HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 05/31/2001May 31, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 187
1 City of Petaluma, California
2 Minutes of`a Special
3 City Council Meeting
4
5 Budget Workshop
6 Thursday, May 31, 2001
7 Council Chambers
8
9
10 The Petaluma City Council met at 7:00 P.M. on this date in the Council Chambers.
11
12 ROLL CALL
13
14 PRESENT: Vee 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 .Dougherty ed the Pledge of Allegiance
22
23 PUBLIC COMMENT
24
25 Lee Larson, 1..08 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 forthe expansion of the Petaluma Senior Center.
29 ® To interview #wo, or more architects before advising candidate selection.
30 To receive. monthly status reports in writing on the progress of the project.
_31
32 She would like to .establish fund raising goals for the Center and find volunteers to raise
33 funds and gain support of the community.
34 ,
3`5 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
4~1 Council Member Moynihan noted that the Sonoma-Marin, Narrows Committee met two
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
45 out the scenario for South Petaluma; Kastania Road, Olompali and also the potential
46 Rainier Avenue Interchange or Cross-Town Connector.
Vol. 36, Page 188
May 31, 2001.
2 This is being done in advance of public .coping sessions for the E1R fo be held` in:
3 Novato and Petaluma in August., He thought it' imperative that the "City work with
4 Caltrans to .make sure the City's project is included in the EIR for which Calfrans has
5 been kind enough to foot the bill.
6
7 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8
9 1. Budget Workshop
10
11 Parks and. Recreation
12
13 Parks and. Recreation Director Jim Carr responded to Ms. Larson' comments,.
14 There was a Request. for Proposals (RFP) for the renovation/expansion ofi the
15 Senior Center building and; only one response was received. The Senior Advisory
16 Committee did; in fact, interview that candidate and they agreed to go forward'
17 with her. The contract is being processed.
18
19 Mr. Garr explained that Park Deveaopment Fees have declined, dramatically
20 because the City is at build-out.: Staff recommends holding off the development.
21 of two parks. There was money' left over from Proposition 12, and a good' portion
22 of that was used for the A_quate Center. There was a balance of $121;0;00, and
23 his recornrnendation to Council and to the Recreation, Music :and Parks
24 Commission was to put. that into the Senior Center expansion program. The
25 architect:will meetwith,the. seniors and she will tart the process of drawing plans
26 and specifications, 'which are' supposed. to be ready by September 28; 20.0:1:.
27 Part of that will be an estimate of the cost; at which time we will know what
28 additional funds are needed.
29
30 Vice. Mayor Cader-Thompson asked ifi°th`e Senior Citizens Committee would be
31 working with the architect -and giving their'input.
32
33 Mr. Carr responded that it was .made a condition of the RFP:
34
35 Council Member Moynihan .asked which.parks would be put on hold arid not built
36 because there -were rio operating funds available.
37
38 Mr. Carr replied that be was recommending that 1Nestridge .and Turtle Creek.
39 (Willow Glen) Parks: be put on hold. 'Th'e. conceptual design for V1Fillow Glen will.
40 be-completed this year, with constructio_.n in 2002-2003. Westrdge would be held
41 off until 2003-2004; The Gatti Park site would. move. forward because: of the' time -
42 line, and contractor,, Q.oyle :Heaton, who is obligated to' put in he softball `and ittle
43 league fields...Santa Rosa Junior College wants `to par#icpate in that. program, so
44 he feels it should move forward.
45 ~ .
May 31, 2001 Vol. 36; Page 189
1 Council Member Moynihan asked.. Mr.; Carr ifi he could estimate the increase this _
2 fiscal year in operations and. maintenance for Gatti Park.
_ 3
4 Mr. Carr believed the increases would occur the following year. It is a 7-acre park
5 and he estimated` it would be $1.3,000 an acre for maintenance, staffing,
6 irrigation, etc.
7
8 Council Member Moynihan asked Mr. Carr to discuss .the inter-departmental
9 charges. ,beinng assessed to the. Parks and Recreation Department relative to
10 ~ previous years. and how that is impacting the department.
11 `
12 Mr. Carr replied that there was no ,appreciable effect on the department.
13 `
14 Finance Director Bill Thomas clarified the process for inter-departmental charges
15 for all departments.
16
17 Council Member Moynihan asked. how; the Capital fmprovement Programs and.
18 administrative costs tied into the operations budget.
