HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 06/25/2001 (5) DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
A1 City-of Petama; California
2 Draft Minutes of aSpecialMeeting
3 Petaluma City Council
4
5
6 Budget Workshop
7 Wednesday, June 6,2001
8 Council Chambers
9
10
11 The Petaluma City Council met at 7:00 p.m. on this date in the Council Chambers.
12
13 ROLL CALL
14
15 PRESENT: Healy, Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan, Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson,
16 Mayor Thompson
17
18 ABSENT: O'Brien
19
20
21 Samantha Dougherty led the Pledge of Allegiance
22
23 Mayor Thompson dedicated the meeting to Robert Meyer who;served as Petaluma's City
24 Manager from 1962— 1981. He passed away on June 1, 2001.
25
26 General Plan
27
28 Mr. Stouder, City Manager, Your in a position that no other community is in, solely
29 because of the General Plan and Land Use Policies that were passed in the 70's. The
30 Growth Control, the Urban Growth Boundary, that is what-allowed this community to
31 remain a town of 500 as population grew. The challenges to Petaluma is how do we
32 remain a town of 500 when the population is now at 55,000. Twenty years ago you made
33 the decision that we're going to try to retain the town of 500 and you have succeeded.
34 Now there is incredible pressure to become otherwise.
35
36 What do you want to accomplish out of the.General.Planprocess. This makes a
37 difference on where you want to spend time orMoney. Council has been clear about
38 what youwant-in Water;Resources and Traffic-and-Circulation.. Those are very difficult,
39 complex and costly: What about the other;elements including Land Use and the Process.
40 How much are you willing to spend and take risks on?
41
42 Pamela Tuft, General Plan Administrator presented her staff report to Council. There are
43 three scenarios that were prepared for Council's review have,been reviewed by the
44 General Plan Executive team We are very excited about reinitiating the process to allow
O45 the community visioning effort,to commence in conjunction with the ongoing efforts of
46 the Water Resources team and the Traffic and Circulation team. The first of the three
1
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 scenarios is the General Plan Executive teams,presentation in an attempt to preserve the •
2 integrity of the process by reducing a variety of tasks without eliminating any major
3 effort. Scenarios.2 and 3 both begin to cut,'into some fairly major efforts. Regarding the
4 first three.Tasks in•Scenario #1 a substantial-.effort;has already commenced on those at
5 time of the suspension on March 5, staff distributed a General Plan evaluation book to
6 both in-house Senior'Management teams to be shared with their departnents and all
7 elected and appointed'officials. That work which is illustrated as Task-#3 has resulted"in
8 a substantial savings,since we have basically cut Dyett and Bhatia out of the effort. In the
9 first three tasks of the original scope we've already reduced the work by:about $40,000
10 just by shaving some of the effort rt out and undertaking the rest of it in-house rather than
11 having it contracted. The remaining tasks are outlined in Attachment "A"which details
12 the different reductions by task as to the elimination of the number of meetings, the
13 specific task, one ofthe"most easily;recognized is the elimination of the Separate
14 Sustainability Element. We've taken it back to a level where Sustainability's,addressed
15 in every element, but is not separated and repeated init''s separate free standing element
16 that reduced the contract work with CH2M Hill by about 30%.
17
18 Council Comments
19
20 Janice Cader.-Thompson thought the Sustainabilitywas going to be woven throughout the
21 entire General Plan?
22
23 Pamela Tuft, yes, and separate. The-Council.in December decided that they wanted a
24 separate element as well. I went back to the scope with regard to>Sustairability. Back!to
25 one of the-first drafts from late summer early fall which•did originally haveSustainability
26 woven throughout it without a separate°SustainabilityElement. So withScenario #1 I
27 went back to that and reduced the drafting of a separate Sustainability Element and what
28 that will do is allow CH2M Hill to participate;throughout the entire General`Plan process
29 inserting:Sustainability components, educating the public on what that:would result in
30 reduction of use of nonrenewable-resources, but it would not create a separate free,
31 standing:document.
32
33 MM There is a significant percentage reduction in Scenario #1. Are we going to be able
34 to achieve meaningful Sustainability criteria?
35
36 Pamela_Tuft, I'believe so, yes. We have the Natural Step and,CH2M Hill: Especially
37 CH2M Hill will be more of the analytical level of analysiswhere Natural Resources are
38 primarily education;and outreach. They will.be looking atevery element with the.
39 concept of bringing in'the three B's of Sustainability; What;we-can offer in the way.of
40 implementation tools,tliresholdsand:implementation methods to attain those thresholds.
41 What we,did offer is the opportunity to fold that money immediately over into the
42 implementation tools so that the Zoning Ordinance, the Design Guidelines and the
43 Subdivision Map'Ordinance could be developed concurrently with the General Plan to
44 allow'their concurrent+adoption. TheZoning Ordinance we are operating under right now
45 was adopted in 1958 with a couple of sections inserted into it as those became necessary
46 because of changes in society such as the Adult Entertainment Ordinance was folded inin .'
2
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
O1 the mid 80's, but other than a few major drop in changes it is basically the same as it was
2 in the 50's and 60's.
3
4 MM your suggesting that money saved through deeper cutbacks on the General Plan will
5 make it possible to update the Zoning Ordinance, are you making that recommendation if
6 we adopt Scenario #1?
7
8 Pamela Tuft, Scenario #1 reduces the cost by$241,000, which would be more than
9 enough for a Zoning Ordinance and,Subdivision Map Ordinance. Otherwise it was going
10 to be a fourth year budget,item that we would bring back to you as we near the adoption
11 process of the General Plan.
12
13 As we bring the public into the General Plan process they would'beable to see the policy
14 and the program and then they would see the implementation method. Mike.Moore and
15 his team would be project managers for the implementation tool development as well as
16 being actively involved in the General Plan Executive team, so they would be basically
17 helping to write the rules as the policies are developed by the community so the
18 community could weigh in on both.
