Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-28-2002 City Council/RDA Study SessionMINUTES CTTY COUNCIL/REDELOPMENTAGENCY STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2002 ~~~~**~~~~~,~~~~~,~~,~,~~~~~~~~~*~r,~,~~,a~*~,~*~~,~~~~,~~~~~,~,~,~,~*~~*,~~* CALL TO ORDER Mayor Keliey called the Study Session to order at 4:04 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COIJN'~IL~IEMBERS: BRINLEY, BUCKLEY, ffiCKNIAN, SCHI~"FNER KELLEY NONE Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, City Engineer O'Donnell and Deputy: City Clerk Paredes. l. A~;enda Review. Mayor Kelley confirmed the Presentations. Councilman Hickman questioned Item Na 4, regarding Casino Drive Bridge at San Jacinto River Seismic Retrofit and asked when the bridge was built and how they could accomplish a retrofit. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that the bridge was built in 1952 and a cross beam would:be installed to allow the bridge to move and flex during an earthquake. ; PAGE TWO - STUDY SESSION - MAY 28, 2002 Councilman Hickman addressed Item No. 7, regarding the Release and Indemniry Agreement with K. S. Chen and Reconveyance of Deed of Deed of Trust. He asked why sta€f eould no~ find the original doeuments. City Manager stated that staff had made a thraugh search and the documents were not found. He noted that the ~olden Castle 'i'entative Tract Maps i~ad expired a iang rime ago and ta ensure safety for the Agency and #he City, the City Attortrney had created a release agreement. He commented that he did not know if the document was ever signed. Councilman Buckley asked what the acYion obligaCed the City to do. City Attorney Leibold expiained that there was an ea~isting Deed of Trust recorded against certain real property purpoxting to secure obligations of the property owner in connectian to a Collateral Agreement. She further explained that to'the City's knowledge tl7e Collateral Agreement does not exist and it was the recollection of a11 the parties involved that the Collateral Agreement related to certain subdivision improvements on a different piece of property. She noted that the Subdivision Tract Map on the other piece of property had long ago expired; therefore there was no need to secure property for public. improvements since the Subdivision Tract 1v1ap had expired and woutd have to start anew. City Attorney Leibold stated that her office was concerned any time the City was asked to release an interest when the Agreement could not be found; therefore her office drafted an Agreement that would release the City from any obligations or any vesting of development rights on the piece of property that the Collateral Agreement would relate to; required that the developer agree indemnify the City in the event that the Collaterai Agreement was ever located and was different from what had been recollected; and that the developer would in fact comply with the terms of the Agreement and provide alternate security: She indicated that tfie purpose of this action was created fram an effort to sell the properly to which the Deed of Trust relates and it could not be sold or developed if the..lien should continue. Councilman Buckley addressed Item No. 5, regarding Signs of Support License Agreement. He questioned why the City. did not just do thia instead of givmg someone else 50% of the income. PAGE THREE - STUDY'SESSION - MAY 28, 2002 Assistant Ciry Manager Best explained that the program was done in a number of communities throughout Southern California and worked with a sign company that designs and creates the signs. She indicated that they would install, create and maintain the signs and iease them out on a semiannual basis. She further indicated that it would take more than justifiable staff time to monitor and create the signs. She : noted that the company had a client that was currently in the Lake Elsinore area and had requested that the company make a proposal to : the City; since the client was active in the Ciry. She noted that the client would like to advertise.their product as well as donate sorne funds: She indicated that one of the principals would be present at the Council Meeting and would bring a full color packet of their product. Mayor Kelley.questioned the youth groups:the company supported. ASsistant City Manager Best explained that each community decides where the funds would go. She indicated that in other communities the~ funds go to the Girl Scouts; Boy Scouts,. city programs; camper assistance and scholarships. She noted that as an example the signs could read, "K.B. Homes support the youth in the community". She further indicated that each sign couid be approved by the City prior to being placed on the trucks. Councilman Hickman addressed ItemNo: 21, regarding the Ordinance and Resolution establishing Development Impact Fees for Traffic Infrastructure, He asked for