19
20 Mr.. Carr replied that they did not.
21
22 Council Member.Moynihan asked why the overhead charges were going up.
23
24 Finance Director Bill Thomas explained. that Administrative Overhead was.
25 charged for all. ;general government departments. The. reason it looks like the
26 overhead charges have iricceased dramatically is that in previous years, that
27 number was not broken out,... but was built into the, materials and supplies number,.
28 This year it has been broken out and it's identified on a eparate line. He thought
29 that looking at precious years, especially prior to last year, it was hard to
30 determine what that number was.:. Going forward they would have that number.
31 He referred to' ;a schedule. in the.. summary' section of the overhead charges to
32 each departmenf that should `tie back to the department summary or the division
33 areas.. For Parks and Recreation in the General Fund it's only General Services,
34 Information Services and Risk Management.
35
36 For the Marina, there. is administrative overhead on an .Enterprise Fund so that is
37 going to increase the inter-departmental charges. All Enterprise funds are
' 3`8 charged administrative overhead for the payroll, for Finance, City Manager,
39 ~ expenses that :are :associated with an Enterprise: Fund, the biggest one being
40 Marina Billing.
4,1 ~ '
42 ~ ~ Council Memmber Moynihan guessed that from the point of view of Parks and
43 Recreation the inter-.departmental charges were being `increased to try to reflect
44 what the actual costs.
45
Vol. 36, Pa9e 1,90
,;May 31, _2001
1 Mr. Thomas explained that the City does not. charge a General Fund. activity
2 .against another General. 'Fund activity. Finance activities were. not. charged
3 against the General Fund portion of .Recreation.: They were charged: against the
4 Enterprise: portion of the Marina Furd. Enterprise Funds are supposed fo be
5 operated like a'business and alL,expenses are supposed to be costed out. That's
6 why a. Cost Allocation Plan is being done to get that number... They have .on'ly
7 been increasing that number by the CPI over the last five or six years.
8
,9 Council Member Moynihan referred. fo.pa'ges 256 .and 257, .noting that.one page
1'0 included the Enterprise Funds.; and the other was the General Fund Summary.
11 There was a $50,000;00 difference or about 25% difference befween the two.
12
13 Mr. Thomas asked Council Member Moynihan to look at page S69` to see. why
14 the Marina is charged $51,65,0.00 in inter=departmental charges. Page S69 .is the
15 allocation of internal service funds .and administrative overhead :charges to all the
16 departments by the activity, Information Services, ~ General Seniices, liability
17 and/.or risk and; administrative overhead. Administrative; overhead is not charged
18 to the General Fund,acti~ities. That would be a, f.ual cost; allocation.
Council Member Moynihan asked for an explanation of .the $149,QOQ under
Genera[ Fund for infer=departmental charges. `
Mr. Thomas explained that $59...,9.0:0 of that.. was Information Services, $30;35Q
was General Services and $58,250 was liability and risk.
Council .Member Moynihan asked'if the ofhe°r areas were charging=.
28 Mr. Thomas 'answered tli_at' ~so_ me: were being charged; risk. Based on the City's.
29 experience, Parks and Recreation:cre.ates risk and liability.
30 ~ '
31 Council .Mem_ber Moynihan asked' 'if as the City continues to get clearer cost
32 accounting relative, to inter-departmental charges, departments. such as; Parks.
33 and Recreation would get fu_rfher squeezed from a point of` view of~ their
3.4 operations budget.
35 _ .
36 M`r. `Thom_as thought that once the cost allocation plan was, received, they would
.. .
37 have the: true cost. of .operating each department. One of two things could be
38 done=with that plan: A ful cost allocation, at which. time all of general government.
39 would become zero. ,because :all of their costs are in support of sorrmevirherer e`Ise
40 and 'Park and. Recreation's; going to pay for if and Police arid; Fire. What=they're
41 doing instead is a 'modified allocation plan, essential y the funds that can. cover
42 the cost. They're only getting .the cost, assigned to there, they're not getting; all of
43 'the cost.
_._
44
May 31 „ 2001 Vol. 36, Page 1.91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Council Member Moynihan noted that under Youth Programs, page 283, benefits
decreased from $1,900 estimated last year to 0 this year. Was there a change in
the way the City deals with the employment under Youth Programs?