19
20 Mike Healy in terms of time frames and budgeting, I,believe when we talked you said the
21 numbers embedded in the draft budget are consistent with''Scenario #1 or Scenario #2?
22
23 Pamela Tuft, the draft budget in those documents has not changed since December. If
24 you chose Scenario #1 and wanted to do the Zoning Ordinance, the budget is in the
25 General Fund for that portion of the General Plan budget that is shown in Attachment
26 "C".
27
28 Mike Healy so if we went with`Scenario #1 and decided to move forward with the Zoning
29 and Subdivision Ordinances that would be covered?
30
31 Pamela Tuft, No, actually, because particularly the General Fund, which is what would
32 normally be used to pay for implementation tools such as the Zoning,Ordinance. The
33 revised budget shown in Attachment"C" for the General Fund the first year which is the
34 year we're currently justfinishing, I believe the budget the Council approved last year
35 was $348,000 and under Scenario #1 the General Plan is about$229,000 so that would
36 cover the cost of the Zoning Ordinance.
37
38 Mike Healy with those two Ordinance updates you would propose to start that work now
39 and have them ready for adoption concurrently with.the.General Plan adoption?
40
41 Pamela Tuft, yes.
42
43 Bryant Moynihan the numbers you have here in the budget it indicates from the year
44 2000-2020 anddhe budget we've been given this year estimates that we've spent to date
O45 about $572,900. Is that $57Z900 General Plan Administration?
46
3
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Pamela Tuft, the $572,900 is the entire departments budget and that•includes $348,000 •
2 for contract services and the rest of it is printing, General.Services and salaries for the
3 director, secretary and contract planner.
4
5 Bryant Moynihan so those costs that have been spent to date are included`-in these
6 numbers or excluded?
7
8 Pamela Tuft, we have not spent $572,900 because I still have $315,000 of the $348,000
9 that you gave me for contract services. Those are committed to the contract that is"now
10 under suspension.
11
12 Bill Thomas those numbers•are under a heading called estimated and all we did was try to
13 estimatethe cost for the end of the fiscal year, which is the current•fiscal year That was
14 assuming;that all of the consultant costs or contractual service costs which•makes-up the
15 majority of her budget would be spent and or encumbered at the end of the,year to be
16 spent immfutufe years.
17
18 Bryant Moynihan so the budget basically indicates that services and supplies were
19 estimated at $377,150.
20
21 Bill Thomas yes, the majority of that is contractual services.
22
23 Bryant Moynihan so we're not actually spending that this year?
24
25 Bill Thomas, we estimated what would be spent and quite frankly with the General Plan
26 weassumed all of it would be spent or encumbered to be spent in future years.
27
28 Bryant Moynihan; so when we get our CAFRA at the end of the year we're notgoing;to
29 see the $572,900 number, but we're going to•see somewhere around $300,000.
30
31 BilLThornas,'Financial.statenients are different from,th budget as they report what was
32 actually spent. The budget is an estimate.
33
34 Bryant Moynihan in your knowledge,is there any Other assumptions we made relative'te
35 the estimated amount of fluids or expenditures that would be as significantly changed as
36 this one?
37
38 Bill Thomas, I don't know; all we're doing isestimating. We won't close our books until
39 sometime in•August and then we can give you actuals. Until then I'm.not sure what-the
40 other departments are going to be spending. We estimate based on experience'up to the
41 time were estimating.
42
• 43 Mr Stouder, Mr. Thomas and I went through spread sheets with each department and
44 looked at every line item and every category and said'are you going,to•spend this and or
45 made decisions no you aren't going to spend this without asking. Those clearly are good •
46 estimates or choices.
•
4
•
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
O1
2 Bryant Moynihan,In reviewing the proposals or the alternatives,that come forward, they
3 appear to me to be various versions of the consultant plan as originally adopted with
4 different reductions in the scope of work and the level of consultants,support. I think you
5 may recall when we had the discussion I was concerned about a grass roots effort
6 involving,members of the community at the get go and having community members
7 serve on committees and having the committees indeed work directly possibly even
8 choose the consultants and work with those consultants and get a,lot more:grass roots
9 support and community buy in at the end product. That is a different approach than I see
10 here unless I'm missing something, has there been any consideration in stopping and
11 going back and involving the community in other than these public outreach meetings
12 that occur down the road with the consultants conducting them?
13
14 Pamela Tuft, We have had public;scoping sessions to discuss the scope of work last year. •
15 We had two public interview processes for the selection of,the consultants where eighty
16 citizens participated in the interview process. We have had from the beginning a citizens
17 mailing list and those citizens reviewed the scope of work as it,was prepared and we
18 received input. We also received input the scope'of work was reviewed by every
19 appointed body by the City Council at a public meeting so the public,participated at the
20 Airport Commission, Animal Services Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission,
21 Planning Commission.etc:_on an agenda and the public being involved. The City Council
22 discussed last year at great length whether we wanted to create an advisory committee as
O23 some cities do anywhere from 15 members to our 1985 Plan had approximately 90
24 members including the Council:and Planning Commission on seven appointed
25 committees. The City Council at that time last year felt strongly that they wanted more
26 than 90 regularly involved which is why we went out to the full community and said we
27 want anyone at any time to•be involved in the General Plan process, We currently have
28 over 490 citizens on the•mailing list who receive the newsletters and will receive all of
29 the staff reports and draft documents. By the time we actually get into the draft plan we
30 should have 1000 citizens involved.
