HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 06/06/2001June 6, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 223
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
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
46
-Cify of Petaluma,,. California
;Minutes of a Special`'Meeting
Petaluma City~Gouncil
Budget Workshop
Wednesday, June 6, 2001
Council Chambers
The Petaluma City Council met at 7:Q0 .p.m. ,on this date in the Council Chambers.
R®LL CALL
PRESENT: Healy, Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan, Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson, Mayor
Thompson
ABSENT: O'Brien
Samantha Dougherty led the Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Thompson dedicated the meeting to Robert .Meyer who served as Petaluma's
City Manager from 1962 -, 1981. He passed away on June 1, 2001.
General .Plan
Mr. Stouder,, City Manager, you're in a position thaf no other community is in, solely
.because of~the General Plan and Land Use Policies that were passed in the 70's. The.
Growth Control, the Urban, Growth Boundary, that,is what allowed this community to
remain a town of 50'0 as population grew. The challenges~to Petaluma is how do we
remain a town of :500 when the population is now at 55,000. Twenty years ago you
made the decision that we're going o try to retain the town of 500 and you have
succeeded. Now there is'incredible pressure to become otherwise.
What .do you.. want to accomplish out of'the General ,Plan process. This makes a
difference on where you. want to spend time or money. Council has been clear about
what you want in Water Resources and. Traffic. and Circulation. Those are very difficult,
complex and costly. What about the other elements. including Land Use and the
Process. How much are you.wi,lling to spend:and take risks on? .
Pamela Tuff, :General Plan ,Administrator-presented her'staff' report to Council. There
are three scenarios: that-w.ere prepared for Council's review,"h;ave been reviewed by .the
General Plan Executive team. V11e are very excited. about reinitiating the process to
allow the community visioning effort. to commence in conjunction with the ongoing
efforts of the. Water Resources team and'the Traffic and Circulation team. The first of
Vol. 36, Page 224 June 6, 2001
1 the three scenarios is the General Plan :Executive teams presentation in ;an. attempt to
2 preserve the integrity of the process`by reducing ,a variety of tasks without eliminating
3 any major effort, Scenarios 2'and 3 both begin to cut~into some fairly major efforts.
4 Regarding the first three Tasks,'in Scenario #1 a substantial effort, has already
5 commenced. on those .at time of the` suspension on March 5, staff distributed a G~enera.l
6 Plan evaluation book to both in-houseSenior Management #earns to be shared with.
7 their departments and. all elected and appointed officials. That work which is illustrated
8 as Task #3 has :resulted in a subsfantial savings siree we have basically cuf Dyett, and
9 Bhafia out of the: effort. In the first';three tasks of-the orginal;scope we've already
10 reduced the work by' about $40,OOQ just: by shaving some of the: effort out and
11 undertaking the rest,of'it in; house rather than:ha_ving it.contraeted. The rernainng tasks
I2 are outlined in Attachment "A" which details. the different reductions by task as ~fo 'the
13 elimination of. the number of meetings,,,`tfe.specific task,; one of the most easily
14. recognized is the elimination. of the Separate Sustainability.Element. We've: taken it
15 back to a level where. Susfainability's addressed `in every element, but is not .separated.
16 and repeate.d'in it's separate free standing element that reduced the contract work with
17 CH2M Hill by about 30°Io.
Council Comments
Janice Cader-Thompson thought the Sustainability was going to be woven throughout
the .entire General Plan?
24 Pamela Tuft, yes; and separate. The Council in pecember decided that they, wanted a
25 separate element as well. I went' back to the scope with regard,. to Sustainability. Back
26 to one of the first drafts from late summer early fall.. which did originally have
27 Sustainability woven throughout it without a separate Susfainabi ity Element. So with
28 Scenario #1 I went back to that and reduced the drafting of a separate. Sustainability
29 Element.and what that :will do. is allow CH2M Hill to participate throughout the entir`e~
30 General ,.Plan process, inserting Sustainability components., educating the public on wh_af
31 that would result 'in reduction of use of .non renewable resources, but'it would. not create
32 a separate free standing document..
33
34 MM There 'is a significant percentage ceducfion in~ Scenarioo #'1. Are we going to be able
35 to achieve meaningful Sustainability criteria?
36
37 Pamela Tuft, I believe. so, yes., 1Ne have the Natural Step and CH2M Hill; Especially
38 CH2M Hil will. be more of the analytical 1e~el of analysis where Natural Resources. are
3;9 primarily education-and outreach. They -will be IooKng at every element with the
40 concept of bringing, in the three E's of .Sustainability. `1Nhat we can offer in the way ofi
41 implementation tools, thresholds and implementation methods fo attain those
42 thresholds. _V11hat we did offer is the opportunity to fold that money immediately over
43 into the implementation tools `so that the Zoning Qrdinance; the. Design. Guidelines and
44 the Subdivision Map O:rdinance'~could be developed''concurren'tly wifh the General Plan
45 to allow their concurrent adoption. The'Zoning. Ordna"rice we .are operating under right
46 now was adopted in 1958 wifh a couple of.aecfions inserted info it as those became:
June 6, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 225"
1 necessary .because of changes in society such as 'the Adult Entertainment Ordinance
2 was folded in'in the mid 80's, but other than a`few major drop in changes it is basically
3 the same as it was in the 50's and 60's.
4
5 MM your suggesting that, money saved through deeper cutbacks ~on the General Plan
6 will make it possible to update-the Zoning, Ordinance, are you making that
7 recommendation if we adopt Scenario #1?
9 Pamela Tuft, Scenario #1 reduces the cosf by $241;0:00,, which would be more than
10 enough for a Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision. Map Ordinance. Otherwise it was
11 going to b`e a #ourth year budget. item that we would. bring back to you as we near the
12 adoption process of the General'Plan.
13
14 As we bring the public into the General Plan process they would be able to see the
15 policy and the program. and then they would. see the implementation method. Mike
16 Moore and his team would be project managers for the implementation tool
17 development as well as being :actively involved in the General PIan ,Executive. team, so
18 they would. be basically helping fo write the rules as the policies are developed by the
19 community so the community could weigh in on both.
20
21 Mike Healy in terms of time frames and budgeting, I believe when we talked you said -
22 the numbers embedded in the draft budget are consistent with Scenario #1 or Scenario
23 #2?