Mr. Carr replied that they were all part-time salaries ar~d included under the
salary figure- itself. The Teen Coordinator position was listed under Youth
Programs., but. was being charged to the Teen budget itself.
Council Member Moynihan noticed that under .General Revenue Sources there
was a negative number. He asked if That meant that this was an actual profit
center for Parks and: Recreation.
Mr. Carr replied that he was correct:.
Council Member Moynihan. asked if there should be more Youth Programs.
Mr. Carr answered that they would need. more: money to do that. He would not
say net cost, this was direct cost for the program itself, but as far as clerical time,
the number would be squeezed down.
Mr. Stouder added that programs like. the Youth Program, Tiny Tots Program; the
General Fund heavily .subsidized Senior Center services. More programs would
mean higher :absolute dollar amount of deficit. If they wanted to make them true
.Enterprise Funds, they could charge the market rate for the Tiny Tots program,
which defeats the purpose. It was an issue of .public services. It's not necessarily
intended that every public service return the cost of delivering it.
Council .Member Moynihan pointed out that the previous page looked like that
was being budgeted and it will have a $20,000 General Revenue Source
negative..
Mr. Stouder stated that one of the things they tried. to do this .year was more
clearly show the cost of the program and the revenue sources, including fees
collected, grant money, if any, and General Fund contribution, if'any.
Council Member .Moynihan concluded_ that the .City was looking to expand
.programs that make a profit.
Regarding the proposed Lafferty budget. of $60;000, he reiterated that this did not
provide funds. for. any litigation or other .actions. He said that by committing to
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
so as not to incur a huge debt and then have to come back and severely cut
other Parks. and Recreation programs or other areas of the General Fund...
Vol., 36, Page„ 192 May 31, 2001
Council Member Healy ,asked how broadly the Senior Center expansion project
was noticed.
Mr. Garr answered that all th'e Builders Exchanges and newspapers were
noticed. If was a small project and they don't get much response on smaller
projects.:
Council Member Healy asked how R`arks a_nd Recreation planned on maintaining
future bike%pedestrian `trail softscape in the years to come. Were they getting any
extra budget money for that. this year?
Mr.. Carr explained that they did not receive any money this year. As vegetation
ages, problems arise: He had. submitted a report :regarding bicycle plan
maintenance; liability at the City;M'anager's request. Mr. Skladzien, Mr. Carr, -and
the Police Deparfrnent were involved in That report.
Council Member Maguire-asked if sufficient funds. to replace 20% of the plantings
were built :into the. bi'd for those projects.
Mr.. Carr stated that there should. always be .an inspector on site., It adds more to.
the cost up front. but assures that things are planted correctly and constructed
correctly;
Council Member Maguir_.e asked:'f these were the types of plants that had a good
chance of .surviving, once they made it through the first year..
Jim Carr confirmed that. this was the goal. The real question these days was:
water. The Commission was very cognizant of Council's concern about a lot of
water-thirsty turf.
Council. Member Maguire asked if anybody had falked about an -Adopt a Park
Program. at either the Commission level or staff level,. specifically so that the
residents- around Turtle Creek would be willing to do a minor monthly
subscription., .
Jim' Carr replied that.this~;had been discussed,, but here were concerns regarding
security and" maintenance. There was, a liability issue if maintenance `was not
done properly .or in a timely fashion. It would be preferabie'to keep on top of it,
especially 'with the playgrounds, screening for glass, .hazardous objects, the turf
being mowed properly.: 1Nillow Glen was going to be :a small turf area,
playground, and. group picnic areas, -with .a path.that exists right.n°ow.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson would .also like to explore -thee Adopt a Park
concept. She would `like ~ to work with the Recreation., Music and Parks
Commission to start ~ a program so that the neighborhoods actually took
May 31, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 193
1 responsibility for their parks. She thought'-there were other types of maintenance
2 that could be done without incurring liability.
3
4 Council Member Moynihan stated that the Five-Year Implementation Plan of the
5 Central Petaluma Specific Plan provided for $7,368,.000.00 of River
6 Enhancemen. t Plan Imp:rovements.:He asked Mr. Carr if` "his department had
7 reviewed those proposed improvements, calculated what the operations and.
8 maintenance costs would be, and figured that`into their`long=term budget.
