HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 06/25/2001 (4) DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
City'of Petaluma;.California
�. Draft.Minutes ofa Special;
3 City Council Meeting
4
5 Budget Workshop
•
6 Thursday, May 31, 2001
•
7 Council Chambers
8
9'
10 The Petaluma City Council rnet;at7:00 P.M. on this date in the Council Chambers.
11
12 ROLL CALL
13
14 PRESENT: Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson; Council Members Healy, Maguire,
15 Moynihan; Mayor Thompson
16
17 ABSENT: Council Members'O'Brien and Torliatt
18
19 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
20
21 At the request of Mayor Thompson,.Samantha Doughertyled the Pledge of Allegiance
22
a PUBLIC COMMENT
25 Lee Larson, 108 Margo Lane, Member of the Senior Center Advisory.Committee, asked
.26 for the following with regard to the Senior Center Expansion project:
27
28 • A firm timeline for expansion of the Petaluma Senior Center.
29
• To interview two or more architects before advising candidate selection.
30 • To receive monthly status reports in writing on the progress of the project.
31
would 32 She gain support a thu is d raising goals for the Center and find volunteers to raise
33 funds and
34
35 COUNCIL COMMENT
36.
37 Council Member Healy spoke regarding a memo from Suzanne Wilford, Sonoma
38 County Transportation Authority (SCTA) requesting information from the City regarding
39 the Rainier Interchange currently being listed in the Regional Transportation Plan.
40
41 Council;Member 'Mo Moynihan noted m
that the Sonoma-Makin Narrows Committee met two
Y
42 weeks ago. They are moving forward at the.Caltrans level to do some initial designs of
43 the various interchanges from Highway 37 up to Old Redwood Highway in Petaluma.
44 This includes the, potential overpasses and interchanges: In doing so they are laying'
City of Petaluma, California
Daft Minutes of a Special
City Council Meeting
Thursday, May 31, 2001
Page 1
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 out the scenario for, `South Petaluma, Kastania Road, Olompali and also the potential a.
2 Rainier.Avenue Interchange or Cross-Town'Connector.
3 .
4 This is being done in advance of public scoping sessions for the EIR to be held in
5 Novato and Petaluma in August. He, thought it imperative that. the City-work with
6 Caltrans to make. .sure the City's project is included in the 'EIR for which Caltrans has
7 been kind enough to'foot the bill.
8
9 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10
11 1. BudgetWorkshop
12
13 Parksrand Recreation
14 •
15 Parks and Recreation Director Jim Carr responded to Ms: Larson's comments.
16 There was a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the renovation/expansion of the
17 Senior Center building and only one responsemas received_ The Senior Advisory"
18 Committee did, in fact, interview that candidate and they agreed to go forward,
19 with her. The contract is being processed.
20
21 Mr. Carr explained that Park Development Fees have declined dramatically
•
22 because the City is at build-out:, Staff recommends holding off the development
23 of two parks'. There was money left over from Proposition 12, and a good portion ak
24 of that was used for the Aquatic Center. There was a balance of',$121,000, and
25 his recommendation to 'Council and to the Recreation, Music and Parks
26 Commission was to put that into the Senior ,Center-' expansion program: The .
27 architect will meet with the seniors and shewill start the process of drawing'plans
28 and specifications, which, are supposed to be ready by 'September '28, 2001.
29 Part of that will be an estimate of the cost, at which time we will know what ,
30 additional funds.are needed.
31
32 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson asked if the Senior Citizens Committee would be
33 working with the architect and giving their'input. ,
34
35 Mr. Carr responded that it was made a condition of the RFP.
36
37 Council Member Moynihan asked which parks would be put-on hold and not built
38 because there were no operatingiunds available.
