HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/14/2004 July 14, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 167
k~`~AL~`
" ~ C'ity of'Petaluma California
MEETING OF THE PETALUNIA CITY COUNCIL/PETALUMA COMMUNITY
j85'$
DEVELOPMENT COMIUIISSION
City Council/PCDC~BudgetWorkshop Minutes
Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 7:00 P.M.
Special Meeting
1 CALL TO ORDER -:7:00 P.M.
2
3 A. Roll Call
4
5 Present: Glass, Harris, Healy, Moynihan, Torliatt
6 Absent: O' Bien, Thompson
7
8__ B. _ Pled a :of Alle lance-Council Memb . _ _
_ er Harris _
_ _9 _ . . 9
9 C. Moment of Silence
10
11 PUBLIGCOMMENT
12
13 Jennifer"Weiss, President,. Boys and Girls Club, spoke regarding the club's .Indoor Pool
14 Renovation Partnershp'Request. The pool has been closed for almost four years because
15 of malfunctioning rnechanicalsystems_ They have received.a $170,000 grant from the
16 County, and would like the City to match that. request. The Club will raise the final
17 $160,000 privately. The ,pool would be avail"able to the entire community and would be
18 open seven days a week.
19
20 Mayor Glass- asked the City Manager if there were funds to match the grant.
21 ,
22 City Manager Bierman replied. that if Council wanted to the item as a Capital
23 Improvement Project and make it a priority, the City would find d way fo fund'it.
24
25 Marcy Telles, Cinnabar Theatre, asked the status of the TOT funds. She encouraged
. 26 Council to use redevelopment funds to more fully fund the theatre.
27
28 Mayor Glass explained that the subcommittee would make a .recommendation.
29
30 Council Member Torliatt. thought the item would be discussed tonight because it could
31 affect the PGDC budget.
32
33 Mayor Glass. asked Gouricil Member Healy if he was comfortable talking about the
34 subcommittee recommendation tonight., although the,budget was not scheduled for
35 adoption until July 19.
36
37 Ann Derby, Petaluma City Ballet, Petaluma, noted that the Petaluma City Ballet is
38 becoming well known, even internationally,. and brings valuable culture to Petaluma.
39
s ~
Vol. 40, Page 168 Juiy 7 4, 2004
1 Mike Haire, Petaluma High School'Music Boosters, spoke regarding the .high school
2 marching band review funding, through TOT, and the visitors this event brings to
3 Petaluma.
4 -
5 Scott Hess,. Petaluma, thanked Council for trying to keep tunc3ng flowing, and of the work
6 of the Petaluma Arts Council.
7
8 Mayor Glass asked'the City Manager if Council had consensus to contribute $1~70;OOQ,
9 `the City would find a way to fund it.
10
1 1 Council Member Healy supported the funding request. He noted that Parks and
12 Recreation Director Jirn Carr spent a lot of't'irne securing .grant .money from the County.
13 He thought it would be "a small investment: with a big return:.."
14
15 Vice Mayor Moynihan. noted that the Recreation, Music and. Parks Commission
16 recommended that the City match the County's donation.of $l70>000. He thought it a
17 reasonable requ"est, as the City would. gain ahother pool, and. the operating. expenses
8 would be covered by the Boys and Girls Club.
19
20 Council Member Harris,supported the, funding request. He'thought fhe City Manager
21 "should decide the
source of~the-funds: -
22
23 Counc_iI Memmber Torliatt suggested. The funding be put in the budget as aline item. She
24 thought it`important tb "cross all the 's and:dot all'the is"'fo be sure fhe funding sources.
25 were fully identified, th2 construe
i ion timeline, was agreed upon, and that the pool' would.
26 be available: tb everyone in the community;; She noted the Boys and Girls Club's
27 commitmentto raise the balance of'funds"needed; about $156,000:
28
-29 Mayor.Glass concluded there was; clear direction from Council to support funding of this
30 project.
31 .
32 COUNCIL COMMENT .
33 ~ ,
3'4" Council Member Torliatts.aid she might not be able to attend the August ~2 meeting.
35
36 Mayor Glass, Council'Member Healy, a_ nd'`Vice:MayerMoynihannoted-"they would be
37 unavailable on that date.