24
25 Pamela Tuft, the draft .budget in those documents has not changed -since December. If
26 you chose Scenario #1 and wanted to do the Zoning .Ordinance, the_budget is in the
27 General Fund for thatporton of the General PIan budgetthat is shown in Attachment
28 "C"
29
30 Mike Healy so if we'-went with Scenario #1 and decided to move forward with the Zoning
31 and Subdivision Ordinances that would be covered?
32
33 Pamela Tuff, No, actually, because:. particularly the General Fund; which is what would
34 normally be used #o pay for implementation tools such as the Zoning Ordinance. The
35 revised budgef shown :in Attachment ``C" for the General Fund the first: year which.`s the.
36 year we're currently just finishing, l believe the budget the Council approved last year
37 'was $348,000 and under Scenario #1 the General PIan is about $229,000 so that would
38 cover the .cost o_.f the Zoning Ordinance.
39
40 Mike Healy with th, ose two Ordinance updates you would propose to start that work now
41 and have th-ern ready for adoption concurrentlywith the General Plan adoption?
42
43 Pamela Tuff, yes.
44
Vol. 36, Page, 226' .
June 6, 2001
1 Bryant Moynihan the numbers you. have here in the budget it'indicates from the`year
2 2000=2020 arid`the budget we've been given this year estimates thaf we've spentto
3 date about $572,;900: Is that $572,90.0 General Plan Adninistration?
4
5 Pamela.. Tuft, the $57290b is the: entire. departments budget and that .includes $348.;OQQ
6 for contract, services and the rest;of it is .printing,, General'`Services arid salaries, for the
7 director, secretary and confracf planner..
8
9 Bryant Moynihan so those costs: that .have been spenf to dafe are included, in these
10 numbers or excluded
11
12 Pamela.Tuft, we have not spent $572;900' because I stiN have $315,000 of'the $34`8,Q00
13 that you gave me for contract services:Those are committed to the contract that is now
14 under. suspension:
15
16 Bill Thomas those numbers pare under a heading called estimated and all we did was. try
17 to estimatethe. cost for the end of the fiscal year, which is the current fiscal_year. That
18 was assuming, that~all„ofi"the consultant-costs or contractual service :costs which,malces
19 up the majority of her budget-would be spent and. or encumbered at the, end of the year
20 to be spent in future years.
Bryant Moynihan so the budget`basically indicates that services.and suppli'es~were
estimated of $377,15'0.
Bill Thomas yes, the: majority of that'is contractual services.
27 Bryant Moynihan sb we're not actually spending that:ths year?
28
29 Bill Thomas., we estimated-what would. be spent and quite frankly with the General Plan
30 we .assumed. all' of it would be spent or encumbered'to ,bespent in future years.:..
31
32 Bryant Moynihan, so when we get: our CAFRA at the end of the year we''re. not` going to
33 see the $5.72,900, number, but we're going,to-see somewhere around $300,000.
34
35 Bill Thomas, Financial statements are diffexenf from the budget as they report what .was
36' actually.sp.ent. The budget. is an estimate.
37
38 Bryant Moynihan in your k_riowledge is there: any otherassumptions'we .made relative to
39 the estimated amount,gf funds or expenditures that would be.as signifiicantly changed
40 as this ,one?
41
42 `Bill Thomas:, I don't:know; all we're doing is estimating. `1IVe won't close our books until
43 sometime in August and then we can give you actuals. UntiCthen I'm riot sure what the,
44 other departments are going to be spending. 1Ne estimate based on experience up to
45 the time were estimating:
June 6, 2001 vol. 36, Page 227
1 Mr.. Stouder, Mr. Thomas and. I went through spread sheets with each department anal
2 looked..at every ..line 'item and every category and -said are you going to spend this and
3 or made decisions no you aren't going to spend this without asking. Those clearly are
4 good estimates or choices.
5
6 Bryant Moynihan,. In reviewing the proposals or the alternatives that come forward, they
7 appear to me to be various versions of the consultant typeplan as originally adopted
8 with different .reductions in the scope of work and the level of consultants support. I
9 think you may recall. when we had the discussion I was concerned about a grass roots
10 effort involving members of the community at the. get go and having community
11 members serve on committees and having the committees indeed work directly possibly
12 even choose th:e consultants and work with those consultants and get a lot more grass
13 roots support .and community .buy in at the end product. That is a different approach
14 than I see here unless I'm missing something,., has there been any consideration in
15 stopping and going back and involving the, community in other than these public
16 outreach: meetings~that occur down the road with the consultants conducting them?
17
18 Pamela Tuft, 1Ne have had public scoping sessions to discuss the scope of work last
19 year. We had two public interview processes for the selection of the consultants where
20 eighty citizens participated in the interview process. We have had from the beginning a
21 citizens mailing ;list and those citizens reviewed the scope of work as it was prepared
22 and we received input. V1/e also received input the scope of work was reviewed by
23 every appointed body by the City Council at a public meeting so the public participated
24 at the Airport Commission,. Animal Services Committee, Parks.and .Recreation
25 Commission, Planning "Commission etc. on an agenda and the public being involved.
26 The City Council discussed last year at great length whether we wanted to create an
27 advisory committee as ome cities do anywhere from 15 members to our 1985 Plan had
28 approximately 9.0 members including the Council and Planning Commission on seven
29 appointed committees. The'City Council at that time~'last year felt strongly that they
30 wanted more than 90 regularly involved which is why we went out to the full community
31 and said we wantanyone at any tune to be involved';in the General Plan process. We
32 currently have over 490 citizens. on the mailing list .who receive the newsletters and will
33 receive all of the staff reports and draft documents. By the time we actually get into the
34 draft plan we should have 1000 citizens involved.
35
36 Bryant Moynihan I just thought we would. have an alternative in front of us tonight which
37 would allow us to do it like we did. the current General Plan where we have a citizens
38 .based guiding or steering committee for key elements of the .General Plan and I realize
39 some are technically. advanced to get everyone off the street and I see. this in the Traffic
40 and Water Elements.which we are proceeding on, but such areas as Land Use which is
41 controversial and other areas in particular, Economic ,Development which this Council
42 has for seven or eight years talked about forming an Economic Advisory Committee and
43 failed to do so. I saw those as.lkely candidates for citizens advisory committees and
44 working with the consultant instead of having a staff team driving the consultants which
45 do public outreach, but it's not quite the same. buy in or participation and certainly from a
46 public point of view the plans already laid out and the direction is already decided before
Vol. 36, Page 228 June 6,.2001
1 you have a chance to review it versus having a chance to help- culpf th'e d,ireetion of the
2 particular elemept of the General Plan. I realizethat~with.a lot of community
3 participation there~'is added costs, ,but Lahink'thaf fqr the General Plan to be a useful, tool
4 that doesn't sit upon ashelf we definitely have to ensure even at that added cost that
5 we have the public buy in. I'rn concerned, these consultants half the names people
6 can't even pr"ono.unce and; we're going to have: them coming and .ma .king a presentation
7 or-two: at a couple of social .functions and I don't: see this as a communityt based; effort in;.
