. Mr. Meyer then reviewed the two budgets which had been prepared, showing a 10 percent reduction if the City receives its fair share of ad valorem taxes, as well as one if the City receives no share of the taxes. Both budgets could be met (at the 10 percent reduction) if the City chooses to use all its revenue sharing monies, and for the fair -share budget, $247,250 of surplus funds. The no -share budget would require $710,324 from surplus funds. The 1978 -79 Budget, as submitted to the Council, amounts to $4,695,165, and the adjusted Budget with the 10 percent reduction, would be $4,225,649. In order to arrive at the 10 percent reduction in the Budget, it would require a 10 percent cut in the number of employees of the City, or about 16 positions. Mr. Meyer advised during the past few months, the City has not been filling vacancies, and there are presently eight positions vacant in the City. In addition to reducing personnel in the City's forces, it would also require a 10 percent reduction in other areas of .the Budget. If the City does not receive the fair share of the property taxes, it would require using the balance of the surplus funds in order to operate the City through June 30, 1979. Mr. Meyer stated the information is given to the Council merely as a guideline, but the policies would have to be set by the Council when they would want to implement the programs. Fie also stated, if the Council deter- mines not to lay off City personnel, but not fill the eight vacant positions, there would have to be portions of other programs discontinued. Mr. Meyer had presented the Council with a list of 12 questions regarding policies to meet the limitations of the reduced budget and asked for some guidance and input from the Council in order for the staff to continue to try to prepare the reduced budget in order to have it available for the beginning of the fiscal year if the Council wishes to adopt the budget at that time. Mr. Meyer also stated it may be necessary for the Council to adopt a temporary appropriation ordinance for the months of July and August in order for the City to continue operation until final decisions have been made. In reviewing the questions, the Council generally felt the City should recover identifiable costs for services rendered, such as ambulance fees, costs for plan checking and engineering services, and review all other fees to determine if they were covering the actual costs of operation. 1 2. June 7, 1978 1978 -79 BUDGET The Council also felt they did not want to reduce Fire DISCUSSION and Police service.. No conclusion was reached in the (Continued) reduction -of additional - personnel beyond the eight vacant positions. Some suggestion was made that rather than reduce personnel, salaries be reduced and attrition take care of the remaining eight positions. With regard to new fees,.Councilman Balshaw indicated he felt the City should be prepared to adopt impact fees in order for off -site improvements to be available.for the citizens. He cited the fact two major subdivisions are.. planned which would contribute to the need for signalizations. City Attorney Larry Klose advised if the Council is considering such a fee, it would have to be adopted before June 30. There was a general concurrence by the Council they did not want to impose a utility .tax.. . With regard to the Summer Recreation Program, Mr. Meyer stated the young people.who.have.been interviewed to supervise.the.program were.advised any Summer - recreational _program .may not continue past June .30. .:Councilman Bond suggested the program continue for this Summer, but the Council should review the situation before the beginning of the program in the Summer of .1979. Councilman Harberson asked if it would be possible to determine the number of State and Federal mandated programs and.the.cost to the taxpayers. -for such programs. _He felt the State Assemblymen and Senator, and the U.S. Senators and our Congressmen.should be made aware of these additional costs - imposed on the .community.. Some discussion was held on ,the business lisence tax. Mr. Scharer advised the tax was imposed in a•certain.percentage in 1958• to supplement the General.Fund operation of the City. Today, that percentage ;is -nowhere near where it was in 1958. The Council will review and make recommendations regarding travel and meeting expenses incuded in their Preliminary Budget. A lengthy discussion was held on annexation of property to the City. City Manager Robert Meyer pointed out if residential property is permitted to annex to the City, the City would have to provide the same level of service to these areas.as presently being provided inside the City limits. It was the feeling, of -the Council -the -City should actively solicit commercia -1 property annexation but:be cautious about annexing. residential areas. Mr. Meyer pointed out the difficulties which could be expected if the areas on Petaluma Blvd. North and south -of the City were-to be. annexed The area to the south is served with water from North -Marin Water District, but the sewer line is not extended. A move had been made several years ago to annex some of the areas on Petaluma Blvd. North, but the property owners were not willing to form - -a sewer assess- ment district. Discussion was also held regarding advising-industrial-and commercial areas on the fringe of the City that they could no longer expect the City to provide stand -by fire and police protection service. With regard to the annexation already in progress ,- i.- e.,'Northeast�Petaluma Annexation , No , . 11, Council LAFCO should be advised- the. C ty -does not .plan to increase public safety- personnel. Mayor Putnam advised• =LAFCO "could then determine whether or not the annexation should proceed.- At the conclusion of the discussion, Mr. Meyer-called-upon-the Council to•give the staff some policy direction in matters such'as•whether they :want to utilize all of the Revenue Sharing money, if the Council prefers to keep all of the employees presently on the staff working, and do they want to balance the Budget by using all of the reserves. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come•before the Council, the Meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m., to an Executive Session. Mayor Attest: City Clerk