38 _ .
39 CITY MANAGER COMMENT
40 -
41 City Manager 13Bierman called Council's attention to three .items they had receivad at the.
42 dais: " .
43
44 ¦ Changes to the CIP document, correcting errors in fhe Parks and Recreation.
45 Section: pages. CIP-97-.1~4~2. _ ,
46 Indoor Pool Renovation ,Partnership Request
47 PCDC Proposed Budget - Microsoff'PowerPoint presentation.
48 =
49
50
51
52
July 14, 2004 Vol. 40, Page'169
1 NEW BUSINESS
2
3 A. Continuation of Discussions and Overview of Proposed FY 2004=2005 Budget to
4 include Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the. Petaluma Community
5 Development Commission (PCDC) Budget.
6
7 Public Transportation and Community Facilities Projects
8
9 Rick Skladzien, Public Facilities and Services Director, gave a brief overview of
10 each project,
11
12 Council Member Torliatt noted that she' is a director with the Bay -Area Air Quality
13 Management.District (BAAQMD); and knows that there are additional funding
14 opportunities available for the Safe Routes to School program.. She would like the
15 City to apply.
16
17 Mr. Skladzien was aware of the grantprogram, but explained that the City had
18 to have a basic program in place first. He would be happy to apply for any funds
19 that were available to help the City with the design and concept portion.
20 _ _
21 ~ Vice Mayor
Aoynihan thanked Mr. Skladzien and Finance Director Joe Netter
22 and staff for including the street reconstruction fund in the sources of funds. He
23 would have liked to see more detail on the Street Maintenance item, and asked
24 Mr. Skladzien to describe the project.
25
' 26 Mr..Skladzien explained it was the maintenance overldy, on-call street repair,.
27 Citywide.
28
29 Vice Mayor Moynihan noted that PCDC Street Reconstruction showed an
30 amount of $7 million - he thought if was supposed to be $1 Smillion.
31 `
32 Mr. Skladzien that the $7 million vvas the Community Facilities participation in the
33 program.
34
35 Vice Mayor Moynihan,. regarding. the Cross-Town Connector Project, the project
36 cost shown is ~ 1,311;000. The number Council ,heard at the. July 12th meeting,
37 independent of property acquisition costs, was closer to $20 million. He projected
38 a total more like X25-30 million. He..would like to see a more realistic CIP• for the
39 project, showing contributions from PCDC.
40 '
41 City Manager Bierman.referred to page CIP 32-:and read "construction cost is
42 estimated at $20 million." The City wilt be spending some money this fiscal year
43 on various studies that must be' produced. The timing for th.e project depends on
44 CalTrans.
45
46 Vice Mayor Moynihan would like to show.revenue contributions from PCDC every
47 year for both the Cross-Town Connector and the .Old Redwood Highway
48 Interchange, :even if just placeholder figure: He would like the budget to contain
49 "real numbers" and show potential revenue sources. He thought it important to
50 recognize what the long term costs would be on both these projects. He then
51 . asked about the Turning Basin Dock project and asked if the PCDC also had a
52 Turning Basin project.
Vol. 40, Page 170 July 14, 2004
1
2 Mr. Skladzien. concurred, and said it was a companion project for walkways on
3 the commercial side.
4
5 City Manager Biermdn added that these were replacements for docks that have
6 worn out.
7
$ Vice Mayor Moynihan asked if there was a plan in place to fund future
9 maintenance.
10
1 1 Mr. Skladzien .noted that the new structures will pe :floating corierete structures
12 that'will be much more durable.
13
14 Vice Mayor Moy' nihan Thought the Community Facilities funding sources-.seemed.
15 to lean heavily- toward developer costs. He thought that rather speculative.
16 Additionally, the Community Facilities fees were shown dwihdling down to almost
17 nothing. -
1.8
19 City Manager Bierman explained how the impact fees were structured. Fire
20 Impact and Police Facility fees were created: The numbers are estimates,;tjased~ _
- 2~1' - - ~ ~ ~ -on the:
developmerit
staff-thinks. will' occur. `The City will be asking developers, to Y
22 .help: pay for a new fire stdtion.
