Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/26/1978F MINUTES OF MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA JUNE 26, 1978 ADJOURNED MEETING An adjourned meeting of the•City Council was called to order by Mayor Helen Putnam at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Bond, Cavanagh, Harberson, Hilligoss, Perry and Mayor. Putnam. - Absent: Councilman Balshaw. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the adjourned meeting of May 22, 1978 were approved as amended. The minutes of the regular meeting of June 5, 1978 were approved as amended. The minutes of the adjourned meeting of June 7, 1978 were approved as mailed.- STATUS REPORT ON FEES Finance Director John Scharer reviewed the schedule for building-permit-valuation fees which had been approved by the Code Changes Committee of Sonoma County and submitted to the International Conference of Building Officials without challenge. A copy of the fee proposal is on file with the City Clerk. In addition, Mr. Scharer reviewed a report prepared by the staff at the direction of the Council set- ting forth licenses and fees as they relate to identifiable costs. After discussion by the Council, the staff was requested to have the proper legis- lation prepared for Council's consideration at the July 3, 1978 Council meeting. AUTHORIZE INCREASE A memorandum dated June 23, 1978 from the City Engineer IN CONTRACT to the City Manager submitted and filed. The proposal ENGINEERING SERVICES from TJKM Planning and Transportation Consultants OLD REDWOOD M & outlining the additional fee for services submitted STONY POINT ROAD and filed. After a brief discussion, the Council RES #8227 NCS agreed the contract should be increased in the amount of $2,500 which would make the total maximum contract $7,000'for the engineering services for the traffic signal and channelization design for -the intersection of Old Redwood Highway and Stony Point Road. Resolution No. 8227 N.C.S. permitting increase in contract price for engineer- ing services (Old Redwood Highway and Stony Point Road) for traffic signal and channelization design was introduced by Vice -Mayor Perry seconded by Mayor Putnam and adopted by six affirmative and one absentee votes. DISCUSSION REGARDING Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP Gray.discussed agenda items three, four,.five and - - MENT CONTROL SYSTEM seven simultaneously Tin order to show the relationship & ANNEXATION POLICY of one to the other. Mr. Gray reviewed the proposed ordinance.establishing the Residential Development Control System which had previously been discussed with the Council, and he pointed out changes for the Council to consider. Mr. Gray stated there are two basic costs which should be considered before development occurs. One is the cost for capital improvements such as traffic signals, possible inter - change connections to the freeway,. the purchase of police vehicles, etc.: These costs are identifiable under the environmental review process. The ordinance providing for collection of. impact fees would be a mechanism to provide funds for these capital costs.. Secondly, but more illusive are the costs incurred from maintenance and operation. Mr. Gray recommended the City not place a moratorium on the Residential Development Control System but instead require each development to .prepare a cost revenue analysis. Those developments which can maintain the cost of maintenance and operation of essential public services over .a five -year period should.be_cofts. dered under the Residential Development Control Syste Those developments which represent an increased burden to the existing residents of the City should not be permitted to proceed under the Residential Development Control System until such time as alternate financial mechanisms for maintenance and operation costs can be explored. Mr.:.:Gray stated in conversations with the developers and the Construction ndustry of America, they_":agree'�there be some method for developments to pay their own way. 26 June 26, 1978 DISCUSSION REGARDING Mr. Gray next discussed the proposed resolution re- RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP- garding the residential annexation policy for the MENT CONTROL SYSTEM 1978 -79 fiscal year. When an annexation is filed with & ANNEXATION POLICY LAFCO the City is required to file a statement indicat- (Continued) ing adequate services can be provided for the land. Mr. Gray stated he did•not.feel this statement could be made unless alternate financial mechanisms are developed. The Council discussed the proposed ordinance for the Residential Development Control System and the resolutions prepared for them. Mayor Putnam asked for comments from the audience. The following persons spoke in opposition to impact fees and asked for additional time to study the Residential Development Control System Ordinance and other resolutions under consideration: Mr. Art Lafranchi, representing .the Industry of Sonoma County; Mr. Larry Smith, Executive - Officer, Construction Industry of Sonoma County; Mr.-Fred Strong, Legislative Consultant to the Sonoma County-Board of Realtors; Mr. Skip Sommer, Developer; Mrs. JoAnn Pozzi, President of the Chamber of Com- merce; Mrs. Lucy Webb, Realtor; Mr. Barry Parkinson, Attorney; Wayne Lepori, Manager, Diamond International, Petaluma; and,_Matthew L. Hudson,.representing the Construction Industry of Sonoma County. At the end of the di•scussion,•it was decided by the Council to continue Agenda Items three, four and five until the meeting of July 17, 1978, and no action was taken. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council convened to an Executive Session in the conference room at 10:40 p.m. and returned to the Council Chambers at 11:00 p.m. AMEND MUNICIPAL Discussion was held preceding the adoption of the CODE, -TO INCREASE ordinance. Art 'Lafranchi opposed ordinance stat- BUSINESS LICENSE -ing he did not feel it'was proper to increase fees in FEES light of the-:constitutional amendment recently passed ORD 41307 NCS by the electorate. JoAnn Pozzi, President of the (SECOND. READING) Chamber.of Commerce, raised a.question regarding Section B of the ordinance which would permit fees to escalate on an annual basis by using the consumer price index. She did not feel increases should be automatic. Mr. Byron Fauss also opposed the ordinance. Mr. Robert Rose did not specifically oppose the increase in the business license fee but felt it should be looked into. Council discussed the adoption of the ordinance as an emergency measure but asked the staff to prepare legislation to be brought back to them for review which could repeal Section B of the ordinance. City Attorney advised the ordinance, as.it.stands, could be adopted and•then amended the fees downward or eliminate the-escalation clause at any time. Ordinance No. 1307 N.C.S. adding Section 6.04.310 to the Petaluma Municipal Code to increase business license fees was adopted four affirmative., two negative and one absentee vote-. Councilmen Cavanagh and Perry voted "no ". IMPOSE IMPACT FEES Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank FOR PUBLIC IMPROVE- Gray reviewed the purpose of the-proposed ordinance MENTS which would impose impact fees for new,development in ORD #1309 NCS this city in order to.provide funds for capital im- (SECOND READING) provement projects. He explained the City had a DEFEATED policy. -of collecting -funds for water and sewer improve- merits for many years. The new impact fees-would continue this policy; however, the benefits would go toward such large capital investment items as traffic�.signals, fire stations, new interchanges to the freeway, storm drain facilities, etc., as they are needed. The impact fee is the system whereby the'assessment can be spread over entire area which would.benefit from the public-improvements. The ordinance would also assist developers who may be the first in an area and relieve them of the total burden of providing off -site improvements to mitigate requirements set forth in an environmental impact report. Developers would be contributing to the improvements but would not- bear the entire cost. June 26, 1978 IMPOSE IMPACT FEES FOR PUBLIC IMPROVE- MENTS ORD #1309 NCS (SECOND READING DEFEATED (Continued) Finance Director explained the financial situation in the City with regard to being able to provide large capital improvements. Primarily, the funds are de- rived from gas tax and generate only about $300,000 per year. Mr. Scharer also advised that since the City has been fiscally sound and has a surplus, Petaluma. would not receive any funds from the state under the provisions of SB 154. This bill divides the state surplus between the various agencies according to need. Speaking in opposition to the ordinance were: Matthew L. Hudson, representing the Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County; Mike Serpilio, Bank of America; and, Wayne Lepori of -the Diamond International Company. Lucy Webb also stated she was representing Mr. Benny Friedman. She was not really opposed to an impact fee but had questions regarding the actual fee of from $500 to $10,000 per acre. Discussion was held by the Council on the alternatives available if the ordi- nance is not adopted. Mr. Gray advised there are two mechanisms available to the Council, i.e., the Subdivision Map Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. If the Council determines they could not meet miti- gating measures, they could pass statements of overriding concern indicating why the City cannot provide needed improvements to protect the public health, welfare and safety of the community. Mr. Gray pointed out such statements may cause increased costs for the consumer by way of increased fire premiums. Fire Chief Robert Sharps advised any changes in the fire insurance rating would be spread throughout the community. Mr. Gray stated the developer could be subject to challenge by the people in the community whose fire service would be deleted by new development taking place. Councilman Harberson called for a vote on the issue. Ordinance No. 1309 N.C.S. imposing impact fees:for necessary public improve- ments made necessary by development was DEFEATED by one affirmative, five negative and one absentee votes. Councilmen Bond, Cavanagh, Harberson, Hilligoss and Perry voted "no ". Community Development and Services Coordinator Frank Gray advised a meeting has been scheduled with Larry Smith of the Construction Industry Association to discuss the matter further on Thursday, June 29, 1978 at 1:00 p.m., and members of the Council, the City staff, developers and representatives from the Construction Industry of America would be present at the meeting. REVENUE SHARING FUNDS Report prepared by Council Revenue Sharing Committee 1978 -79 ANNUAL BUDGET recommended the following expenditures for non - profit organizations for 1978 -79 Budget: Boy Scouts of America, $2,500; Petaluma Boys' Club, Inc., $2,500; Petaluma People Services Center, $15,360; YWCA Shelter Program, $1,875; and, Petaluma Seniors Involved, $2,250; or, a total of $24,485. The Committee had been chaired by Councilman Bond, with Councilmen Cavanagh and Hilligoss as members. A motion was made by Councilman Bond, seconded by Vice -Mayor Perry to approve the report. Motion carried unanimously. a A motion was made by Vice -Mayor Perry, seconded by Councilman Harberson to approve assignment of $20,000 in revenue sharing funds for the housing admin- istration and $3,500 to rebuild fire equipment to provide back -up service for the Fire Department. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:47 a.m., June 27, 1978, to 8:00 a.m., Friday, June 30, 1978. Mayor 27 Attest: Cffy Clerk