39 '
40 Mr. Carr replied that he was recommending that'Westridge and Turtle Creek
•41 (Willow Glen), Parks be.put.on' hold. The conceptual design for'Willow Glen will
42 be completed.this year, with construction'in 2002-2003. 'Westridge would beheld,
43 off until 2003-2004. The Gatti.Park site would move forward because of the.time
44 line, and'contractor,,Doyle Heaton; who is obligated to put in the Softball,and little
Cityof Petaluma;•california •
DraftlMinutes of'atS'pecial
c'w Council Meeting
Thursday;May'31,;2001
Page'2
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
g. p
he eels it should'move forward,
league'fields. Santa Rosa Junior Colle a wants to participate so
program,in that•
3
4 Council Member Moynihan asked Mr; Carr if,he:could estimate the increase this
5 ' fiscal year in operations and maintenance"for Gatti.Park:
6 .
7 Mr. Carr believed the increases would occur the following year It is a-7-acre park
8 and he estimated it would be $1.3,000 an acre for maintenance, staffing,
9 irrigation, etc.
10
11 Council Member Moynihan asked Mrs. Carr to discuss the inter-departmental
.
12 charges being assessed to the Parks and Recreation Department relative to
13 previous years and how that-is.impacting°the department.
14
15 Mr. Carr replied that there was no appreciable effect on the department.
16
17 Finance Director Bill Thomas clarified the process for inter-departmental charges
18 for all departments:
19
20 Council Member Moynihan asked how the Capital Improvement Programs and.
21 administrative costs:tied into,the•operations budget.
22 •
Mr. Carr replied that they did not.
25 Council Member Moynihan;asked;why the overhead charge's were'going up.
26
27 Finance Director Bill Thomas explained that Administrative 'Overhead was
28 charged for all general government departments. The reason it looks like the
29 overhead charges have. increased dramatically is that in previous years, that
30 number was not broken out, but was built into the•materials and supplies number.
31 This year it has been broken out and ifs identified on a separate line. He thought
32 that looking' at previous years, especially prior to last year, it was hard to
33 determine what that number was. Going forward they would have that number.
34 He referred to a schedule in the summary section of the overhead charges to
35 each departmentthat should tie back,to the department"summary or the division
36 • areas. For Parks and Recreation inthe General Fund ifs only General Services,
37 Information Services and Risk Management.
38
39 For the Marina, there is administrative overhead on an Enterprise Fund so that is
40 going 'to increase the inter=departmental charges._ All Enterprise funds are
41 •charged administrative overhead for the payroll, for Finance, City Manager,
42 expenses that are associated with..an Enterprise Fund, the biggest one• being
43 Marina Billing.
44
City'of Petaluma, California
Draft Minutes of Special
City Council'Meeting
Thursday,"May 31,2001
Page 3
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT •
1 Council Member Moynihan guessed that from the point: of view of„Parks and
2 Recreation the inter-departmental'charges were being increased to°try to reflect
3' what the actual costs.
4
5 Mr:, Thomas•explained that the City does not charge a General Fund 'activity
6 against another General Fund activity. Finance• activities. were not charged
7 against the General Fund portion of•Recreation_ They were charged.against.the
8 Enterprise portion of the Marina Fund Enterprise Funds, are ,supposed to be
9 operated like'a business and.all expenses'are supposed to be costed'aout. That's
10 wly:a Cost Allocation Plan is being done to get that number. They have only
11 been increasing"that:number'by tha CPl over the last`five;orsix years.
12
13 . Council, Member Moynihan referred to pages 256;and 257, noting that,one page
14 included the Enterprise Funds and the other was the General Fund Summary:
15 Therawasra $50;000,00 difference or about 25% difference between the two
16
17 Mr. Thomas,asked Council Member Moynihan to look at page to •see why
18 the Marina is charged'$51 ,650.00 in inter-departmental charges. Page 569;is;the
19 allocation of internal service funds an&administrative overhead;;chargestto all'the
20 departments by the activity, Information Services, General ;Services; liability
21 and/or risk and ad'minlstrative overhead.,Administrativei:overhead is not.charged
22 toithe,Generel Fund activities: That would"be a full.costrallocation,•
23 •24 Council Member Moynihan ;asked for an explanation Of the $149;000 under
25 General Fund,for inter-departmental charges:
2G .
27' Mr. Thomas explained that ,$59;900 of that was ,Information Services„ $30;350
28 was?.General'Services and $58;250:was liability and risk.