23
24 Vice Mayor,A`lloynihan noted, in the fund summaries, fairly large taxes shown '
25 coming into Community Facilities. He.was afraid~The City was programming
26 expenditure of impact fees that hd"ven't been received.
27
28 .City Manager Bierman,countered that this was what the City based'its.bidget
29 on. The General'Fund Budget is $32 million. The City doesn't have that in the bank
30 right now. With what's going on.righ'f now in the development area, staff fhnks
31 we'll be able to make these fees.
32 •
33. Council Member Torliatt asked iT a,ll the allocation for fire.. Station 1 was
34 construction cost.
35 _
36 Mr 'Skladzien clarified tfia,t th"ere was a second sheet summarizing the design and
37 inspection fees, etc., and bre_aKing down the costs.
38 _
39 Council:.Member Torliatt asked if any"funds were set aside for property acquisition.
40 - '
41 City Manager Biermamreplied that ho funds have been set aside and ho funds
42 are allocdted.
43
44 Mayor Glass said he didn't mind.. earmarking a little bit of money, but in order for
45 -the 'Redevelopment Agency to really .thrive, and the community is' on the brink of
46 thriving. with.what''"s happening downtown; the City needs To grow the
47 incremental-fax`reuenue>-so;it' needsto continue to invest. That growth.will,grow
48 the City's sdles tax:revenues: With that growth, down the road, the City would
49 have bonding capacity to access both in sales tax, as we improve there, ahd in
50 incremental property taxes through the Redevelopment Agency. He cautioned
51 against taking a rnyopie approach. Salting money away for across-town
52 Connector'for ten years would stall the revitalization of Phis town.
July 14, 2004 Vol. 40, Page: 1':71
1
2 Council Member Torliatt would like the. City Attorney`to determine if putting new
3 infrastructure into an aiea that's blighted is an appropriate use of redevelopment
4 funds.
5
6 Council Member Healy would support putting a more significant placeholder
7 figure iri for the cross-town connector, perhaps in the FY 2008-09 budget.
8
9 Council Member Torliatt pointed out that all the TOT projects are within the
10 redevelopment area. Asking. for clarification of what uses are appropriate.
11
12 Mayor Glass would advocate a minimal amount now, but cautioned against
13 "killing what's happening now to save money we can't spend right now."
14
15 City.Manager Bierman added that City must wait for CalTrans to figure out what
16 they're going to do, which could take years.,Some studies must be completed
17 now, if the City is going to "get into play on some of the big mone y that's out
18 there."
'19
20 Vice M`aygr Moynihan would also like to look at "phasing the project" -some
_ _ _
- 21-- - aspects could possibly be-completed l?efor•e the actual interchange. He thought
22 the City needed to set money aside so it would not~be spent on other, "less
23 important" projects.
24
25 Council INember Harris asked if, in light of the recent Council decision to "land-
26 lock" the. Police Station,'it made sense to consider asub-station on the East side _
27 of town:
28
29 Mr. Skladzien concurred, saying that the money allocated for Police facility
30 improvements was a placeholder.
31
32 Council Member O'Brien arrived at 7:42 p.m.
33
34 Parks and Recreation Projects -
35
36 ~ Jim Carr, Parks and .Recreation Director, :gave a .brief overview of each project.
37
38 Council Member Torliatt noted she has a conflicf of interest because she lives
39 within 500 feet of the Petaluma Junior High field. She asked to have it described
40 as. "Relocation of Kenilworth Ball Fields."
41
42 Mayor Glass .asked Mr. Carr to "cure the semantics so Ms. Torliatt could
43 .participate. "
44
45 Mr, .Carr agreed,
46
47 Vice AAayor Moynihan noted the funding was shown as a developer contribution.
48 He asked if the City had received that contribution.
49
50 Mr. Carr said the- City had not yet received it.
S1
Vol. 40, Page 172 July 14, 2004
1 Mayor Glass was comfortable. with that because if the.City doesn't get the
2 contribution, those fields will still be there until°the property is developed.
