Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-1997 City Council Study SessionMINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 183 NORTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, JULY 149 1997 [N� 1"[10 ti 11 D I '-1 The City Council Study Session was called to order by Mayor Pape at 7:10 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Metze ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ALONGI, BRINLEY, KELLEY, METZE, PAPE NONE Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, City Attorney Leibold Community Development Director Leslie, Community Services Director Sapp, Police Chief Walsh, Fire Chief Seabert, City Engineer O'Donnell, Community Services Manager Edelbrock, Public Works Manager Payne, Assistant to the City Manager Best, City Clerk Kasad. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDIZED ITEMS Requests were received to address the following items and deferred to those discussions: Item Nos. A & B. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. November 4 1997, Municipal Election Ballot Measure Proposals. (F:72.2) City Manager Watenpaugh reminded the Council of the consideration proposed for the last meeting and noted the extended time frame. He explained that a subcommittee of the Task Force received considerable input from the community and has put together a new recommendation for Council consideration as a menu of services with three categories for yes /no votes. He noted that the public works services have been dropped from the proposal, and detailed the new proposal and the new breakdowns. He advised that there was a mailer to committee members unable to attend, to include their input on the final proposal for a ballot measure. PAGE TWO - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - JULY 149 1997 Joyce Hohenadl, Task Force Chairwoman, noted that a lot of input was received from the community, and the Task Force considered all input submitted. She presented an overview of the reviewd community input and noted that there were six options of how to break the tax down. She advised that the Subcommittee decided on a proposal with a reduction from $2.8 million to $2.2 million. She noted the past reductions in the General Fund service levels; the increased impact of Proposition 218 on the Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District; and ultimately the parks. She noted that the new proposal includes a six year sunset clause, at which time the revenue would end. She explained that the hope is that the other sources of revenue will increase and the economy will turn around by then. She detailed the breakout of the latest proposal, the overall breakout of each category, and the annual cost per year, per household. She noted the ability to vote on individual components of the package and expressed hopes for whole support from the citizenry. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley questioned the committees feelings on having four ballot measures on the ballot and whether it would water down the vote. Mrs. Hohenadl explained the thought was that people wanted to vote on the parks by themselves. She expressed understanding that if they were separate more people would have voted in support on Measure BB. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley noted the difficulty of getting a 66 %- 2 /3rds vote on each item. Councilman Alongi questioned whether people would not need to pay the tax after six years. Mrs. Hohenadl explained that this clause was intended to tell citizens it won't go on forever and noted that if the economy turns around there may be no further need for the tax. Mrs. Hohenadl clarified the property taxes and indicated that more homes will increase the amount somewhat. Councilman Alongi questioned where the money would come from for more police and fire. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified the intent of the advisory group and financial team with regard to further commercial and industrial growth with a more aggressive approach; and suggested that if the economy improves in six years the tax could go away, be reduced or be increased. Councilman Alongi indicated that it was misleading to say that a tax would be reduced in six years. He stated that the valuation will go up or the services will be paid by the taxes. Mrs. Hohenadl noted the possibility that there will not be a need for another vote for taxes, but the sunset clause intended to put a time limit on tax. Councilman Alongi questioned why they chose six years. Mayor Pape clarified the intent of a sunset clause was to give voters a chance to consider the issue again. Mrs. Hohenadl clarified that two to four years would not be enough time to build up revenue to assure proper funding; but they hope that in six years the commercial and industrial sites will increase. Councilwoman Brinley noted that the sunset clause will allow for a review of the programs and the funding. She stated that she Appreciate a sunset clause, as it says that the tax may not go on forever. Mrs. Hohenadl PAGE THREE - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - JULY 149 1997 noted that it is rare for taxpayers to see a tax go away. She stressed that the sunset clause tells people that there will be more input. Councilwoman Brinley concurred. Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest, indicated that she already opposes this and questioned why the proposal was to put parks and recreation on one instead of separate. She stressed that the key emphasis is parks and questioned what has been allowed for structure abatement and what allowed for graffiti removal. She further questioned the wetlands maintenance for the lake and the business license measure on the ballot. She reiterated that she opposes the proposed ballot for November and will fight it vigorously. Edith Stafford, 54 Elm Street, indicated that this is more fluff and stuff and she wouldn't vote to give one red cent under the current regime. She made note of the sunset clause and questioned when taxes have ever been repealed. She indicated that things are said to make you do what they want you to do, and suggested that there are all kinds of ways to circumvent what is said today. She advised that she will also fight vigorously against it and indicated that Council will find a way to get around what they say. She noted that people should be aware of people who will say anything to get what they want and don't have any intention of doing what they say. She further stressed that the City does not need the tax because it has a surplus. John Seepe, 15631 Half Moon Drive, made note of the last couple of study sessions with the task force and stated that he was allowed to participate. He explained that they are a group of citizens who are honestly trying to develop logical solution. He further stated that he pulled papers today and indicated that the parks are the reason he choose to do so. He explained that in past discussions of ballot measures the parks have not been addressed as a separate issue. He requested that parks be separate and recreation and senior center go with the Lake and public safety. He commented on Donna Scharff and Shari Van Horn's event on Saturday and noted good input received at that meeting in regard to the use of the reserves. He further commented that he would like to make sure that the measure has the best chance to pass in November, and this would allow the reserves used to open the parks to be restored. He noted that the sunset clause will hold the politicians feet to the fire and six years is a reasonable time line. He stated that he would like to see $650,000 separated in order to restore reserves should we choose to use the reserves to keep the parks open. Dick Knapp, City Treasurer, indicated that he just went over the proposal and again, Parks & Recreation and the Senior Center are all lumped into one item with public Safety and the Lake listed as separate items. He indicated that nobody on the committee approached him and asked what he would like to see and no one told him there were two meetings. He suggested that the $31 could be broken down into Paks and Senior Center for $22 and this will get more votes than with $31.00. He indicated knows there is money in the f� PAGE FOUR- STUDY SESSION MINUTES - JULY 14, 1997 coffers and there is no need to close parks and he is not sure why we are here. Donna Scharff, 15056 Danielle Way, thanked everyone for the opportunity of working with citizens over the weekend. She questioned the measure and noted the $3.85 per month and asked that the amount be explained versus the new proposal. She indicated that she did not understand the total amount. Ms. Scharff questioned the projected growth plan for the City and stated that if the City worked with the developers to build new tracts and the developers finance the development to the parks with the burden shifted to the system for maintenance then the City would need to grow by 1,000 homes to offset the cost of maintenance. She again asked what growth plans that the City has. She indicated she has not seen a tax repealed before, however she is not opposed to paying for growth. She questioned the line item for the Lake of $350,000 and explained that she is not very familiar with some things on the list. She noted need for improved water quality and questioned the overall cost of the Lake Management Project. She commented that $350,000 was not a whole lot of money to address water quality or fish kills. She also questioned the wetlands maintenance. She asked if the taxpayers are being asked for funds which are already existing in the budget or if this is a restoration of funds. Mayor Pape made note of the questions presented and clarified the structure abatement program and explained the process the City must take if homes are not safe to inhabit and are not brought up to code. He further explained that the City will either board them up or tear down and if not addressed properly will become an eyesore and crime problem. He stressed the benefit of abatement. Mayor Pape clarified the graffiti abatement program and the work which has previously occurred. He noted that this program lends a lot to the aesthetics of the community. He explained that the business license issue will be a forth item on the November ballot and only impacts businesses in the City. He stated that the sunset clause is designed to give the voters an opportunity to revisit the item in six years or it will automatically end and at at the end of six years it will still be the same amount unless the voters say otherwise. He explained that this would be found to be more favorable for inclusion in the ballot measure. He noted that he has heard two different proposals at the podium, and explained that he realizes that everyone has their own opinion as to how the measure should be and no one can ever get it exactly right for all 9,000 voters. He addressed recreation and stated that it is included because it was part of the LLMD with the parks and the funding went away at the same time. He further explained that the community center also closed with the closure of parks and stressed the logic behind restoration of those programs. Mayor Pape made note of the people who were very active on the measure BB campaign and indicated that any one of them would be willing to explain the dollar amounts of this proposal as well Measure BB. PAGE FIVE - STUDY SESSION MINUTES JULY 149 1997 Councilman Metze requested information on the Lake and wetlands issue. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that wetlands maintenance and operations obligation became the responsibility of the City through transfer of the easement of the Lake Management Project and now the City has an obligation to fund the operations and maintenance. Councilman Metze requested more detail in regard to the other request for funds. City Manager Watenpaugh noted Graffiti Removal and explained that it is a program which is no longer funded. He addressed the discussion of parks as an individual stand alone item and stated that it is the general feeling of community that what was done in other cities to address parks and recreation should be done here since they experienced success. He noted that the Lake was considered a stand alone. He clarified the costs of the original campaign vs. the current. proposal. He stressed that taxes were going away in contrast to past contribution from property tax. He explained that it is not one the larger sources of revenue whereas sales tax is the major factor for revenues and stressed the need to promote more business and industry. He addressed water quality and stated that $350,000 is not a lot of money for the Lake, but noted staffs endeavor to provide additional funds for the Lake based on smaller scale test projects. He noted that the purpose of the funding for the Lake is based on the intent to provide an example or experiment to show what will work for the Lake and is more like seed money which will give us the ability to go to the State for greater funding. He stated that excess revenue would have to be clarified unless the comment addresses the reserve and that is not excess. Mayor Pro Tem. Kelley questioned the Senior Center funding. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that it is currently funded with CDBG funds and explained the pass thru. He explained that currently no General Fund dollars contribute to the Senior Center and this was intended as a replacement for those funds on a permanent basis. Councilwoman Brinley noted that once the voters set something on the ballot and vote it in, the money is earmarked by law and cannot be used for any other purpose than what is designated on the ballot. She further noted that .. the City Attorney can clarify how the funds are earmarked which cannot arbitrarily be moved. She stated that the City Attorney is in route. Councilman Alongi questioned what was taken out of the measure. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that in Measure BB there was a category called "other services" or "service retention" and based on discussions that was removed from this proposal. Councilman Alongi questioned why parks /public safety were not put on the top. He indicated that public safety is behind parks and recreation and stressed the importance of public safety and felt that parks were more important than graffiti removal and abatement. He further stressed the need for a more thorough breakdown. He noted that the funds could be spent any way Council want within each category. He addressed the Senior Center and the contribution of CDBG funds and noted that with the funds from the Measure combined with county the amount that PAGE SIX - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - JULY 149 1997 the Senior Center will receive would be $110,000. Councilman Alongi stated that we do not even know what kind of station will be built to even know how much money we will need to support that station. He indicated that $50,000 for structure abatement is ridiculous and is not enough to even start the program. He addressed the Lake and questioned how much to spend on various items and indicated that there is no money for water quality and this must be addressed as well as the cost for fish removal. He stated that if Council put a menu together for further breakdowns it could be passed, but when we compete one category against another it will not fly and the public will think that Council is only manipulated the figures and services around. He addressed the sunset clause and stated that every two years there is an election and some Councilmember will have to face the issue on a ballot. He further stated that if the public wants a six year sunset clause, then there should be a one year review because if the number of homes increase, where does the extra money go. He explained that this needs to have a one year review and discuss how much it can be reduced since these are not City dollars, but rather the taxpayer dollars. He noted the future building program of the City and the number of homes which could be built and questioned - where that money will go. He stated that a six year sunset with one year review would be O.K. Councilwoman Brinley noted if there is an annual review and a change is proposed then there would have to be a special election. She stressed that a sunset clause ends the tax. There was general discussion regarding a sunset clause. She explained that at the end of the set time Council would have to go back and review the financial situation and if necessary, to continue funding it would have to be put out to another vote. She further stressed the cost of special elections and indicated that it would be defeating the purpose with the costs of elections. Councilwoman Brinley noted upcoming projects and the potential to give everyone an equal chance to consider what has come on line in the meantime. If the Measure has a sunset clause it means that it comes to an end and if the obligation has ended, then it has to go back out to the voter for another decision. She stated that at the end of the six years the City would have a better idea of the growth as a basis for consideration. She indicated that a condition should be included, like the other Measure, with the community receiving a statement saying where the money is, how it is being spent and where the City is going. She stated that the voters would have more confidence in the Measure if this action were implemented. She commented that the public should be able to see where the money is going and how it is being spent. Councilwoman Brinley stressed that there must be choices for the community and concurred with Mayor Pape that Council will not please everyone, but