9
10 Jirn Carr answered that as far as figuring in the long-term maintenance budget,
11 they saw the initial proposals that came through, but as far as sitting down and
12 calculatingrnaintenance costs, they had not done that.
13
14 Council .Member Moynihan asked if he was right in thinking that some projects
15 apparently come to the -Recreation,, Music and Parks Commission for review of
16 cost o_ f operations and maintenance in advance of approval, but this project had
17 not.
18
19 Jim Carr explained that the Commission had .seen the conceptual design,. and
20 were most definitely involved with that, but as far as actually sitting down with the
21 cost figures, they had not done that.
22
23 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
24
25 Mr. Thomas. presented a report. from the, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
26 subcommittee... The beginning fund balance of the .TOT was estimafed at
27 $182,292.00 at the beginning of FY 2002 or July 1St.. Estimated revenues were
_.
28 $891,800, plus a PCDC contribution- of $300;000.,.. for available resources of
29 $1..374 million. A General Fund contribution of $775.,000 was proposed, which
30 included a $15.,000 contribution to HC?, which instead of being funded from:. the
31 TOT Fund, would be :funded from' the General. 'Fund. This proposal also would
32 buy down the reserve: on the fund from $182;OOQ to $75,000 and when that is
33 subtracted from. available resources 'in the General Fund cont"ribution, it leaves
34 $524.,000 for community groups to be funded for FY 2002.
35
36 The TOT subcommiftee's recommendations are as follows:
37 _
Petaluma. Visitors. Program $345,.100
Petaluma Visitors Program Enhancements $5,.000
Sonoma County Convention Visitors Bureau $25,300
Cinnabar Arts Theatre $65,000
QuiltShow - $10;000
Butter and Eggs Day Parade $14,000
Petalurria Downfown Association Brochure $7,000
Petaluma .Museum Association $5,000
Petaluma Sings $5,000
Vol. 36, Page f94
May 31, 2001
. Petaluma Tree Advisory Committee$10,000
Polly .Anna Doll Club $1.,90:0
- American Legion Veterans of Foreign 1Nars .$500
Petaluma City`B'allet $7;2Q0
HC2 $:1':5.,000
Retalurna,Jazz Festival $4,000
_.
2 Fu.ndirig that for $5.16;000 will draw down #fie, reserves to below what They are
_. -
3 this year to about $75;;000. They have been advised. that the hotel is estimating
4 anywhere; .from $-4.00,000' fo $500,000 i,n additional. TOT when if is fully
5 - `operational, , -
6
7 Council Member Healy; speaking as one ~of the. subcommiftee members, stated_
8 that. with the new hotel coming on line a year from now, TOT revenues would.
9 probably increase in ,the 50% range sta,rti_ng ,late in the coming fiscal year; but
10 certainly kicking. in for the next fiscal year and. thereafter. That was. why the.
11 majority `of the subcommittee felt comfortable drawing. down fhe reserue'balances
12 this ,t'e`ar on aone=time. basis 'in anticipation of being able. to rebuff d them. They
13 can still have the $300.;000 pass'through to'the General Fund:.
15 Council, Member :Moynihan. thoughf the whole: concept of backfilling of the TOT
16 funds :with the Rede~elopcnent Agency funds was .unique; and one: he knew the
17 City had never ..done before. He was concerned about Redevelopment,Agency
18 laws;; and assumed the City would. get the propex legal interpretation before this'
:19 was finalized.
21 Mr,. Stouder asked: Council Member Moynihan if we was referring to the issue. ~of
22 the TOT tax as the barometer. and measurement of_what. redevelopment property.
23 .taxes are reimbursed to Mr,. Lok. -
24 - - -
25 ~ Council Member Moynihan slated that if, was: not. He was referring to the:
26 ~ $30Q,000' contribution towards ,the Petaluma Visitors Program and now they were
27 talking in ,general towards the TQT Fund coming out of, Red`evel.op.ment Agency..
28 This; he slated, was a precedent. He was; uncorrifortab'le with the precedent, aril
29 wanted. more. assurances that the; redevelopmenf attorney was consulted #o
30 make,sure°that it w,asn'.t going to come back-:.and bite us.
