HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 06/18/2001 (6) •
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
. City•ofPetaluma, California .
3 Draft Minutes.'of a Special
4 - City Council Meeting_
5: • Budget Workshop
Thursday, July 22, 1999
7
s Members of he Petaluma City Council met on this date at*7:00 P.M. in the Council
9 Chambers.
10, •
i`1 ROLL.CALL
12
13' PRESENT: Council .Members Cad'er-Thompson, Maguire, and Torliatt
14
15 • '
16 ABSENT Council Member'Hamilton, Healy, Vice,Mayor Keller, and Mayor Thompson
17
18 Clerk's 'Note; There being a Jack of a. quorum, Council Members present agreed to have a
19 workshop'to'review segments of the City's Draft Budget document for FY 1999 - 2000, allow for
2:0' public imput;.and have a dialogue with City Management in public view. No action was taken. .
2..1
01 PUBLIC COMMENTS
Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke regarding the flooding problem in Petaluma.
25 . -
26 COUNCIL COMMENTS
27
2.8 None
29
30 CITY MANAGEMENT.COMMENTS:
31
32 None.
33
34 UNFINISHED.BUSINESS
35 •
36 1 . Workshop Petaluma's Budget for Fiscal Year 1999-2000.
3'7
38 SPECIAL PROJECTS
39, .
40 , 'No quetionsor';comments. •
4'1
42 PLANNING'ANDiBUILDING .
43
44 City Manager Fred•Stouderoverviewed the budget,stating that City.Management
Se
City of Petaluma, California
Draft Minutes of a,Special
City Council Meeting
Thursday, July 22, 1999
Page 1
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 proposed. and had budgeted for a reorganization that included'refining; if not
2 completely restructuring,.Planning,and„Community:Development. It included taking
3 the.existing functions and transferring thefDevelopmentEngineering functions; that
4 'is, two Engineers from Engineering to Planning, and re-employing or re-instituting
5 the;Building Inspection Division to Planning, which had reportedto,M? Hargis over
6 the,last.couple of years. City Management was•working through configurations; but
7 to Some degree did hot Want to have it in°final'form until a.Director of;Community
s Development was appointed orhired..
9
10 Council:Member Torliatt:asked if funds were included :in the budget to physically • -
11 improve the physical work:environment of the department:
12
13 Interim Planning Manager yin'. Smith replied,.that as p?op sed, no money was
14 available,for physical;modifications ItwaS not certain,with the reorganization, how
15 much room there would be for additional staff. Over the next six months, ;City
16 Management would examine'.the needs. Currently"there.were openings for two
17 Principal'.Planners and'asSenior Pl''annerand:he thought positions:wouldibefilled -
ra within the next four to six months; thiscreated somesalarysavings. In addition the
19 combined, budgets of Engineering; Building, Planning? Housing; and
20 Redevelopment, which had money would the departmenttei pool
21 resources;andsdetermine the of.those funds: During the next fiscal year!City
22 Management.would take a serious looker remodeling and hopefully have a•plan for
23 a remodel starting atthe beginning Cfthe calendar .year.
24 • . M
25 Council ,Member Torliatt concluded.;that.City, Management'would use the.money
26. from vacantpositions for some;of`the remodeling.
27
28 .Smith replied that this was one concept. There were ,approximately `five,
29 •positions vacant between Building, Engineering,'Planning. His,epproach was that
30 he believed the goal could he accomplished.without necessarily"increasing .the'.
31 budget.in'the process.
32
33 Council Member Torliatt asked•iftherCouncil would be:given;the:opportunity:for a
34 six-month review of the budget.
35
36 Mr. Stouder.repli'ed "yes," adding maybe not monthly but'certainly'quarterly, City
37 Management would want to provide can update in detail. He thought,it would 'be
38 September or closer to January before the,new department positions werein place.
39 There were several reasons for that. The Department of Water Resources triggered
40 much of the reorganization; it did take time, and•City Management wantedtohavea •
41 smooth transition. He continued thathe wanted-to be sure that Mr: Hargis had the
42 Corps Project in almost final completion stage before,'haVing,,hini turn his full
43 attention, or even more than a small part bf hisrattention„to a department=approach
44 •to"water resources. That.would'trigger'a'lbt of otheractivities'.
N
city of petelumaSCalifornia:
DraftMinutes,of•a Special;
• city.Council Meeting
Thursday,.July 22-;;-1999
Page 2
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
He also wanted'to haven Directorof`Public Works by January 1 , 2000. When the
3
initial management leadership positions were filled;an October:to March timeframe,
then it°would.reallystart to roll. .
5 •
6 In addition, regarding water, it was hard to separate the three department
7 • restructurings from eaàh Other. Mr. Hargis, Public Works, Engineering, and a lot of
8 - other people spent,a lot of time the last six months thinking this through and coming
F•,
9 up with ideas, He had `participated in.many of those meetings and there had been
o•. many more meetings`he did not attend.
ti
12 From the Traffic Engineer to the 'Development Engineer to the Water
13 Superintendent talking Through these things, the Public Works restructuring had.not
14 had the benefit of having all the necessary' parties present, such as the new
15 director. He was reluctant to say, "Here's the actual final design of the house,"
16 without having the new manager present and being sure that all the other people in
17 the organization had been involved.