3
4 Council Member Healy brought up the criticdl heed for restrooms .at Wiseman
5 Park. H"e did not want`the City to wait fhree more years.
6
7 Vice Mayor Moynihan; noted that he serves as liaison to the Recreation, Music
8 and' Parks Commission, which reviewed, a preliminary Capital Improvement
9 Program. A number of changes had been madesnce -then. He believed. the CIP
10 should, be taken back to the commission for their review .and comment. He would
1 1 like to see more inclusion of City boards, commissions, and committees in the CIP
12 development process:
13
14 Mr. Carr noted. the CIP would be presented to the RMPC and an information. item
15 at their next meeting. He~ thought the biggest change revolved around
16 Kenilworth sale and its impacts. The RMPC is every aware of this and had discussed
17 it' at` length.
18
. .
19 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked where. the City would get funds to maintain these
20 parks. Gatti and the: Senior Center would be ;priorities, with others delayed until
_
-_2.1 - ~ - - --°-the'City gets.more operating
funds::He'didn't think any more~fuiids had been
22 identified.. He didn't warif to be too'aggressive about building' these. parks when "
23 it's uncertain if there will be the money to maintain-them. He thought Council
24 should, re-think. the timing of some of :these projects and think about spending
25 more money on projects where the City won't have operating costs -'dike the
26 BB~G Clubpool:
27
28 Mr. Carr reminded Mr.,Moynihan that'this document is a "planning tool." The.
29 department must come to Councif;for approval before awarding any°contracts.
'30 Council is completely in control of the process.
31
32 Vice Mayor Moynihan said he was bothered by what he saw as "unrealistic
33 assumptions" about developer contributions. "
34
35 Mayor Glass explained that the community would: be seeing increased revenue
36 with ,Kohl's, the new theatres, and the new shopping center on the K. ehilworth
37 property: Property taxes: will inerease..The operating budget v~iill come as a result
38 of "prudent development planning by;the City Council."
39
40 Vice Mayor Moynihan pointed out_ that~the budge, included, four new parks,
41 where only one has funding for'maintenahce. The City would be adding more
43 arks,.streefsca e, and ath ces onsibilities, without the funds° for operating costs.
p I? p p
44 Council Member Torlia#F thought.Vice Mayor Moynihan'was saying the City •
45 shouldn't build new parks if.it can't maintain the existing, ones., She hoped he
46 would be .consistent when, Council talked about streets: Should -the City build new
47 ones>`if it can't maintain the existing streets2' She continued that thinking of
48 putting all the things listed at Lucchesi is unrealistic. She did not wantpeople to
49 have false expectations about what- can really happen.
50
5.1 Council Member Healy sha"red sortie of Ms. Torliatt's concerns. Regarding the
52 Performing Arfs Center,. he thought Council should have a discussion with the
-July 14, 2004 Vol. 40; Page 173
1 High School District, as they are. looking at doing something similar at Casa
2 Grande High School... On the gymnasium issue; the real demand is for indoor
3 practice space. He thought there might be opportunities to partner with the
4 school districts.
5
6 Mr. Carr cautioned that any partnership agreements with the school districts
7 should include language ensuring that the City, and the community, wilt have the
8 use of the facility during certain time periods.
9~
10 Mayor Glass mentioned the possibility of the junior college as a site for swimming
1 1 pool.
12
13 Mr. Carr replied that the junior college has no plans for physical education
14 facilities on their property.
15
16 Water Resources and Conservation Projects'
17
18 Mike Ban; Water Resources. and Conservation Director, focused on key CIP
19 projects from his department.
20 _ _ _
_
21 ~ ~ Dean Eckerson, Water Resources and Conservation Engineering Manager,. spoke
22 about surface water projects, and water utility projects.
23
24 Mayor Glass acknowledged the work of Clark Thompson, who made about 15
25 trips to Washington D.C: on behalf of the Flood Control Project, as well Mr.
26 Bierman, Ms. Torliatt, Mr. O'Brien> Mr. Healy, Ms. Cader-Thompson, and Mr.
27 Marangella -people said this project was impossible. Because of the teamwork
28 and creativity of Council and staff, this projecf is completely funded and almost '
29 completely reimbursed. He asked Mr. Eckerson when he thought the project
30 would be completed.