31
32 Bryant Moynihan I just thought we would have an alternative in front of us tonight which
33 would allow us to do it like we did the'current General Plan where we have a citizens
34 based guiding or steering,committee for key elements of the General Plan and I realize
35 some are technically advanced to get everyone off the street and I see this in the Traffic
36 and Water Elements which we are proceeding on, but such areas as Land Use which is
37 controversial,and,other areas in particular, Economic Development which this Council
38 has for seven or eight years talked about forming an Economic Advisory Committee and
39 failed to do so. I saw those as likely candidates for citizens advisory committees and
40 working with the consultant instead of having a staffteam driving,the consultants which
41 do public outreach,but Wallet quite the same buy in or participation and certainly from a
42 public point of view the plans already laid out and the direction is already decided before
43 you have a chance to review it versus having a chanceto.help sculpt the direction of the
44 particular;elementof the General Plan. I realize that with a lot of community
0 45 participation there is added costs, but I think that for the General Plan to be a useful tool
46 that doesn't sit upon a shelf we definitely have to ensure even at that added cost that we
5
•
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 have the public buy in. I'm concerned, these consultants:half the names people can't •
2 even pronounce and.we're going:to have them coming and making a presentation or two
3 at a couple of social,functions and I don't seethis as a community based effort in that
4 sense. Can we look-back and see what it would`take•to step back and start at that point '
5 relative to each of these elements?
6
•
7 Mr. Stouder We've'.tried to put a•variety of choices here and if there is.some other
8 preferred methodology about backing up and approaching this I think the Council needs.
9 to have that discussion: We can consider whatever you like us to consider.
10
11 Pamela'Torliatt I don't:believe this was the direction of the Council. -I'don't-knowhow
12 much direction there was, but I do think staff has tried to come back with their best case
13 scenario using these.consultants. I.-don't want to•get side tracked in pushing that unless
14 the entire Council is wanting to step back and deal with that issue: One of Council's
15 three priorities was,to have an Economic Advisory Committee as part of the.process:. I
16 . also don't perceive the consultants going out to a couple of social functions and giving a
17 presentation, What we're getting for the dollars that we're spending.is a large
18 community outreach process with possibly over 1000'people involved, including the
19 business community, all the other interest groups and-the general public.
•
20
21 Janice Cader-Thompson wants to continue'in the direction that Council has been going. I
22 think it is important to be inclusive-with the entire community. She would like to see the •
23 ordinances done in house as well as having a consultant firm participate. _
24
25 Mike Moore, We haven't gotten into the details as to how we will mix that up and-what
26 the process will be and I think we also need to have a discussion about how this process
27 will go along with,the General Plan process so we're;not confusing everybody as to what
28 we're talking about one night as opposed to'another night.
29
30 Matt.Maguire,.feels it is important that Council look at the zoning regulations regarding
31 energy usage. Do you see.ways of incorporating that into the Zoning update process?
32
33 Mike Moore, certainly,.I'think there are some ways that we can do that They may be
34 limited,given the amount of build out that's already occurred in the city and some of what
35 you may looking at may also be tied to building code regulations thatfmaybe changing
36 over time.regardless of what;we do.interms of energy conservation. In fact there is new
37 energy conservation regulations that are going into affect July 1st. We will certainly look
38 at that in terms of what we can do from a zoning standpoint.
39
40 Matt Maguire does not agree with Councilmember Moynihan:He feelsithat there is a
41 good buy in from the community on the current General Plan. He believes the diffetence
42 between the processras we go through it today as opposed to;the 1985 General Plan is that
43 people are much•more busier and it's going to take much more specific action on our part
44 to reach,out to the community. Setup.a frameiwork where they can dial in and give,their
45 input in a timely manner that allows them to give focused input because people are busy
46 and mosfpeople'don't have night after night to spend unlimited hours on this:
6
•
• DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1
2 Mike Healy, when we suspended,the General Plan process in March:the direction to staff
3 was to look for ways to find cost savings and come backto Council, cost savings without
4 jeopardizing the integrity of the work product. Perhaps in light of Mr. Moynihan's
5 question can you discuss generally would there be extra titne, extra expense or cost
6 savings or time savings in changing the approach arid going to the kind of citizen
•
7 committee approach that was done for the 1985 General Plan?
8
9 Pamela Tuft, the difference is in the 1985 to 87 effort you had committees that were topic
10 oriented. They had one Councilmember and one Planning Commissioner and then
11 anywhere from 5 to 10 citizens on that committee. This committee spoke about Traffic,
12 this committee spoke about Land'Use-and this committee spoke about Growth
13 Management etc. The current scope of work is such that they would be multi topic
14 workshops so that people could understand how Land Use relates to the traffic impacts.
15 And those workshops would be posted by the city through the various appointed
16 commissions/committees. So if it was to talk about Land Use and Parks and Land Use
17 and Recreational opportunities the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation
18 Commission would serve as•the^advisory host, but not the sense where the working
19 committees that they had before where they met regularly had there back to the public.
20 The intent with this would;be more inclusionairy and the people would participate in the
21 discussio •through table top exercises and other interactive type of discussions rather
22 than a core group of ten-twelve per subject.
23 At the Council's direction we could back up and say we're going to have these meetings
24 but we're also going to have an x # of member citizen committee that's going to work
25 with the Executive team in some manner.
26
27 Mike Healy is there any standard in the General Plan industry for which approach to
28 take?
29
30 Pamela Tuft, no what.we:did rin the 80's the prevailing manner was what Santa Rosa is
31 doing now. They.havea 24 or 26 member citizens committee that works with the
32 Community Development Department staff and they hear and host. Most cities have an
33 assigned group of anywhere from 1`5 to 30 citizens.
34
35 Mike Healy, I don't see a compelling reason to move off of the.framework we have set
36 up unless other folks see some advantage that we're not going to pick up with what we're
37 doing.
38 Looking at the staff recommended Scenario #1 and:theritaking the next level to Scenario
39 #2 you have one page:6 that talks about the points of distinction between Scenario #1 and
40 Scenario #2 and looking at some of the larger dollar items can you explain what the
41 Petaluma River Ferry study was supposed to be looking at.
42
43 Pamela•Tuft Scenario;#2 would be inclusive, it would include all of the reductions from
44 Scenario #1„but;then add this one page and the Ferry Study was discussions of the
W45 potential for high.speed•transit services by way of river using the hydrofoil devices. We
46 had one gentlemen who was investigating something-similar to what they use in Europe
7
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 where they load several hundred cars and people and float them down the river at a fairly •
2 high rate of speed. The Council in the past was interested to understand if that was at all
3 feasible. If someone wants to do it'they can pay for the feasibility study.