18
19 Council Member Cader-Thompson stated thatshe heard from the public that if a
210 project was going to happen in in their neighborhoods, small or large, they wanted to
21 be notified'.at the'beginning of the process, not just when there was going to be a
publichearing.
Mr. Smith rep lied, that ,City Management was`starting to look at what should get
2s noticed: Traditionally, the City did not notice preliminary applications. Past belief
2 6 was that it was an opportunity for the developer to have a:general conversation with
27 the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee,(SPARC)or with staff on what
2 8 ' they were proposing.:He thought City Management was examining that past thought
2'9 and incorporating,0for`certain projects, a notice fee in order to get general feedback
3 0 from the public: It was not fully instituted; some notices were sent for certain
-31 - preliminary review projects such as a project, in a riverfront warehouse, or a
32 'proposal at Freitas Road and Lakeville Highway for•:thp Planning Commission's
33 preliminary review of their proposal. He thoughtthe Council would see more and
34, ,added that the process needed:to be formalized. David Woltering was looking at
3+5 the public ,Participation process; and making some recommendations. City
36 Management was already instituting some of these. He thought the,preliminary
37 review,process would become an expanded Public participation process: He thought
38 it was valuable,: at the very beginning of a project, if the City heard from the
3 9 :neighborhood their feelingsabout the project. It would certainly help the developer
40 in the long run:
41
42 Council:Member Maguire mentioned the noticing requirements and the established
43 300' radius. He thought that if it was large project, a larger area should be noticed
44, 'becauseit`would have a greater impact.
City of Petaluma,California'
Draft Minutes of a Special
City Council Meeting
Thursday,July 22, 1999
Page 3
•
' .
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT . E.
1
2 Mr. Smith replied that,City'Managementwasi.customizing jh-ek,htilice:liSt 00 thatthe VIP
3 first cut minimum requirement was 300'. 'In .addition, they were looking at the
4 projects and makinga judgment call on hoWfarOuVpagple would be interested in
s commenting onthe.prOject and in fatt were dortig well beyond 3004for many of the
6 Projects:
7 , .
, .... ,
8 CoUnbil Member Maguire referred to page 227, under Department Workload and
9 Activity,, a :subsection near the bottom, Detention Pond iStudy, and read, "The
10 Planning Department is assisting in the preparation and review oftthe ninety-day
11 study. As a follow'up project, the Planning Department will revisit the allocation
12 process*with'the City Council once the,ioLitcorne&f the?studyiSiknown:",Helasketl if
13 thatreferred tolhe housingallocation. .
14 • .
15 Mr Smith te0liedlye:s.7
16 -
17 .Council:Member Maguire wanted to know whythe housing, allocation was being •
18 reconsideredbased on the Detention Pond Study.
19
20 Mr Smith replied thattheactionthe;Council took was to continue forego Making,
21 a formal adtion'orythe housing allocation process until the ninetyrday-studY;WaS,
22 complete. It was more of apladeholcler for City Management as a reminder that it
23 needed to be CoMpleted., 410
24 . '
25 Council Member Cader=Thompsorhasked what the Redwood Crossroad was
26
27 Mr Smith repliedthatit was at thei'Padific.Cinema site;:the,(Jotal area beingstudied,
28 was thirty r acres. It started wittr,a development proposal on the corner of Old
29 Redwood Highway and North`McDtwelIBPulevard for a shopping cent&Oci:Wde'
30 ' expanded to add the old Kleag,fanily Trustpropertytirectly,6rfthaoThramp and at
31 Home Road to the west, directly to the west of thelheaters and to take-over the
32 remaining'vatant portion tf the theater site
33 •
34 Council Member Cadet-Thompson:clarified thaVit was just theicorner. •
35
• 36 .Mr..Smith replied "yes." .
37 .
, _
38 .ENGINEERING
39
40 iMr.:Stouder stated that Mr.,,Hargis,.alsowantedto use this as an opportunity to talk
41 about the Department. of Water Resources. He continued that once City
42 iManagement's:,efforts i were focused and concentrating on 'water quality, flood
43. :!management, water reuse,. and conaerYation,, more,than an 'ideal but a proposal
44 evolved arida sub-committee Watorrned of chaired by Gene Beatty, .
a
Cityof petalurna,:California
Draft Minutes df aiSpecial ,
City Council Meeting
Thursday,Julya, 1999
Page 4
' DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
S "that cut across(departmental lines. The committee r worked through a variety of
proposals, not only`for Water Resources, but also for Public Works, Planning and
3 Community Development'. In the case of Water Resources, Mr. Hargis; as the new
4 Director of Water+Resources and Conservation beginning January 1, 2000, had
s further refined and done an analysis of the work the sub-committee produced; he
6 wanted to talk to thetouncil informally to share his thoughts and getthe Council's
T thoughts, comments, and suggestions and to answer any questions regarding the
a traditional Engineering Budget.
,9
1'i questions"regarding rks and Engineering neeri g Tom Hargis if the Council had any
10 Director of Public Works and En ineenn
.Budget.
12
13•. ' Council Member Maguire referred to page 261 of the budget document, under
14 Performance Measurements, and read,'"Add'two enhanced pedestrian crossings
15 (Putnam Plaza blinking,lights):' He asked why that was in parenthesis, wanting to
is know if another example was going to be added.