31 .-
The other precedent. being set in- the General Fund ,was drawing ;down the
reserves. He did n`ot think taking or expending over '$1x07,,000 'in "reser>ies was
necessarily a,,good precedent to-be setting either, Thirdly, the program. requests
were up, which was not unusual,; but. the reco.mrneridation was to increase the
.expenditures toabout $516,500. They `were .not really holding the line on.
spending here and `he thought Council needed to make tough decisions #o "set the
example in this tough,budgeting.time. He ,realized that it would affect some very
good programs; nevertheless; he thought it 'imperative to modify spending.
-, May 31, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 195
1 He had proposed an alternative that he would like at some point to discuss
2 further, to shift some of the. TOT expenditures under the Redevelopment Agency.
3 He recommended those that actually have been funded in the past under the
4 Redevelopment Agency, such as the Buffer and Eggs Day Parade or the PDA
5 Brochure or the Quilt Show. All these would naturally fit under'the PDA. That was
- 6 only approximately $31;:000, but he thought it could be done fairly gracefully,
7 while at, the same. time holding the line on some of the other spending and still
8 increase the amount distributed into the General Fund from last year.
_ 9
10 In other words, it was easier to hold a ;line,. on expenditures at least, out of the
11 General Fund by doing it with the Redevelopment Agency. That prevented
12 "walking in the gray area" by backfilling from. PCDCFunds. He would like a
13 focused discussion on PCDC backfilling,. He is comfortable with a lot of the
14 numbers and requests -which pot they come from is what he would like .to
15 discuss further.
16
17 Council Member .Maguire stated that the shifting of some of the expenditures to
18 the Redevelopment. Agency .to avoid what Mr. Moynihan calls "backfilling" was to
19 him "a distincti"on without a difference." The City has an excellent, capable staff
20 that have arranged this, tried their best under difficult financial circumstances. He
21 thought if .,important:. to .keep in mind that" this money was leveraged by the
22 community 'to do good things and it enriched the community. What he saw in the
23 proposed budget looked healthy, looked positive, and he supported it as it was.
24 Using redevelopment money instead of TOT funds for PVP is another area
25 where Council, should take direction from fhe Finance Director, because he was
26 the one tasked with the .difficult work.
27
28 Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson explained that today at the TOT subcommittee
29 meeting they discussed meeting again in September to review the existing
30 ordinances and resolutions for distributing money to organizations. She would
31 like this agendized before September so they can pull the committee together
32 and make sure. that fhe ,public is included in it. They're funding programs that
33 benefit the community and that was what made Petaluma such a special and
34 unique city.
3'S
3`6 .Council Member .Healy thought the subcommittee assumed that Council would
37 like them,. to undertake this work. They needed to get some feedback to make
38 sure that was what the Council ,wanted them to do. They needed to revisit the
39 way the program has been administered and look of the criteria to make sure it
40 ~ was being done appropriately. The applicafions needed to be turned in earlier in
41 the process,. for an initial review, feedback and: a .screening process, so this was
42 -'not done right up to the. 11th hour. This was seed money given to the
43 ~ organizations that really ,make this a special community. What the community got
44 ~ for-that money was incredible.
45
Vol. 36, Page 19.6 May 31, 2001
1 Jessica Van Gardner; P..etaluma Visitors .Program; was confident that .when
2 looking at the policies and ordinances, Counc'iC would' be able to come up with
3 very clear criteria that didn't fit just any city or county, but than:. really fit the
4 character of Petaluma.
5
6 With PVP experiencing over 15.% doubler.digit ;growth for a number of years; it
7 wasn't easy taking a $,1;5;000 cut while looking at providing snore services,
8 convention and meeting space.
9
10 .Rick. Flenders, Petaluma, City. ;Ballet; thanked the subcommittee for their. -
11 alfocation, of funds... He would: like the opportunity: to sit down and ;talk about
12 criteria for' the distribution of TOT' Funds and how the Ballet. Company' helps do
13 that .as w
14 have- to dll as the Petaluma Community. Most ofithe line :items for their request
o with promotion. and publicity. They are ,advertising in .the Argus-
15 Courier; Press ,Democrat; Independent ;Journal; on radio and 1Norld Wide 1Neb.
16 Developing and printing ofpromotional materials included posters, flyers;. events
17 .tickets and brochures fore the upcoming season that. depicted the history and the
18 purpose ot. the ballet, as; well as; the scheduCe of events. This was.. a substantial
19 increase in promotional efforts: and included'the hiring of a part-time publicist.