4
5 Mike Healy that is not an internal circulation issue within the city, that's circulation.from
6 Petaluma to San Francisco.
7
8 Pamela Tuft, its regarding regional transit.
9
10 Mike Healy, at the top of page"6 the 500 household survey and you were kind enough to
11 circulate a survey that was done as part of the 1992.
12
13 Pamela Tuft, 1992/93 was the five-year review that was stipulated in,the,adopted General
14 Plan to be undertaken. The actual survey was conducted in early 1993.,
15 There aresurveys that'can address'the issues that we are going to need to address
16 regarding'infill development, growth patterns, rates and transit options.
17
18 Mike Healy if itcis Council's desire to fold the discussion-we we're having,on Monday
19 into the Traffic and Circulation Element, is there going to be a need to have more staff
20 support/consultant support to look at a cross town connector and interchange,scenario7
21 •
22 -Pamela Tuft addressing the potential need and location for a cross town connector is
23 included:in the task in the scope of work whether the Council once we begin to discuss
24 that and have the model up and running, if the Council wants to go beyond the level of
25 analysis that is undertaken in this scope then we can bring back:a:modification at that in
26 time At this stage based on your discussions on Monday, I don't believe so.. The
27 discussion on Monday was only went so far because:we don't have the information to
28 give you so that you can have,a meaningful discussion about the next level of decisions
29 that you need to make. When we do return with that as we proceed through the
30 preparation of the element itself and:get the model up and running and look at,Land,Use
31 alternatives then yotr can::say"yes" we'd like-you to pursue X to the next level of analysis
32 if its not addressed adequately in,the scope we can bring an expansion of the scope or
33 modification to address that or take it under a separate;track.
34
35 Mike Healy when would you.anticipate doing that?
36
37 Pamela Tuft,late fall, early winter this year.
38
39 Bryant'Moynihan.there has been some good work done in;the community with the
40 Workforce Housing Committee. Is thereany chance:or'anticipation of incorporating'the
41 work being done by them in the General Plan process?
42
43 Pamela Tuft, yes, Bonne Gaebleris also involved in that. Bonne and I are working
44 closely as you can see in the scope of work the Housing Element in order to retain our
45 certification through HCD is being-excelerated and Bonne`arid I are working on that.and
46 we'l •present that to the;Council later this:year. We recognize that then it will be kind of •
8
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
O1 a given with the General Plan, but as we develop the policies that relate to the Housing
2 Element we may need to come back and revise the Housing Element. It's the only
3 element that's kind of working independently, but the Workforce Housing issue, Bonne
4 has a copy of the report, I'have a copy of the report and any of that research or input is
5 going to be shared with all of the General Plan efforts.
6
7 Bryant Moynihan locally the River Authority has been formed and is trying to work
8 interactively with the Chamber:River'Conunittee and local Sheriffs and local
9 environmental concerns relative to protecting our river. Has there been any out reach or
10 participation from,that group or involvement as such in trying to through that group deal
11 with the River Element?
12
13 Pamela Tuft, She did review the scope:of work with a couple of members of the
14 Authority or organization. .John-Fitzgerald has been active. We are very interested in
15 having-them host workshops, weigh in on anything that's thought about, provide early
16 input. Outreach to anybrganizatibn or.group of citizens is more than'welcome. I spent
17 the greater part of an afternoonworking with:the Economic'Committee of the Chamber
18 of Commerce, walking through,the scope of work.
19 The workshop meetings and outreach contained in this scope would allow the opportunity
20 for any of those committees to be very actively involved.
21
22 Bryant Moynihan, Land Use as such we have a lot of people who have a lot of opinions
23 about Land Use in this community and I would.hate'to get toIthe;end of the process and
24 have people say that this has not been an open active process;in which members of the
25 community have a chance.tohave a'free flowing exchange of ideas.
26
27 Pamela Tuft, I think the citizens will be incredibly engaged on theLand Use discussions.
28 That really is for most people,the heart of the General Plan and if we are going to identify
29 our vision of what we want this community to become in 20 years it is going to in all
30 probability affect some major Land Use decisions, some changes and perceptions of this
31 community as to what-we'want.to do with infill.
32
33 Bryant Moynihan that is my concern also and as far as a lot of,people that are very
34 uncomfortable with change and this process is going to occur'and despite the outreach
35 efforts and meetings and all we're not going to necessarily get the word out to a number
36 of people and when they see the end product we're going have a possible concern. I
37 really think that your best vehicle is using the general public and gettingthem involved
38 makes a big difference in getting participation level up and if you can point to someone
39 who sat on that committee and said they worked on it,your neighbor worked on it, your
40 friend you get:to a pointwhereahey have a hard time coming,back and saying that it was
41 anyone's fault other than there own for not participating. In regards,to:Land Use the
42 River, Economic Development and the Workforce Housing real good opportunities with
43 existing groups in our community that we should have them involved up front so it's not
44 just the Executive team, consulting team an appearance that is aivelitist type of approach.
Ai 45 I would like to see in the framework of all three of these scenarios an opportunity to
46 reach out and get them involved.
9
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 •2 Matt Maguire recommends Scenario #1 and drop the Ferry Study.
3
4 Pamela Torliatt regarding the Workforce Housing work I'm envisioning that being part of
5 the suggestions that come forward and when we look at Land Use we,,look:at the existing
6 zoning and then we look at difference scenarios that can apply to that, not taking the,
7 Workforce HousingMap putting it down and telling folks this is what it is that you you:can
8 do ias far as Workforce Housing and then we're going to figure out whatever else fits. I
9 don't want this Workforce Housing to be completed before we've had the general input
10 from the community.
11
12 Pamela Tuft,the Workforce Housing report is just information to be shared. It certainly
. 13 is not being presented in any way s as'a"given. It has not been tied to the General Plan
14 it's just some information.
15
16 Mike Healy, I have been on that task force. -I think-the map and the,spread sheet that it
17 has.produced is not even a set of recommendations it's just some potential opportunities
18 for discussion purposes.
19
20 Pamela Torliatt what isimportant to about this process that you've laid out is the fact
21 that we can look at all the elements together such as when we have the Traffic and
22 Circulation base line,we plug in the Land Uses and then we see how much it's going'.to
23 cost for various alternatives and the community can say"well you can afford;this or you
24 can't afford-this"or"I'm willing to live with-more traffic because there's a higher Land.
25 Use" or"more traffic or car dependent use here": 'I think that is going to be a really
26 telling,process and-particularly as it pertains to the cross town connector-issue and I think
27 that-is going=to be the fascinating part about how the(community rallies around`it This.
28 process has always`beema grass roots process. It never has been an elitist process
29 considering:the fact that you,already have 500 people bought.and hopefully 1000 by the
30 end and itfincludes;all typesof interest groups and general public.
31 One of the comments CouncilmemberMaguire talked about with energy efficiency inthe
32 Zoning Ordinance, what I'm,looking forward to isincorporatinggreen building principles
33 and that is where we can make a huge leap in'sustainability.and education of our builders.
34
35 Mr. Stouder is there a+sense of direction of•what web ring back for decision?
36
37 • Bryant Moynihanwhenwill the survey of vacant land be available for distribution?And
38 is that being summarized based on the currenf.land'use-designation?
39
40 Pamela Tuft it's being;based on current land use designations, the land inventory right
41 now the map-is updated through December of 1999 and is being updated to bring it to
42 January 2001 that will correspond with a lot of the other data we have collected.
43
44 Bryant Moynihan will you also be updating from when we had the Urban Growth
45 Boundary put together. You had done an estimate of what level of supply we had'of each
10
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
O1 land use type based on years available, based on the current absorbtion.of what we do
2 have. Do you anticipate being able to put that together in the near future?
3
4 Pamela Tuft, yes, that will bemtia preliminary stage by late spring.
5
6 Bryant Moynihan I do share Ms. Torliatt concern that we go down with like Workforce
7 Housing is a good-example, there are other•ways to do it and wetweak everything to
8 provide adequate housing;and then we don't provide enough land for retail or industrial
9 or office etc. When that information is available if we could also.make it available to the
10 public.
11
12 Pamela Torliatt what you should also provide to us"is:in the Urban Growth Boundary
13 parameters there was certain timelines in there that if we were not able to meet needs
14 within the UGB that Council Would be allowed to add additional land pursuant to certain
15 findings. People need to understand what the impacts would be if we don't have that
16 land use available inside the current UGB, what it would look like because you may not
17 have the choice. You may have to do one or the other.
18
19 Pamela Tuft the UGB five potential expansion,areas are identified on that map as well.
20
21 Beth Meredith 104 5th Street,she would like to see us approach the General Plan process
22 as an example of how we can better improve our system Overall for public outreach, for
23 transparency of process and one of the places she sees this and she would like to see this
24 as fully developed as possible is the Web Site.
25 There is a loss of momentum:and unless there is some sort of continuing momentum it is
26 hard to stay engaged. She has designed workshops and knows when designing a
27 workshop when I really want peoples°input rand when I want their buy in. A buy-in says
28 buy what I'm bringing you, input says this is the issue what do you think. She is more
29 interested initially in workshops that ask for input and then eventually move to buy in. .I
30 think the model that Ms. Tuft is"working'towards and which is probably the more modern
31 approach to these types,of things,is, instead of committees creating networks and the
32 Web is then that place that nexus point where;those,networks take out. So maybe we can
33 think of the committees and interest,groups as being these networks and maybe there can
34 be a way on the Web.Site that they:can communicate without having to go through the
35 city or meet,at those meetings. Hopefullythe Web Site or some other think could help
36 people network.
37 There are some tasks, we.do,have people who have great talents and they love to
38 contribute,people here just give enormous amounts•of time.and energy. Maybe there
39 should be a General Plan Wish List on there that people if they can give, if there can be
40 enhanced Web support and somebody is willing to do a project to enhance the Web
41 project maybe they can do that portion of it. Maybe there:are some things that the public
42 could do specifically that would enhance the process and would be free of charge and
43 would involve morepeople.
44
O45 Diane Reilly, Rainier Avenue, She would like to see some of the Tech Students working
46 on the Web Site who now°workon the city's Web Site. She would like to see the Web
11
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Site expanded to get more`kids involvedand also the Spanish speaking community; •
2 Maybe the survey could be done from the Web Site.
3
4 Matt Maguire is looking for a process that_really works with plenty ofpublic=input:
5
6 Janice Cader-Thompson, when the consultants'are.putting the groups together.for the
7 discussion it might be good to have,discussion with members of the publiesto see how we
8 really want set up. •
9
10 Mike Healy agrees with Scenario #1 with the deletion of the Ferry. We have managed to
11 create significant cost savings without;harming the integrity of the process and we
12 created enough cost savings to update our forth year old Zoning and Subdivision+Map
13 Ordinance.
14
15 Council recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvenedrat8:40p.m.
16
17 Water.Resources and Conservation
18
19 Tom Hargis gavel brief report:onthe status of the department. He is,please+.with the
20 changes with the department.
21
22 What we do withjbudgets has such tremendous,-implications in the community.and it
23 might beihard for Council to realize the import of some of the decisions and some of the •
24 influence:that'you have'with these kinds of things`that happen through your budget
25 approvals.
26
27 He sees the need to add'a third level to his department, which is the Surface Water
28 Element. A Mid'titanager that runs not only the surface water kinds of projects such as
29 the Corps but all-the regulations were going to be faced with such as storm water
• 30 regulations coming down from'theEnvironmental Protection Agency and the Regional'
31 Water-Quality Control Board tryingito;do water quality enhancement and-integrating'
32 how all these work together. Do you get more water supply from the river or from wells
33 or by off setting, by recycling or by industrial effieniency or conservationor do you do
34 detention ponds and retention ponds and recharge the ground water. Have habitat
35 enhancement and its fun to be in the front part of this thing where we start seeing that
36 interconnect activity and rihe opportunities its challenging it's not going to happen
37 quickly;,but.the next phase-is-going to be starting to bring more emphasis on the bigger
38 aspects of surface water not only staffing right now we have no way of funding thestorm
39 drain.maintenance.because one ofthe-down.sides of the reorganization is the street
40 crews, the sewer crews prettjiinuch-covered storm drain maintenance. With the
41 reorganization we're having to fgure;out another way to address.that. We see cost
42 implications of regulations where there's going to have to 'be discussions about how to
43 fund maintenance, how to fund water quality over and above the storm drain kinds of
44 projects: Looking,at assessment districts, benefit assessments, expansion of the Zone 2A
45 are the kinds of things that were going to be bringing to you in the future. The-water and •
46 sewer rates study we started-on we added the storm drain-too before we got that study
12
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
O1 started. How do we address that as part of this comprehensive look.and we're hoping
2 there will be some things that come.back to,the council that makes some of the tough
3 decision making a little:easier. One point I wanted to make is you don't'have to have an
4 annual rate increase, but I think you have to havean annual ratei increase discussion.
5 On June 18 we will be having ahearing omwater rate increases to cover the cost of
6 additional electricity, theadditional cost,of water bought. The biggest user of energy in
7 California is pumping water, :water supply, wastewater, storm water.
8 Some of the things with staffing, we're looking at bringing water conservation more in
9 house with a city employee; now we•use Sonoma County Water Agency for two people.
10 We still see the continuation of that relationship with the Water Agency a little more
11 emphasis. One of our guys,Dave.Spriggs has been theloyalist on water conservation for
12 a decade around here. The Finance Manager is one of the vacancies on there, we filled
13 the secty positon, we're recruiting for the engineer, eng tech is one of the next things that
14 will be coming. Bill Thomas as the new Finance Manager given the opportunity to
15 us to look at what is a finance manager, what's the realneed forthis. I put this on the
16 wall with last years budget saying water and sewer and storm drain are,such_big
17 important issues and the dollar impacts we need to have some expertise and we're
. 18 working out in house.
19 I want to point out that one of the reasons I haven't pressed on the Financial Manager
20 recruitment is how pleased and impressed I am with Mike.Ban:and Steve Simmons. This
21 is their budget and my budget. They are the guys that have put this together. They have
22 done an amazing amount coming up on the learning curve about revenue.generation,
O23 bonds different ways offinancing, the spread sheets some:of which are amazing how their
24 starting to do some of the things I had'really hoped a Finance Manager would do, start
25 doing ten andtwentyyear projections of what our needs are and equipment how to
26 finance them how to do the rate structure with that.
27
28 Mike Healy What time of year would it be most appropriate to have a discussion on rate .
29 increases?
30
31 Tom Hargis, feels it should be part.of the regular budget process:so we're looking at
32 revenue generation and expenditure and trying to program.when those rate increases
33 would take place.
34
35 Mr. Stouder eyen if you start the discussion rate increase proposals earlier, It's adopted as
36 part of the implementation of the budget. The,budget implements all the policies
37 revenues and expenditures so that's'the'path.
38
39 Mike Healy this fall when we get the results of the rate design study we'll be asked to
40 adopt a different rate design that could be revenue neutral?
41
42 Mr. Stouder it could:be.revenue neutral, it depends on the,expenditures,,projections and
43 capital:improvementprogram and annual budgets. You could do mid-year issues and
44 then get it all on track during budget in June-July.
0 45
13
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Mike Healy believes it would be best if we can do it to have the rate design issue in the •
2 fall, when We do it this time for the first time,be revenue neutral and then itcan be
3 updated every year as,part of the budget process.
4
5 PamelaTorliattI believe that the Water Agency is required to submit their budget to the
6 Water Advisory Committee by February 1st of every year for review and recommendation.
7 to the Water Agency Board.which.is the Board of Supervisors. I would like to see us
8' have a;publichearing here where the Water makes a presentation on what their
9 proposed increase will be so we can discuss among ourselves then you can'give your
10 WAC representative the direction to go forward and then we will be better informed and
11 updated on what our potential increase may be in the budget process:
12
13 Bryant Moynihan there seems to be an increase in Inter-departmental charges on Page
14 303 Summary of Expenses, Appropriations and Revenues which are not:justiGeneral
15 Fund but for all funds:and:it hasinterdepartmental charges going up by25% from
16 $883,000;to $1,100,000. Is there a different approach or philosophy that's occurring that
17 would create the Inter-departmental charges having increased that much in one year?'
18
19 Bill Thomas, refer back to the Summary on.Page S69 that details where these,numbers
20 are coming from. Quite frankly we increased Information Services this year because we' •
21 consolidated all the telephone services, and consolidated all the internet services,again.
22 That's going to increase the Iinter-depaitinental charges because we've taken them out of
23 theMaterials, Supplies and Services and we isolated them and showed you what they
24 were rather than imthe past budgets just,including them in the Materials, Supplies and
25 Services. The Administrative overhead charges were only increased by thecostof living,
26 which at:thetime we did this was 5 %2 or 6 %x % for the year and that's based on the San
27 Francisco, Oakland, San Jose Metropolitan area on the Urban Wage,earners. The,
28 increase is mainly due to the increase m the Information Services Allocations;,General
29 Services:and`Risk Management.
30
31 BM,just so I.understand the interrelationship with the enterprise fund a,little:bit better,on
32 the Summary Page S58 it outlines at the very bottom there what the total revenue is for
33 the enterprise funds budgeting $25,046;750.