29
30 . Council Member Moynihan asked if the!other areas were charging:,
31
32 Mr. Thomas :answered that some:were being charged risk.. Based on' City's
33 experience, Parks and.Recreationmcreates 'risk and liability.
34
35 • Council Member ;Moynihan asked if as the City continues to get clearer cost
36 accounting .relative to lntertclepartmental "charges, departments such as Parks
37 and Recreation would gel further squeezed from' a point of •View of Their
38: .operations'budget.
39
40 Mr. Thomas thoughtthat once.the costallocation plan was received; they would
41 • have the true cost of operating each;:department: One of two things could be
42 done;with that plan:A full costgallocation, at which tme.:all of generalagovdmment
43 would ,become zero because all of�their costs are in support of,somewhere else
44 and Park and Recreation's going to. pay for,it and Police and Fire. What they're
45:• doin instead; is a modified Ityllocat iibn l a,; essentially the:funds'that can :cover a
g p
.Draf Minutes df'a Special
City'Co u nci r Meeti rig;
ThursdayoMay;31 2001
Page 4
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
is the cost The
y're only getting the cost'assigned to them, they're not getting all of
theecost '
,3
4 Council Member Moynihan'noted that under Youth Programs, page 283, benefits
5 decreased from $1,900 estimated last year to.:0 this year. Was therea change in
6 the way the City deals with the employmentunder'Youth Programs?
7
8 Mr. 'Carr replied that they were all part-time salaries and included under the
9 salary figure itself. The Teen Coordinator position, was listed under Youth
1'0 Programs, but was being charged to the Teen budget itself.
11
12 Council Member Moynihan noticed that under'General, Revenue Sources there
13 was a negative number. He asked if that meant that this was an actual profit
14 center for Parks and Recreation.
15 -
16 Mr. Carr replied that he'was,correct.
17 .
18 Council Member Moynihan asked if there should be more Youth Programs.
19
20 Mr. Carr answered that they would need more money to do that He would not
21 say net cost, this was'direct cost for the program itself, but as far as clerical time,
22 the number would be squeezed down.
Mr.Stouderadded that'programs like the Youth Program, Tiny Tots Program; the
25 General Fund heavily subsidized Senior Center services. More programs would
26 mean higher absolute dollar amount of deficit. If they wanted`to,make them true.
27 Enterprise Funds, they Oould charge the market rate for the Tiny Tots program,
28 which defeats the purpose. It was an issue Of public services. It's not necessarily
29 intended that every' publicservice return the cost of delivering it.
30
31 Council Member Moynihan pointed out that the previous page looked like that
32 was being budgeted and it Will have a $20,000 General Revenue Source
33 negative.
34;
35 Mr. Stouder=stated. that one of the things they tried to do this year was more
36 dearly shows the cost of the program and the revenue'sources, including fees
37 collected, grant money, if any, and General;Fund contribution,'if any
38
39 Council Member Moynihan concluded that the City was looking to expand
40 programs that make a profit.
41
42 Regarding°the proposed,Lafferty budget of $60,000, he reiterated that this did not.
43 provide funds for any litigation or other actions. He said that by committing to
44 support this number, he was committing to working towards a compromise. He
thought Council needed'to have the political courage and maturity to walk softly
City of Petaluma, California.
Draft Minutes of a Special
City Council'Meeting
Thursday, May 31,2001
Page 5
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 so as not to incur a huge debt and then have to come back and severely cut
2 other Parks and Recreation programs or other areas.ofthe General Fund. •
3 •
4 Council Member'Healy asked how.broadly the Senior Center expansion project
5 was noticed.
6
7 Mr. Can answered that all the Builders Exchanges and newspapers were
8 noticed'. It was ;a small project and they don't get much:response ion ,smaller
9 , project's.
10'
11 Council Member Healy asked how Parks and Recreation planned on maintaining
12 future bike/pedestrian trail softscape'in,the'years to come.:Were theyrgetting any
13 extra budget:money for that this year?