8 that sense, Can "we look back and. see whaf it' would ;take to step back andstart at that
9 point relative to each of these elements?
10
11 Mr. Stouder We've dried to put. a variety of choices here and if. there is some other
12 preferred methodology about backing up and approaching this I think~the Council needs
13 to have'fhat discussion: 1N' e can consider whateveryou like .us to consider.
14
15 Pamela Torliatt I .don't believe ~th;is was the direction of the Council. I don't know how
._..
16 much direction there was, fiat I dothink staff has tried'to come back with their!best case
17 scenario using 'these. consultants. l..don't want to get side tracked in pushing'that unless
18 the entire Councif is wanting to step back and deal with that issue. One of Council's
19 three ..priorities was to have an Economic Advisory Committee as part of the process. l
20 also don't perceive the consultants going out to a couple of social functions anal giving a
21 presentation. 1Nhat we're ,getting for the dollars that; we're. spending is a large
22 community outreach, process with: possibly over 1:000 people involved, including the
23 business community, all the other interest groups and the general public..
24
25 Janice Caller-Thompson wants to continue in the direction that Council .has been going.
26 I think it ia'important to be inclusive with" the entire community. Sh"e would like to ace
27 the ordinances d"one ,in house as well as having a consultant firm participate...
28
29 Mike Moore, we haven't gotfen into the details as to how we will mix that; up and .what'
30 the. process will be and I think we also need to have a discussion about h'ow this
31 process will go along with the General. Plan process so we're not confusing everybody.
32 as to what we're talking about one night. as opposed to anofher night.
33
34 Matt Maguire, feels it is important that Council look at'the zoning regulations regarding
35 energy usage. Do you see ways of incorporating that into"the Zoning update process?
36
37 Mike Moore, .certainly, I think there are some ways ;that we can do"that:.. They may be
38 limited given the amount of'build out that's already occurred in the city and some of
39 what you may be looking at may also- be tied to building code. regulations that,may be
40 ,changing over time regardless of what we do inn terms of energy conservation: In fiact
41 there is new energy conservationregulations that are going into affect July 1St. 1Ne will
42 certainly .look at fhat'in Perms of what we can do from a zon~'ng 'standpoint.
43
44 Matt Maguire does not agree with Councilmember;Moynihan. He feels that there is a
45 .good :buy in from he community on the current General Plan,,. He believes the
46 difference. between the process as we go through it today as opposed' to the 1985
June 6, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 229.
1 General Plan is that people are much more busier arid'.: it's going to take much more
2 specification on our part`to reach out to the comrriunty. Set up a.frame work where
3 they can dial in and- give their input in a timely manner that allows them to give focused
4 .input because people are busy and most people don't have night after night to spend
5 unlimited hours on his.
6 ~ ,,.
7 Mike Healy;, when we suspended the General Pfan process; in March the direction to
8 staff was to look for ways to find cost., savings aril come back to Council., cost savings
9 without jeopardizing the integrity of the work product.., ;Perhaps in light of Mr. Moynihan's
10 question can you discuss ge"nerally would 'there be extra time; extra expense or cost
11 savings or time swings ir~changi~ng the approach and going to the kind of citizen
12 committee approach. that was done for the 1985 General Plan?
13 ~~
14 Pamela Tuft, the. difference is in the 1985. to 87 effort you .had. committees that were
15 topic oriented. They had one Councilmember and .one Planning Commissioner and
16 then anywhere from 5 to 10 citizens on that. committee. This committee spoke about
17 Traffic, this committee spoke about Land 'Use and this cornrnittee spoke- about. Growth
18 Management etc: The current scope of work is such that they would be multi topic
19 workshops so that people could. understand h. ow Land Use relates to the traffic. impacts.
20 And those workshops. would be posted by the :city through the various appointed
21 commissions/corrimttees. So if it was to talk about Land Use and Parks and Land Use.
22 and Recreational opportunities: the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation
23 Commission would serve as the advisory host; but not in the sense where the working
24 committees that they had before where they met regularly had there back to the public.
25 The intent with this would be more inclusive and fhe people would participate in the
26 discussion through tabletop exercises and othe"r interactive type of discussions rather
27 than a core group of ten-twelve per subject.
28
29 At the Council's direction we could back up,and say we're:going to have these meetings
30 but we're. also .goin. g to have, an x # of member citizen: committee that's going. to .work
31 with the Executive.feam in some manner.
,,,,,
32
33 .Mike Healy is there.any standard in-the General Plan industry for which approach to
34 :take?
35
36 Pamela Tuft, no what we did in the 80's the prevailing manner was what Santa Rosa is
37' doing .now. They have a 24 or 26 member citizens- committee that works with the
38 Community Development Department staff and <they hear and host. Most cities have an
39 assigned group of anywlie,refrom 1~5 to.'30 citizens.
40 _
41 Mike Healy, I don't see a compelling reason to move off of the framework we have set
42 up unless other folks see some advantage that we're n'ot going to-.pick. up with what
43 we're doing.
44
45 Looking at the staff recommended Scenario #1 and then taking the next level to
46 Scenario #2 you have one page 6 that talks about the points of distinction between
VoL 36, Page 230 June 6; 2001
1 Scenario #1 and Scenario #2a. nd looking at, some of the.;larger dollar items can you
2 explain what the Petaluma River Ferry~study wassuppose'd to be looking at.
3 _ ...
~.
5 Scenalao #1t but then a 2 would be inclusivet; t,would ~incl'ude all of the reductions from..
dd this one page and the Ferry Study was discus"sions~ of'the
6 potential ;for high speed transit services by way of river usn.g~the hydrofoil devices. INe
7 had one gentlemen; who. was: investigating something si'rtmlar to what: they use .in Europe
8 where they load seve_ ral, hundred ears and people ;and float- them down the aver at a,
9 fairly-high gate of speed.. The Council 'in the!past was interested to understand if that
1Q was at all feasible. If, someone wants ~fo ~do if "they can. pay for the feasibility study.