20
21 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson. suggested that the Council bring the funding
22 request fo,:r ttie,ballef up to $10;000 from the $7,200 that was recommended.
23
24 Councif Member Healy would support that, They didn't have the. benefit of thaf
25 information this afternoon.
26
27 EIIie Lichenstein, Executive .Director, Cinnabar Theater; stated that.. she and :other
28 event :coordinators would I-ike to be involved, 'in the proceedings. of t_he
29 subcommittee.. She would dike, that to be. open to all those who hawe,' a stake,':n
30 the TOT funding. She thanked Council for their support of Cinnabar Theatre and
31 other. TOT programs.
32
33 Linda Buffo, Event Coordinator. -for "the Butfer and Eggs Day and the Petaluma
34 Jazz Festival, thanked Council'. for their consideration in funding these events.
35 She would like to be involved in the subcommittee meetings. She added that
36 there a.re other organizations in this community that wall undoubtedly bey asking
37 for funding for new acfiwities in the area of arts ,and ~enterfa`inment.. She asked
38 Council`to. keep that in mind as they talked ,about PCDG funds being interwoven
39 with TOT needs.
41 .Council. Member Moynihan noted that the subcommittee was able to reduce the
42 expenditures. by $28,,300.. He thought, it important to understand -that a balanced
43 approach was needed. He did not supporf the additional increase to the Ballet
44 Company and, suggested that :at some point Council individually, take a .look ,at
45 the list and go buck and see what. else can be reduced., Bein. g part of this
46 subcommittee has given hicn a better understanding of what funds are for, where
May 31, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 197
.1 ~ they come from, what is supposed to be funded and is not supposed to be
2 funded using TOT funds, All of these basics needed to be addressed in a policy.
3
4 " Mr: Moynihan. presented a spreadsheet showing the fund balances, backfilling,
5 revenues; and expenditurres. Starting with a' fund balance of $182,000, $300,,000
6 in Redevelopment Agency funds would be added. Roughly $33.,000 of the
7 program or ahe :projects shifted over to the Redevelopment Agency, for a total
8 _ .funding request of $4$5',000 iristead of '$519,000. The eventual transfer out to the
9 `General Fund was reduced to $412;000, which is a 'little less than. last year, but
10 more than the previous two years. It wassignfieantly less than the $678;000. He
11 ~ d"id not think it necessary to fransfer $300;OOQ in to fund this. He wanted to
12 identify cufs from the General Fund to avoid depleting the full $60,000 surplus.
13 That. way, these projects could be funded. without setting a `precedent" with
14 which he was not comfortable.. He was conce "rued with possible violation of
15 redevelopment agency law. He was suggesting an alternative approach to
16 accomplish the same goals.
17
18 Council Member Maguire asked City Management to review the spreadsheet and
19 give their feedback to Council regarding possible implications of pursuing this
20 approach.
21
22 RECESS.: .8:28 P.M.
23 RECONVENE: 8:37 P.M.
24
25
26 Publi"c' Facilities"and"Services "
27 - _ .
28 Public Facilities and Services Director Rick Skladzien presented the budget for
29 his department. 'The department. was established in January 2000, and is
30 .structured as follows:
31
32 o Public Facilities; which takes care of the streets, traffic painting, vehicle,
33 equipment, and building maintenance and Custodial, managed by Kevin
34 Horriick.
35` ~ o Capital Improvement Projects, Civil Engineering; Traffic Engineering,
36 managed by Mike Evert.
37 o Budget Grants; Special Projects aril Transit, managed by Jim Ryan.
38 o Airport, managed by Michael Glose.
39 0 . Animal Services, managed by Nancee Tavares.
40
41 ~ T,he department is responsible for infrastructure. ,management and rehabilitation
42 and development,, primarily streets and buildings. The Turning Basin is also part
43 of its~activities.
44
45 ~C:ouncif~,Member ,Maguire asked what the department's energy savings efforts
46 ~ were fo date..
Vol. 36,; Page 1;98
May 31, 200.1
Mr: Skladzien.explaihed thatiialf he lights in'CityHall have been, switched off for
energy conservation. Photocells. have been installed in some. offices: The former - _
Mosquito. Abatement building, which will 'be the d`epartment's new location:, has
been ,fitted with. motion ;detectors, that turn off` lights. once everyone:, leaves.