14
15 Mr. Carr explained that they did not receive any money this year As vegetation
16 ages, problems arise. He had submitted a report, regarding bicycle plan
17 maintepance liability at the City Manager's request. Mr: Skladzien, Mr. Carr, and
18 the Police'Department were involved;in that report
•
19
20 Council Member Maguire asked:if sufficient funds to replace 20%,of the plantings
21 were built into the bid forthoseprojects..
22
stated 23 Mr. Carr should always
I p
C site. It more to
24 the cost up front, but assures that things are planted correctly and c onstructed
25` correctly.
26
27 Council Member Maguire,asked if these were the types of plants;that had a good
28 chance of+surviving, once they made:'it through the first year.,
29
30 Vice.Mayor Cader-Thompson confirmed that,this was the goal. The real question .
31 these days was water. The,Commission was very cognizant of Co uncil's concern
32' about a,lot of water-thirsty turf.
33.
34, Council Member Maguire`,`asked if anybody had talked about an Adopt a Park
35 Program at either the Commission 'level or staff level,, specifically so that the
36 residents, around Turtle Creek, would be willing to do a minor monthly
37' subscription'.
38.
39 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson replied, 'that this had been discussed, but there
40 were concerns regarding security and maintenance. There was at liability liabilityissuer if
41 maintenance was not done properly or in a timely fashion. It would be preferable
42 to keep on top of it, especially with the playgrounds, screening for glass, •
43 hazardous objects,the turf;being,mowed properly. Willow Glen was;going to,be a.
44 small turf area, playground, and group 'picnic areas, with a path that,exists. right
45 now. •
cityof Petaluma, California
Draft Minutes'ofa Special
city CouncihMeeting
Thursday,May'31;2001
Page'6
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
She would also like!`to explore%the Adopt a Park concept. 'She'would like to work
3 with the Recreation, Music and Parks Commissiontoistart a program so that the
4 neighborhoods actually took:responsibilityifor their'parks. She thought there were
5 other types of maintenance that could be done without incurring'liability: •
6
7 Council Member Moynihan stated that the Five=Year Implementation Plan of the
8 Central Petaluma Specific Plan provided for $7,368,000.00 of River
9 Enhancement Plan Improvements.. He asked Mr. Carr if his department had
10 reviewed those proposed improvements, calculated what the operations and
11 maintenance costs would be, and figured that into their long-term budget.
12
13 Vice Mayor Ceder-Thompson answered that as far as figuring in the long-term
14 maintenance budget, they, saw the initial proposals that came through, but as far
15 as sitting down and calculating maintenance costs, they'had not done that
16
17 Council Member Moynihan asked if he was right in thinking that some projects
18 apparently come to' the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission for review of
19 cost of operations and maintenance in advance of approval, but this project had
20 not.
21
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson explained that, the Commission had seen the
conceptual design, and were most definitely involved with that, but as far as
actually sitting down with the cost figures, they had not done that
25
26 - Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
27
28 Mr. Thomas presented a report from the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
29 subcommittee. The, beginning fund balance of the TOT was estimated at
30 . $182,292.00 at the beginning of FY 2002 or July 1st. Estimated revenues were
31 $891,800, plus a PCDC contribution of $300,000, for available resources of
32 $1.374 millions A General Fund contribution of $775,000 was proposed, which
33 included a $15,000 contribution to HCz., which instead of being funded from the
34 TOT Fund, would, be funded from the General Fund. This proposal also would
35 buy down the reserve on the fund from $182;000 to $75,000 and when that is
36 subtracted from available resources in the General Fund "contribution; it leaves
37 $524,000°forcomrriunity'groups to be;funded,for FY'2002.
38
39 The TOT subcommittee's recommendations are as follows:
40 .
Petaluma Visitors Program $345,100
Petaluma Visitors Program Enhancements $5,000
Sonoma County Convention Visitors Bureau $25,300
Cinnabar Arts Theatre $65,000
OQuilt Show $10,000
City of Petaluma,,California
Draft Minutes of a Special
City Council Meeting ._
Thursday, May 31, 2001
Page 7
•
. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Butterand,EggS:Day parade. • • $14,000
Petaluma Downtown Association Brochure , $7,000 ID
, . .