17
is Mr Hargis replied:that itWas done to identify what a pedestrian crossing was and
" 19 differentiate'it from,a crosswalk.
20'
2.1 Council Member-Maguire inquired ifithe downtown was the targeted area.
appMr. Hargis replied that it was and continued that one of the performance
measurements established.would require City Traffic-Engineer Alan Tilton to look at
25 pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular, bus, traffic counts, update speed. counts, traffic
26, calming devices, what worked, what didn't, and from that determine the impact on
27 some projects.
2a • .
29 Council Member Maguire''asked how in-depth of a circulation report would be
30 possible.
31 • . -
32 Mr. Hargis replied that it would not supplant the General' Plan; it was more geared
33 • towards the discussions that occurred about Sonoma Parkway, for example. The
34 City . c d F neighborhoods, , existing streets
'35' nd`t aff 'c cleswith some new develop ment ,
It was' intended to feed'-into the
36 greater aspects of the General Plan'and the Circulation Element on a small scale.
37 He announced'the-upcoming meeting the following Thursday regarding Detention
35 Pond Study and Surface Water Management;,another'endeavor for community
39 outreach and education that•may be'able to•feed'.into:the.General. Plan.
4'p •
41 Council Member Torliatt did not see any'River Enhancement Projects in the Draft
4'2 Engineering Budget. There had been discussion;about improvements under the "D"
43 . Street Bridge,°even'though funding was to come from the Petaluma Community
44 Development Agency budget. She thought that project should fall under the purview
City of Petaluma, California
Draft Minutes of a Special
City Council.Meeting,
Thursday, July,22, 1999
Page 5
•
DRAFT - DRAFT .DRAFT
1 ofthe,Engineeririg Depart.Merit She she:didrIl sesanythihg relative ,...
,
2 Lynch Creek and the recent action by Council to pursue additional funding for the
3 under-crossing, under Highway 101. She thought that waSa signifiCantjprOjett•and
[
4 should be includedras-well as looking at performance measures that Were not auto-
s related, and tracking the type of prbjects:anclthiaarnOUntPl:dbliarsihe City spent on
6 that in addition to auto related projettS. She thought that was something City
7 Management should track,: . .
8
9 Mr Hargis replied that,with respect to the Street and LynchICreeklorojeCts,they
10 were foregone not shown as performance measurements in the
11 budget document. The assumption was they would be done and had Council
12 commitment already. _
13 • .
14 CouncilMember Torliatt,thoudntiff,the department spent time on projects within the
is fiscal year, those projects should be identified in the budget.
16 .•
17 Council Member Cader-Thompson said.shemanted tohavaa booklet available for
is the 'public that offered ideas, and provided industry terminology about roads, for
19 example, so a neighborhoodithat wantedlotget involved tbOld gettOjgetheritobk at
,
20 options, and begin a dialogue with the Engineenng Department With respect to
21 water, she wondered if the City hadjookedrat what Napa did with their"Living River
22 Plan," perhaps weaving something similar into`theoeneral.Plah.
23 , _
24 Regarding, pedestrian!trosSingS,; next to Long's Drug Store on North McDowell a ell
25 Senior Citizen Housing Project was being constructed: The intersection by the -
26 shopping center and the community center was difficult for.pedestrians. When a
27 project, was;coming through, she thought that the City needed to lOok, al ,Ine
28 roadways ion either side to ascertain necessary improvements:as part of the
29 development project. Shaaddedjhat,When the Lakeville and "D" Street renovation
30 beari, she wanted to have a right-hand AGM land to forcetraffic to use Lakeville
31. and use Caulfield to get across town, so 'fewentars•would go down Old East "D"
32 Street to<accessWashington Street.
33 •
34 CoLihoil Member Torliatt stated that in addition to monitoring thaaritunttf money
...,, .....„ .„ ._..._ . . ... .._
35 " the City spent on auto verSUS4nonrautb related,projects;,shathoughtthe,source of
36 funds was important; that is, federal, state, or city-matched dollars. , •
37
38 Mr. Hargis for clarification gave asanvexampleithe Lynch Creek projettc.etatingithat,
39 a,lotpithe)funding was from pedestrian and bicycle-oriented Micks. He adT(ted'iliat,
40 those types of projects and funding amounts should be highlighted to show the •
41 was utilizing thoSe,opportunities
'42 .
• .,. ., ,
43 Council, Member Cader-Thompson asked what the process, was for funding a '
44 projeciand What a neighborhood Couldkdblo gettheir resources fogetherto start a:
Cjiyol Ippflomoi California .."
•braft.filinufes ola Specil
City council
Thurselay,,JuV22,71999
Page 6
DRAFT . DRAFT DRAFT
•
lproject. •
3 Mr. Hargis replied that the City was reviewing [hat process He thought that in the
4 future there would be a benefit to some partnering with the neighborhoods to
s resolve some,of the'health and safety issues, rather than having the issues blow up
6 and the Council become the arbitrators. He noted:that the Lakeville. Widening
„7 Project was going out to bid,on Friday. For future projects the City could look into
8 possibilities of expanding right-hand turn capabilities from "D" onto Lakeville.