Employees have been asked to turn, computers off at-,night; they are looking, into
waterless urinals and xeriscape landscaping for the new building: ~ ,
.. _ ..-
Red traffic signals have been replaced with energy-saving LED signals; the:
green and yellow lights will be ..replaced during the_ corning year.. This'is projected
to save 60% to 70% in costs to operate the signals. The department is
purchasing energy back..-up: batteries for the signals and.. is looking at; ,a solar
recharge unit.so than when power is lost' in a brownout, the signals will be able to.
operate: in a normal mode instead of. flashing ~ red ,mode. They ;ar-e: also
considering testing solar power streetlights:
Council Member Maguire asked Mr. Skladzien if ii'e had up-to-date knowledge: of
California Energy Commission Programs.
Mr: Skladzien replied that he receives updates from PG&E and the Energy
Commission frequently..
Vice: Mayor C'ader=Thompson asked if it would be possible. fo implement traffic'
calming in the McKinley School area,. with residents funding the measures.
Mr. Skladzien explained that typically the City receives; written requests for fraffic
calming measures. They then -evaluate the situation to determine which ,method
would be suitable for that particular area. Ne added that he is working with taff'
to develop traffic calming standards.
Council Member Moynihan noted, that there was $20,';000 in the CI'P fbr traffic
calming.: He was lookng.forward to an official meeting of the Traffic. Committee.
Mr. Skladzien mentioned that there were some situations that ,might, require: `
meetings- of the Traffic Committee,..
Council .Member Moynihan'. referred., to, the badget ~sumrnary; ,page 1,9:6, Revenue
and Transfers dn, and asked why` the number for Administrative Support from
Other Funds was lower "than last yea_r...
Mr. Thomas replied that'he would have to come-back with an answer.
Council'Member Moynihan. was. concerned about the gas tax. showing; a transfer
being depleted from $740;0:00 to ;$80:,OOQ: The. gas tax' r-even~ue 'is about $1.4.
million ,and if :looks like only a -small .amount is getting transferred intothis
., ;..
department. Qn page 20.5; he saw a very insignificant amount; of $338,OO.O:gomg
May 31, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 199:'
1 to Street Maintenance, which he thought disturbing in light of the recent
2 information indicating about $8 million. a year needed to properly maintain the
3 City's streets. He asked what happened ~to the rest of the gas tax.
4
5 Mr. Thomas noted that the $958,400 intergovernmental figure included. the gas
6 tax.
7
8 Council Member Moynihan asked why gas tax would show as intergovernmental
9 and also a transfer in as a separate line item. ~'
10
11 Mr. Stouder explained that in some cities, gas tax is put straight into a Street
12 Enterprise Fund, and is then used for personnel and projects. The process in
13 Petaluma is a little more convoluted, but the bottom line is the same: all the gas
14 tax money is used as it's supposed to kie used, for legally regulated purposes.
15 The State of California requires that we comp ete: a detailed annual report of how
16 gas taxes are being used. City Management would be happy to share that with
17 Council.
18
19 Council. Member Moynihan would like to see the report .and would like to see the
20 lion's share go right into street maintenance.
21
22 Mr. Stouder explained that all the gas tax goes to streets, personnel maintaining.
23 them, or projects. .
24
25 Council IVlember ;Moynihan pointed out that the summary sheet showed the gas
26 tax dipping from $1,572,000,00 last year to a projected $1 million this year. He
27 asked if that was a reflection of the one-time $370,000 the City received.
28
29 Mr. Thomas clarified that it was the one-time Traffic Congestion Funds that the
30 City was required to-place in the gas tax.
31
32 Council Member Moynihan referred to page: 196.,,. Revenues and Transfers In,
33 under Charges for Services, the increase from. $737,300 to $.1,394,550, and
34 noted that it appeared that the accounting was being handled differently this year
35 than last year.
36
37 Mr. Thomas replied that he had allocated' all the General Fund Revenues to the
38 various departments. He offered to share with Council Member Moynihan the
39 worksheet that he used. He added that allocation of General Fund Revenues is
40 somewhat subjective.
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vol. 36; Page 200
May 31, .2001
1 ADJOURN _ .
2
3 The meeting was adjourned at'9:00 P.M. ,_
4
5
6 y
7 ATTEST:
8
9
10 Paulette Lyon, Depufy Ci y eck
11 .
12
13
14 **-****
E. Clark Thompson, Mayor