• Petaluma Museurn.ASsociation $5,000
, . .
Petaluma Sings . $5,000
• Petaluma Tree Advisory Committee: $10,000 %.
,
Polly Anna Doll Club. $1,900
American Legion Veterans Of FOreign Wars $5,00
i
. ' • Petaluma city Ballet. $/ 200
•
-HC2 . . - $15,000,
'L
Petalurna t
Jazz Festival $4,000
. . .
1 ,
2 Funding that for $5-16,000 will draw :down the reserves to below What they are
c.,
3 this year to about $75,0001. They have been advised that the hotel is estimating .
4 anywhere from $400,000 to ($500,000 in additional TOT when it is fully
5 operational..
6
7 • Council Member Healy, speaking as one of the subcommittee: members, stated
8 that with the new hotel coming on line a year from now, TOT revenues .WO00
9 probably increase in the tPto; range ,starting late in the coming rfiScalyear, but
10 certainly kicking in for the next fiscal. year and thereafter That was why the
11 majority ofthesubconimittee felt comfortable drawingdown'the reserve balances
12. this year on a one-time.basis in anticipation of being able to rebuild them. They
13 can still have the $300,000 pass through to the General;Fund.
0
14
15 Council Member Moynihan thought the whole concept .ofbackfillib9 of the TOT
16' funds with the Redevelopment p;genoy, funds was uniqUe, 'grd' one he knew the
17 City had never done before, He was -O.-Onoet-he'd about Redevelopment Agency
18 laws,.and''atsumed.the City would ,get the proper legal interpretatiOn,before this
19 .waslinalized.
20
21 Mt. •Stotiklera&ced CoUnCiliMeMber:Moynihan if we was referring to the issue of
., .. ., . ;., ._.
22. the TOT takaS the barometer and measurement of whatredevelOptrieht,property
23, • taxes are reimbursed toMr;Lok.
24 . .
25 • Council Member Moynihan [Stated that it was not He was referring to,. the
26: $300,000rcontribution towards bg Petaluma Visitors'PrograTh and now they were
27 talking in general towards the TOT Fund coming out of Pedevelopthent:.Ageney.,
281 This, 'hestated, Was a precedent. Hewas'uncomfortablewith theprecedent and
29 • wanted: more assurances that the :redevelopment,)attorney was consulted to
30 make sure that it wasn't.goinglotome back and bite us;
31 . .
32 The other precedent being set in the General Fund was drawing down the
33 reserves: He did not think taking or expending over SI07.,990.,in :reserves was
34 necessarily a good precedent to be Setting either, Thirdly, the program requests
3 ' Op, Which was: not unusual, but the recommendation Was.,,to in-crease the ak
Ip.
Citstof Petaluma,California -
• ptaft i■rlinuies.of a Special
.
City CouncifbileetinV .
Thuiiday, May'3.1.,2001
,Fggej.8
DRAFT ' DRAFT DRAFT
expenditures to about $516;500. They were, not really holding the line on
spending here and he°thought Council needed to make tough decisionslo set the
3 example in this^tough budgeting time." He realized'that it would affect some very
4 good programs; nevertheless, he thought it imperative to modify spending.
5
6, He had proposed an alternative that he would like at some point to discuss
7 further, to shift somebf the TOT expenditures under the Redevelopment.Agency.
8 He recommended those that actually have been funded in the past under the
9 Redevelopment Agency; such as the Butter and Eggs Day Parade or the PDA
ro Brochure or..the,Quilt Show: All these would .naturally fitunder the PDA. That was
11 only approximately $31,000, but he thought-it •could be done fairly gracefully,
12 while at the same time holding the ,line on some of the other spending and still
13 increase the amount distributed into--the General Fund from last year:.