9
10 Council Member Maguire noted that he had conversations with Traffic Engineer '
1 Alan Tilton over the years about a left-turn signal for cars traveling east on "D"
12 Street, as there were accidents there and it would allow people to get over to
. 1`3' Washington Streetisafely. He recalled:Mr. Tilton telling him that to do a dedicated
1.4 right-hand turn andhave;enough'for through and left would mean acquiring some of
15 ' . • the;property at the corner; he thought that it may beincluded in a future Circulation
1!6; - ' Capital Improvement Project(CIP).
1,7r e
Mr. Hargis wasmot sure about that. .
1 9
2E0 Council.Member Torliatt noted that drivers in the right-hand lane at that.intersection
21 ' • shot,through'the`intersection; she-had seen'so many close calls. She did not know
,22N, how to better sign,it in;the.interim, but restated that it was very dangerous.
Council Member Maguire had suggested to Mr. Tilton thatinstead of green in both
25 directions,on "D" Street, it should be green forward and right turn and everyone
going east could go in whatever direction they when that turned red,the
27 ' opposing direction could gotstraight,left-and right
28
29 Council Member Torliatt said that was not• problem;°it•was the drivers who went
.3°0 straight. .
3 1. -
32 Council Member Maguire understood,-but replied'that it was the problem because
. 33 they can't get through in the middle'lane because people turned left at the shared
34 straight/left lane. _
35 .
3:6 Mr: 'Hargis. said he w ould have the Traffic Engineer take another look at that
3'7' . intersection.
38
39 -• . There' were no other questions or comments regarding the Draft Engineering
4:0 • Budget. . ' , .
41
. 42 Mr.,. Hargis proceeded to give an overview of the development of the Water
4'3 Resources and Conservation Department, including a projected timeline of where
4.4 the department would be in six months, a year; and in five years. His report
City of Petaluma,"California
Draft Minutes of a.Special.
City Council Meeting
Thursday, July 22, 1999
Page 7
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT • • • ,
1 .addresSed near4tertri staffing and mentioned and reviewed those positions as a
2 fellOWs: NMI
3 . .
,
4 1. Financial Matieget, - He. thought. one of most important things for the
..
s department was to get a firm grip on funding for the r for projects
6 like the treatment plant,water transmission facilities, as well aS smaller but
7 none the less important maintenentstyOeolprojectS,
8
9 2. Surface Water Hydrologist-:IntereSt in flood control,,WaterqUality,,Surface
_.k.
, , ..
10 • water management iSSOOS., The City had an existing model of the ?water '
ii supply system, a traffic model, and Smadel of thesewercolleation system.
12 . He Wanted the city to have an in-house hydraulic model of the Petaluma
13 RiVer. He hbOed to hire sorneonswith a'hydrology background.
14 S
_
15 3. GIS, (Geo-grephid. Information: System) Technical...:, :Currently the
16 Engineering. Department functioned to keep the iwater, sewer, and •SliCkit
17 drain .basin( maps pp to date?, He saw this position as someone in the • .
18 organization who was dedicated keeping the maps current
19
20 4. Utility Foreniart.- Taking the existing water system and making it a part of
21 the total water resources;;„the 'position, carried e finanaiall capability, :bond .
22 issues, rate increases, connection fees, certificateeoftpartibipation;
23 .
, ..
24 5. Ertgliteetinrechhician-- One yearfrom now. ' fl
or
25 . •
26 He thought was ambitious to have something like-this in place or even proposed
27 for January 2000. He had'several conversations with the City not
28 being too ambitious with the,Oppertrrient. The list of things they could get into and
29 do needed to be dane. ,in inCrernents, that allowed for a demOnstration. of
30 accomplishment and progress and were measurable. There was :a need to be •
31 selective in this process because there were just too many good' and ;interesting
32 things to be involved: in He thought it may be a little ambitious Marley-wise and . '
33 timing-wise, it was important that hsandthetWo.new directors had the opportunity
34 to work'together and do some ViSibbing. ,
35 .
36 He provided an overview'toPthe issues ariCI projects the newdepartmenbwould.
37 address. :He thought the ,City had some opportunity to make irriPrOVernerith,anclr
3,8 significant changes with its regulatory capability, it did not tioyetto'.0e attesphalt, dirt,
39 • and landscaping modifications!: Heinated he would propose anordinanceregarcling • . -
40 development in the flbodplain, possibly no development in the flObeiplair-liarrsathe .'
41 Variation; He knew detention Porids would be hot topic in the real estate market
42 However, when there vvas spouse with aleaky'seWerlateral, antha requirement to •
43 inSpeCttheneeWeiAandTtepaii- before;the house was sad,this was'',an example of
44 howto addressdnfldwend infiltration problems. There was aldtof enthusiasm,and
ei
CifrefiPetalbrea;,Califoteia
Draft jiputes of,a Special
. bay:bet:hail l Meeting
Therec1ayrilely.22; 1989
Pageli'
1 ,,
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
he looked fo the Council for temperance; they didn't want to over commit.
3 .Council Member Torliatt wai glad to see included in the draft performance
4 measurements, "Maintain the design life of the Corps of Engineers project to
s preserve1he hundred-year levefof protection."
6 .
7 Mr. Hargis stated the City could do its part within its boundaries and •added that
8 there was a need to,work with.the county:and the groups to preserve that
9 life-because:the City did not control its destiny. One of the important things he saw
to in his potential duties was working in'that greater'arena, to involve agencies other
11 than theCity°ofPetaluma'with,whatthe;City•wanted to'do. He saw it as the kind of
12 activity'that could bring opportunities and a greater awareness.
