Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.1 Approve 09-14-1992 Minutes (2) l ! REGULAR MEETING - September 14, 1992 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, September 14, 1992, in the Council Chambers of the Dublirr Civic Center. The meeting was called to-order at 7: 30 p.m. , by Mayor Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. ABSENT: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20) Mayor Snyder led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. PROCLAMATIONS (610-50) Mayor Snyder read and presented a proclamation declaring September 14- 18, 1992 as "Rideshare Week" , and urged all citizens who live or work in the City to practice responsible citizenship by ridesharing, bicycling, walking or using public transit during this week and throughout the year. Cm. Jeffery stated she is very involved in the rideshare campaign with her new job, and reported that City Staff put into practice some ridesharing activities this morning. She commended those who participated in the event. Mayor Snyder read a proclamation declaring September 22-26, 1992 as "The Week of Caring" and urged all residents to participate and support United Way's annual campaign. The proclamation was presented to Sue Flood. Ms. Flood stated they are hoping to have a very successful campaign this year which will be a joint effort with the Tri-Valley Community Fund. INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEE (700-10) Police Chief Rose introduced Sgt. Bill Eskridge, who is new to the Dublin Police Services. He has been with the Sheriff's Department for 10 years, and is a graduate of Cal State Hayward. He replaces Sgt. Bill Hillman, who is out due to an injury. Sgt. Eskridge.:stated he is glad to be in Dublin and looks forward to meeting and working .with everyone. :e :u :a : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ M - VOL 11 - 343 Meeting September 14, 1992 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. Mayor Snyder advised that an important benefit to the City of Dublin with the contract with Alameda County is that if someone can't perform their job, after 10 days, the County is obligated to put someone in the slot. Residents would not see this type of benefit if Dublin had its own police force. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 24 , 1992; Approved Change Order No. 3 for the Dublin Boulevard Extension Contract 92-01 and authorized the Mayor to execute same, and authorized an additional appropriation to Account 001-9690 from additional reserves (600-30) ; Accepted the City Treasurer's Investment Report as of August 31, 1992 (320-30) ; Accepted the Finance Report for the month of August, 1992 (330-50) ; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 113 - 92 MAKING COMMITMENT FOR CITY'S SHARE OF FUNDING FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) PROJECT IMPROVEMENT (Installation of Traffic Signal & Modification of Intersection at Dougherty Road/Sierra Lane) 1060-90 Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $891, 264 .46 (300-40) . REQUEST TO PLACE INITIATIVE ON WESTERN DUBLIN GENERAL & SPECIFIC PLAN REFERENDUM BALLOT (630-20) City Manager Ambrose advised that the City has received a request from the Eden Development Group to consider placing a counter measure to the referendum on the ballot for a special election, if the Referendum qualifies. They have requested that a ballot measure be developed which would address and resolve those concerns identified by the proponents of the pending referendum. Mr. McKissick read the letter that was submitted to the City related to their request and emphasized that the measure they are proposing would guarantee that no construction or development could take place unless and until concerns such as water availability, open space preservation, public trails accessibility, ridge line protection, traffic mitigation, financial liability, public service adequacy and the like are resolved. :e :u :a : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a ■ a ■ a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM — VOL 11 — 344 Meeting September 14, 1992 Mr. McKissick stated there is a lot of inaccurate information being passed around. It was clear in the minds of Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council that there were guarantees, but the guarantees have not been understood by the public at large. As the builder of the project, they are willing to look at all these items that have been addressed and answered and which they have already agreed to in the process. A number of years will go by before they begin the process of developing, but guarantees now would be in the community's best interest. The purpose of the measure would be to give the people of Dublin legal binding guarantees. Cm. Jeffery questioned how they are suggesting putting this in a form that can be voted on. Mr. McKissick stated there would be guidelines that the final plan would include regarding these elements. There appears to be a misunderstanding or miscommunication that this is not the case. This is the clearest way they can see to provide these guarantees to the people of Dublin. Cm. Burton questioned the impact of how this would be affected if we don't annex this land and the County does. City Attorney Silver stated the action the Council took in July was approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. It would go forward if the property is annexed. It is not a restriction on the land. City Manager Ambrose presented an analogy and discussed the fact that the City of San Ramon has a plan for the Dougherty Valley, but it is not effective because the Contra Costa County plan prevails. Cm. Jeffery pointed out that Contra Costa County took control because of a vote that occurred. Cm. Burton asked if Alameda County can start with whatever they want if we don't annex the land. Ms. Silver explained that the land is currently governed by the County's General Plan and the County's Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Moffatt asked if the referendum has a significant number of signatures and can go on the ballot if they were saying the City can develop its own wording. Ms. Silver advised that if the City Clerk determines that there are an adequate number of signatures and certifies the referendum to go on the ballot, the City Council will have 3 options: 1) they can repeal the Resolution; 2) they can put it on the November, 1994 general municipal election ballot; or 3) they can call a special election to be held within a specified time period as mandated by the Elections Code. Cm. Moffatt asked who provides the wording of the referendum. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 345 Regular Meetanq September 14, 1992 Ms. Silver stated the entire Resolution which was approved by the Council is the referendum and basically, the question being asked is if that Resolution should take effect. Mr. McKissick stated they are suggesting that the action be reaffirmed and acknowledged as a correct action and in addition, have a set of guarantees. It would be an addendum which would become rock solid rules and preservation guarantees to be followed in the planning process over the next few years. This would simply lock in certain aspects of the plan with policies being irrevocable. Cm. Burton asked how it would be on the ballot. Mr. McKissick stated he assumed it would probably be Propositions A and B. Their plan would be to look at the key issues which have been presented to the public. They would be identified under preservation guarantees. Mr. Ambrose stated there are a number of mitigation measures in the plan. What Mr. McKissick is proposing is to take those of most concern, and identify those as being subject to voter approval and which could never be changed except by approval of the voters. If the Council so directs, Staff would meet with Mr. McKissick to discuss the specific guarantees, with wording brought back at the next meeting. Mr. McKissick stated it became quite clear during the signature gathering for the referendum that there were about 8 to 10 key issues that the proponents felt were the most critical to the citizenry of Dublin and it is those issues that they feel an initiative could address. It would become law. Mr. McKissick clarified that they are not asking for an initiative which guarantees them a project, which was apparently misunderstood on the part of some members of the press, but rather, they are willing to put on the ballot those key issues of concern to the citizenry. Ms. Silver advised that there would be 2 measures on the ballot. If a special election is called, the voters would have a chance to say if a Resolution which the City Council has adopted should go into effect. Subject to a provision in the Elections Code, the City Council can place an initiative on the ballot which would be an affirmative action enacting an Ordinance. Mr. McKissick as an example stated there would be no construction or development that could take place unless it pays its own way, provides its own water and does not raise the cost of service to current residents and does not make the City and current residents responsible for costs. They are willing to put this into law. Cm. Moffatt asked if this would be a law that will affect all building in the future. Mr. McKissick stated it would only affect the West Dublin project. The real irony is that they have in all good faith been here for 3 1/2 ■ ■ : : m : m : N N 0 E ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 34C Regua Metfn September 14, 1992 years moving this project forward. They are not afraid to confront the issues and present this to the voters. Cm. Burton asked if this would set any precedence. Ms. Silver stated she was not aware of any case where this exact thing has been done, but there have been situations where a City Council placed things on the ballot with a citizen sponsored initiative. Cm. Burton questioned if this could be subject to litigation. Ms. Silver advised that any action on the part of the Council could be subject to litigation. Cm. Jeffery questioned what happens if both pass. Ms. Silver advised that if the Council directs this to go forward, one of the things she would research would be if the one that gets the most votes would prevail. The initiative would include some additional language to be developed. They would not conflict. Cm. Moffatt asked in the event that the referendum does not pass, would the Council still go ahead with the special election. Mr. Ambrose advised that both decisions would be made by the Council at their meeting on September 28th. Cm. Jeffery stated she likes the idea since there seems to be some distrust of what the Planning Commission and City Council did. This could put out some guarantees of what the people are asking for. Mayor Snyder clarified that the Council would only be directing Staff to prepare the necessary documents for consideration at the next Council meeting. Doug Abbott stated he was pleased that Mr. McKissick has finally admitted that those opposed to the project have legitimate concerns. He seems to have followed a page from the environmentalist manual on initiatives. , For better or worse, real change only happens through the initiative process. He should have to qualify his initiative in the honest way and stand in front of supermarkets and gather signatures just like citizens of Dublin did. This would be a bit of a problem since.' he is not a resident of Dublin. Of course, he can afford to buy signatures. If the City Council puts this issue on the ballot, then they will be making it clear that their real constituency is not the residents of Dublin, but it is in fact, the big bucks out- of-town developers and land owners. Cm. Jeffery advised Mr. Abbott that he had personally insulted everyone on the City Council. He is assuming that they are accepting money or something out of this. They have taken zip. He said he wanted the people to have a say and he- is now saying he doesn't want them to have a full voice. Their vote would have the strength of law. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 347 Regular Meeting - September 14, 1992 Cm. Burton stated he agreed that Mr. Abbott had just insulted everyone. They have gone through the public process and spent months and months on this. Mr. Abbott is making a very big mistake and they have every right to do what they are doing. They are objecting to allowing the public to have a fair chance to evaluate this. He resented very much Mr. Abbott's way of trying to intimidate. Yolanda Weaver stated she had never before been involved in political organizations. Thank God she was able to read about Mr. Abbott's efforts. He is not alone in opposing this. The Council sits there smugly and gets upset. Cm. Jeffery herself said she objected to special interests. The survey calls that were done were so slanted that it made her sick to answer the questions. Mr. McKissick was able to pay for the survey. She questioned why the big rush. She stated Cm. Burton will probably have a home up in the hills and get a special membership to the fancy golf course they are trying to get approved. She will be watching to see which of the Council move into the big homes there. Mayor Snyder interrupted Ms. Weaver and stated if would be necessary for her to conduct herself appropriately and in a fit manner. Ms. Weaver stated this was the first time she had spoken and she intended to finish. She didn't see anything wrong with her manner. Mayor Snyder stated she would do it his way or she's gone. She is to address her comments to the Mayor and not individual Councilmembers. Mayor Snyder demanded that there be decorum in spite of the emotions of this issue. Ms. Weaver stated the Council has said that if Dublin doesn't build there, Castro Valley will. Supervisor Mary King says there are no plans at all for the property. The County wants to keep it as open space. Mr. McKissick is just trying to confuse the voters, and if he doesn't agree with their efforts, she questioned why he just doesn't campaign against the referendum. Robert Patterson stated he wasn't clear on the question that Cm. Jeffery had asked City Attorney Silver about which would override the other; if the initiative would override the referendum or not. Mayor Snyder clarified that Ms. Silver said she would have the information at the next Council meeting. Frank Ruskey stated he felt the City Council had done its job and did all the planning. What has come out is the people have a question on the project. This issue will be debated in the next Council election. Citizens are intelligent enough to make decisions and they know what's going on. The Council should immediately respond to all those signatures and get this on the ballot and put it to a vote and get it over with. If people want to know what is happening, they can get involved. If they don't, that's their-- problem. People are concerned about the Dublin hills. Everyone present doesn't want the hills ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 348 Regular Meeting September 140 1992 touched. Hearings have gone on for years. Something has to happen over there, our economy is in trouble. Lee North stated he is a member of the Planning Commission and has lived here since 1966. If the referendum makes the ballot, there is every possibility that the project will not pass. What Mr. McKissick wants to put on the ballot are certain guarantees. These could only be changed by a vote of the people. The Planning Commission and City Council could not change anything in the future. He personally saw nothing wrong with this. If citizens want the land protected, this would guarantee it. Elliott Healy felt the Council should have to get signatures. He questioned if there is some law that allows the Council to do this. Ms. Silver advised that there are 2 ways to get something on the ballot. People can gather signatures or the legislative body can place an initiative on. Jerry Kekos questioned how we go about annexing the land. Mayor Snyder stated generally we would make an application to LAFCO and would have identified the fact that measures had been taken to prezone the property. LAFCO would hold public hearings regarding liability and determine that infrastructure and services are provided, or that the City has a means to do this. Then LAFCO would say if it agrees that annexation to the City is a reasonable thing to happen. Property tax agreements with the County would be developed which would allow this to happen and it then becomes attached to the City. Annexation fees are paid by the developer or land owner. Mr. Kekos asked who will pay the costs for the special election. Mayor Snyder stated in theory, the City is responsible, but it has not been determined who will pay. Mr. Kekos asked who will make the preservation guarantees. Mayor Snyder ,stated these are really political guarantees which currently the Council could change, but which could be placed with the voters. The Council would be bound by the electorate's decision. There has been a policy in place since adoption of the General Plan in 1985 which says that no future development can impact financially the core community. Mr. Kekos asked if there will be a complete bypass from the current City. Mayor Snyder stated there are 3 different avenues of access and egress: 1) Eden Canyon Road; 2) Schaeffer Ranch Road; and 3) future extension of Dublin Boulevard. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ s ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 349 Regular Meeting September 14, 1992 David Buely stated in all due respect to Mr. Abbott's comments, when major change comes from the initiative process, it can either do too much or too little. From a financial point of view, they can work for or against you. If not well thought out in advance, most initiatives passed in the State of California have had fundamental flaws in them. We are looking for a result that will be in the best interest of all. None of the questions can be answered until the draft language is seen. Hopefully, public comments will be allowed once the wording has been developed. He expressed concern that the legislative body might be delegating some of its authority to the voters that is not appropriate. Wording of an initiative is very complex and the City could run into some major problems. Mayor Snyder stated Mr. Buely's comments run parallel to his personal thoughts. People who represent are elected to represent. He honors and recognizes both sides of this issue. For whatever reason, if the City Council makes a decision to have an initiative, it is their responsibility. No one needs to feel ill about it. Cm. Burton questioned if his understanding was correct in that if they vote down the referendum and also vote down the initiative, everything is status quo. This is another option that has not been discussed, but which should be addressed. Mr. Buely clarified that what he was saying is that it will depend on the language. If legally binding guarantees are what the public wants, who enforces this? Mr. Abbott asked for clarification on what is meant by the referendum passing. Ms. Silver stated that the Staff Report at the next meeting will make this clear. The whole referendum process is confusing. An unidentified woman from the audience asked when the plan kicks in that was approved on July 13th. Also, when is the no turning back point reached. Mayor Snyder advised that the Council adopted a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for 300 + acres. The Specific Plan gives guidelines on how the property will be developed. It doesn't mean that those plans cannot be modified at some point in the future. Mr. McKissick is asking that the guarantees be given to the voters. Mr. Ambrose advised that we do not have a specific project plan. This would have to come back as a planned development with a tentative map. Mayor Snyder pointed out that we are a long way away from any development. His earlier admonition was a very general one that public meetings are to be conducted in a particular fashion. There is a method under which a public meeting must be conducted. He is the Chair of the meeting and stated he made no apologies for what he did this evening. No one's rights were breached. When someone is at the ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 350 Regular Meeting September 14, 1992 podium, they can only make comments to and through him. There will be fairness to everyone who wants to speak. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority vote, the Council instructed Staff to bring to the next City Council meeting, the exact wording for a Council initiative and also, the ballot wording for the referendum, based on the assumption that it will be certified. Cm. Moffatt voted against this motion. Cm. Moffatt stated he had concerns when you talk about the future. He felt the City Council should have the ability to make changes and should preserve their prerogative to make future changes. He stated he had no undue comments to make about Mr. McKissick's proposal. Cm. Jeffery stated she agreed in a way, but felt there has been enough misinformation and that most of the populace has not really looked into this. She would like to have a method for the public to really see if they agree or disagree after looking at the facts. PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR SINGLE WAY STOP SIGN ON VIA ZAPATA AT JUAREZ LANE (590-40) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Thompson advised that a resident recently requested that the City consider installing a stop sign on Via Zapata @ Juarez Lane. While the Vehicle Code requires drivers on Via Zapata to yield to drivers on Juarez Lane anyway, Mr. Thompson explained that City Staff is recommending installation of a stop sign as a safety measure. Cm. Burton asked if this was just a concern or if there had been any accidents on account of this. Mr. Thompson stated it is just a concern at this point. Mayor Snyder ,stated he agreed with the concept. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Snyder 'closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 114 - 92 APPROVING A STOP SIGN ON VIA ZAPATA AT THE INTERSECTION OF JUAREZ LANE ■ ■ ■ ■ ® ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ® ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 351 Regular Meeting September 14, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN TO INCORPORATE VARIOUS TECHNICAL REVISIONS (420-30) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Planning Consultant Gillarde presented the Staff Report and advised that the City's current General Plan was adopted in February, 1985. The GP needs to be amended to add certain technical revisions to be in conformance with State Law. Most of the changes involve adding references and updating the text. Several policies have been added to strengthen existing programs. Also, previously adopted GP Amendment policies have been inserted. Changes were discussed which relate to: Chapter 1. 0 Background; Chapter 2 . 0 Land Use and Circulation Section: Lane Use Element; Chapter 3 . 