HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 06/07/2001June 7, 2001
Vo-. 36, Page 243
1 City of Petaluma, California
2 Minutes of a>Special
3 Joint City CouncilLPetaluma Community Development Commission
4 Meeting
5
6 .Budget Workshop
7 Thursday, June 7, 2001
8 Council Chambers
9
10
11
12 The Petaluma City Council/Petaluma Community Development Commission met on this
13 date at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers.
14
15 ROLL CALL
16
17 PRESENT: Vice ChairNice MayorCader-Thompson; Commissioners/Council
18 Memkers ,Healy; Maguire (7:12 P.M.), Moynihan (7:13 P.M.), Torliatt;
19 Chair/Mayor Thompson
20
21 ABSENT: Commissioner/Council Member O'Brien
22
23 Clerk's
24 Note: For the purpose of these minutes, the joint bodies of the City Council and
25 the Cornrr~unity Development Commission shall be referred to as the
26 Council and the members of the joint bodies -shall be referred to as elected
27 by the public and/or appointed by the Council; that is, Mayor, Vice Mayor,
28 and Council IVlembers.
29
30 PLEDGE OF.ALLEGIANCE
31
32 At the request of Mayor Thompson, Daymon Doss led the Pledge of Allegiance.
33
34 MOMENT OF SILENCE
35
36 At the request of Mayor Thompson; a moment of silence was observed.
37
38 PUBL6C COMMENT
39
40 Daymon Doss., Petaluma Health Care District, 1.290 North McDowell .Boulevard, thought
41 that statements .made at Monday, June 4th's Council Meeting implied that Petaluma
42 Valley Hospital was in danger of closing. He cautioned Council that things they say
43 "take on the cloak of knowledge,"and it was important that they be certain that they
44 base their statement on complete and accurate knowledge.. He explained that when
45 Petaluma Valley Hospital was built, construction of a cross-town connector was
46 considered imminent. He thought across-town connector was important, as many
Vol. 36, Page 244
June 7, 2001
1 emergency patients came to the hospital not by ambulance, but by:car. He.also
2 announced that next week is National Men's Health Week. The Petaluma Health .C,are
3 District is sponsoring a presentation on Monday,.. June 11., at the .Petaluma Community
4 Center, 320 North McDowell Boulevard, at: 7:00 P.M.
5
6 CO,UNCI000MIVIISSION COMMENT
7
8 Vice Mayor Caller=Thompson:
9
1,0 • Responded to Mr, Doss's comments. She understood that the Health Care: District:
11 was "pro Rainier."She thought. it important that citizens call 911 in case, of an
12 emergency,, instead of driving to the hospital. She pointed. out. that the Health Care:
13 District owns property adjacent to the proposed Rainier site. if Rainier were built,
14 that property wou'Id. increase in value dramatically, :.She noted that her constifuenfs
15 are concerned about the shortage of doctors in. Petaluma. It is her responsibility to
16 share those concerns: She be ieved that'Council and the Health: Gare District should
17 work together on the issues, through the General Plan process. She added that
18 Petaluma needs a .full-service hospital'..
19 .Stated that at the 1Nednesday, June 6 Budget.lN_orkshop:, :a Council Member made a
20 racist remark about the General Plan consultant. She wasshocked by this, and
21 thought such behavior should not be tolerated.
22 • .Attended a golf tournarrment hosted by Fishman Supp y at the Rooster Run Golf'
23 Club. She enjoyed participating in ths,positive community event; and added that
24 Rooster Run is a great course.
25
26 Council Member Torliatt:
27
28 • Thought the Petaluma Health Care. District.: should definitely be part of the General
29 Plan process, 'The health care crisis needs to be addressed.
30
31 Council Member Healy:
32
33 • Noted the current labor dispute between a bargaining. unit at.Petaluma Valley
34 Hospital and St. Joseph's Health Care. The City.should take: care not to become
35 involved in that issue. He encouraged broth sides to work hard fo resolve their
36 differences. He~ agreed that once- that was aceo'mp fished, Council, should meet with
37 the Health Care .District regarding- the General.. Plan process.