12 Mike Healy that; is not .an infernal circulation,. issue within the city, that's circulation from ,
13 Petaluma_to San Francisco.:
14
15 Pamela Tuft, it's: regarding ;regional transit.
16
18 Mrculate aysurvey, that was donetas part of tthe 1 gg survey anal you were kind enough to
19
20 Pamela Tuft; 1992/93 was the five-year review that was stipulated in the adopfed
21 G_en,eral Plan to. be undertaken. 'The actual survey was conducted in early`1993.
22There aresurveys that can address the issues. that we are going to need to address
23 regarding infill :development, .growth' patterns, rates and transit options.
'24
25 Mike Heay if it is Council's desire to fold the discussion we we're having on Monday
26 into the Traffic :and Circulation Elemenf, `is there going to be a need to have :more' tat#' .
27 support/consu'Ifant support to look at a cross town connector and interchange scenario?
28
29 Pamela Tuft addressing; the ,p.otential ..need acid location, for a cross town connector 'is
30 included:,in the task'in the scope of work whether the Councl_once we b;e'gin to discuss
31 ,that and ..have the: model: up. and running, if the Council warits^to go beyond the level of
32 analysis that is undertaken in this scope; then we can bring back a modification at thaf_ ih
33 time. At this stage based on ;your discussions. on Monday, I don't be ieve so. The
34 discussion on Monday was only went so' far. 'because we don't have the information to
35 give you so that.,you can have a meaningful discussion about the next level of decisions.
36 that you need to make: V1/hen we do refurn with thaf_as we proceed. through the:
37 preparation of the element itself and ;get"the model up and running ;and look;at. Land Use
3'8 alternatives then you can:. say "yes" we'd like you. to; pursue X to the next .Jewel of
39 .analysis if, its not addressed adequately in the scope we can bring an expansion of the
40 scope or modification to address that or take if under a separate track:
4i
42 Mike Healy when would y,.ou anticipate' doing that?
43
44 Pamela Tuft, late fall, early winter this year;
45 ~ .
June 6, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 231
1 Bryant Moynihan there has been some good workdone in the community with the
2 1Norkforce Housing Committee. Is there any chance or anticipation of incorporating the
3 work being done by them in the General' Plan process?
4
5 Pamela Tuft., yes, Bonne Gaebler is also-involved in that.. Bonne and I are working
6 closely as you :can ,see 'in the scope of work the,Housing Element in order to retain our
7 certification through HCD is being accelerated and Bonne a_ nd I are working on thaf and
8 we'll present; that to the Council later this year. ' 1N'e recognize that then it will be kind of
9 a given with the .General Plan, but as we ,develop the: policies that relate to the Housing
10 Element we may need. to come back'and revise fhe .Housing Element. It's the only
11 element that's kind of working independently, but the 1Norkforce Housing issue, Bonne
12 has a copy of they report, I have a copy of the .report and any of that research or input is
13' going to be shared' with all of the General Plan efforts.
14
15 Bryant Moynihan. locally the River Authority has been. formed and is trying to work
16 interactively with the Chamber, River Committee and local Sheriffs and local
17 environmental concerns relative to protecting our river. Has there been any out reach
18 or participation from that group or involvement as such in trying to through that group
19 deal with the River Element?
20
21 Pamela Tuft, She did review the scope of work with a couple of members of the
22 Authority or organization, John Fitzgerald has been active. V1/e are very interested in
23 having them host workshops, weigh in on anything that's thought about, provide early
24 input. Outreach to any .organization or group of citizens is more than welcome. I spent
25 fhe greater part of an afternoon working with the Economic Committee of the Chamber
26 of Commerce, walking through the scope of work.
27
28 The workshop meetings and outreach contained in this scope would allow the
29 opportunityfor anyof'those committees to be very actively involved.
30
31 Bryant Moynihan, Land Use as such we~have a lot of people who have a lot of opinions
32 about Land Use in this community and I would hate to get to the end of the process and
33 have people: say that this has not been; an open active process in which members of the
34 community have a chance to have a .free flowing exchange of ideas.
35
36 Pamela Tuft, I think the citizens will be :incredibly .engaged on the Land Use discussions.
37 That. really is for most people the heart of the General Plan and if we are going to
_ 38 identify our vision of what we want this community to become in 20 years it is going to in
39 all probability affect some major Land ,Use decisions, some changes and perceptions of
40 this community as to what we. wantfo do with`infill. .
41
42 Bryant Moynihan that is my concern also and as far as a lot of people that are very
~':: 43 uncomfortable with change and this process. is going to occur and despite the outreach
- 44 efforts and meetings and ~all.we're not goingto necessarily get the word. out to a number
. 45 of people and when. they see. the end product we're going have a possible concern. I
46 really think that your best vehicle is using the general public and getting them involved
Vol. 36, Page 232 June 6, 2001
1 makes a b.g difference in getting participation fe,~el, up and if you can point to someone
2 who sat on that. committee -and said "they worked on 'i't, your. neighbor worked on, it; your
3 friend you .get to a point where they have a hard time coming back and saying that'it
4 was anyone's fault.other than there own for not .participating.. 'In regards to. Land Use
5 the River, Economic R.evelopment and the Workforce. Housing .real good opportunities
6 with existing groups'in our community. that `we should, have them involved up front so it's
7 not just th_e ExecGtive team, consulting team an, appearance that is an elitist type. of
8 approach: Iwould Dike to see :in the "framework of all three of these, scenarios an.
9 opportunity to reach out and get them involved: ,. "
10
11 Matt Maguire recommends Scenario #1 and drop,the'Ferry Study.
12
13 Pamela Torliatt regarding the Workforce Housing work l'm envisioningthat being parfi of
14 the suggestions that. come #.orward acid when we look at Land Use we' look, at the
15 existing zoning and then we Kook at difference scenarios that. can apply to that;: not
16 taking the Workforce Housing Map putting, it down and telling folks this'is what it is that
17 you can do as far as 1orkforce Housing and then we're going fo figure out whatever'
18 else fits. I don't want this Uorkforce Housing to be completed before we're had the
19 general input from the community.
20
21 Pamela Tuft,. the Workforce Housing report is,just information to be shared..lt certainly
22 is not being. presented ;in any way s as a given.. 1t has not been tied to the General Plan
23 it's just some information.
25 Mike; Healy.;. I ha~.e been on that task force. I think the map and the spread.. sheet that' it
26 has produced is not even a set ofi reeommendationsiys just some potential
27 opportunities for discussion purposes.