34
35 Bill that's for all the enterprise funds not just water and sewer.
36
37 BM the water and,sewer is a major portion of it right?
38
39 Bill yes
40
41 BM if you go a little further under expenditures;in the Summary PageS66 we seem to get
42 into the expenditures'totaling:around $37;819;000, so relative to the enterprise:funds we
43 have about a $12,773,000 expenditures in,excess of revenues.
44
45 Bill that includes the CapitalImprovementPlan of$14.6 million dollars. A lot of that
46 corning out of existing revenues thatare sitting as reserves in the various funds..
14
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
IIII 1
2 BM but they are also are there not about $11,671;000;in revenue bondsthat are coming
3 out and scheduled to be . Under revenue bonds it's-showing $11,671,000 that is
4 anticipated in going out this year or budgets and that's$11 million of a total of
5 $106,000,000 over the next five years. If we're floating$11,671,000 revenue bonds.
6
7 Bill no were not that's inclusive of some of the bonds we've issued for the sewer
8 treatmentplant. This is a;Surnmary your looking at at 357 that shows all the sources for
9 all the cip projects. In.revenue'bonds there`is-a proposal that we're coming to you on
1,0 June 25`h to issue some.revenue bonds in about $5,000,000 in refinancing about $5million
11 existing bonds. This $11,671,000 and the total of$106,422,000 mainly refers to the
12 sewer treatment plan over the years. We have already issued,a portion of those bonds
13 that we have not expendedand we're showing it as one of sources to pay for the projects
14 including the sewer treatmentplant. It's not all related to water.
15
16 BM on the subject of this department I understood we we're dealing with water and
17 sewer.
18
19 Bill we're not issuing $1.1.671,000 in revenue bonds. Part of those revenue bonds have
20 already been issued. Were going to issue some more for sewer treatment plant obviously
21 we haven't issued enough to pay for the entire plant: We are proposing issuing
22 approximately $5 million'in water revenue bonds in addition to refunding some Zone 2A
Ire23 Water Revenue Bonds that were issued back in 1995.
24
25 PT don't we have to do that. -I think we have to do that because;we have to increase the
26 rates in order to be able to go out for thatbonding as well. You have to base it on a
27 revenue.
28
29 Bill you have to show that you have sufficient revenues.to pay for the debt service.
30
31 BM so I guess what I'm not following is if we're showing the summary of$11,671,000
32 in revenue bonds which would do for water and sewer.
33
34 Bill, that is all for,sewer, I'm corrected. If you look at Page;505 you'll see the
35 wastewater pollution control CIP project summary and it shows revenue bonds of
36 $11,671,000 ass source:
37
38 BM and that also shows on Pg. 504 Debt.Proceeds net of issue,cost is $11,671,000 I did
39 assume that was actually all sewer., Again that's in this years budget I don't know how
40 you got to $5 million because we budgeting this year to do $11 million and you indicated
41 that we had done some last year?
42
43 Steve Simmons;;the revenue bonds show up on Page 478 for water in the CIP section.
44 2001-2002 down at the bottom`it shows Debt Proceeds out of issue cost$1.9 m and that's
O45 a drop for the 1st year. Their going to draw the money over a,three year period and that's
46 new money coming in. And then the cost of that is up at the top Principal and Interest
15
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 and that's for thenew money and also to payoff the existing debt the COP's`that were
•
2 issued for Zone 4.in 1990.
3
4 BM so in refinancing,that aspect is the element dealing with the water vs the sewer.;
5 And then water pollution control the.Summary or the'debt,service is back on at Pg. 505•
•
6 where we talked about,and I guess I was having a hard time before understanding where
7 we were getting the Administrative fees and charges because.they seem to be reduced!in
8 some areas and yet if you look.for exampleattheRoostenRun recycle water'project on
9 Page 505 it's budgeting at total of$6,646,000 and we now just recently reviewed that it
10 was a 5/8 project or something when,we talked about it so if you go back and look'at the
11 detail ofthat which is on page 531 the.Administration shows as nil on it but,all of a
12 sudden wehavea construction management estimate of$750,000 so I guess myquestion
•
13. is gettingback to'what we seem to be loading the administration per say or overhead into
14 construction management on the CIP projects, I'd like to know where that$750,000 is
15 slated to go and where it shows as a revenue source or transfer in relative tothis'budget.
16 -
17 Mike Ban, actually the interesting thing that we've done on our CIP this,year is we've
18 increased the number of expenditure descriptions to reflect how$ are spent on CIP
19 projects. The General Fund overhead is City Hall dollars, City Clerk, City,Attorney,City
20 Management, these are people that work on the project, but are paid out of the General
21 Fund. The people;who actually manage the project,myself, my department are not paid
22 out of the General Fund, we're paid out of the enterprise fund so that's why the dollars
23 here under the General Fund overhead are not large for these projects because we're not
24 paid out of the.General Fund. The item for construction management.that's•an outside
25 contracts services cost to manage thecontract. We,don't:have the;staff orpersonnet to
26 manage these projects ourselvessso we hire contract service personnel to manage them
27 and same with the design. Thos costs are outside contract service personnel.
•
28
29 BM let me broaden that a'little bit and start back on S3 so that I can try to tie this all
30 together. The third,page summary which deals with the General Fund and in particular:
31 the 210Flood Mitigation where I was headed. They show flood mitigatiomanddrainage
32 fees on S3 down under General Fund and it indicates itsi$11,021,500 of estimated
33 revenues. It appears that a good amount of that amount and I'm wondering, but is this
34 not coming from-the Feds:per say or.ArinyCorps?