clarification of the amount of the City's T'[JMF. Ciry Manager Watenpaugh noted that it would be $1;197 per residential unit. Mayor Kelley clarified that staff had recommended Scenario No. 3. City Manager Watenpaugh agreed. Councilman Buckley asked if it was possible to mix and match the different scenarios. City Manager Watenpaugh expiained that the fees were based on the number of trips that were made and noted that Scenario No. 3 was the same as Scenario No. 2, however the City would underwrite the impact fee far commercial, office and industrial land uses by 30%. Mayor Kelley noted that the developers .who attended the Study Session were very comfortable with the fees: City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the developers did not have a problem with paying the fees, as long as they knew in advance. He e~lained that PAGE FOUR - STUDY SESSI.ON-- MAY 28,-2002 the Ordinance would not talce effect until 60 days after the second xeading: He explained. that-the developers tl~at had acquired their Certificates ofOccupancy would not be charged the fee. He indicated that it would a11ow the developers that haue projects being built and ha~e already received _their financing the oppartuni.ty to complete the projects witliout paying the fee. Councilman Hickman clarified that the developer was the person who would pay the fees. Gity Manager Watenpaugh explained that if t13e developer had-not submitted their permits and received their Gertifcate of Oceupancy by the end of the 60 days, then they would pay the fees. Mayor Pro Tem 5chiffner questioned th~ comparison,of fees between the City of Temecula and the City of Lake Elsinore. He .noted how difficult it was -to pin down the total amount of fees since each City varied. City ~ngineer O'Donnell explained that some cities have bridge'fees and traffic fees separately and the City added the fees together, therefore it appeared a~s a different amount, however they would work out to abaut the same amount. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner confirmed that the comparisons were fairiy accurate. City Engineer O'Donnell agreed. Councilwoman Brinley asked if a County representative was present at the Study Session. City Manager Watenpaugh commented that no representatives were present. There was general discussion regarding the people who did attend the Study Session and Mayor Kelley commented that the developers who attended the Study Session had no problem with the fees that were proposed. Mayar Pro Tem Schiffner clarified when the fee would go into effect. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that the fee would not be charged to those developers who ha~e pulled permits and wouId be receiving their Certificate of Occupancies. He noted that the Ordinance would go into effect 60 days from date of second reading and anyone that had not acquired a Certificate of Occupancy would be charged the TUMF. Councilwoman Brinley asked if the current developers had received notice of the proposed action. Community Development Director Brady stated that the same developers and builders that received notification of the Study Session could be notified regarding the Council's action. Councilman Buckley clari~ed that at the Study Session it was decided that all the persons on the developer/builder PAGE FIVE - ST[JDY SESSION - MAY 28, 2002 list were to get copies of the TUMF report. City Manager : Watenpaugh stated that a copy of the report was forwarded to those that were presenf atthe Study Session, however the persons that were not present were sent an executive summary of the report. City Manager Watenpaugh addressed Item No. 31, regarding Councilxnan Buckley's request for a SalaryBenefit Study. He noted that this acrion would require a parity study and was proposed in the Fiscal Year Budget of 2002/03. He noted that the last Parity Study was done in 198'7, and suggested that should Council wish to evaluate each staff position a study shouid be done to judge each position on function and not just job title or population. :Councilman Hickman questioned the amount of time it would take to do a Parity Study. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that it would take approximately two months to do the survey and evaluation. Councilman Hiclanan asked if negotiations would stop during the study: City Manager Watenpaugh stated that they would not. Councilwoman Brinley clarified that the Parity Study had been proposed for the 2002/03 Budget. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that the Parity Study would cost approximately $25,000 and if Council wished to do the study now, then Council would ha~e to allocate the money from the current budget. Councilman Hickman questioned the amount and asked if the City's staff was going to do the survey. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that it would be done by an outside consultant and presented an overview of the manner in which a Parity Study was conducted. Councilman Hickman asked Councilman Buckley if the request was intended for the current negotiations. Counciiman Buckley stated that the Parity Study was a separate issue and he felt that it should be done at the appropriate time. He indicated that what he was looking forwas something quick and simple that would provide input when he made a review of the budget. He commented that even if the Parity Study were:appioved now,-it would notbe done prior to review of the Budget. He further stated that he understood thatjob function.was important; however he had asked for something on job title and explained that he understood that although the management was wearing two hats, they were not working si~cteen PAGE SIX - STUDY SESSION - MAY 28, 2002 hours a day to ~11 both hats. He explained that what he had requested was a simple form, which would involve a fax to different cities and getting them rehuned. He noted that the Parity Study was a labor issue and was detailed and specific and part of the labor negotiations. He indicated that what he wanted was a comparison to other cities to provide information as Council goes through the budget process. He indicated that there should be changes to the fax to include Redlands and Norco; since Riverside was quite a bit larger. He asked for the following titles to be addressed: City Manager Assistant City Manager Public Works Directar Assistant Public Works Director Finance Director Assistant Finance Director Administrative Services Community Development Director Assistant Communiry Development Director Community Services Director/Parks and Rea Assistant Community Services Director/Parks and Rec. City Glerk Personnel Director Pubiic Information Officer City Engineer City Manager Watenpaugh clarified that part of what Councilman Buckley had requested was salary; salary plus benefits; and population for every manager in Riverside County. Councilman Buckley stated that was not his request. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the exhibit in the Agenda Item was part of Councilman Buckley's request and had been mailed and f~ed out to the various cities listed. ' He indicated that he had received two responses. Councilman Buckley asked why the enclosed e~ibit was sent out prior to the Meeting. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that as stated in the staff report, he had agreed to mail out the survey to a limited number of cities to provide general information, however that PAGE SEVEN - STUDY SESSION - MAY 28, 2002 was not the request. He stated that the request he had received would consist of a Parity Study and if Council desired that action, there would be a need for a budget adjustment. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that he did not feel that a short survey would be of value and that it could be misleading. Councilman Hickman stated that he felt that there was a need for a gauge. He stated that he did not feel that Corona, Riverside or Temecula should be part of the survey. He stated that the Assistant's wages were important; since he felt that if someone wanted to know what was going on in a City, the Assistant's would know. MayorKelley stated that tlie only problem with the survey was that titles would be compared and not the job description. Councilman Buckley stated that Parity Studies took a long time and were part of the labor negotiations:: He indieated that what he wanted was some numbers fo compare to see if the salaries were "in line" ar "out of 1'me". :Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that he did not feel that decisions shouid be rnade in that manner. Couricilman Buckley stated that it was his request for information and whether or not a Councilmember agreed with his request or not was not the point. Councilwoman Brinley asked if a Parity Study would 'mclude management and directors positions; City Manager Watenpaugh stated that as proposed, the Parity Study included all full time positions, however the information received from the faxes would provide a range and not benefits or job description. He presented an overview of the staffing in other cities. Councilman Hickman noted the state of the economy in the State of California and commented that it was important to ha~e a budget that was cut to the bone to handle the problems that the State would create for the cities. He stated that a11 Councilman Buckley was asking for was a comparison and he did not see what the problem was. Mayor Kelley stated that it was important that the rest of Council understood what Councilman Buckley was requesting to a11ow the rest of Council to digest the information; and receive clarification of the use of information received. She stated that it would not be a fair comparison unless the survey included a~ob description. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that he would send and fax out the survey sheets, however the information PAGE EIGHT - STUDY SESSION - MAY 28, 2002 returned would not give the whole picture. There was general discussion regarding the cities that shonld be contacted. CounciIman HicIanan addressed Item No. 32, regazding the amendment of the Ordinance, Resolution and Agreement for Animal Control. He asked if all parties were in agreement. City Attorney Leibold presented an overview of the proposed amendments and. indicated that an outline of the amendments could be found in the Staff Report: She noted that Animai Friends of fihe Vaiiey had asked for one specific change and that was to have "vicious Confu~ement" and "dogs deemed Vicious" changed to "PotentialIy Dangerous or Vicious Confinement" and "dogs deemed Pate~tiatly Dangerous ar Viciotts". She indieated that al~ items tha~ adc}~esse&"Victotts" wouid now state "Potentially Dangerous br Vicious" throaghout the text. Mayor Pro 3'em Schiffner questioned ~he: fines fo be imposed and asi~ed if ti~ey werE consistent witii surrounding cities. Corrununity Seruices Duectar-Sap~ stated thaY Yi~ey were a~d ~oted thaY the maximum fine alTowed by Iaw was $500, and Aiumat Friends of the Vattey suggestect that the arnourrt l~e towerecY to $25E} to be consistent with s~rro~nd~tg eities. iVlayor Keiiey addressed item No. 33, regarding the Park and Recreation Maintenance 33istrict Assessme~# Baliots. City Manager ~aten~augh explair~ed that the f~rst itex~ of consideratian was if Councit wished to cast the 76 ballots, and ifthe Council wished to vote on ttre battats; did Councit wish to vote for or against the forma~io~ o€ fhe Fa~k and Ree~eation 1~a~tenatiee Dtst~ts~. Councilman Hiekman asked if the Councilpersons who did not own property were ailowed to vote. City NSanager VVatenpaugh stateci that all of Councii wouid ~ote. City A~tflrney Leibold stated fi3iat prcjperfiy owners ~vere pr-0vided an opportunity to uote c~n the ballots that vuere mailed out. She indicated tIiat the City and Agency owned property and were emittect to cast batlots. 31~e e~rlained that ttre vote had no#hing to da witti eaeh individual member of the Council or the Agency, but rather the collective body as a whole. Councilman PAGE NINE - STUDY SESSION - MAY 28, 2002 Hickman questioned the cap that was placed on multiple acreage. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that the cap was designed to make it fair for the persons that owned individual residences. Gouncilman Hickman stated that he was opposed to people voting that did not own property. Mayor Kelley stated that Councilman Hiclanan did not personally own City property and as an elected body the Council and Agency were authorized to vote for the aforementioned property. Councilman Hickman inquired if the ballots could be split on the vote to half yes and half na City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the ballots would have to be voted as a block by the majority. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner clarified the number of votes thatthe.: Council and Agency would cast. Councilman Buckley stated that he was not in favor of the Assessment and even if he were in fa~or of the Assessment, he felt that the Council and Agency should not vote. He noted a pass and fail position created by the City ballots and felt that the City and Agency should exempt themselves. He stated that all public agencies should have been contacted to provide them the ' opportunity to be exempt, however since the ballot had been mailed, the opportunity had passed. He stated that the ability to vote by other agency would not profit that agency, however the votes cast by the City and Agency would have the potential to provide more income. He noted that it was legally defensible, however he felt that Council should do something more than legaliy defensible. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that the first vote to be taken was to decide if the City or Agency should vote and Councilman Buckley would have'the opportunity to express his opinion. Councilman Hicl~nan clarified that the City and Agency did not pay taxes on the property in question. Administrative Services Directar Boone confirmed and stated that if the other public agencies were billed, then the Ciry and Agency would have to be billed separately as well: Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted that if the Assessment were passed the City would still be paying 48%. of the cost of maintenance. Councilwoman Brinley stated thab the Assessment could only be! useii for the parks and could not be placed in the General Fund for other purposes. Councilman'Hickman questioned why the City did not increase the User Fees instead of pursuing the Assessment. He.noted the PA~E TEN - STUDY SESSION - MAY 28, 2002 b~dgetaty problems that the State ~vas