28
29 Pamela Torliatt what is important to me about this process that you've laid out is'the fact
30 that we can look at all the elements together such as when we :have the Traffic and
31 Circulation..base dine we lu ;`in the Land Uses and then we see how much it's going to
p g
32 cost for various alternatives and the community can say "well you can afford this or you
33 can't. afford this" o.r " I'm willing to'live with more traffic because. tflere's a hgher:.Land
34 Use" or "more traffic or ear dependent.use :here", ,I think'that is going, to be a really
35 telling process and particularly as it pertains to the cross town connector issue and
36 think that. is going. to be the fascinating partabout how the community rallies around it.
37 This process. has always been a :grassroots process. It never has .been, an elitist
38 process considering the fact`;that you already have 500 people bought and hopefully
39 1000 by the end and it'nclu:des a
I_I types of interest groups and general. public.
40 One of the comments Counclmember Maguire talked ab-out with energy eff,ciency~'n
41 the Zgning, Ordinance, what° I'm. looking forward ~to `is incorporating g-teen building-
42 principles and that is where we can make a huge leap in sustaimability and education of
43 our builders. -
44 _. ~.
45 Mr. Stouder is there a sense of direction of whaf we kiting; back for .decision?
46
June 6, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 233
1 Bryant Moynihan when will the survey of vacant land be ayailab.le for:distribution? And
2 is that being summarized based- on the current land use designation?
3
4 Pamela Tuft it's being .based on current land use designations, the land .inventory right
5 now the map is updated through= December of 1`999 .and is being updated to bring it to
6 January 2001 that will correspond with a lot of the .other data we have collected.
8 Bryant Moynihan will you also be updating €rom when we had the Urban Growth
9 Boundary put" ogether: `You .had done an estimate of what level of supply we had of
10 each land use type~based on ,yearn available, .based on the current absorption of what
11 we do have. Do you' anticipate being able to put that together in the near future?
12
13 Pamela Tuft, yes, that will be at a preliminary stage. by elate spring.
14
15 Bryant Moynihan. I do hare Ms. Torliatt concern. that we;go down with like Workforce
16 Housing is :a-good example, there are other ways to do.:it and we tweak everything to
17 provide adequate housing and then we don't p:royide enough land for retail or industrial
18 or office etc. 1Nhen tha_ t information is available if we could: also make it available to the
19 public:
20 ~ .
21 Pamela Torliattwhat you shoal"d .also provide to-us is in the Urban Growth Boundary
22 parameters th, ere was""certain "timelines in'there that if we were~not able to meet needs
23 within the UGB that Council would, be allowed to add additional land pursuant to certain
24 findings. People need to understand what the impacts would be :if we don't have that
25 land use: available inside the current UGB, what it would look like because you may not
26 have the choice. You may have to do one or the other.
27 "
28 Pamela..Tuft the UGB five potential expansion areas are identified on that map as well.
29
30 Beth Meredith 104 5t"Street, she would like to see us approach the General Plan
31 process as an example of how we can better, improve our system overall for public
32 outreach, for ransparency of process and one of the places she sees this and she
33 would like to s_ee'this as fully developed as possible is the Web Site..
34 There is a loss of momentum and unless there 'is some sort of continuing momentum it
35 is hard to stay engaged. She has designed workshops and knows when designing a
36 workshop when I really want peoples input and when I want their buy in. A buy-in says
37 buy what I'rn bringing you, input says this is the issue what do you think:. She is more
38 interested initially in workshops that ask for input-.and then eventually move to buy in. I
39 think the_ model that Ms. Tuft is; working towards and which: is probably the more modern
40 approach to these "types of" things is, .instead.. of committees creating networks and the
41 Web is then that (place. that nexus point where those networks take out. So maybe we
42 can think of the committees and interest. groups as being these networks and maybe
43 there can. b,e a way on the Web Site that they can communicate without having to go
44 through the city .or meet. at those meetings. Hopefully the 1N'eb Site or some other think
45 could help people network.
'Vol. 36, Page 234 June: 6, 2001
1, There .are some (asks; we, do ;have people who have great talents .and they love to
2 contribute, people here just give .enormous amounts of time ands energy. Maybe there
3 should b-e a General PI'an Wish List on fhere that people if they can give; if there can be
4 enhanced. Web support and ;somebody is willing to do a project to enhance the V1/eb
5 project maybe they can d'o th"at portion of it. Maybe there are some things that. the
6 public could do specifically that would enhance the process; and would be free of charge
7 and would'i'nvohe moire people:
9' Diane :Reilly;, Rainier Avenue:,. She would like fo see:. some of the Tech Students working.
1'0 on the Web. Site uvh_o now wo"rk, on the city's 1Neb Site: She would like fo see fhe'1Neb
11 Site expanded to get more kids involved and also'th'e Spanish. speaking community:
12 Maybe the survey could'be.done from the 1Neb Site.,
13
.14 Matt Maguire is looking fo'r' a. process that really works. with plenty of,pub" is input:
15
16 Janice C.ader-Thompson, when the consultants are putting the groups together for the
17 discussion it might be good `fo have discussion with members of '.the pufjlic to see how
18 we really want: set up,
19
20 Mike. Healy agrees with Scenario :#1 with the- deletion of the Ferry. 1Ne have;;rnana'ged
21 to create significant cost. swings without harming the integrity of'the process aril we
22 created, enough .cost savings to: update our forth, year old Zoning and Subd_ivision_ Map
23 Ortlinance. -
24
25 Council recessed at 8:30 p.m, and reconvened :at 8:40 p:m.
:26 -
27 Water Resources and Conservation
28
29 Tom Hargis gage a brief report on, the status of the department. He is please with the
30 changes with the department.
31 -
32 What we do with budgets has such tremendous implicatigns in the .community and it
33 might be hard for Council to realize fhe,'import of some of'the decisions. and some of the
34 `influence that you have with fhes`e ki'nd`s. of "thi.ngs that happen through your budget
35' .approvals..