38
39 Council Member Moynihan:
40
41 • Believed that insurance payments and co-payments must increase in order to
42 assure adequate medical care. Suggested. the Fannie ,Mae mortgage program
43 currently available to the City's public safety employees. could be extended.fo
44 hospital personnel,, as a way to make lining in Petaluma_ more .affordable,. _
45
4`6
June 7, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 245
1 Council Member Maguire: ~ .
2
.. - .. _
3 Disagreed "with Co"uncil Member Moynihan that:health insurance rates must go up.
4 He belie;~ed the HM0 corporations were "out of control:" If that were not the case,
5 the health care crisis would not exist.
6
7 UIVFIiVISHED "BUSINESS
8
9 1. Budget Workshop
10
11 Comrnunity:Deuelopment Department:.
12
13 Comrnunify Development Director Mike Moore. introduced the FY 2001-2002
14 Budgetfor the Community Development D~epartment~ He gave a brief overview of
15 the department's structure., which combines-the planning, building safety and
16 inspection, .housing, development engineering and public works inspection
17 functions, and acknowledged staff for their work to make the department
18 productive. arid successful..
19
20 He described the budget as essentially "status quo,"with no significant increases
21 in amounts for operation and maintenance. He explained that the department
22 continues to .have a very busy project,log of about 150 projects. They are
23 averaging about 650 inspections a month.
24
25 During the ,past year, renovations have been competed, making the department
26 a much more comfortable and user-friendly place for both staff and citizens. An
27 increased training budget has allowed more training for staff and commission
28 members. Ari erosion control seminar was offered to local contractors and
29 developers as well.
30
31 The budget calls, for fkeezing and:not funding three positions; two in the Planning,
32 Division, and one in, the Building Division. The workload has been managed, and
33 will continue to be .managed, with the help. of contract planners on a full cost
34 recovery basis.
35 ,
36 The Central Petaluma Specific Plan, and EIR, 'including updated development
37 regulations, are progressing, and .the department's goal is for the Plan to be
38 adopted by the end of the year.
39
40 The department.~is working, with. a software company to provide web-based permit
41 tracking, a_rd :hopes tohave it on-line by the end of the summer..
42
43 Council. Member Maguire congratulated Mr. Moore on the permit-tracking project,
44 and asked him; fo let Council know when the program was in place.
45
46 Mr. Moore explained that four interns from the Tech Academy program through
Vol. 36, Page'246 June; 7, 2001
1 Santa Rosa Junior College have been developing an enhanced, and expanded
2 web presence for the Community Dee opment ,Qepartment.~ Thanks to their help,
3 the community ;will soon be able to access the City~s~ zoning ordinance, 'as well. as
,.,
4 a number of forms, on lme.`The °interns arse being ,paid with Americans With.
5 Disabiliti'e funds,, as the interns are also working, tg:a"ssure that the City's. web
6 .presence. is compliant with this Act: ' ~ ~ '
7
8 The department is working with Trae Cooper, Geographic Lnforrnation Systems
9 (CIS;) Manager, towards an. automated public noticing system that will make the:
10 noticing. process much more efficient.
12 Council Member Maguire;asked Mr. Moore if the ;noticing system. would allow
13 adjustments to the area in which citizens are to be .notified,. if required.
14
15 Mr, Moore confirmed fhat'it would. The program will generate 'a maiti:ng list for
16 any area specified'.
17
18 Vice,Mayor Cader-Thompson thanKed. Mr. Moo"re-for his presentation; and added.
19 that the Community D,eveloprnent Department was: a pleasure to visit, as the staff`
20 were always friendly and he pful. She would like to see the 300' noticing
21 requirement expanded.