14
15 In other words, it was easier to hold ''a line, on expenditures at least, out of the
16 General 'Fund by doing it with the Redevelopment Agency. That prevented
17 "walking in the gray area" by backfilling from ,PCDC Funds. He would like a
18 focused discussion on PCDC backfilling, He is comfortable 'with a lot of the
19 numbers•and requests which pot they come from is what he'would like to
20 discuss further. -
21
22 Council .Member Maguire stated that the shifting 'Of`some of the expenditures to
the Redevelopment Agency to avoid what Mr. Moynihan calls "backfilling"was to
him "a distinction-without a difference." The City has an excellent, capable staff
25 that have arranged this, tried their best under difficult financial circumstances. He
26 'thought it important to keep in mind that •this money was leveraged by the
27 community to do good things and it enriched the community. What•he-saw in the
28 proposed budget looked healthy, looked positive, and he supported it.:asit was
29 Using redevelopment money'instead of TOT funds for PVP is another area
30 where Council should take direction from the Finance Director, because he was
31 the one tasked with the difficult work:
32 -
33 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson explained that today at the TOT subcommittee
34 meeting they discussed meeting again in September to review the existing
35 ordinances and resolutions for distributing money to organizations. She would.
36 like this agendized before September so they can pull the committee,together
37 and make sure that the public is included in it They're funding programs that
38 benefit the community"and -that was what made Petaluma such a special and
39 unique city.
40 .
41 Council ,Member Healy thought:the subcommittee assumed that Council would
42 like them to undertake this work: They needed to get some feedback to make,
43 'sure that was what the Council wanted them to,do. They needed to revisit the
44 way the program has been administered and look at the criteria to make sure it
4iwas being done'appropriately. The applications needed to be turned in earlier in
City'of'Petaluma,;California
Draft Minutes of a Special
City Council Meeting
Thursday, May 31,2001
Page 9
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 the process, for an initial' revievv; feedback and a screening prOcess, so this was
2 not done right up to the 11th hour. This was seed money given to 'the Ilp
3 organizations that make this especial community. Whatihe,bonimunity got
4 for thatnioney was ineredible, . .
5
6 Jessica Van Gardner; Petaluma Visitors Program, was confident that when
7 looking at the policies and ordinances, Council would' be ablsta,come..up with
8 very, clear .criteria that didn't fit just any city or county;,:but that really fit the
9 character of Petaluma.
10
11 With PVP experiencing over'15% double-digit growth, for.? number of years,, it
12 wasn't easy taking' .a $15,000 cut While looking at providing more services,
13 convention and meeting space.
14
15 Rick Flenders,, Petaluma 'City Ballet; thanked the subcommittee for their
16 allocation of funds. He would like the opportunity, to sit down and talk about
17 criteria for the distribution of TOT Funds and how the Ballet tompany• helps do
18 that eel/veil as the 'Petaluma COrnfrairiity. Most of the line,items for theltrequest
19 'have_ to 'Oa with promotion and p0iidity. They are advertising in ther-Argus-
20 Courief„Pres-s Democrat, Independent Journal, on. radio,and World Wide Web.
.„, _ , .
21 Developing and printing of promotional materials included posters, flyers, events,
22 tickets and brochures:for-the upcoming season that depicted the history and the
23 . • purpose of ballet; awwell as the schedule of events. This was ia substantial a
24 increase in'promotional efforts'ancrincluded the hiring of,a partetiMe,publibist. NIP
25 .
26 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson suggested that the Council bring the funding
27 , request-for the ballet up to $10,060 froth the S7; 00 that was reCortirnentled.
28
29 Council Member Healy would-support that They didn't have the benefit of that .
3-0 information this afternoon.
31
32 Ellie LiCherittein, Executive Director, Cinnabar Theater, stated that she and other
33 • event, coordinators would like to be involved in the proceedings of the
34 subcommittee. She would 'like that to be open to all those,who have a stake in :
35 the TOT funding: She thanked Council for their Support oVeinnalpaf Theatre and
36 other TOT"proVatris.
37 .
38 Linda.Buffo, Event Coordinator for the Butter and Eggs :Day and the Petaluma
39 Jazz ,Festival, thanked Council for their consideration in funding these events
40 She would',like to be involved in the subcommittee meetings: She added that
41 there are other organizations, in this community that will undoubtedly be asking
42 for funding for new activities in the-area of arts and entertainMent. She asked .