0 Land Use and Circulation Section: Parks and Open Space; Chapter 4. 0 Land Use and Circulation Section: Schools, Public Lands and Utilities Element; Chapter 5. 0 Land Use and Circulation Section: Circulation and Scenic Highways Element; Chapter 6. 0 Housing Section; Chapter 7 . 0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Conservation Element; Chapter 8 . 0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Seismic Safety and Safety Element; and Chapter 9. 0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Noise Element. Ms. Gillarde advised that costs to prepare the amendments are estimated at $2 , 320, and funds were included in the 1992-93 Budget. Cm. Moffatt questioned the location of the 7 historical sites in the City as listed on Pages 7-4 and 7-5 of the GPA. He specifically questioned the Alviso Adobe, the Green Home and the Palomares School. Ms. Gillarde stated this information was taken from the technical supplement. Planning Director Tong stated they are listed on an inventory sheet that Staff would need to review. Mayor Snyder stated the Palomares School is in the Palomares Canyon and the Green Home has been gone for years. We may need to make modifications and perhaps remove some of these from Dublin's inventory. Cm. Moffatt stated on Page 8-7 dealing with hazardous materials, he would like to see a Conditional Use Permit process required to develop the areas after they have been suggested by the developer. Mr. Tong advised that as the County's plan is approved, we will have the CUP requirement as part of the process. John Anderson stated he took exception to Page 5-1 related to trafficways. Residential collector streets may have a grade up to 15% allowed under special conditions and he felt this makes for a potentially unsafe condition. He suggested that streets be kept at 8% grade. Hansen Drive is approximately a 12% grade. :e: u: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL it - 352 lar Meeting September 14, 1992 David Buely felt that when you put homes and children on hills with steep streets, you have the potential for accidents. He stated he would like to see some stronger language inserted to indicate that these are to accommodate low volumes of traffic only. It would have been difficult to lower the grade on Hansen Drive. A 15% grade should not be admissible unless absolutely necessary and they should never be allowed to carry through traffic. Cm. Jeffery questioned why the grades were set at 12% and 15%. Mr. Thompson explained that Inclined Place has a 20% grade which was approved by Alameda County. It is difficult when you get up in the hills to avoid these grades. Cm. Jeffery felt there comes a certain point where steep grades and firetrucks just don't work. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. In response to a question, Mr. Thompson advised that these rules will apply to new streets going in. Cm. Burton questioned if there had been any accidents with runaway cars directly attributable to the steepness of the streets. Police Chief Rose stated he was not aware of any in the last 4 years. Mr. Thompson indicated there was a construction truck that went into someone's back yard. It is necessary to curb your wheels. Cm. Moffatt asked about changing the maximum grade in the residential areas to 6% and leave the 15% for special conditions by approval of the City Council. No one expressed a desire to pursue this. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority vote, the Council adopted (to become effective in 30 days) RESOLUTION NO. 115 - 92 ADOPTING TECHNICAL REVISIONS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Cm. Moffatt voted against this motion. CM - VOL 11 - 353 Regular Meeting 0 N 0 September 14, 1992 REQUEST BY CM. BURTON FOR CITY TO FURNISH COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETS TO CANDIDATES AT NO CHARGE (610-20) City Clerk Kay Keck presented the Staff Report and advised that Staff currently prepares 20 complete agenda packets for distribution to the City Council, Staff members, press, and 2 for citizen information. The citizen information packets are available for review by the public in the City Clerk's Office and at the Dublin Library. The Library packet is delivered on Thursday evenings and is therefore available to the public for perusal on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday. In addition, a copy machine is available in close proximity at the Library, should a member of the public wish to photocopy any portion of the information. The packet in the City Clerk's Office is available for review on Friday and Monday only, as this office is closed to the public on weekends. Ms. Keck reported that in order to produce an additional 4 packets, actual copy costs of approximately $96 per meeting would be incurred, and Staff time required to complete the overall agenda preparation would be increased by 20%. Cm. Burton stated his reason for requesting this is to be fair. There are only about 3 more meetings before the election, and having the packets available just seems to be a way of recognizing a legitimate candidate's need to inform themselves on the issues. Cm. Jeffery stated she opposed this because of the costs involved and also, in a sense, Cm. Burton is asking for the City Council to single out a certain group. If they want their own packet and are willing to pay for them, this would be okay. She felt by providing them at no cost, they would be using public money in an inappropriate way. She did not feel it passed Cm. Burton's fairness test. The information is available for anyone to review at 2 different places prior to all Council meetings. Cm. Moffatt asked if a fee could be included when the candidate files papers to run for office to cover the cost of providing packets. Ms. Silver stated any fees