31
32 Mr. Eckerson. answered that it .could be this fiscal year; if not, next. He then spoke
33 about the Petaluma Dredge Spoils Reofamation Plan. The site is surrounded by
34 the. Shollenberger Park Trail. Dredge material .removed from the river has been
35 disposed of at this. sife since the early 19J0's. What is shown in this year's CIP is
36 development of a long-term plan for managing the site. Future years will involve
37 the actual implementation of the plan. Efficient and effective utilization of this site
38 is key to maintaining th`e capacity of"the river.
39
40 Council Member Healy asked, regarding the Petaluma Dredge Spoils
' 41 Reclamation Project, what alternatives the City had regarding use of the river
42 dredging spoils.
43
44 Mr. Eckerson. spoke of ways to get dredge spoils t,o site, reclaiming materials from
45 the site as if fills up, He thought it important to remind the community that the
46 main purpose of this site is to maintain capacity of the river.
47
48 Council Member Healy asked about the area set aside as habitat for the
49 Saltwater Harvest Mouse.
50
51 Mr. Eckerson. explained that the 48 acres were permanently set aside as habitat.
52
Vol. 40, Page 174 July 14, 2004
1
2 Council Member Healy asked if this was a "high quality pickleweed site;" given
3 the lack of tidal action.
4
5 Mr: Eckerson replied that it wasn't, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has asked
6 the City to include in its plan for the site improvement of'the habitat conditions.
7
8 Council Member Healy asked if it would be possible to mitigate on the newly
" 9 acquired Gray property for this..
10
1 1 Mr. Eckerson said they are exploring;. otheroptions, due to the difficulty of making
12 the existing site a suitable habitat. He then continued his presentation by
13 speaking of :the number of water mains. and laterals needing repldcemenf on the
14 East side of Petaluma.
15
16 Council Member Torligtt sought confirmation that part of that project will" help.
17 facilitate-the "recohstruction of Payran Street as well, as the work needs #o be
18 done prior to.the street resurfacing.
19
20 Allr. Eckerson explained that WRB~C continues to coordinate with PF&S to ensure
_ _ _
21- - ~ "~-that underground'utdities~dre up" o sn`uff'b~efore th'e~~street is repaved: He then:
22 ~ described the Paula: Lane Tank:Project; which proposes a second tank on, the
23 site..
24
25 Council Member O'Brien,. asked, regarding the Paula Lane Tank-, ifi adding a "
26 second tarik:would increase water pressure ih Zone 2.
27
28 Mr. Eckerson answered that ways to improve .fhe water pressure will be explored:
29 There are ome limitations on how much pressure can be delivered from this tank.
30
31 Margaret Orr, Water Resources. and Conservation Engineering Manager, spoke
32 regarding the Phase 2 Recycled Water Project Master Plan Project; "and the
33 'Wastewater Treatment Plan and other wastewater projects. '
34
35 Mr. Ban then summarized the department's 25 projects.
36
37 Council Member Healy referred to. pages CIP 1„72-173, where a new project,
38 Wellhead Treafinerat, was discussed,- and asked if it would be possible to
39 accelerate this project.. He did not see dhy funds budgeted for the project in the
40 next two fiscal years.
41
42 Mr. 'Ban explained that the projecf was moved to a later date because as part of
43 the Master Plan, the department. will be looking at different water resources. to
44 decide "what is the best-mix. for Petaluma -how much :from' the Water Agency,
45 how much from gcoundwpter, how'~much from recycled water." Based on their -
46 findings, they may not have to move forward with the project, but if they do, they
47 will have the funds: budgeted.
48
49 Council Member Healy asked how many treatment systems they were
50 considering.
51
July 14, 2004. Vo1..40, Page 1.75
1 Mr. Ban conceded-that W.ellhead`Treatmentvould be challenging forthe City,
2 as its groundwater system is. fairly disperse throughout the system, but he was not
3 sure how many systems would be required.
4
5 Council Member Healy asked Mr. Ban if it would be possible. to accelerate this
6 projecf if the water contractors could reach an agreement on their mutual
7 responsibilities.