43 Council to keeb:that in rriinb;at they talked about PCDC funds being interwoven
44 With'TOT''needs. ,
45 , .
0
Cityef Petelurea, Calitereia
Draft Mules ofa Special
City Council Meeting
Thursday, May 31; 2001
.pgge 10
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Council Member Moynihan noted that the subcommittee was able to reduce the
expenditures` by $28,300 He'thought it important to understand that a balanced
3 approach Was needed. He did not support-the additional increase to the Ballet
4 Company and suggested that at some point Co_ uncil individually take a look at
5 the list and go back and see 'what else can be reduced. Being part. of this
6 subcommittee has given him 'a'better understanding of what fundsare'for, where
7 they come from, what is supposed to be funded, and is not supposed to be
8 funded using TOT funds. All of these basics needed to be addressed in a policy.
10 Mr. Moynihan presented a spreadsheet showing the fund balances, backfilling,
11 revenues, anchexpenditures. Staitingwith a fund,balance of $182,000, $300,000
12 in Redevelopment Agency :funds would be "added: Roughly $33,000 of the
13 program or the projects shifted. over to the Redevelopment Agency, for a total
14 funding request of$485,000 instead,,or$51'9,0001 The,eventual transfer-out to the
'15 General Fund was reduced to;$412,000, which is a little less than last'year, but
16 more than the previous two;'years. It was,significantly less than the $678,000. He.
17 did not think' it necessary. to transfer $300'000 in to fund this He wanted to
18 identify cuts from the General Fund''to avoid depleting the full $60,000.isurplus.
19 That way, these projects could be funded without setting a "precedent" with.
20 which he was not comfortable. He was concerned with possible violation of
21 redevelopment agency 'law. He was suggesting' an ,alternative approach to
22 accomplish the same goals.
Council Member Maguire;asked"City Managementto review'the spreadsheet and
25 give their feedback to Council regairding possible 'implications of pursuing this
26 approach.
27
28 RECESS: 8:28 P.M.
29 RECONVENE: 8:37 P.M.
30
31
32 Public Facilities and Services
33'
34 Public Facilities and,Services'Director .Rick Skladzien presented the budget for
35 his department. The :department was 'established in January 2000, and is
36 structured as follows
37
38 0 Public Facilities;. with takes care, of the streets, traffic painting,, vehicle,
39 equipment,.' and .building maintenance' and Custodial, managed by Kevin
40 Hornick.
41 o Capital Improvement Projects, Civil Engineering, Traffic Engineering,
42 managed by Mike Evert.
43 a Budget Giants, Special Projects and Transit, managed by Jim Ryan.
44 o Airport, managed byMichael Glose.
o Animal Services, managed by Nancee Tavares.
City of Petaluma, California,
Draft Minutes of a Special
City Council.Meeting
Thursday, May 31,2001
Page 11
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1
2 The department is responsible for infrastructure management and rehabilitation
3 and development, primarily-streets 'and buildings. The Turning. Basin is also part
4 of its activities.
5
6 Council Member Maguire asked what. the department's energy savings efforts
7 were to date. • ,
8 •
_ •
9'. Mr. Skladzien explained that half the lights in City Hall have been,switched off for
10 energy.conservation. Photocells have,been installed in some offices. The•former
11 Mosquito Abatement building„which will be the department's new location, has
12 been fitted with motion ;detectors that turn off lights once everyone ,leaves.
13 Employees haves been asked to turn computers off at night; they are looking into
14 • waterless urinals and'xeriscape landscaping for the new building.
15
17 reen and yellow li hts.will;be:re 'laced d with energy saving LED .signals, the
16 Red traffic signals have been ,replaced
g. y g p during'the coming.year. This is,projected .
18 to grave 60% to 70% in costs to operate the signals. The, department is
19 purchasing energy back-up batteries for the signals; and is looking at ,a solar
20 recharge unit so°that when power is lost irna brownout, the-signals will be able to
21 operate in 'a normal mode instead of flashing red mode: They are also
22 considering'testing solar power streetlights .