36
37 He sees theneed' to add a third level to his :department, which is -the Surface Vl/ater
38 Element.. A Mid IVlanager Mat runs not only the surface water kinds of projects,,such as
39 the Corps; but all ;the 'regulations we're going to be faced with such as farm water
4b regulations .coming down from the -EnvironmentalProtection Agency an'd the Regional
41 Water Quality Control Board trying to do wa"ter quality enhancem_ enf -and integrating ho;w
42 all these~,work together. Do you get more water supply from the river or from wells or by
43 off setting, ,by recycling or by industrial efficiency or conservation or do you do defention
44 ponds and retention'ponds and recharge the ground Ovate"r.. Have habitat enhancement
45 and its fun fo tie' in the' frontpart of this thing where we starr'seeing that interconnect
4.6 activity and the opportunities its challenging; it's not going to happen quickly, but'..the
June 6, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 235
1 next phase is,going to be starting to bring more emphasis on ~fhe bigger aspects of
2 surface water not only staffing right now we have no way of funding the storm drain
3 maintenance because one of the down sides of the reorganization is the street crews,
4 the sewer crews pretty much covered storm drain, maintenance. With the reorganization
5 we're having to figure out another way to address thaf: We see cost implications of
6 regulations where there's going to have to be discussions about how to fund
7 maintenance, how to fund .water quality over and above the storm drain kinds of
8 projects. Looking at assessment districts, benefit assessments, expansion of the Zone
9 2A are the kinds of~things that were going to be bringing to you in the future. The water
10 and sewer rates study we started on we added the storm drain too before we got that
11 study started. How do we address that as part of this .comprehensive look and we're
12 hoping there will be'some things that come back to fhe council that makes some of the
13 tough decision .making a little easier. One poinf7 wanted to make is you don't have to
14 have an annual rate increase, but 1 think you have to have an annual rate increase
15 discussion. On. June 18 we will be having a hearing on water rate increases to cover
16 .the cost of additional electricity, the additional cost of water bought. The biggest user of
17 energy in California is pumping water., ,water supply, wastewater, storm water.
18 Some of the things with staffing, we're looking of bringing water conservation more in
19 house with a cityemployee, now we use Sonoma County Water Agency for two people.
20 We still see the continuation of that relationship with the li1/ater Agency a little more
21 emphasis: One of our guys Dave Spriggs has peen the- loyalist on water conservation
22 for a decade around here. The Finance Manager is one of the vacancies on there, we
23 filled the secretary position, we're recruiting for the engineer, eng tech is one of the next
24 things that will be coming. Bill Thomas as. the new Finance Manager has given the
25 opportunityto us to.look at what is a finance manager, what's the real need for this. l
26 put this on he wall with last years budget saying wafer and sewer and storm drain are
27 such big important- issues and the dollar impacts we need to .have some expertise and
28 we're working out in house.
29
30 1 want to point.out that one of the reasons 1 haven't pressed on the Financial Manager
31 recruiti~nenf is how pleased and impressed I am with Mike Ban and Steve Simmons.
32 This is their budget~and my budget. They are the guys that have put this together.
33 They have done an amazing amount coming up on the learning curve about revenue
34 generation, bonds different ways of financing, .the spread sheets some of which are
35 amazing how their starting to do some of the things 1 had really hoped a Finance
36 Manager would do, start doing ten and twenty year projections of what our needs are
37 and equipment how to finance them how to do the rate structure with that.
38
39 Mike Healy, what'time of year would it be most appropriate to have a discussion on rate
40 increases?
41
42 Tom Hargis, feels it_should be :part of the. regular budget process so we're looking at
43 revenue. generation and expenditure and trying to program when those cafe increases
44 would take place.
45
Vol. 36, Page::236 June 6; 2001
1 Mr. Stouder even if you .start the discussion rate increase proposals earlier, la's adopted
2 as part of'the~ irnp ementation of the budget. The budget. implements all the policies
3 revenues and expenditures so that's the path.
4
5 Mike Healy this fall when we get the results. of the .cafe. design study we'll be asked to
6 adopt a different rate:'design that could ba re~enua neutral?
7
8 Mr. Stouder it could be ;revenue neutral„ it depends on the expenditures, projections and
9 capital improvemenf'program and annual budgets. 'You could do mid=year issues .and.
10 then get it. all on."frack:during budget in.June-July.
11
12 Mike Healy believes if would be besf, if we can do itfo hava the rate design issue in the
13 fall,. when we; do it this time for the first time be revenue neutral .and then it can be
14 updated every year as part of the budget process..
15
16 Pamela Torliatt;l believe ;that the Water Agency is required to submit their budget to =the
17 Water Advisory Committee ;by February 1St of everyyear for review and
18 recommendation. to the 1Nater Agency Board which is the Board of Supervisors:.) would
19 like to see" us have a public; hearing here where the Water Agency makes. a presentation
20 on what their proposed increase will be so `we can discuss .among ourselves then you
21 can give,your WAC representative the direction to. go.forward and then we'will be better
22 informed and updated on what our potential increase may be in the budget process:..
24' Bryant ;Moynihan there. seems. to ,be an ;increase in ;Inter-departmental charges on Pager
25 303 Summary of Expenses, .Appropnato.ns and Revenues,,, which are not just General
26 Fund, but for all funds and it has interdepartmental charges going., up by 25% fro_m-
27 $883,Oc0 to $1,10Q,OOO,: Is there a different°approaeh or'phlosophy that's occurring
28 that would create the Infer-departmental charges having increased that much in one
29 year?
30
31 Bill Thomas, refer back to the Summary on Page S69 that details where tlase numbers;
32 are coming from.: Quite frankly we increased Information Se,rv,ices this year because we
33 consolidated all the telephone services, and consolidated all the: internat. services. again.
34 That's going to-increase the' inter=departmental charges becausewe've taken them out
35" of the Materials, Supplies and Services and we isolated them and showed you what
36 they'were rathe'r`than in, the, past .budgets 'just including them in the Materials, Supplies
37 :and. Services. The Administrative. overhead charges were. only increased by the cost of
38 living; which at `the time we did this was 5'h or 6 ?/2 % fo"r the.year and that's based. on
39 the San Francisco, Oakland,. San Jose `Metropolitan area on the Urban 1Nage .earners.
40 The increase is. mainly due to the'ncr,ease in the Information Services Allocations;
4.1 General Services. and Risk .Management.
43 BM, jusfiso I un°derstand the interrelationship with the enterprise fund a little bit better on
44 the. Surnrnary Page S58 it outlines of the very bottom there what the total revenue is for
45 the enterprise funds budgeting $25,046;750.
46
June 6, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 237
.Bill that's for all the enterprise. funds :not jusf water and sewer.