8
9 Mr. Ban thought it could be brought forward sooner, ifi need be.
10
1 1 Council Member Torliatt thought the City had about eight potable water wells for
12 use in an emergency.. The City is looking to expand the system but do it while
13 nego#iatingwith tiie other contractors and SCWA.'She. did not see any larger-
14 capital water conservation projects listed. `She knew there were- some in the
15 budget. She asked how much was budgeted for water conservation projects.
16
17 Mr. Ban clarified'that "Hold the Flow" is budgeted in the operations budget,
18 approximately $200,Og0-$300,000 in FY 2004-05. The department would like to do
19 a pilot project and'see what the benefits are before setting up a larger capital
20 fund. If there are benefits, it can be expanded.
2'1
22 Council Member Torliatt would like to see the City be more aggressive with "Hold
23 the Flow" as the soonerthe improvements are made, the sooner the flow through
24 the system is reduced, Unless the Cty.focuses on water conservation, water flow
25 will only be: increased. Regarding the: Phase 2 Recycled Water Project, she
26 understood from her participation;:on the Water Advisory Committee that there
27 were additional funds for which the City could apply for this project. She did not
28 see that listed as a funding source.
29
30 Mr. Ban explained that the City has applied for that, and it will go toward Phase
31 1 of the project.
32
33 Council Member Torliatf had thought there. were going to be additional funds.
34
35 Mr: Ban' clarified that' the money the., City `had received so far puts us at our cap.
' 36 Going forward, theywill be looking at other possibilities.
37
38 Vice Mayor Moynihan stated thdt traditionally, the City has aggressively
39 'budgeted projects and_not always achieving all. of them.:He asked Mr, Ban if it
40 was realistic to think the City could complete these projects.
41
42 Mr. Ban conceded itwvas an ambitious program; and with the department's very
43 small staff, will be a tremendous challenge. They will have to plan intelligently in
44 order to succeed.
45
46 Vice Mayor Moynihan thought that in the past the open drainage .ditches were
47 maintained, by SCWA using Zone 2A funds'. ~It now appears the City is stepping in
48 and taking over maintenance~~of some of these„-River Plan/Future Denman
49 Reach. Some of that property belongs to SCWA.
50
51 Mr. Ban explained .that they are capital.. projects; not maintenance projects. The
52 Water Agency does have maintenance responsibility in that area.
t
Vol. 40, Page 176 July 14,2004
1 Council:Member Torliatt'added`chat Zone. 2A is funding some of the
2 improvements~in that area; and the City isvvorking with the Southern Sonoma
3 County RCD to implement those projects.
4
5 Vice.. MayorlUloynhan asked, relative to the_River Plan/Future Denman. Reach, he
6 has Mr.'Ban to explain the project:
7
8 , Mc Eckerson answered that it represents irnplemenfation of the-River Access and
9 Enhancement Plan improvements that were: proposed. The current project on
10 Denman Reach just on the river upstream of Corond Road is-restoring: the flood,
1 1 plaih'terrace, landscaping the `upper bench area with native'vegeta`tion„and
1.2 also includes a parking lot for public access: This fufure'Denman. Reach project'
13 would beamilar - in the upper portion of the. reach-.flood plain and habitat'
14 restoration; and somewhat improved flood .carrying capacityon the`river in the
15 whole reach..
16
17 Vice: Mayor Moynihan asked if it was an actuaP frail.
18
19 Mr. Eckerson clarified thatthere is a trail component.
20
1 --Vice
Mayor Moynihan asked;if the City was dllowed'to do this with the
22 ratepayers;' money.
23
24 Nfr: Eckerson, explained that the current construction w,as funded primarily with
25 State grant monies secured by Director of Gene~al'Pfan Administration Pamela
26 Tuff. The funding shown is the local match for those grants.
27
28 Vice Mayor,Moynihan pointed"out that-the future phases show simply "flood'
29 mitiggfon and drainage fees -page CIP 157."
30
31 Mr. Eckerson explained thatthere would Have to be additional grant funding'for
32 the other components. ~ .
33
34 Vice Mayor Moynihan thought fhere:were huge,capital outlays shown: $T43
35 million in~wastewaferalone. He asked if that amount was provieled for in the.