22
23 M_r. Moore replied that state law a tablished_ the 300' requirement: Noticing can
24 be done on a larger cale as needed. He thought this could be discussed as part
25 of the development regulations. update process:
Vice; Mayor Gader-Thompson suggested that the Ctywor.k with order cities and
the county to arrange training. seminars: locally, as a cost savings measure.
30 Mr. Moore .rep,lied that.the department does try to take. advantage of free. and
31 low-cost opportunities in the area.
32
Vice Mayor .fader-Thompson asked_ Mr.. Mogre if permit fees would be increasing
with the new:budget.
Mr. Moore rep ied that Finance.__D,rector Bilf Thomas. had initiated a :fee study.
T
he department would be °moving toward full cost recovery ~as much as possible;.
With some small, protects, a flat fee made more sense.
4.0 Council: Member Tort iatt noted; that the Department Directors' budget
41 presentations have-been very impressive, and reflective of their hard work. She
42 congratulated' them and their staff.. She was encouraged by`the progress kieing
43 made on improving cornrnunicati'on among; commissions:,, City Management and
44 staff. She was'ery excited about'the_ ;prospect. of building permits on line:.
45 Mr. Moore noted that'the HP3OOO is 20 years old and everything is being moved
46 off it as soon as possible
June 7, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 247
1
2 Council Member Moynihan mentioned that the attitude of the Community
3 Development Department; staff is very friendly and upbeat. He asked if the permit
4 iraeking software would allow timing of projects to be tracked.
5
6 Mr. Moore answered that it was. essentially a building permit. paperwork
7 management system. It'will make the process more efficient.
8
9 Council Member Moynihan asked if the Project Log could be rolled into the
10 tracking process.
11
12 Mr. Moore asked Council Member Moynihan if he meant in terms of project
13 status, who has commented, what the next step would be, etc.
14
15 Council Member Moynihan replied that he meant tracking in terms of
16 performance-based measures,. as a way to identify those staff members who are
17 working hardesf. He also asked if the fact that the anticipated permits and
18 licenses fees, were down by 38% in the budget. was due to an anticipated
19 .slowdown.
20
21 Mr. Moore confirrned that it was based on an educated guess of the amount of
22 fees that'would be collected during the year.
23
24 City Manager Stouder reminded Council°that in last year's budget, the
25 Community Development Department revised (heir revenue projects based on
26 trends in the economy. This occurred. two weeks before the budget was due to
27 be .printed. He thought it was better to "know the bad news up front and act on it."
28 He reiterated that the City must choose to :freeze positions, eliminate services, or
29 find major new sources of revenue.
30
31 Council Member Moynihan stated that he appreciated the conservative
32 approach. He thanked Mr. Moore fgr;hi's work.
33
34 Council Member Healy hanked Mr. Moore for the clear budget presentation and
35 the work~he and his staff have done during the past year. He expressed concern
36 about the thoroughness oftle noficing,proeess regarding the Central Petaluma
37 Specific Plan.
38
39 Mr. Moore replied that they~had used what they.thought was a complete and up-
40 to-date list of tfio_ se to be noticed.
41
42 Council Member, Healy asked-if with -the changing nature of the workload in the.
43 department=-'fewer large projects -there was sufficient staff/time to process
44 permits in a timely manner. ~'
45
46 Mr. Moore answered that this was an important concern. When the development
Vol. 36, Page 248
June 7; 2001
1 code is clearer.and the zoning ordinance and forms a_re availableon-fine,, the
2 workload .should lighten. Regarding the Cenfral Petaluma Specific Plan, there.
3 was.a limited amount of work;to be done to complete it, and lots of`enthusiasrn to
4 see it adopted..
5
6 Council',Me.rnber Maguire noted he h.ad heard "rumblings in the community"
7 about the permit process taking too long. He cautioned Mr. Moore to ,keep track
8 of that.
9
10 Mr. Moore agreed that it was important, and added that his department:was
11 using; as much technology as possible to become. more efficient.
12
13 Mayor Thompson thanked Mr. Moore for his presentation. He:noted that,
14 Community Developme"nt is ahigh-profile department,. and tie thinks they are
15 doing a great job...
16
17 Mr. Moore; mentioned that'in regard to the recent correspondence from the Local.
18 Agency Formation Cgmm.ission (LAFCO)..asking if'the.City supported continued.
19 use ofCOunty staffing, counsel and facilities for'the Sonoma LAFCO function,, the
20 latest. information he had heard was that for the coming year, at least, there
21 would be no. change.
Council Mem_bex Torliattconcurred, adding that the last LAFCO meeting
concluded with a decision not to~go to outside counsel. She still thought it was
important that Council discuss the issue.
Mayor Thompson agreed.
Council Member Healy asked Mr. Moore how many appeals to LAFCO he had
seen.
Mr. Moore replied that two were pending, butt none had ~actwally gone to, LAFCO:
He noted that the LAFCO processes have been streamlined, and he kinks
LAFCO is pretty effective at weeding through issue`s that. cities or special districts
may have: .
37 Council Member Torliatt stated. that at the LAFCO meeting,Janet Condron
38 (Santa Rosa) asked to take a closer look at user-,based fees.
39
40 ,PUBLI'C~ C:OMIIIIENT`
41
42 Dayrmon Doss,. Petaluma Health Care District, 1290 North McDowell Boulevard,
43 wanted'to work.close.ly with the. Council to unsure that the City and. special_
44 districts are farly.represented with LAFCO.
45
June 7, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 249
1 Budget Papers
2
3 Director of Public Facilities and Services Rick Skladzien presented the following
4 budget papers to Council:
5
6 A. Development~and Implementation of `Vehicle and Eguipment Maintenance
7 Program
8 B. Enhanced Street Mantena_ nce and Reconstruction Program
9 C. Reorganization and Feasibility of Contract Services-for Traffic Signal and
10 Street Lighting Maintenance
11 D. Program .and Schedule for Examination and Potential Advertisement and
12 Receipt. of Competitive.'Bids+fgr Solid Waste. Collection and Ancillary Services
13 E. Feasibility of Restructuring the Sidewalk Maintenance Program to Place a
14 Higher Emphasis .on Homeowners' Responsibility for the Maintenance and
15 Upkeep of Property Adjacent #o their Property
16 F. Residential Home Financing for City Employees
17
18 Mr. Moore asked for confirmation. that the notice to the solid waste collection
19 contractor would be that .the. City would. continue with the contract.
20
21 Mr. Stouder replied that he was eor.rect.
22
23 Mr. Moore asked.'if the contractor would be receptive to a renewed contract some
24 months in the future:
25
26 Mr. Stouder replied that a decision was needed .by June 16, 2001.
27
28 Council Merxber Healy noted that in that ease, the subject should be added to
29 the agenda'for the June 11th meeting.
30
31 RECESS: 8:10 P.M.
32 RECONVENE: 8:22 P.M.
33
34 Mr. Skladzen began lids presentation of the Vehicle and Equipment
35 Maintenance Program budget paper... The paper spoke to the importance of
36 establi'sh'ing a"timely schedule for replacement of vehicles and_equipment. The
37 program would provide funding for such replacement through annual line item
38 contributions by department, so that vehicles and equipment are replaced
39 - according to plann.e.d,needs, rather than each department competing for funds
40 during each budget cycle.
41
42 Two .plans were: presented (A and B.). Under :Plan A. ,each vehicle and piece of
43 equipment is guaranteed funding-and is replaced at the. end of its cycle. With
44 Plan B, a modified schedule would be put into place,. with new additions being
45 purchased for Fire; Police and Water Re ounces,: and the: vehicles those replace
46 being cycled down through other departments. The program would strive for
VoL 36, Page 250
June 7, 2091
1 "optimal replacement timing" to avoid overall higher.lifetirrie cost"stand the
2 consequent increase in downtime for a vehicle. lJntil the: program is fully~funded,
3 a VehicleLE,quipment ;Replacement Panel would be established to administer and
4 oversee the program and prioritization of'replacement vehicles.