2
3 BM the water and sewer is a major portion: of it right? ,
4
5 Bill yes - _
6
7 BM if you ga a little furthe"r under expenditures in the Summary Page S66 we seem to
8 get into the. exper~ditures'totaling around $37,819,000, so~relative to the enterprise
9 funds we have .abouf a $12,`773,000 expenditures in excess of .revenues.
10 ~ -
11 Bill that includes the Capital Improvement Plan.of $1.4..6 million dollars. A lot of that
12 coming out of'.existing revenues,that are sitting as reserves in the various funds.
13
14 BM but they are .also are there: not. about .$11,671,00.0 in revenue bonds that are coming
15 out' and. scheduled to be . Under revenue .bonds it's showing $11,671,000 that is
16 anticipated in going out.this year or budgets andthat'is $11 million of a total of
17 $106;000,000 over the. next five years. If we're floating $11,671,000 revenue bonds.
18
19 Bill no were not that's inclusive of some .of the bonds we've issued for the sewer
20 treatment-plant This is a Summary your looking at 357 that. shows all the sources for
21 all the,ClP projects: In revenue bonds there is a proposal that we're coming to you on.
22 June 25th to:issue some revenue bonds in about $5,000,000 in refinancing about,.
23 $5million existing bonds. ~ This $11,671,000 and the total of $106.,4.22,000 mainly refers
24 to the sewer treatment.plan over the years. We have already issued a portion of those
25 bonds that we have not: expended and we`re showing it as one of sources to pay for the.
26 projects including the sewertreatment plant. It's not all related. to water.
27
28 BM o.n the subject of this department I understood. we we're dealing with water and
29 sewer.
30
31 Bill we're not .issuing $1;1:671,:,;000 in revenue bonds., Part of, those revenue bonds have
32 already been issued. 1Nere going to issue some more for-sewer treatment plant
33 obviously we ,haven't.issued, enough to pay for the entire plant. We are proposing
34 issuing approximately $5;;million in water~revenue bonds in addition to refunding some
35 Zore 2A Water Revenue Bonds that were issued back,in 1'995...
36
37 PT don't we have: to. do that. I~ thi'nk:we have to do that. because. we have to increase
38 the rates in order to be able to .go out for that bonding as well. You have to base it on a
39 revenue.
40
41 Bill you have to show'that you have sufficient revenues to pay for the debt service.
42
43 BM so_ I ;guess what I'm not following i , if:we're showing the summary of $11,,671.,000 in
44 revenue bond, w,hieh.would do for water-and sewer. ~.
45
Vol. 36, Page 238
June 6;'2001
1. Bill, that. s,all for sewer,; I'm corrected. If you look at Page 5'05 ,you,'il see. the
2 wastewater,pollution control GIP projecfsummary and ifshows revenue bonds of
3 $11,671,0:0.0 as a source.. ,
4 ~ '-
5 BM and that also shows on Pg. 504 ..Debt Proceeds net of issue cost is; $'11;6;7'1 ~OQ.O I;
6 did assume, that,was:actually all sewer... Again. that's in thsyear's budget: I don't know
7 how you got to $5 million because`we budgeting this y"ear°to do $11 million and you
8 indicated that we h'ad done ome last years .. ~.-~..
9 -- '
10 Steve Simmons:, the revenue bonds dhow up on .Page 47,8.fo,r.water in the .CIP~ section.
11 20:0.1-20"02 down at the bottom it shows Debt Proceeds oufiof issue cost $1,.9 m; and
12 that's. a drop for'the 1'st year: They',re going to draw the money over a three year-period
13 and-that s new mone comin m. And then the cost of that is u
y ~ g ~` ~ ~ ~ .pat the top Principal and
14 Interesf,and that's for the new money and also to pay off`the :existing .debt the CO:P's
15 that were. issued for Zone 4 in 1990.
16 - ,
17 BM so'n refinancing thataspect'is` the element dealing with. the water vs. the. sewer..
18 And then.. water pollution control the Su:mroary or the. debt. service is back 'on at Pg. 505
19 where we talked about and I ,guess I' was having a :hard time. before understanding
20 where we were getting the Administrative fees: and charges because: they seem to b~e
2;1 reduced i'n orne: ,areas. and yet if`you look for`example at the Rooster .Run recycle water
22 project ,on Page"505 it',s'budgeting at a fotal of.$6, 646,000 and we now just recently.
23 reviewed that'it was a 5/8 project or something when we. talked about it so `if you go
24 back and look at fhe detail of that which is on page; 531 :the Administration hows. as .nil.
25 on it but..all. of a sudden we:have a.consfruction "management estimate of $.750.,0:00 so:
26 guess myquestion is,getting back,to what we seem to be loading the administration per.
27 say or overhead into construction ranagement on the GIP projects. I'd like: to know
28 where thaf;$750,OQ0 is slated to go and. where, it shows as a revenue source or transfer
29 in relative to thin budget.. _
30
31 .Mike Ban, actually the infe`resting thing thatwe've done on our CfP this'.year is we've.
32 :increased the number of expenditure descriptions to reflect'how $ are spent on CIP
33 projects. The General Fund ouerhead,:is City'Hall .dollars,; C'ityClerk, -City Attorney, City
34 Management, these are people that work on the project'; but are paid .out,; of the G:e,neral
3-5 Fund. 'The people. who ,actually':rn"anage the project,, myself, my department are .not paid
3.6 out of the General Fund,; we're' paid o`uf of the enterprise fund so that's why the dollars
37 .here under the General, Fund overhead are not large for these projects because we're
38, not paid out of the General Fund: The item .for construction ~managernent°that'.s an.
39 outside contract services .cost to :rn~anage the contracf. W:e don't have. the staff or
40 personnel to manage :these projects ourselves ~so we hire,.contract service personnel to
41 .manage them and same with the design: Thos costs are outside contract service ,
42 personnel.
43
44 B.M, let me broaden that a little bit and: start back on S3 so that I can try,,to "t'e this ally
45 together: The third page surnrnary, which dea_Is with;the General Fund and` in°particular
46 the 21'0 Flood Mitigation where Iwas- headed. They show flood, mitigation and drainage
June 6, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 239
1 fees on S3 down under General Fund; and .it indicates its $11,021,500 of estimated
2 revenues.- It appears that a good amount of thaf amount and I'm wondering, but is this
3 not coming from the Feds per say or Army Corps?