36 current rate study -.and f'the City would have to raise: the water and sewer rates
37 to cover the capital :outlays.
38
39 Mr. Ban reminded~Council fhat'when the department presen,t:ed their operating
40 budget, they explained that they aCe currently developing a financial plan that
41 wilt look at planned expenditures and revenue sources.
42
43 Vice Mayor. Moynihan. said that-the current~fee struc'tu~re• provides forX `number of
44 dollars of cdpitdl outlay. He asked if that amount was exceeded bywhat''was.
45 listed.
46 ~ _
47 Mr: Ban explained that what they were.lookirig at as part of the financial plan
48 was what could be done- under the- current -rate sf'ructuce.
49
50 Vice: MayorMoynhan stated tlat~water and sewer rates have doubled in,the last
51 threeyears...Instead of raising rates fo fund capital outlays, could the Citycontrol
July 14, 2004 Vol. 40, Pagel 77
1 capital outlays? How can the City match funding sources with these. programs?
2
3 City Manager Bierman repeated that what Mr. Ban said was that. the City is
4 looking at what. can,be done'with the present rate structure, and what would the
5 next rate structure be if you wanted to complete more projects. Then priorities
6 must be set.
7
8 Vice Mayor Moynihan did not think the City should not lay out capital
9 improvements that are not supported by the current rate structure.
=10
11 City Manager Bierman explained that the GIP is a five-year planning tool. Projects
12 must then be prioritized.
13
14 Vice Mayor Moynihan countered that it mandated rate increases. He thought
15 the City should cap its spending.
16
17 City~Manager Bierman stated that it was necessary to "spend to the capacity to
18 which you have .prioritized."
19
20 Council Member Healy thought it important to dispel any__misgivings -there are__ _
- - ~ - ~ 21 ~ no ratepayer'funds in the Denman Reach Program. The bulk of the funds go to
22 the new Wastewater Treatment Plant, which the Council.hds approved. Short of
23 reopening the design of the Wastewater Treatment Plant, he did not see what
24 would be accomplished with this discussion.
25
26 Vice Mayor Moynihan. said he was trying to look at the overall picture, and asking
27 are if the City was a little too aggressive in budgeting all these capital
28 improvement projects.
29
30 Council Member Torliatt noted that' Council had already agreed on what was
31 going to be done this fiscal year.
32
33 Vice Mayor Moynihan disagreed. Ne asked if Council could .take the ratepayers
34 into account.when setting up this Capital Improvement Program. He had
35 opposed the Wastewater Treatment Plant because.ahe cost went from $35 million
36 to $105 million.
37
38 Mayor Glass explained that the en~ironmentdl tandards increase:and that's why
39 the Wastewater Treatment Plant has become much more expensive because it.
40 will meet the standards that the City will face!in'the future. The fines for°violating
41 those standards will be "mind-boggling." The solution is doia't create any
42 wastewater. That's not realistic. ";It~costs money to~be alive."
43
44 Council took a break from 9:20 to 9:25 p.m.
45
46 PCDC Proposed Budget
47
48 Paul Marangella, Director of. Economic Development and Redevelopment,
49 introduced Jean Miche and Evelyn Onderdonk, Redevelopment Project
50 Managers, and Joyce Clark, Redevelopment Program Manager.
51
Vol. 40, Page 178 ~ July 14, 2004
1 He spoke about` the two redevelopment areas, the Petaluma Community
2 Development Area and the Central Business, District, and his .recommendation
3 that the two dress be. merged. Ne described the capital improvement projects in
4 the CBD and, PCD areas, their financing, and pending concerns.
5
6 Council. Member Torliatt. mentioned the River Trail Enhancement Project, with. the
7 bike path running the .entire length of Lynch Creek, from the very edge ot~the
8 community all the way downtown:
9
10 .Mayor Giass .asked. when the path would be completed.
11 .
12 Mr. Marangella stated it would be completed this fiscal year, in time for'the
13 opening of the theafers.
14
15 Mr. Marangella explained that children would be able to side their';bikes
16 downtown. to the matinee. They .won't have to ride on surface streets.-.the path
17 will take them all-the way downtown.