24 Council .Member.Maguire asked Mr.,Skladzien.if he had'up-to-date knowl 0
edge�of
25' California Energy Commission Programs.
26
27 Mr. Skladzien replied that he receives updates from ''PG&E and the Energy
28 Commissiortfrequently. .
29 • •
30 Vice Mayor CaderrThompson asked if it would be possible to implement:traffic
31 ' 'calming in`the:McKinley School'area, with residents funding the measures.
32
33 Mr; Skladzien explained that typically the City receives Written requests:for"traffic
34 calming measures. They then evaluate thehsituation.to;determine which method
35 would be suitable format particular area.,He added that he is working with staff'
36 :to develop traffic Calming standards.
37
•
38 , Council, Member Moynihan noted that there was $20 000;iii the CIP for traffic
39 calming. He was looking forward to an official meeting of:the Traffic Committee:
40
41 Mr: Skladzien mentioned that there were some situations that might require
42 meetings of:the-Traffic Committee.
43
:City of.Petaluma,,California •
Draft`Minutecof;a Special
'City Council Meeting
• . Thursday,.May.31,2001
Page.12
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
Council Member Moynihan referred to the budget summary, page 196, Revenue
and Transfers In, and asked why the number for Administrative Support from
3 Other Funds was louver than last year.
4
5 Mr. Thomas replied that he would have to come back with an answer.
6.
7 Council.Member Moynihan was concerned about the gas tax showing.a transfer
8 being depleted from $740,000 to $80,000. The gas tax revenue is about $1.4
9 million and it looks like only a small: amount is getting transferred into this
10 department. On page 205, he saw a`very•insignificant amount of $338;000 going
11 to Street Maintenance, which he thought disturbing in light of the recent
12 information indicating about $8 million a year needed to properly maintain the
13 City's streets. He asked what happened to the rest of the gas tax.
14
1`5 Mr. Thomas noted that the $958,400 intergovernmental figure included the gas
16 tax.
17
18 Council Member Moynihan asked why gas tax would show as intergovernmental
19 and also a transfer'in,•as aseparate line item.
20
21 Mr. Stouder explained ,that, in some cities, gas tax is put straight into a Street
22 Enterprise Fund, and is then used for personnel and projects. The process in
• Petaluma is a little more convoluted, but the bottom line is the same: all the gas
tax money is used as it's supposed to be used, forlegally, regulated purposes.
25 The State of California requires lthat`we complete,a detailed annual report of how
26 gas taxes are being used. City Management would be happy to share that with
27 Council.
28
29 Council Member Moynihan would like to see the report and would like to see the
30 lion's share go right into-street maintenance.
31
32 Mr. Stouder`explained'that all the gas tax goes to streets, personnel maintaining
33 them, or projects.
34
35 Council Member Moynihan, pointed out that the summary sheet showed the gas
36 tax dipping from $1,572,000,00 last year to a projected $1 million this year. He
37 asked if that was,a reflection of the one-time$370,000 the City received.
38
39 Mr. Thomas clarified that it was.the:one-time Traffic Congestion Funds that the
40 ' City was required to place in the gas tax.
41
42 Council Member Moynihan referred to page 196, Revenues and Transfers In,
43 under Charges for Services, the increase from $737,300' to $1,394,550, and
44 noted that it appeared that the accounting was being handled differently this year
than last year.
City of Petaluma, California
Draft Minutes of a Special
City Council Meeting
Thursday, May 31, 2001
Page 13
DRAFT , DRAFT DRAFT
I
2 Mr.,Thomas, replied that he had allocated all°thee.General Fund .Revenues to the •
3 various departments.: He offered to share 'with Council Member Moynihan the
4 worksheet that he used He added that allocation of General Fund.Revenues is
5 somewhat subjective..
6
7 ADJOURN
8
9 The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 P.M.
10
11
12 E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
13 ATTEST:
14
15
16 Paulette Lyon, Deputy City Clerk
17
18
19
20 * in * * *
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
City.of Petaluma, California •
Draft Minutes of'a Special..
City Meeting,
Thursday, May 31, 2001
Page 14