experiencing and commented that the State would hit the Ciry for the money to balance their budget, as well as costs to the general taxpayer. Councilwoman Brinley noted the eost of User Fees-on the f~ilies ttrat partieipate in iaeai sports. Councilman Hickman noted that the children from the City do not pay a User Fee, but ratlier the famities from Wildomar, Lakeiand VilTage a~d Horsethief eanyan. Councilwaman Brinley agreed that it was designed for the people that lived 'm the-County, however the hard part was monitoring the use to insure payment. Community Services Director Sapp stated that currently it was up to the leagues to provide the information regarding User Fees. He noted that a11 of the leagues were charged for use of the lights, however there was a fee af $10:00 for non-residents, per cliilcUper season. Councilwoman Brinley questiaired if there had been discussion with the User Groups regarding the increase in cost to nonresidents because of the Assessment to residents, should the Assessment pass. Community Development Director Sapp stated that should the Assessment pass there would be a clear assessment of what the City residents would ha~e to pay and that amount would be assessed; to users that were nonresidents. Councilman Hickman noted"that the User Fees were at $26 per child per season and were then reduced to $10 per child per season and feltthat this should be addressed. Community Services Director Sapp stated that it was his understanding from the user groups that the nonresidents were happy to pay:the $10 since they did not have any other parks as options. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner clarified that 48% of the cost of the operations and parks would-be paid by the City would go to tlie dedicated fund as well: City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the City would be obligated under "218" to never fall below the 48% contribution to the Park and Recreation operations; and the 48% would not include recreation staff. He indicated that should the City fall below the 48%, then the City would have to reduce the Assessment. He noted that currently the City paid 72% of the COperations and Maintenance. Councilman Buckley questioned how much money would be generated to the General Fund if the City went from paying 72% to 48%.r Administrative Services IDirector Boone stated that itwould generate PAGE ELEVEN - STUDY SESSION - MAY 28, 2002 approximately one-half million dollars to the General Fund. City Manager Watenpaugh eaplained that the objective of the City was not to decrease services, but rather increase services to the 1eve1 prior to cutbacks. Councilwoman Brinley stressed that if the Assessment did not pass, the parks would not be closed. Councilman Hickman questioned what had happened to fhe fencing that the City purchased when the parks were previously closed. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that a portian of the fencing was used to fence the City Campground; a portion was used at the Stadium; and the rest was stored for replacement fencing. Redevelonment Agencv Chairwoman Brinley addressed Item No. 4, regarding the Park and Recreation Maintenance District Assessment Ballots and stated that it should be pulled and addressed as a Business Item. She noted that there was two actions called for in the recommendation and the issues would be addressed at the time of di'scussion: Boardmember Buckley questioned which parcels addressed the Stadium. Legal Counsel Leibold stated that the Stadium Assessor Parcei Numbers were 373- 210-040 and 371-030-021. Boardmember Buckley noted that they did not appear on the list for the Agency and should be made a part of that list. He asked if ballots were issued for that property. Lega1 Counsel Leibold stated that she would be checking on the Assessor's Parcel Numbers and the disposition of the ballots. Boardmember Schiffner questioned the procedure for casting the ballots for the Stadium. Executive Director Watenpaugh questioned the ability to obtain Provisional Ballots. Clerk of the Board Kasad eaplained the Provisional or Replacement Ba11at procedure. Boardmember Buckley addressed Item No. 2, regarding the Warrant List for May lb, 2002. He questioned the warrant paid to The Vons Company. Administrative Services Director Boone expiained that it was a sales tax reimbursement per the Owner Participation Agreement with Oak Crrove Equities that had been assigned to Vons Company far infrastructure. PAGE TWELVE - STUDY SESSlON - MAY 2$, 2002 ADJOURNMENT THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENTAGENCY STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:10 P.M. -. ~ .,..~~.~. ~, n...~ ~ ..,~, OF LAKE ELSINORE Respectfully sabmitted, ~ ~~~ A'a L. Paredes, Deputy City Clerk AT ST: ~ ;~ VICKI KASAD, C.M.C., CITY CLERK HiJMAN RESOURCES DIltECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE