Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-1984REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 12, 1984 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, March 12, 1984 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Peter Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Drena, Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alleg- iance to the flag. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the following were approved: Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 27, 1984; Warrant Register in the amount of $1"~1,542.12; RESOLUTION NO. 23 - 84 ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 4929 RESOLUTION NO. 24 - 84 ACCEPT DEPOSIT IN LIEU TRACT NO. 4929 RESOLUTION NO. 25 - 84 ESTABLISHING VOTING PRECINCTS, POLLING PLACES AND A COUNTING CENTER AND APPOINTING PRECINCT BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1984, HERETOFORE CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 76-83 OF THE CITY COUNCIL An item related to granting a permit and waiving the permit' fee to the Lions Club for a parade was pulled from the consent calendar for discussion regarding possible conflicts due to the fact that 3 members of the City Council are Lions Club members. The City Attorney explained that under the doctrine of necessity, no conflict exists. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved a parade permit for the Lions Club St. Patrick's Day Parade on Saturday, March 17, 1984; CM-3-46 Regular Meeting March 12, 1984 On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority vote, the Council agreed to waive the fee for the parade permit. Cm. Moffatt abstained. HAZARDOUS CONDITION Dick Hopk~ns, a Dublin resident, expressed concern regarding a potential hazard to young children on the property next door to Iceland. He has observed children climbing on the roof. Mr. Hopkins requested that Staff investigate. The City Attorney indicated that Staff is on top of this matter and the condition is currently being reviewed by Staff and that an application on the site will be an agenda item in the future. RECYCLING Kathy Bendicini, Amador Valley Boulevard, addressed the Council and indicated that she was a union member of Local #85 and that they are fighting the deposit bill, which w~s Proposition 11 last year. Ms. Bendicini requested that Staff look into some kind of recycling area in Dublin. Mayor Snyder iDdicated he felt this would be a good idea as a fund raiser for various community groups. Cm. Moffatt suggested perhaps the Park & Recreation Commission could look into this subject. Mayo~ Snyder suggested this be a future agenda item and that Staff investigate possible sites that may be available for this type of a use. GENERAL PLAN Stan Harrop, Calle Verde Road, addressed the Council with concerns related to approval of the General Plan. He felt considerations with regard to sewage capacity, traffic congestion, etc., are all based on nearby industrial development and asked the Council if they, in good conscience, could approve a general plan allowing higher densities, prior to the time that the Pleasanton situation is resolved in the upcoming election. MONDAY LIBRARY SERVICES In October of 1983 the City Council entered into an agreement with the County of Alameda for the City to finance the cost of opening the Dublin Library on Mondays. The cost to the City for providing this service for the 9 month period is $29,600. CM-3-47 Regular Meeting March 12, 1984 According to the County Librarian's report, Dublin Library circulation has increased by 7.7 percent overall and its steadily increasing reference informat~oD requests have increased by 24 percent. It is apparent that the Monday service has been quite beneficial for Library users. The City's agreement with the County provided for a mid-year adjustment if the volume warranted such an adjustment. The County Librarian does not believe such an adjustment is warranted at this time. Ginny Cooper presented statistics to the Council and indicated that Pleasanton will begin opening their library on Mondays in April. Mayor Snyder stated he felt this was certainly a case where the dollars spent benefited many many residents of Dublin, and thanked Cm. Hegarty for his participation on the Library Committee. ST. PATRICK's DAY PARADE The City has received an inquiry from the Lion's Club St. Patrick's Day Parade Committee. They have extended an invitation to the City Council members to participate in the St. Patrick's Day Parade. Mr. Thompson requested confirmation no later than March 14, 1984. Following discussion, all Councilmembers with the exception of Cm. Drena indicated they would be available to participate. BARRATT SAN JOSE - PUBLIC HEARING A considerable amount of discussion, analysis, and negotiation regarding Barratt's proposal has occurred over the past year. After review of the original plans, and adoption of a Specific Plan, Barratt has submitted a revised proposal with 88 condominium and townhouse dwelling units rather than 112 "mini-condominiums"; a second access from San Ramon Road, in addition to access from Silvergate Drive; addition of 0.7+ acres along San Ramon Road that is currently City property. on February 6, 1984, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised proposal. At that meeting, Barratt submitted additional revisions to the revised proposal and made a commitment to enlarge the size of the condominium units, even if it resulted in fewer total units. About 15 residents spoke during the public hearing. The Planning Commission recommended approval, subject to the commitments made by Barratt, and detailed Staff review of the site plan prior to City Council public hearing. The San Ramon Road Specific Plan designates the land use on the subject site as Multi-family Residential, 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre. Barratt's proposal consists of 88 dwelling units on 6.9 acres, for a density of 12.8 dwelling units per acre. If the proposal were reduced to 84 dwelling units, the density would be 12.2 dwelling units per acre. In either case, the proposal is within the range permitted by the Specific Plan. CM-3-48 Regular Meeting March 12, 1984 Major design recommendations by Staff are: 1) Eliminate one building in the central portion of the site. This action will eliminate over building and overcrowding, provide for a more functional open area, and allow for a more attractive entry area. 2) Locate the garages a minimum of 6 feet. away from the earthquake fault zone rather than 1 foot away. This will provide additional safety and further limit potential damage from ground movement.' The County Geologist and City Building Official concur with this recommendation. Barratt did not agree with the above recommendations. Environmental impacts have been mitigated (noise, flooding, traffic, seismic) . Nathan Meeks, Barratt San Jose, addressed the Council. Mr. Meeks indicated Barratt had reviewed both plans and both were found to be very good. After careful consideration, Barratt agreed that Staff's recommendation and plan was the better of the two, and it would be acceptable to them. Cm. Hegarty had questions related to the 10 ft space to the west of the project and how the 20 ft buffer area that was required was affected. Cm. Drena questioned the status of the .7 acres which the City owned. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Dick Hopkins addressed the Council and indicated he was impressed with the Staff report and in what they have done, however, he still had concerns that the unit next to the creek Will experience flooding. Candy Larson, Corto Court, indicated she had viewed Barratt's Fremont project, and was impressed with the townhouses, but did not like the condominiums. Ms. Larson was concerned with the density, schools, and sewage problems. Dennis RanSdell, Calle Verde, felt a wood fence would deteriorate too rapidly, and that a mason~ry wall should be considered along Silvergate Drive. Mr. Ransdell also felt the area next to the creek should be developed as a park for the people living in the Barratt project. Kathy Waterson, Serra Court, felt this corner has been an eyesore for many years. She did not like the idea of commercial development there and felt Barratt's project has definitely improved. She indicated that surprisingly, she liked Barratt's proposal. She felt a masonry wall would be preferable to a wood fence. Harry Demmel felt a masonry, wall, if installed, should be coated with a silicon graffiti-proof coating. CM-3-49 Regular Meeting March 12, 1984 Jim Hjerpe indicated he and a group of homeowners had worked with Barratt on this project since May, 1983 in order to reach some sort of an agreement. Mr. Hjerpe thanked the developer, citizens and staff for all their hard work on this project, which, he now felt was very acceptable to all concerned. Brian Raley questioned the selling price of the units. Nathan Meeks indicated the prices would be between $70,000 and $130,000. Mr. Raley questioned the need for a traffic signal. Karen Highborn, Zapata Court, felt the City should establish a minimum square footage allowable of 900 sq ft. Gary Willet, Calle Verde, questioned the second access road and various traffic maneuvers. It was clarified that a u-turn will be allowed at the intersection of San Ramon Road and Silvergate Drive when the traffic signals are installed. George Zika, Peppertree questioned the timing of the widening of San Ramon Road. It was explained that under the current Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, the portion from Silvergate to Alcosta will be done next year. Martin Locus, Silvergate Drive, questioned the safety of outgoing and incoming residents crossing the bike path. He questioned if safeguards had been considered. Mr. Locus questioned what materials would be used on the roofs. It was explained that they would be wood shake, and the buildings would be a combination of stucco, wood and brick. Mr. Locus was opposed to the City selling its land to a developer. Stan Harrop, Calle Verde, felt Staff had made attributable accommodations, however, he felt he was still a squeaky wheel. He felt the prices are still very high for such small units and Dublin is being a.sked to accept a small, experimental unit and that mini-condo's were not acceptable. Mr. Harrop felt the City Council should ask the developer to come back with a proposal of 64 units, which would be 9 units per acre. Harry Demmel questioned if any provision for low cost financing or handicap access was being made. Mr. Meeks explained that there was no low cost financing anticipated, but the developer would absorb the cost to make a unit accessible based on what the particular handicap was of a potential buyer. Kathy Waterson stated she has been fighting these same battles since long before Dublin became a City, and why did things take so long to work out. Rich Alves, Padre Way, suggested there are probably a large number of people who don't know the process of how these things work. Georgean Vonheeder, Brighton Drive, suggested that any interested resident can have themselves added to the agenda mailing list for a very nominal fee. John Alexander mentioned that there would be a public hearing held by the Planning Coinmission on the following evening at Frederiksen School where people could provide input regarding the General Plan. CM-3-50 Regular Meeting March 12, 1984 Martin Locus, Betlen Drive, felt that residents have agreed to dispose of public lands, and the City Council should try to get the best deal possible on the .7 acres. Ben Maghsoudi questioned why the masonry wall will be necessary as it will cut off the grassy area from view. Staff explained that the wall will serve as security for the residents and the wall also will provide acoustical benefits. GeOrge Patterson, Calte Verde Road requested a sound wall rather than a wood fence. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty felt the City has a goal in mind and what must now be asked is "Does this project achieve this goal?" Cm. Hegarty felt the developer should be required to bring back the architectural aspects to the City Council for approval rather than Staff. Cm. Hegarty indicated he did not like the idea of a masonry wall, but preferred a rock wall. Cm. Hegarty commended the developer for the close way they have worked with Staff in resolving issues thus far, but there still remained a lot of work. Cm. Drena questioned the garage location. Staff indicated that the developer has complied with Staff's recommendation. Cm. Jeffery felt the entire community had worked hard on what this project could be and indicated she liked Exhibit A and would be willing to look at further resolutions in order to get going on the project. Cm. Moffatt addressed the possibility of the .7 acre being used as a park. He indicated there were several problems associated with this idea; i.e. no area for parking. Cm. Moffatt felt the best option was for the City to sell the land. Cm. Drena indicated he had strong objections to the City giving up the .7 acre. Staff indicated that if negotiations fall through on the .7 acres, the developer cannot go forward with his project. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 26 - 84 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION CONCERNING PA 82-033.1(R) AND PA 82-033.2(R) BARRATT SAN JOSE Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Drena, who expressed concerns related to flooding and the security of this area. CM-3-51 Regular Meeting March 12, 1984 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 27 - 84 APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA 82-033.1(R) BARRATT SAN JOSE Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Drena, who was opposed to establishing the density prior to the adoption of the General Plan. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the Council waived the reading and introduced an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance to permit the rezoning of the real property within the City of Dublin. Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Drena. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Drena, and by unanimous vote, the Council required that the developer bring back the architectural design and landscape design (the Site Development Review) to the City Council for final approval. RECESS A short recess was called. Ail Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. PERSONNEL The establishment of a personnel ordinance and related resolutions is a common practice among municipal agencies. These documents establish the way in which personnel matters will be handled by the organization. The content of these documents reflects the philosophy of the entity. The personnel ordinance is the basic plan which establishes the structure under which personnel matters will be handled. As a supplement to the basic foundation provided by the ordinance, more specific rules are included in the resolution entitled "Personnel System Rules". This document details the methods to be used in personnel actions affecting specified City employees. As noted in the ordinance, certain positions are excluded from the competitive service. The personnel rules describe the methods to be used for selection, filling vacancies, taking disciplinary action, conducting performance evaluations, providing for benefits, providing merit increases, establishing holidays, the use of leave and its accrual, and separation from City service. The personnel rules and regulations also refer to a salary and benefits plan and classification plan. These plans will be presented to the City Council at a later date. CM-3-52 Regular Meeting March 12, 1984 The introduction of the "Personnel Ordinance" and the adoption of the resolutions related to "Personnel Rules" and "Establishing A Classification Plan" will formalize the City's personnel system. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. No members of the audience spoke on this subject. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. The City Council discussed the ordinance and rules, questioned certain items and made comments and various changes. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and introduced an ordinance establishing a personnel system. ACTEB/ACAP JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AMENDMENT The City has received a letter from the Executive .Director of the Alameda County Training and Employment Board (ACTEB)/ Associated Community Action Program (ACAP) requesting the City to take the following actions. 1. Approve the City's membership as a JPA signatory by approving the attached JPA amendment. 2. Approve a contingency amendment which would include the City of Berkeley as a JPA member (contingent upon the County of Alameda and the City of Fremont approving such a plan of action) 3. Approve a contingency amendment which would delete the City of Berkeley from ACTEB's Service Delivery Area (SDA) should the Governor of the State of California provide independent SDA status to the City of Berkeley. In February of 1983 the City Council adopted a resolution agreeing to continue to participate in the consortium that makes up ACTEB/ACAP, and further, enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the members of the Alameda Training and Employment Board once the Governor of the State of California had designated this consortium as a Service Delivery Area as defined under the Job Training Partnership Act. The primary purpose of this program is to provide comprehensive employment and training services to the economically disadvantaged, underemployed and unemployed persons of Alameda County. The City's participation in this program will result in the provision of funds to the Tri-Valley area for the purpose of providing those services. The reasons for the requested amendment to the Joint Power Agreement (JPA) are as follows: 1. To update the language of the JPA in order to more accurately reflect the agencies funding sources. CM-3-53 Regular Meeting March 12, 1984 2. To include all member Governments as official signatories to t.he JPA. (Presently Only the County of Alamenda and Fremont are signatories.) 3. Spread the liability for ACTEB/ACAP activities to all signatories. Formally only the County of Alameda and the City of Fremont were liable for the misappropriation of Federal funds. The proposed change in the agreement would result in the City of Dublin bearing approximately 2 percent of the liability with respect to misspent funds in ACTEB and approximately 7.7 percent of the liability for misspent funds under ACAP. Thus far, the experience of the ACTEB/ACAP program has been good with respeCt to the disallowal of those expenditures under each of those programs respectively. To date the program has received millions of dollars in ~Federal Funds and has only been questioned with respect to a very small portion of the .total funding received by the program. 4. The amendment would combine the current separate ACTEB and ACAP JPA's into one consolidated agreement which more accurately reflects the fact that ATEB/ACAP is one not two agency's. Mr. Bloom's request with respect to approving two contingency amendments which would either facilitate Berkeley's membership as a JPA member in the future or delete the City of Berkeley from the Service Delivery Area are based upon Berkeley's request to administer its own program. This request has to be approved by the Governor; and it is anticipated that it will take approximately one and one half years to determine whether or not Berkeley will receive its own Service Delivery Area status. Mr. Jack Summer summarized the proposal for the Council and answered questions. Cm. Drena asked for clarification regarding the City's liability for misspent funds. It was explained that since Dublin has 2 votes on ACTEB, they would be responsible for 2% of the liability. Dublin represents 1/13 of the ACAP board. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 28 - 84 APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT BOARD/ASSOCIATED COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT DOUGHERTY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ADDITIONAL FUNDING On February 27, 1984, the City Council awarded a construction bid for the first phase (1,400 ft) of the Dougherty Road Improvement Project. The amount budgeted was $56,150 (Job's Bill funds $6,150, and Community Development Block Grant funds $50,000). The total first phase project cost is $59,600 with the following breakdown: CM-3-54 Regular Meeting March 12, 1984 1st Phase Low Bid Engineering & Inspection $ 44,600 15,000 $ 59,600 The total cost of the first phase is $3,450 more than budgeted. The Five-Year Capital Improvement Program provides for a two phase project which includes not only curb, gutter and sidewalk, but also storm drains. The first phase of the project was to be undertaken during Fiscal Year 1983-84 and the second phase during Fiscal Year 1984-85. Staff anticipated utilizing Community Development Block Grant funds for both project phases. Staff has contacted the Technical Advisory Committee of the Alameda County Housing & Community Development Program regarding the availability of grant contingency funds. The Technical Advisory Committee has indicated that if the City would contribute $45,000 to the project, the County would make available an additional $53,950 in Block Grant funds for the project. This would be consistent with the County's policy to require local financial partici- pation. To complete both the 1st phase and 2nd phase of the Dougherty Road Improvement Project, the revised engineer's estimate is $155,000. The overall project funding would be as follows: Total Estimated Project Cost Existing Funding Block Grant 50,000 Jobs Bill 6,150 City Contribution (Approx. 30% of total) Additional Block Grant Funds $155,000 56,150 44,900 53,950 Total Funds Available $155,000 The Housing & Community Development Program Staff has also indicated that should the City decide to complete only the first phase, Block Grant funds would be available to cover the $3,450 shortfall. It was explained that this was the Only area that will qualify for block grant funds. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the city Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for storm drains; authorized additional appropriation from Street ImProvement Reserve in the amount of $44,900; and authorized appropriation of $53,950 in CDBG funds. ABAG DUES In accordance with City Council direction, Cm. Jeffery attended the ABAG Budget Workshop at which the proposed ABAG dues increase was discussed. CM-3-55 March 12, 1984 Cm. Jeffery prepared a fact sheet which was presented to the Council for consideration. 1) ABAG - has 31 employees (down from 120 pre-Prop. 13) - has 98 city & county members; 2) Similar organizations in other states are funded by the states; 3) ABAG & MTC were created by the Legislature and are unique in that most states have just one organization that does regional planning (MTC gets most of the money); 4) ABAG will go under without a raise in dues and Sacramento will take over. (Note: The Legislature in Sacramento is comprised of more representatives from Southern California than Northern California.); 5) ABAG gives cities a local voice. We have a city representative assigned to ABAG; 6) Proposed dues schedule balances payments from cities and counties at a 50/50 split. (Currently, counties pay 60% and cities pay 40%.); 7) In addition to a raise in the split for cities, there is also a proposed graduated fee schedule for cities. Small cities, such as Dublin, will be charged a 150% increase. ABAG claims this is necessary because small cities don't currently pay enough dues to cover services provided to them (i.e. mailing). Dublin's dues would be raised 150% (from $755 to $1,858) to cover the raise in city/county share of dues, plus the raise in basic membership charge through the graduated fee schedule. Without ABAG Dublin will have to deal with Sacramento for planning issues. Therefore, Cm. Jeffery proposed that Dublin pay the dues increase to insure greater local control. Cm. Jeffery felt Dublin had two alternative proposals that it could support: a. Suggest a different split with the county. Some cities are proposing a split of 55% county and 45% city because the county has more political clout in ABAG and therefore benefits more. and/or b. Dublin could protest the graduated fee schedule as being unduly unfair to the smaller cities which are less able to afford the raise in dues. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to 1) Approve the raise in the city/county split; and 2)intro- duce an amendment abolishing the graduated fee schedule Cm. Jeffery also felt that Dublin should explore some type of legislation to get ABAG/MTC back together. SHANNON COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE At the regular City Council meeting on December 12, 1983, the Council directed the Parks & Recreation Commission to investigate the potential terms and costs associated with the lease of the Shannon Community Center. The Park & Recreation Commission provided Staff with input on the costs factors which needed to be investigated when considering acquisition of the lease of Shannon Center. In addition, they requested that the Building Official inspect the facility to determine its structural soundness. The Commission also met and toured the facility in order to have a basic understanding of potential uses of the building. CM-3-56 Regular Meeting March 12, 1984 Physical Condition The Building Official inspected the facility and provided a brief list of corrections. DSRSD is in the process of completing $35,000 in physical improvements at the facility. Included in interior work improvements is the installation of an overhead light near the bridge to improve lighting on the approach to the building. Cost Estimates To determine potential costs associated with the operation of the facility, Staff has met with Mr. Dave Stegman of the San Ramon Valley Community Center, Inc. (SRVCC). Council was presented with an exhibit outlining the current operating budget which SRVCC has shared with the City. Another exhibit showed an estimated cost of operation by the City. In part, the estimates were based upon information provided by SRVCC. The current arrangement which the Community Center utilizes for maintenance services is the use of an independant contractor. This contract provides for custodial services in addition to building attendant services during the day time hours. If the city is successful in obtaining the lease agreement staff would investigate the possibility of continuing with the same arrangement, or a separate agreement for custodial services and the use of part-time building attendants during the day time hours. Staff has estimated the total cost of operating the facility at approximately $72,345. The estimated cost of operation has only accounted for anticipated routine costs. Capital expenditures for signs identifying the location as the City of Dublin Recreation Department and minor interior modifications are not included in the analysis. Also, any costs associated with equipment and programs are not presented in the estimate. If the City acquires the lease, it will assume the responsibility for the interior of the building. It is important to recognize that the repair of any interior vandalism would become the City's responsibility. These costs are difficult to project at this time, however, the potential for these costs muSt be recognized. Liability The acquisition of the lease has been discussed with the City's Insurance Broker. Mr. Fernandez has indicated that the cost of liability would not be affected until February 1, 1985. DSRSD carries their own insurance on the contents of the building, which is property of the District. The lease agreement would require the City to assume the liability for the operation of the Center. Mr. Fernandez did recommend we require users of the facility to show proof of insurance. He has assisted the City of Pleasanton in the development of a similar program in which one day single event coverage can be purchased for approximately $25.00-$50.00. He has noted that the contractors instructing on-going classes would be required to show proof of insurance. CM-3-57 March 12, 1984 Revenue SRVCC has projected revenues equal to $48,000 during the current year. This revenue comes from renting the facility to various community groups and private individuals. The revenues do not include .revenues derived from special interest classes. In 1979, DSRSD determined that the cost to the District of "mothballing" the facility would be approximately $2,000 per month. Therefore, DSRSD entered into a management contract with SRVCC in which the Community Center received a $2,0.00 per month fee from the District. SRVCC is responsible for the interior maintenance of the building. The management contract has remained at the same level since 1979. As the property owners, it is in the District's interest to assure that their investment and the facility is adequately maintained. The management contract actually represents a cost which the district would incur even if the facility were not operating. Staff has requested information from DSRSD regarding the factors used in calculating the cost of "mothballing" the facility. If this data is available it will be presented at the meeting. Another exhibit identified the current rental rates charged for the use of the Center. Mr. Stegman has indicated that separate agreements exist for some groups, such as senior citizens. The agreements are for a flat fee and were based in part on the organization's ability to pay. Two factors may impact the amount of revenue derived from rental of the building. First, if the City undertakes a risk management program as suggested by our Insurance Broker, the fee schedule may need adjustment to remain competi- tive. The cost of insurance in addition to the existing rental .fees may prove to be more than surrounding facilities charge. Second, the City Council may wish to establish a fee schedule different than the current arrangement. Any reduction in fees collected would increase the general fund operating cost to the City. Net Operational Cost Given the fact that DSRSD would incur costs regardless of whether the facility was used, we anticipate a continuation of the management contract. Therefore, provided that the contract is at least $2,000 per month, the annual net cost of operation would be approximately $48,000. Estimated Cost of Operation Management Contract Net Cost of Operation $72,345 (24,000) 48,345 This cost would be reduced further by any revenue derived from renting the facility. SRVCC anticipates $48,000 utilizing their current fee structure. As noted above, if the fees were altered the City may experience a decline in this offsetting revenue. However, SRVCC estimates do not reflect the total amount of revenues realized from special interest classes. CM-3-58 Regular Meeting March 12, 1984 Other Considerations In developing the cost estimate Staff attempted to provide the most realistic setting as possible. Discussions with DSRSD Staff revealed that a significant amount of personnel costs are associated with the operation of a Community Center. The accounting for deposits, rental fees, and scheduling the use of the facility require adequate personnel. In addition, there is a substantial amount of follow up correspondance and bookkeeping which are affiliated with the operation. Proposal At their regular meeting on February 21, 1984 the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended to the City Council that the City present a proposal to DSRSD for a one year lease of Shannon Center. The proposal .would be similar to the existing agreement between DSRSD and SRVCC. The following items should be included as condition of any proposed agreement: A. City staff would negotiate with DSRSD the management contract of at least $2,000 per month. B. The City shall have sole control over the establishment of rental fees. C. City Staff will work with DSRSD to assure physical improvements which create liability for the City are completed prior to the City's operation. D. The lease proposal be for one year. E. The City would have the authorization to make minor modifications to the facility. Dave Stegman, SRVCC, addressed the Council and asked for clarification of what the Council's position was related to programming. Cm. Jeffery indicated she felt the City would want to look at this in the future. Mayor Snyder felt this basically would be up to the new Recreation Director to review and make recommendations. Cm. Drena stated he felt that if the City obtained the lease, it would try to fit SRVCC programming into any possible open slots. Cm. Drena felt that many of the programs currently being publicized by SRVCC are never-actually offered. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the City Manager to submit a formal proposal based on these conditions to DSRSD for their consideration. A final agreement would be brought before the City Council for its approval, however, it should include the conditions mentioned above and will be based on the existing agreement between SRVCC and DSRSD. CM-3-59 Regular Meeting March 12, 1984 OTHER BUSINESS East Bay Regional Park District Planning Director Tong indicated the City had received correspondence fr'om the East Bay Regional Park District related to representative from Dublin on a study committee. One of the funding mechanisms for the proposed park would be a new tax on Dublin. Mayor Snyder felt there are already inequities in the way in which the Park District operates in the Valley. Meeting dates and purposes of meetings were discussed. Council consensus was that Mayor Snyder would represent Dublin on this committee. SB 1850 (Fines & Forfeitures) Cm. Jeffery asked that a letter of opposition be prepared for SB 1850 which relates to taking away the fines & forfeitures allocation. She suggested sending letter to the entire judiciary committee. Committee Openings Mayor Snyder indicated he had received correspondence from Supervisor Excell indicating openings on 3 committees: Advisory Committee on Drug Abuse, Children's Interest Commission, and Highland Hospital Community Advisory Committee. These openings are in addition to the one on the Mental Health Advisory Board. AB 2912 Campbell Mayor Snyder felt the City should send a letter supporting this bill related to surplus school property with a copy to the school district. AB 3899 This bill relates to unemployment for school crossing guards. It was clarified that the City has no liability in that Dublin's crossing guards are actually employed by the County of Alameda. CM-3-60 Regular Meeting March 12, 1984 ACTEB/ACAP FUNDS Cm. Moffatt indicated that there was $106,000 available to be used as an outreach program in this area to place people in jobs. GENERAL PLAN MEETING City Manager Ambrose advised the Council that the General Plan would be coming before the Council on March 26th and asked if the council preferred hearing it at a regular meeting or scheduling a special meeting. Council consensus was that a special meeting be set up for the General Plan hearing and a date of April 5, 1984 was established. The location of the meeting will be arranged by Staff. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION - PERSONNEL At 11:55 p.m., the City Council recessed to a closed executive session for discussion of personnel matters. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:55 a.m. MaWr- ~ City Cle CM-3-61 Regular Meeting March 12, 1984