would have to be voluntary. Cm. Burton made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Moffatt to provide packets to candidates at no charge until the election. This motion was defeated "due to dissenting votes cast by Cm. Howard, Jeffery and Mayor Snyder. Cm. Howard stated she didn't feel the City should spend the money now. CM - VOL 11 - 354 Regular Meeting September 14, 1992 REPORT ON STATE BUDGET IMPACT ON 1992-93 CITY BUDGET (330-30) City Manager Ambrose presented a report which identified reductions in the City's revenues as a result of the recently adopted State Budget. The State Controller has estimated the City of Dublin's loss in property tax to be approximately $342 , 272 . This is a permanent reduction. All Cigarette Tax money has been shifted from cities to the State. The City of Dublin received $32, 207 in Cigarette Tax in FY91-92 ; however, no Cigarette Tax was included for FY92-93 . Trailer Coach In-Lieu Tax has been shifted from cities to the State and Dublin's estimated loss in FY92-93 is $6,850. Mr. Ambrose advised that the State Budget results in a shift of an estimated $381, 329 in revenue away from the City of Dublin. Of that amount, the City will be short $349, 122 in FY92-93 Budget as adopted. In addition to the loss of this revenue, it is likely that the City will be impacted by increased charges from Alameda County as a result of the reduction of County revenues by the State. Mr. Ambrose explained that he was proposing a plan of action to address the loss in revenue. He suggested that Staff be directed to prepare a report to the Council which covers areas: 1) Operational Savings (without reducing service) ; 2) Potential Reduction in Services; 3) Additional Revenues; and 4) One-Time Savings or Cost Deferrals. Mr. Ambrose advised that once this material has been presented to the City Council, the Council may wish to set a public hearing to review the issues before taking final action. Mr. Ambrose reported that on a good note, it appears that the City will be ending up in the black for FY 1991-92 . Cm. Jeffery stated she felt that anyone who had read Senator Boatwright's recent comments could see what a shell game they are playing in Sacramento. What they are doing is amazing and just doesn't make sense. She questioned if the City would be looking at all services. Mr. Ambrose advised that every operational service the City provides would be reviewed. A special task force consisting of a mix of management and non-management employees has been formed to look at all possible revenue sources for the City. This would include brainstorming for new sources of revenue. They are to prepare a report which is due on September 16th. Cm. Burton asked if we would be getting into sources of funding. Mr. Ambrose stated the focus would be mostly on the City's General Fund. Cm. Burton asked is there was any consideration on taking the property tax situation to litigation. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 355 Regular Meeting September 14, 1992 Cm. Jeffery advised that this would be discussed at the next League of California Cities Revenue & Taxation Committee meeting which is to be held on Friday, September 18th. Mr. Ambrose stated another possibility would be if the county auditors, who control the monies, refuse to turn it over to the State. If they refuse to make the changes the State demands, it will end up in the courts. If the State can take 9% from us this year, they could easily take 20% next year. Cm. Burton questioned if, during this review, we will look at the option of paying for a service by having a fee. Cm. Moffatt stated he felt this process was really a great idea and he was 100% behind it. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to proceed with the identified process to address the impacts of the State's Budget on the City of Dublin. OTHER BUSINESS Business Task Force Community Forum Meetings (470-50) Mr. Ambrose advised that the Business Task Force has been working on a business forum to solicit input from the business community. On Wednesday, September 30th, 2 meeting times have been scheduled; one at 7 : 30 a.m. , and the other at 6: 00 p.m. , here in the Regional Meeting Room. Volunteer Recognition (710-70) Cm. Burton stated he felt there should be some kind of recognition for the people who have served on the City's various commissions and committees. Cm. Jeffery pointed out that this recognition was planned as part of the 10 year celebration and the Council cut it from the budget. Personnel/In-Lieu Services (700-40) Cm. Burton asked if Staff could look into seeing if there is a way that the City could allow seniors to perform some type of in-lieu service to offset the cost of their garbage pick-up. CM - VOL 11 - 356 Regular Meeting September 14, 1992 State Legislation (660-40) Cm. Jeffery gave a brief report on Propositions 167 and 166. She recently heard presenters discuss the pros and cons of each. The Revenue & Taxation Committee did not support either one. Proposition 167 is very anti-business and they felt it would cost Californians many jobs. They felt it would be economically devastating to California. Proposition 166 relates to mandatory health insurance and they did not feel it would solve the problem. It would place a burden on small businesses. A solution has yet to be worked out. Cm. Burton stated he would like to see the City Council adopt a resolution opposing Proposition 167 and requested that this be agendized. Council Administration (610-80) Cm. Jeffery requested that the Council start thinking about doing something for Mayor Ken Mercer, who will be retiring from the City Council in Pleasanton. A dinner is being held for him on October 21st. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 357 Regular Meeting - September 14, 1992