. 13
14 'Council Member Maguire noted the abundance of great opportunities that were
15 'A made manifest by the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB);:because without that, so
16 much of.the administrative energy was focu ed outward on new development. Now
17 that if was in place, the City could go back and%find out what its working systems
18 were in. an effective and environmentally efficient way. He loved good fertile
19 thinking; •
_ 20
21 Mr. Stouder commented on the entire concept of performance measurements. If
0 • ordinary tasks and day-to-day responsibilities were the subject of the conversation,
therecould and would be hundreds in each department,he then provided a number
of examples. The examples he stated were daily, monthly objectives and tasks;
25 performance measurements;were established by a process of determining what
26 was really important, needed to be understood,wa"s, ambitious,and must be done.
2 7 • The City was trying to 'address its critical needs and determine how it would know
28 when it these were met. The processes would easily fail if the "City tried to
29 accomplish fifty along with the two hundred.dailythings. The question was which
- 30 two or three really needed to be done,.. not only in. Water Resources, but all
31 departments. He'continued to provide-examples'of°what that might entail in the
32 area of Water Resources, he believed the examples provided'were easy to state but
33 hard to‘achieve. This wasimportant over the next several years to understand and
34. 'focus oh'.
35 •
36 Council'Member Maguire did not want to be discouraging but on the chart provided
37 showing the department layout by January 2005, he pointed out an aggregate of
3'8 twenty new positions, four positions per-year. He stated the City had trouble filling
39 two or three new positions in any given year'in the past and wanted to know if there
40 was a"plan on how to.accomplish this.
41
42' • 'Mr. Hargis replied that he started with the chart that showed the position of a
43 Financial 'Manager as :one of the first hires, as there was no way the City could
a4°4. achieve°these kinds of ideals without creating afinancial structure. Surface water
City of Petaluma, California
Draft Minute's'of a Special
. City Council Meeting
Thursday; July 22, 1999
Page 9
•
•,
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 and.sthritiWater regulations.and the population inthe City now beingln:cxcese,of sip
2 50,000 would fforce: some pbsitions. The City would be going.into Mandates for
3 surface water and storm drain maintenance and would need to look at
4 such as..arbassessment.district like Santa Rosa had, or7,perhapa,a modification of
5 the existing Zone .2A 'Benefit District, in order to finance compliance with those,
6 regulations. Ideally, he thought there Weresbrhe cross-training opportunities that
7 ,couldireduce,somejof the numbers, among other things, but was an
8 open-minded visioning procesS,
9
10 Mr,,StoUdettnbted that some Of the!things!,Mr. Hardis:talKed pbOUtYVe1&tb,ii*:-that
11 wereinoW[or were about to be mandated and would impact the,CitYcjhet.Citywould:
12 bein`a,position that it wouldThavelo comply: If in fact thiewaS not tile case, things
13 changed, then objectives and performance measurements may not have to be
14 realized. It was not an exercise of building a: castle but rather What it took,to
15 accomplish what the City was or would be required to do or achieve; which were
16 really baseline responsibilities for:Mei:community, such aswater,quality and flood
17 protection,torexarnple.,
18 . .
19 Council MemberMaguire,asked if there other funding such as
20 grants, state.or federal fundingopporturiities,aSSociatedwith mandates imposed bn
-).
21 arCity with a population of 501;000.Or mOre. , ..
22 ., .
23 mr. .StoddOti replied thatthetetwere some but they were:leasers" to get Into the
.
24 bLiSinesSytheAays'of state and federal grants, as they well-knew; were Tine..
,
25 There weretbme to lure an agency in with planting money bOhe'did,nOt.thinKthere
76 was even 25%coverage,,availableby.grants to make irriprOyementS.;TheaSSistance
27 there would. be more on the regional ...approach.; that is,.on regional drainage:and
28 water issues and even at that; it did not mean thatit:wbOld cost legs. It meant that .
29 regionally it might be more economically efficient for the larger.questions. .
30 . .
31 ,Mr: Hargis added more thoughts: Some of the structuring, within, the five-year
32 horizon, may be transfers of existing personnel within depepieht.,Theretnay be an
33 Environmental Planner that was a, hated function, a contract on an'.as-needed
34 basis: The intent Was to shoWlanctionseubltas needs, concerns, reminders, and .
35 maintenance He expressed concern and cautioned the City to consider how it
36 ' would accommodate future growthinithe area and how resources Would.be Snared
37 between areas:
38
39: Council Member Maguire mentioned;a periOfieral Canaliiithe'CakFed Program that
40 potentially posed athreatto Northern CalifOrMaiSiedo-systembecause'of the-need
41 for water in Southern California Currently it was a little more of a cooperative
42 prpqcss than what transpired,in 1975 or 1979 but nonetheless,,,heagreed with Mr. . .
43 friafgi?,thatjtWa Inairnb-eht,upon the City to keep these,issuest:Mind,,
44 . .
, el
City of Petaluma;;California
Draft;Minbtae:Of a7Spediaj
City Council:Meeting
Thursday, July2 ,11999
. Page 10
•
•
DRAFT DRAFT' DRAFT
Mn 11. Hargis stated'that he thought the Water Resources Department would be
involved-with issues like this and Council had indicated that it:wanted to become
3 more proactive in legislative actions at higher and broader levels of government.
4
5 Council Member Cader-Thompson thanked Mr. Hargis for his work and noted that
6 the proposal was refreshing to look at. She thought it, important that people
7 understand that discussions about a moratorium on development were to implement
a plans such as Mr. Hargis presented: Plans like thesewould.enable smart growth or
9 at least provide a direction: To slow down was not wrong; it would provide for a
1 o healthier community, a place with a higher quality'of life. "Moratorium" might sound
1,1 like a terrible Word to people who want to develop, but for the quality of the
12 community, a few years,was not really a problem. Regarding the RMI Study, it was
13 a first step towards addressing water issues in Petaluma and the county. She asked
14 if the Lawler Reservoir had been dismantled.
15
16 Mr. Hargis replied that the filter plant that went along with the reservoir was gone,
17 probably for about-five years. The"reservoir was either effectively empty or empty; it
18 was a reservoir that required diversion from creeks to be filled. Since the operation
19 was shut down,water was not being diverted anymore.
20
2:1 Council Member Cader-Thompson'wanted that option remain open in the event it
22 became a viable source for water again.
Mr. Hargis replied that it would have cost the City a lot of money to rebuild the.
25 system and the biggest concern was surface water protection. In order for the
26 reservoir'to be a source of water-supply-in future,:,it was necessary to have control
27 over the entire tributary; that ,is, fencing the creeks, allowing no cattle, minimal
28 access by people, and it would take a lot more land than what the City had at
29 Lafferty Ranch to restore that watershed,and beableto protect it forsurface water
30 supply. Also, issues may arise with the commitment of water to Adobe Creek for
31 fish purposes, should the City go back on that agreement.
32
33 Council Member'Maguire added that the dam did not meet the Bureau of Dam
34 Safety Standards and it would cost many rnillions of dollars to repair because it was
3.5 an earthen dam. - .
36
37 Mr. Hargis continued that the earthquake vault went through two of the
38 embankments on Lawler.
39
40 Council Member Torliatt said at some point it might become costeffective, perhaps
41 in ten or twenty years.
42
43 Mr. Hargis'stated the Citywas ata point where it should think before it acts, Lawler
44 wouldhave'problems now, it did not mean that itneeded to be built the way it was.
go
City of Petaluma, California
Draft Minutes of a Special
City Council Meeting
Thursday, July 22, 1999
Page 11
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Maybe there/was:a different way of'approaching it, such as with piping, storage, es
2 partial diversions, and looking at it as a source for peak and demand situations.
3
4 Council Member Maguire stated that the City had preserved the headwaters of
5 Adobe Creek as belonging to the City and public; hopefully that would always be the
6 case.
7
a Council Member Cader-Thompson referred to page 267 of the budget document
9 and stated that she had provided the City Manager with information about Kerrie
10 Smith of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CERT).
11 She would like. Ms. Smith to speak to the Council regarding Green Power. She
12 wanted the information shared with Mr: Hargis and ,asked that arrangements be
13 made for Ms. Smith to address the Engineering Department and the Council about
14 possibilities on the topic, perhaps sometime after the summer.
15
16 PUBLIC WORKS
17
18 Mr: Stouder explained 'that the Public Works Department would remain as it was
19 with the addition of engineering components from the Department of Engineering
20 including Traffic, Traffic Engineering, and Transit. It would be,expanded in its
21 functions to absorb pieces of the Engineering Department: The Department of
22 Engineering, as known, was being split. Two positions were going to Planning,two
23 engineering positions that did current development review. Several,positions that as
24 address water issues, Mike Ban in particular, were going to Wastewater Engineering
. 25 and Project Management on Water Resources. The day-to-day engineering
26 servicesand inspection services and,capital improvement engineering would go to
27 the Department.of Public Facilities, as he called it, temporarily. There would be a
28 full-time,Director. • •
29 '
30 Gene Beatty served three positions, if not more He was an Assistant City Manager,
31 housed in the City,Manager's Office.. He was also Director of Public Works, not -
32 housed out there, not able to devote 100% of his time in the management and
33 leadership of the issues that a City of this size faced just in operation and
34 maintenance. Mr..Beatty performed a variety of other duties as Council;well knew..
35 Each six months or each year there was a new opportunityfor him. Hewes also the
36 Director of Animal Services over the last several months and a variety of other
37 positions.
38
39 Mr. Stouder thought the interests and needs of the,community and the inability of
40 the community to really have a concerted program on things;like equipment
41 replacement or pothole filling, were a result,of not having someone there 100% of
42 the time to help diagnose and provide leadership and problem solving and financial
43 proposals to do the day-to-day things. The pothole need among just ordinary
44 operational maintenance, was a big need here. The City eliminated one of the two
City of Petaluma, California
Draft Minutes of a Special
City Council Meeting
• Thursday;July 22, 199.9
Page 12
•
DRAFT DRAFT ' DRAFT
AssistantCity,Managerpositions by focusing on strengthening department heads
and reds``rected'those funds closerto'the actual workforce in'positions like.a full-time
3 Public Works Director.
4
5 ,Assistant City Manager Gene. Beatty referred to page .295 of the draft budget
6 document and stated that the budget was constructed using the current
7 organizational structure. With the proposed reorganization, a significant portion of
8 what was now Public Works would be eliminated and reassigned mostly to the
9 Water Resources Department. What will be left was still a significant area of
10 responsibility in the maintenance area.
11
12 He acknowledged Steve Simmons for an excellent job on the day-to-day care and
13 feeding of Public Works along with Randy Wyatt; the sole;supervisor for a variety of
14 the 'responsibilities_ of the department. There was some relief with the recent
15 :selection of an Airport Manager: Ted Anderson had been with the City for about six
16 months-and had accomplished a number of very important projects, not the least of
17 which was the upgrading of.the initial underground tanks at the airport. The City
1a was in the process, of upgrading the last one; the Council recently awarded the
19 contract..
. 20
2'1 Council Member Tbrliatt noted that she recently stopped by the office at the airport
and was pleased about the physical improvements made.
Mr. Beatty replied the. City heard mostly positive comments about the
25 improvements; he thought it was brighter, more functional, there were new
26 restrooms. Mr. Anderson did a great job, a lot on his own time and effort, to
7 accomplish this and did a lot of outreach to get the dust settled. He thought it was a
2 s much better facility than it was before and.complimented Mr. Anderson for a job well
2 9 done.
30
31 Although_a,finite,organizational structure was not completed, work was being done
32 on drafts of what the department would be The reorganization of this City function
33 was critical as the Water Resources Department was developed. Currently, the
3 4 way the Departmeritof Public Works and the.Engineering Department worked was
35 that the Engineering Department designed,and was responsible for building public
3 6 projects.. The.Public Works Department was primarily a maintenance function of the
3 7 City; they did potholing, street markings, street signs, signals and fleet maintenance.
38
3,9 In addition,;Public Works was also responsible for Transit.The City had one person,
40 James Ryan, who was responsible for two contracts, both fixed route and
4,1 paratransit, and'he, Mr: Beatty thought, had done'a great job; the City's ridership
4.2 was higher than ever. The airport was technically another area that came under the.
43 organizational structure of Public Works; during its development stages it came
44 under the wing of the City Manager's Office but as things changed, he thought it
SO
City of Petaluma, California
Draft Minutes of:a Special
City Council Meeting
Thursday,July 22, 1999
Page 13
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
i would be a Public Works.function. Another plan was to obtain, in Public Works, so
2 engineering,capability:so that one portion of the,City was responsible for thedesign,
3 construction, and maintenance of public facilities. He thought=that would be a big
4 bonus. Those were the main things-that were happening. He stated that the City
5 was very understaffed and under-funded out on the street to maintain the City's
6 infrastructure,thatneeded,to be addressed long term. He asked if the::Council had
7 any questions.
a
9 , Council Member Torliatt referred to page 303 and asked for clarification of the •
to number of traffic signals in the City; the document stated there .were ,45 traffic
11 signals and she thought there were 51.
12
13 Mr. Studer stated there'was a.term,'"specialized signals,"and-that therewere three
14 or four that were not the standard intersection signals There were 45,or 48'regular
is signals and then there were these "specialized signals."
16
17 Mr. Hargis stated that he did not know the exact number of signals and added that •
is the figure reflected the number of full traffic signals that were maintained by the
19 City;Caltrans also maintain edsome. Technically,'a pedestrian;flashing signal was
20 not called a traffic signal.
21 •
22 Council Member Torliatt continued that it cost the City approximately.$200.00 per
23 month'per light for the'electricityto'keepthem running. She'did not think the general so
24 public was aware this.
25
26 Council Member Maguire pointed out that there was an economic opportunity'
27 knocking; a solar panel on •top of the signal with a battery, would save: a lot of
28 .electricity.
29
30 Mr. Beatty called the Council Members' attention to page 303 of the draft budget
31 document, an update that included Animal Control in the Public Works
32 organizational structure. The City had identified an Animal Services Manager: A
33 committee interviewed her the previous evening She had participated in'interviews'
34 that day for a Volunteer Animal Educational :Coordinator: The City had also
35 identified a preferred candidate for the Shelter Supervisor and was half way through
36 the process; of selecting Animal Control Officers. Two more interviews were
37 scheduled for the following week for Kennel Attendant positions. So far he was very
38 pleased, especially with the Animal Services Manager's position candidate. He
39 thought if the City was fortunate enough to hire the Shelter Supervisor*candidate
40 who was number one on the list, things would go well He continued that space
41 needs designs were started forthe expansion of the shelter, the architect was
42 meeting with the Animal Services Advisory Committee.
43 •
44 Council Member Cader-Thompson ;thanked Mr.. Beatty' for his; work on the
'City of;P.etaluma, California
'Draft Minutes ofa'Special'
City Council Meeting
Thursday,.July 22;,1999
Page 14
DRAFT DRAFT, DRAFT
S committee and'his sense of humor. She wanted to know`about funding to improve
the Corp Yard..