they do need to go with the general consensus and get it passed for benefit of the community as a whole. Councilwoman Brinley questioned the legality of the ballot; and if a Measure is passed and funds are earmarked, are they required to be spent that way the is called out on the Measure or can the funds be spent in other ways. City Attorney Leibold indicated that the funds would have to be spent as allocated on the ballot. Councilman Alongi questioned the recreation portion and asked where the PAGE SEVEN - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - JULY 149 1997 funds would go, and if the funds could be spent on just the Community Center if Council desires that action. City Attorney Leibold stated that they could. Councilman Alongi responded to Councilwoman Brinley with regard to the Council reviewing the item and not sending the item back for review and a vote. He explained that after Council reviews the changes that have occurred they can then decide to keep the tax money or they can reduce the tax. Mayor Pape questioned if Council could arbitrarily change the figures up or down. City Attorney Leibold stated that they could not. Councilman Alongi asked if the Council reviews annually with a sunset clause and 800 more homes were added to the community which increased the reserves; could the City say that they would not collect anymore assessments. City Attorney Leibold explained that Council could decrease the amount of the assessment, without going to the public for a vote, however Council can only increase or add new fees by a vote in a general election. Councilman Alongi stressed that is the reason for a one year review. Councilman Metze further questioned a review by the Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Kelley stated that in review of the proposed ballot measure she has been checking on some things and looked at the breakdown for the parks and noted that the utility costs are funded from LLMD, but staff is funded under the recreation portion. She stated that if Council did parks and recreation as a stand alone to reduce the possibility of jeopardizing the parks; move the recreation programs, community sports and senior center as a separate category. She noted that this would let the parks stand alone, however it would include the community center, operations and maintenance. She suggested moving the first line up and shift categories. She clarified the new category and stressed the choice without jeopardizing the parks vote. Mayor Pape noted the recreation category would be very small with that consideration. He suggested that information be presented at the meeting tomorrow. B. 1997 -98 Fiscal Year Bud eet. (F:30.1) City Manager Watenpaugh noted that Council was here for input on the _ budgets and noted that the City has hired a financial advisory team for short,,, and long term financing goals. He stressed the commitment to the team to get the financial plan on the right track. He gave an overview of the proposed General Fund, Capital Projects, LLMD, Lake, Park & Recreation, Stadium and RDA Budgets for a total of $17,942,750. He noted the General Fund Reserve projections, and detailed project reserves. He further noted the resolution for the budget, a summary by division of 1997 budget and the differences in those departments. Donna Scharff, 15056 Danielle Way, asked if the City has a government approved accounting system and noted her disappointment with the format of the meeting since it is hard to have a dialogue when she must wait for her answers. She stated that if the City has a government approved accounting system, is there a disclosure statement for closure of the books annually and n PAGE EIGHT - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - JULY 14, 1997 who is the governing agency for the City. She asked if the City had make any amendments to the accounting system and if so, she would like to see the changes made. Chris Hyland, 15191 Wavecrest, questioned the Lake and Park & Recreation supply figures and what they are for. She explained that when she spoke before she failed to ask where the funds for the State Park are addressed and asked how the park will be paid for. She stated that Mr. Watkins has sold all the equipment and questioned how the City will maintain it. She again questioned the Special Department supplies. Edith Stafford, asked if the audit for 1996 -97 has been done and asked for the name of the auditing company. She requested details of those supplies and stressed the need further details. Dick Knapp, City Treasurer, was hoping for more time to review and discuss the measures, but noted that the meeting was set up to be voted on regardless of who addresses the issues and what is said. He noted front page of item #37 regarding General Fund Revenue projections for a carryover of $2 million and explained that he did some calculations on the $5.3 million in the saving account on April 30th and noted the deductions at subsequent meetings from that account. He noted remaining balance and stated that there is enough there to keep the parks open. He stated that he could ask a lot more questions. John Seepe, 15631 Half Moon Drive, stated that he was going to relinquish time to Mr. Knapp to speak, but in answer to the question regarding the audit, the City needs 30 to 45 days to get all the documents in order to close the financial year and start the audit with reports in October time frame. Shari Van Horn, 133 South Massachusetts, stated her support of Donna Scharff and questioned the wetlands and where they are at in order to better understand what is being discussed and asked for clarification of this item. She noted that the citizens pay the Council to take care of the City and agrees 100% with Councilman Alongi that the parks need to come out separately. She commented that with only three items to vote on and listed together it will fail. She requested a list of the bids for park maintenance and asked how many times during the year does the City go out to get bids on the maintenance. She indicated that the bids are a lot cheaper than what the budget says. She questioned reimbursement for structure and graffiti programs and questioned why the City did not put the homeowners' backs against the wall regarding structure abatement and tear some houses down, then they will wake up just like the citizens of the community did when the parks were fenced. She indicated that she spoke with Mark Dennis regarding offers to put water on the parks and to this date not one City Councilmember has gotten back to him on those proposals. She stated that she hoped for answers and solutions. PAGE NINE - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - JULY 14, 1997 Mayor Pape asked the City Manager to answers the questions that were posed tonight. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that the City has an approved accounting system with an annual audit. He stated that the auditors have made an initial visit and will start by Sept. 2, with completion by the end of October. City Attorney Leibold explained that the City operated under the Laws of State of California and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that there have been no changes in the Accounting system over the last couple of years. He indicated that staff is working on two different areas regarding the State Park. One effort is to ascertain what it would take to bring up the Park to Code in phases and examine the potential revenue; and the other effort is to investigate doing a RFP for private operation and potential generation of revenue. He noted that he does not have a breakdown of the Special Supplies account, but he would be glad to provide a printout of the expenditures that this account covers. He stated that in the Lake Budget, Special Supplies would be for testing, and chemicals specific to Lake operations. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that there will be a breakdown with regard to agenda item #37 presented for approval tomorrow night. He stated that he can provide a copy of the agreement for maintenance for the wetlands and noted the location. He explained that it must be maintained in perpetuity.. He further explained that the City does an annual bid for park maintenance and operation, however we do not go out for bid mid year. He noted that the Tuscany Hills Homeowners Association felt that they could do their landscaping for less so the City did go out to bid. City Manager Watenpaugh questioned the term of the contract. Public Services Manager Payne indicated that it is a five year contract renewable up to five years. He noted that it is currently with Excel who is doing Lake Elsinore, Temecula and Murrieta. City Manager Watenpaugh questioned the maintenance of lights. Public Services Manager Payne explained that traffic signals maintenance is done by a company out of Orange County for an annual contract renewable up to five years. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that he is aware of the proposals frojn Mr. Dennis. He stated that he has discussed this with Mr. Dennis. and I14r. Hoagland. He noted that at the last EVMWD. Board meeting tl ^y added an item to address options to assist the City with water. He fiurther noted that the discussion went into other issues such as ballot measures and the :Board decided all items discussed other than water were not part of the issue, however they would be willing to work with the City regarding water issues. He explained that the option was presented to the City that if we wish to put up collateral, EVMWD would loan the City the water thru December, if the bill was not paid in December, the City would give EVMWD the property. He stated that it has not been addressed as to whether the City would be interested in taking this action. Pape noted the Structure Abatement program and indicated that we do put a lien on the property for the expenses incur and receive the funds back when the lot is sold. He further noted that City dollars are tied up and it is necessary to fund from the budget because payback time is uncertain. Councilwoman Brinley commented on the necessary legal steps to get the money back. W PAGE TEN - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - JULY 14, 1997 Councilman Alongi questioned Lake/Parks & Recreation budget and asked if Lake Management project was included in this budget item. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that it was not. He noted that the funds came from the RDA budget for Lake Management. Councilman Alongi indicated that the loss on the Lake is not $119,000, but more. He questioned the Stadium revenues and budget and asked whether it includes the annual payment or if that is found in the RDA budget. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the bond debt not included in the presented figure. Councilman Alongi stressed that this is the reason for the problems with the parks. He addressed the budget for Community Services /Senior Center and stated that he doesn't understand why the $80,000. City Manager Watenpaugh questioned the exact numbers for County reimbursement on CDBG. Community Services Director Sapp indicated that the County reimbursement is based on allocation in our budget. Councilman Alongi questioned $30,000 allocated by the Council. Community Services Director Sapp explained why the amount went up. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that it balances out the actual $80,000 budget. Sapp indicated that the City portion is $49,700 plus the County allocation nears the $80,000 figure. Pape noted the time spent with staff and pointed out that nearly every category is down. Councilman Metze questioned clarification of wetlands for tomorrow evening. ADJOURNMENT THE STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURNS ATTEST: VICKI KASAD, CITY CLERK