5
6 The recommendato,n is to adopt a vehicle replacement program. by ordinance.,
7 with the initial impl`ernentation of Plan ,B when the Gity Manager and. Finance
8 Director .indicate funding is available. Continue accruing funding annually (as
9 respective department line items) unfil a sufficient arriount is developed to
10 implement the original pro- posal, Plan A.
11
12 Mr,-Stouder added' that vehicles: that had reached an age where maintenance
13 was no longer cost-effective would be disposed' of.
14 _
15 Council Member Healy asked if transit and paratransit vehicles were included in
16 the program.
Mr. Skladzien replied haf they were not, as they came from an Enterprise Fund.
Council Merrmber'Healyasked what other rolling equipment was riot included.
22 Mr, Skladzien explained that rented equipment was not included.
23
~24 Council 'M'ember Moynihan asked ~if~ vehicles/equipmenfwould Abe added Ito the
25 program as soon as they were purchased.
26
27 Mr: Skladzien confirmed this.
28
29 Council Member' Moynihan asked. if this meant that eventually :all vehicleswould
30 be part of the program:
31
32 Mr. Skladzien answered "yes."
33
34 Council Member Torliatt asked for clarification about .the'Water f3esoucces and
35 Conservation vehicles.. She thought those were part of an Enterprise Fund,, while
36 the:other vehicles were part of the~General Fund. She wonde,ced how vehicles.
37 from-two separate funds could be cycled down to ,different de,partm"ents.
38 , .
39 Finance Q;irector Bill Thomas explained that vehicles in an Enterprise Fund
40 department; when being cycled down,. c9uld end .up in a General Fund
41 department.
Council ,Member Maguire was concerned about .the ability to works towards a
City fleet of energy-efficient. vehicles:
45 .
46 ~ Mr., Skladzien explained that~the program took vehicle emissions 'into:.
June 7, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 251 ~ ..
1 consideration. As soon as vehicles do not pass smog tests, they will be
2 eliminated.
3
4 Council Member Maguire clarified that he was. also concerned with fuel
5 efficiency. He believed gas would soon be $3.00 per gallon. He did not want to
6 see a cargetting 17 mpg continue to be driven when a new car could offer 30
7 mpg. He asked if an avoided cost analysis was part. of the program.
8
9 Mr. Skladzien replied that it was.
10
11 Council Member Maguire asked if alternative fuel vehicles could be rolled into the
12 program.
13
14 Mr. Skladzien agreed.
15
16 Council Member Moynihan asked if when vehicles are cycled down through
17 departments, they would remain part of the program.
18
19 Mr. Skladzien agreed. He added that program would strive to improve the
20 average age of City vehicles.
21
22 Council Member Moynihan asked Mr. Skladzien if he had looked at the City of
23 Santa Rosa's program..
24
25 Mr.:Skladzien replied that he had, as well as several others. The conclusion was
26 that Plan B was workable.
27
28 Council Member Moynihan asked if there was any creative way to finance vehicle
29 replacement "up front."
30
31 Mr. Stouder pointed out that the point of the program was that it could be
32 achieved incrementally. He noted that Mr. Skladzien's and Mr. Thomas's
33 expertise was very helpful.
34
35 Council Member Moynihan asked when funding would be initiated.
36
37 Mr. Thomas replied that more than $800,000 would be needed to start the
38 program. He assumed it would be "woven into"the FY 2002-2003 budget, as he
39 believed that was the earliest funding could begin. There is no money in the FY
40 2001-2002 General Fund budget for vehicle replacement.
41
42 City Manager Stouder noted that tonight's presentation was meant to encourage
43 Council to begin thinking of questions, solutions, and financial alternatives for the
44 program.