35
36 Bill if you took on Page S14 it gives you a description'of where this•money is coming
37 from Flood Mitigation ties right to the $11,021,500. Your looking,at a Summary
38 on S3 and for each of these funds I have provided you with detail schedules as to what
39 the,revenues;are and what the planned expenditures are for each of these funds and as you
40 can seefor the flood mitigation $5.79 is expected to come from theArmy Corps of
41 Engineers, $4 million from the State Department of Water Resources, $1.110,000 from
42 Zone 2A and only`a$100,000 in licenses,•pennits and fees.
43
44 BM these funds as sbudgeted here for example the Sonoma County Water Agency Zone
45 2A I wasn't aware that they were contributing any more funds to our project Is this
46 something new or a.committed amount of funds or isthis anticipated?
16
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
OI
2 Tom.Hargis I havej'okenly:said for along time we ought'to call it Sonoma County
3 Water Agency Flood•Control project rather thanthe.Corp. of Engineers cause SCWA •
4 Zone 2A has had a commitment toward the total project of about$6:7 million dollars.
5 where the Cor'ps. Of Engineers has had:this $5 million dollar cap until our recent success
6 with Congress. The SCWA has always been in for that amount of significant dollars. I
7 think at one point in time it jumped from $62 to $6.7.
8
9 BM including the pump station they put in originally or contributed to originally. I
10 understood that they had Fully funded what their commitment was and there were no
11 additional funds coming-in.
12
13 Tom, were in the last agreement with the SCWA which is-part of the Storm Drain
14 Improvements on the southeasterly side of Vallejo/Madison Street Storm Drain System.
15 The SCWA as part of that last commitment is like ' of amillion.in that contract also
16 paid a portion of upgrading the pump station on Vallejo Street side and they also paid for
17 the Payran Storm Drains: They increased the level ofprotectien plus added piping and I
18 thinkthat was the last ' of million that got it up to a$6.7 total. I think the contract
19 signed for that so there is no more water agency funds.
20
21 BM and these are actually projects outside of the Payran project also. This is not tied to
22 the Payran Project this funding.
23
24 Tom Hargis, that I don't know. There is a"C" Street Storm Drain Project that the SCWA
25 is funding that comes from 6`h street down to the river. I don't know if that shows up in
26 here or not.
27
28 FS what clarity are we trying to reach here.
29 •
30 MM we have been at thisfor,almost 20 minutes everything seems to be perfectly in
31 order, again if Mr. Moynihan has,and endless fascination with this I"can understand the
32 fascination but time is burning=up here.
33
34 BM I'm wondering when were budgeting these numbers for example the $1,110,000
35 using':that as an example,from the SCWA what level of confidence do we have that those
. 36 funds are actually going,'to.be there?
37
38 Tom Hargis, JCT is current liaison on Zone 2A where the committees recommends to the
39 Board of Supervisors their projects for budgeting so in this spring time when we me the
40 committee sayswe're going to recommend to the Board of Supervisors in the fall the "C"
41 Street.Storm Drain project for'' million dollars. We start incorporating that into this
42 budget in anticipation of Board of Supervisors approving that we can't start the
43 construction project intilafter their October adoption.
44
0 45 BM this number then is based on the recommendation going to the Board of Supervisors.
46 Generally those are approved relatively regularly?
17
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 •2 Tom Hargis, I've never seen one changed.
3
4 BM; my concern is we're doing a lot of CIP'budgeting;as we'd-done:in the past last year
5 there was $35,000,000 CEP programsthatwere budgeted to be expended and we're
6 probably going to expend.about $45,000, 000 of that it seems that there are some charges,
7 and some Administrative feesfeeding our operating from these UP projects that are
8 funding-'in part°some of our general government To the level that these CEP's are
9 completed thatlevel of funding is going to be affected and as a result before we're basing
10 assumptions in the General Fund I would like to make sure how sure we.are that we're
11 going to go forward with a lot of theseprojects. The next line down underthat budgetif
12 $5;790,000 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers so we're showing in this budget a:revenue of
13 $5,790,000 and I'm trying to understand what the.likelihood is of the revenue?sources
14 coming here.how-we've obtained these numbers;;to g`et a feel for are we going to be close.
15 to filling this,.are we going to beat the same level of accuracy as we were last year or can
16 we do better etc. I'm trying to get a better understanding of this budgeting`assumptions
17 that"are:going behind the numbers`that were being presented.
18
19 ES it's our best estimate.
20
21 PT She wants a full account of what Rooster Run Golf Course has cost the city. She
22 would like to see a.separate line item of Rooster Run Golf Course and.what it costs us,
23 every year to maintain. It is on a well system, it does cost us electricity charges and I
•
24 would like to have a number that is a line item''inour budget.
25
26 What are we projecting for storage facilities for our domestic water use in the next year
27 How many gallons;and`what are the projects? If we.are going to be in a crisis in the;next
28 couple of years then maybe we need to prioritize having:more storage in:order to deal
29 with that issue.
30
31 Steve Simmons, Page 479 Summary shows the'water utility cip projects. There is a
32 project Paula Lane Reservoir 2, we've got in this next year we're going to try to buy the
33 property. The year after build a tank. We're going to"try to.get 1 Ys million gallons on
34 that piece of property. This'is the project for% We're hoping by the time we get this one
35 built our Water Element of the General Plan will be updated. Storage is good but it is
36 expensive.
37
38 Tom Hargis, we're looking atthe 15%mandatory teduction again this summer.
39
40 Steve,hopefully the city will be able to,drill anew well in.this"coming year. Rooster Run
41 is using Potable water. It'is a well that is pumped into the domestic water,;supply and fed
42 to.Rooster Run. We're pumping;our;wells into the distribution system and"there's water
43 coming out at another point that's going,into the golf course,
44
45 BM relative to the cost of-Rooster'Run is thafnot a fixed amount as to what'we can •
46 charge them for the water regardless of the cost to us.
18
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
O1
2 SS there's a contract. About$70 an acre foot vs. $389 a foot.
3
4 MM remarked on the amount of time it is taking to get through the budget process
5 because of the scrutiny of each line item because of a last of trust and comprehension.
6
7 Mayor Thompson adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
15
16 ATTEST:
17
18
19 Paulette Lyon, Deputy City Clerk
20
21
22
O
19