4
5 Bill if you look on Page S14 it gives you a description of where this money is coming
6 from. Flood Mitigation ties right to the.$11,021;,500. Your looking at a Summary page
7 on S3 and for each ofi these funds I have provided you with detail schedules as to what
8 the revenues :are and what the planned expenditures are for each of these funds and as
9 you can see for the :flood mitigation $5.79 is expected to come from the Army Corps of
10 Engineers, $4 million .from the State Department of Water Resources, $1.110,000 from
11 Zone 2A and only a $100,000 in=licenses; permits and fees..
12
13 BM these funds aspbudgeted here. for exampleahe :Sonoma County Water Agency Zone
14 2A I wasn't aware that they were contributing any more funds to our project. Is this
15 something new or a committed amount of funds or is this anticipated?
16
17 Tom Hargis I have jokingly said for a long time we oughf to call it the Sonoma County
18 Water Agency Flood Control project rather than the Corp. of Engineers cause SCWA
19 Zone 2A has had a commitment toward the total project of about $6.7 million dollars
20 where the Corps. Of Engineers has had'. this $5 million dollar cap. until our .recent
21 success with Congress. The .SCWA. has always ,been in for that amount of significant
22 dollars. I think at one point in time it jumped from $6.2 to $6.7.
23
24 BM including the pump station they put in originally or contributed to originally. I
25 understood that they had fully funded what their commitment was and there were no
26 additional. funds coming in.
27
28 Tom, were in the last. agreement with the SCWA, which is part of the Storm Drain
29 Improvements on'the outheasterly side of Vallejo/Madison Street Storm Drain System.
30 The SCWA. as part of that last commitment is dike. 3/a of a million in that contract also
31 paid a portion of~ upgrading the pump station on Vallejo Street side and they also paid
32 for the Payran Storm Drains. They increased the level of protection plus added. piping
33 and I think that.was the last 3/4 of a million.~fhat `got it up to a $6:7 total. f think the
34 contract signed for that so there iS no more water, agency funds.
35
36 BM and these are actually projects outside of the Payran,project also. This is not tied to
37 the Payran Project this funding.
38
39 Tom Hargis, that I don't know. There is a "C`' Street.Storm Drain Project that the SCWA
40 is funding that comes from 6th s_'treet down to the river. l don't know if that shows up in
41 here or not.
42
43 FS what.. clarity are we trying to reach here.
44
Vol. 36, Page 240 ~ June-6, 200]
1 MM we have been at this-for.almost 20 'rninutes everything seems to .be perfectly in.
2' order, again ,if Mr,. Moynihan has :and endless fasenation with this I can understand, the
3 fascination but time is burning up here.
4
..
5 BM I'm wondering when were budgeting-these numbers for example the $1,11.0,000
6 using that. as an example from the SC1NA what level of confidence do' we. have that
7 those funds are actually going to `be there?~~ '
8
9 Tom Hargis, JCT is current. liaison onZone 2A whe;ce the committee recommends to the
10 Board of;Supervisors their projects for budgeting ~so in this spring time when we i-ne the
1.1 committee says. we're going to recommend to 'the Board of Supervisors in the fall the
12 "C" Street Storm Drain.,project for 3%a million dollars. We start in~corp.orating that'into this
13 budget, in anticipation of the Board of ;Supervisors approving that we can't start the
14 construction project until after fheiwOctober "adoption.
15 ~.
16 BM this number then is based on the recommendation going to the Board of
17 Supervisors. Generally those are- approved relatively regularly?
18
19 Tom Hargis, I'we never seen one: changed.
20
21 BM,, my concern is we're doing a;lot of C'IP budgeting as we'd done in the past last year
22 there was $35;000,000 CLP programs that were budgeted', to be expended and: we're
23 probably going to expend; about $15,000„ 000 of that it seems that there are some
24 charges, and'some Admihistrative fees feeding our~operating from these CIP projects
25 that. are funding; in part sortie of our general government. To the level that'these CIP's
26 are completedthat level of funding, is going fo be affected and as a .result :before we're
27 basing assumptions'n the General Fund 1 would like to make sure how sure we ar"e that
28 we're going to go-fonncard with a lot of these projects. The next line down under that
29 budget if $5,790,000 U.S. Army Corps~of Engineers so we're showing in this budget a
30 revenue of $5,790,000 and I'm trying to understand what the likelihood is of'the revenue
31 sources coming here how we've obtained these numbers to :get; a feel for are we going
32 to be close to filling this, are we ;going to be at the same°level of accuracy as we were
33 last year o"r can we do better etc. 'm tryingto get ,a. better.understariding of this
34 budgeting assumptions that :are going be,h'ind the numbers that were being .presented.
35 ,.
36 FS it's our best estimate.
37
38 PT She wants a full: account, of what Rooster Run Golf Course. has cost the city: She
39 would, like. to see a separate line item of Rooster. Run Golf` Course and. what it costs us
40 every year to maintain.. It is on a~well system; it does cost us electricity charges and' I
41 would. like fo have a number thaf'is a line.:itern in our ~bud'get: `
42
43 What are we projecting for storage facilities for our domestic water'use: in the next year..
44 How many gallons anal what are the projects?~ If'we are going~to',be in a crisis in the
45 next couple: of years then maybe we need o prioritize having ,more storage. in order to
46 deal'with that issue.
June 6, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 241
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3'S
36
37
38
39
40
41
Steve .Simmons, Page 479 Summary shows the water utility CI P .projects. There is a
project Paula Lane Reservoir 2, we've got in this next year we';re going to try to buy the
property. The year:after build a tank. We're going to try to get 1 '/2 million gallons on
that piece of property. This is the project for'/2 . We're hopirig by the time we get this
one built our Water Element: of the General Plan will be updated. Storage is good but it.
is expensive.
Tom Hargis, we're. looking at the 15% mandatory reduction again this summer.
Steve, hopefully the city will be able to drill .a new well in this coming year. Rooster-Run
is using Potable water., 11 is a well. that is pumped into the' domestic water supply and
fed to Rooster Run. We're p.umping our wells into the distribution system and there's
water coming out at another point that's going into the golf course.
BM relative to the cost of Rooster Run is that not a fixed amount as to what we can
charge them for the water regardless of the cost to us.
SS there's a contract. About $70 an acre foot vs. $389 a foot.
MM remarked on the amount of time it is faking to get through the budget process
because of the scrutiny of each line item because of a last of trust and comprehension.
ADJOURN
Mayor Thompson- adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
E. Clar Thompson, .Mayor
ATTEST:
Paulette Lyon, Deputy C Jerk
******