45
46 Mr. Skladzien thanked Bill Allen, Assistant Traffic Engineer, for his help.
Vol. 36, Page 252
June 7, 2001
1
2 Enhanced Street Maintenance and Reconstruction Program
3
4 Mr. Skladzien explained that Petaluma has 171 miles of streets. Sixty-five
5 percent: (65%) of those streets are in "fair to failed condition."The average
6 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is 30, making the. City's streets the worst in the
7 County. PCI is a system developed by the Metropolitan Transportation.
8 Commission (.San Francisco Bay Area), which utilizes a scale of 0 to-100 as a
9 measure of condition or serviceability.
10
11 The City must define the average and/or minimum. PCI. it wishes to maintain,
12 achieve a balance between spot maintenance, annual street maintenance
13 program (e:g:, slurry seal, micro surfacing, or overlay), and' Capital Improvement
14 Program (full.or partial street reconstruction):, and determine .how the: chosen
15 activities will be funded. The total cost of needed street repairs, including
16 overhead,. is estimated at $164.2 million. This figure does not ,include sidewalk
17 and gutters,, and does not take into accounf the City's aging underground water
18 and sewer system.
19
20 Mr. Skladzien went on to say that the cost of street maintenance increases
21 geometrically over time. Streets maintained in good to excellent condition, involve
22 a total annual maintenance. five to seven times less than. if the pavement is
23 allowed to deteriorate to poor or very poor condition. When pavement fails
24 completely, total reconstruction is required, at a minimum of ten times. the cost of
25 ,preventative. maintenance.
26
27 Two budget scenarios were presented. The first involved committing enough
28 money to bring the entire street system u.p to an average, PCI of 75 within five
29 years. The second involved current, minimal levels of funding. Something
30 somewhere between the two extremes would be potentially achievable.
31
32 If maintenance continues at the current trend of deferral, the cost of bringing the
33 sfreets.•to an;acceptable standard will likely increase by 42% over the five-year
34 period. The goal is to find a way to fund repairs at a sufficient magnitude to .halt
35 or reverse the. degradation of the system.
36
37 The report recommends that a Task f=orce be established to work with the
38 community to evaluate the atreet system,. as well as available revenue streams.
39 This committee could advise and make funding recommendations to the
4.0 community and Council.
41
42 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson congratulated Mr. Skladzien on the excellent
43 report. She said it had really "opened her eyes''to the thought of a ballot
44 measure to fund street repair and maintenance.
45
46 Councif Member Maguire asked if the City had considered a vehicle weight fee
June 7, 2Q01
Vol. 36, Page 253
1 system.
2 ,
3 IVIr. Skladzien replied that they had not,. and mentioned the possibility of a wheel
4 tax.
5
6 Council Member Maguire thought those using the streets the most should
7 contribute the most. Some cities have aweight-related fee structure.
8
9 City Manager Stouder suggested the Council schedule a special meeting to
10 discuss the issue further. .
11
12 Council Member Healy agreed that:further discussion was needed. Buy-in and
1:3 participation by'the public was .imperative. He read from the staff report, Exhibit
14 A, "For each $1 not spent for preventative maintenance at the 75% life point,
15 $22.50 will need to be spent within .two to three years to maintain a reasonable
16 street surface without major cracking, potholes, or depressions. if the $1 is not
17 spent, at least $36:00 will ultimately need to spent-for reconstruction."He thought
18 money should be focused on repairing streets that have not yet failed.
19
20 Mr. Skladzien noted that the-City is currently addressing emergency issues is a
21 reactive, not proactive manner.
22
23 Council Member Moynihan thoughf ;maintenance needed to be the Number One
24 priority.
25
26 Mr. Stoucler stated that the City's revenue system has failed the streets.
27
28 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson was also concerned with trip-and-fall liabilities
29 associated with :deteriorating sidewalks.. She thought the current "band-aid"
30 approach was not acceptable.
31
32 ADJOIJRIV
33
34 The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
35
36
37 E. Clack Thompson, Mayor
38
~39 -
40 ATTEST:
41
42 V
43
44 Claire Cooper., Clerk° Pro em
45