18
19 Council Member Healy thought the bicyclists would have to leave the. path, cross
20 'Lakeville, and get back.on the path. -
22 Mr. Marangella' explained that they would cross on the cro"sswdlk walking their
23 bikes, then get back on the bridge.
24
25 Council M'emb'er Healy concluded there were two places where bicyclists would
26 have to get- off their bikes: He asked if this was really'the best way to link a .bike
27 trail into downtown. "
28 .
29 Mayor Glass called it "fantastic work--a textbooK case of tremendously exciting.
30 development." .
31
32 Council Member Healy concurred. and said the community would be seeing a sot
33 of progress iri:the next-twelve'months;, Regarding the Caulfield Extension,:he~
34 thought it mighf' be timely to put~some furid'ing into that for planning, preliminary
35 design and'engineering,-
36
37 Council. Member Harris. thanked Mr: Marangella for meeting with him an..d going
38 over the budget, line by-line; and congratulated ,his team: for their hard work = He
39 said there was "definitely"g buzz- around town gbouf the great kings that are
40 happening:" '
41 ,
42 CounciLMember Torliatt:asked it, in order o reduce costs in the future, test boring
43 would be done to evaluate mitigation.costs.
44
45 Mr. Marangella replied that this has now become standard operation.
46 .
47 Council Member-O'Brien echoed Mr. Hegly's comments regarding fhe Southern
48 Crossing. He also'~agreed with Ms. Torlidtt regarding theneed for better soils
49 analysis. Petaluma is•a 150-year-old city- there will be lead contamination, etc.
50 He didn'.t think boring was the answer. '
51
July 14, 2004- Vol. 40, Page-179
1 Vice Mayor Moynihan thought there was originally a negative fund balance
2 shown at year end. He asked if that had changed.
3
4 Mr. Marangelfa agreed, and explained that" there would be $3.3 million fund
5 balance. He pointed out increasing fund balances in later years making it
b possible to pdd projects down the line.
7
8 Vice Mayoi• Moynihan asked if this was based on increases in incrementdl
9 property taxes.
10
1 1 Mr. Marangelfa concurred; buf .added that they were very conservative
12 estimates.. The property tax increment should increase much more. than is shown.
13
14 Vice Mayor',Moynihan asked if the transfers out numbers in the operating budget
15 had been superceded.
16
17 Mr. Marangelfa confirmed that they had, and indicated where that was shown.
18
19 Vice Mayor Moynihan thought the budget was going to show transfers out from
20 PCDC for street reconstruction every year.
22 City Manager Bierman noted that the information was shown in a couple of
23 different ways, but agreed that it could also be presented in the format Mr.
24 .Moynihan requested.
25
26 Vice Mayor Moynihan.did not support spending $1.8 million on the railroad depot,
27 as it is a leasehold property.
28
29 Mr. Marangelfa explained that the .City has a 25-year lease, and is required to
30 make the improvements. If the depot were to be an amenity for the community,
31 the improvements were necessary.
32
33 Vice Mayor Moynihan suggested that the City needed to get some "real"
34 contractors in to the depot to make some suggestions. He was also interested in
35 seeing PCD funding'for long-term projects- Rainier, etc. He would like to see a
36 different focus. He thought the City needed. fo spend money "other places than
37 downtown."
38
39 Council<Member Torlidtf countered thdt money was not being spent in only one
40 area. She pointed out that Council had just; been shown projects that provide a
' 41 ton of improvements for the community, all over town.
42
43 Council Member Healy agreed with Mr. Moynihan to the extent that he thought
44 there should be seed money for Rainier.
45
46 City Manager Bierman predicted by the time 2008 rolls around, the City will have
47 all kinds of development, and if it can be bonded, "that's a load of money."
48
49 Mr. Marangella added they were projecting from 2010 about $240 million of tax
50 increment.
51
52
Vof. 4d, Page 1'80 July 14, 2004
1
2 ADJOURN
3
4 The meetingwas adjourned at. 10:20 p.rn. '
5
6 ~
7
8
9 avid Glass, Mayor
10
11 Attest:
12
13
14
].5
16 Claire Coope~> Deputy City Jerk
17
18
. 19 .
`20 ~
21
22
23