3
4 Mr. Beatty replied that a Facilities CIP would come before the Council very soon.
• 5 The replacement for the Corp Yard was still pending. The=City.needed to finalize its
6 location and determine whether it would be a part of the Central Petaluma,Specific
, 7 Plan. Nothing really significant could happen until the relocation of the water
8 treatment plant occurred. Even then, he thought it would be a stretch to find the
I 9 money to accomplish that. Improvements to the Animal Shelter would be the first
i o component to improving the facility. It was a multi-million dollar project and currently
it there were no funds to implement significant improvements there; it was a major
1 2 goal to identify those funds. In his opinion it was one of the City's sorriest facilities.
13
14 PARKS AND RECREATION
i5
15 Mr. Stouder introduced Parks and Recreation. Director Jim Carr and Parks
17 Supervisor Ed Anchordoguy and asked ifthe.Council had any questions.
i8
is Parks and Recreation Director Jim Carr described the department's employees as
20 people who ,go a long way to provide quality of life for the community, as the
21 Council's"Good-Will Ambassadors."' There were three divisions: Recreation,which
22 included childcare; Parks; and'the.Marina. The sphere of services ranged from pre-
school through senior citizens. The,Senior Center facilityhad reached capacity and
the City was looking todo some expansion there; this would be addressed during
25 the presentation of the Capital Improvement Program. The Petaluma Community
25 Center was the most heavily used facility in the community and included paid
27 events, public hearings, 'public meetings, and staff meetings with various
28 departments; improvements to the facility were in progress, such as replacing the
29 carpet.
30
31 Much like the other departments, Parks and Recreation had• an ever-growing
32 inventory, such as turf, trees, and landscape areas. With the level of use, he
33 commended Mr. Anchordoguy and his staff.for keeping it green, keeping it safe.
34 Capital' Improvement Projects being considered would be addressed when
35 scheduled. The Landscape Assessments were discussed at the Council's last
ha meeting. One:area that he thought was kind of a;"nugget"was the Building Facility
37 Maintenance section,. There was one facility person who cared for every building in
3 8 the City. Mr: Carr pointed out the tremendous amount of work that was involved to
3:9 do the job and remarked what a great resource this kind of effort was to the City.
4'o He then asked for questions.
.41
42 Council Member Cader-Thompson stated that it was important for the public to
'43 recognize how little money the City had to maintain all of its departments and
44 services; there was only one electrician, one person for facilities maintenance. She
City of Petaluma, California
Draft Minutes of a Special
City Council Meeting
Thursday,July 22, 1999
Page 15
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 thought'itwas;amazing how much actually got done and expressed her appreciation,
2 to all the departments and all the peopleswho worked for'the'City for.such.a great N
3 job.
4
s Mr. Carr added that the efforts of personnel went straight across the City from
6 department to department.Randy Wyatt of Public Works brought his crew over-and
7 they re-striped the entire parking lot at the Petaluma Community Center. If Ed
8 Anchordoguy needed help from:them, he got,it,Engineering had given assistance to
9 them as well with their Capital Improvement Projects. He thought that was one of
10 the nice qualities of a small community like this City Clerk Beverly Kline and her
11 staff helped, too; they were just a phone call awayand the City was maximizing its
12 resources.
13
14 Council Member'Maguire added that he and Council Member Torliatt:attended=the
15 PPFC 25th Anniversary at the Senior Center earlier :and reported that it was
16 "packed." He thought it was great;the facility was getting that kind of use.
17
18 Council Member Torliatt stated that the community was very fortunate to,have°the
19 number of recreation programs the City provided of such quality for the amount
20 paid. She commended Mr. Carr for the programs provided and acknowledged his
21 efforts in coordinating them. She had never heard any complaints about the.
22 programs'and she thought that certainly said something.
23
24 • Mr.•Carr thanked her and said that spoke to the professionalism of the staff;and he
25 would•passthafon to them. _
26
27 Council. Member Maguire:asked ,Mr. Carr to send the Council's appreciation and
28 added that he;appreciated Mr. Anchordoguy's responsiveness to the,chip bark'and
29 pesticide issues.
30
31 Mr. Carr acknowledged Mr Anchordoguyas thecoordinator of the City's Graffiti
32 Removal Program; there were approximately 70-80 persons participating, in the
33 community: For example, the day before he received a call from someone about
. 34 graffiti, when he drove by today, the graffiti was gone. Mr.,Anchordoguy and his '
35 group'were responsive and dedicatedandfa great resource for'the,community. '
36
37 Council Member Torliatt agreed. She had received compliments from people who
38 saw members of the:community painting over the graffiti that had,only been there
39 one day: She thought that was definitely,an asset to.the City.: •
40 -
41 Mr. Stouder noted that it was 8:30 P.M. He suggested the Council revisit some of
42 the.issues discussed for the benefit of the,Council:Members not present.
43
44 •
City of Petaluma,California
Draft Minutes:of.a Special
City Council Meeting
Thursday, July 22;,1999 •
Page 16
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
ailhADJOURN
Ire
3 Council Member Maguire asked if there was anyone present. wanting to make public
4 comments. There being none he adjourned-the workshop 8:30 P.M.
5
6
8.
9
L'0
1=1
12 Matt Maguire, Council Member
13
14 • ATTEST:
1'5
16
17 'Beverly J. Kline, City Clerk
18
19
20
21
•
22
•
25
26
27 . «:«;, . .
•
•
le
City of Petaluma; California
Draft Minutes of'a Special
City Council Meeting
Thursday, July 22, 1999
Page 17
•
•
sc
is
N