71-0608_CC_Minutes_Adjourned Regular Meeting�) 0
June 8, 1971
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
The City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano, California,
met for a adjourned regular meeting on Tuesday, June 8, 1971, at
7:08 p.m. in the office of the Director of Public Works of the City
Hall.
COUNCILMEN PRESENT: Bathgate, Chermak, Gammell, Thorpe
and Forster.
COUNCILMEN ABSENT: None.
The Mayor asked that the minutes of the June 8, 1971 meeting be
held over to June 14 for approval and suggested that Council take up
budget study with the .review of the Planning Department budget as
the first order of business.
FUNCTION 4230 - Planning Department
The Mayor asked the Planner what work was involved for fiscal
1971-72 in revision of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Johns replied that
recent state laws had invalidated Section 5 (variances) of our
zoning ordinance and that major portions of the ordinance had to be
reworked. He said the major problem was to find a place on our zoning
map for every existing use that had operated under a variance. The
Mayor then asked about flood plain zoning mentioned in the Planning
budget and asked if this was not a matter of urgency and if there were
-not certain deadlines required for flood plain zoning by state or
county law. Discussion ensued, and it was determined that there were
no deadlines, however our eligibility for federal flood insurance
could be affected without such regulations. The Mayor then commented
that it appeared from the workload represented in the budget that it
may be the time to investigate the desirability of a City building
inspection operation rather than contracting for this service from
the County. It was suggested that this question be handled when
Council took up the building inspection budget.
The Mayor then asked the Administrator for his recommendations on
procedure for adoption of the budget. The Administrator recommended
that the budget be adopted as a complete document and asked that any
official Council changes in any of the budget sections be made by formal
Council action. Some discussion followed on Council review of the
budget to this point. It was the consensus of the Council that budget
study to this point had been informational with Council reserving its
official approval for all items at a later date.
Discussion then turned to the Planning Department's request for
a steno -clerk position. Councilman Bathgate asked if additional
furniture and equipment other than listed for the position in the
budget would be required. Staff replied that some surplus office
furniture had been acquired at a very good price some time ago, and
this would be used to furnish the position if approved.
Councilman Chermak said that he felt the City's clerical staff
needed strengthening, but that he wants to be careful not to be
�/S/7i
�1
overloaded in this kind of staff, The Planner, Parks & Recreation
Chairman and Administrator all described the workload being imposed
on the Planning Department, particularly in the clerical, stenographic,
public contact and record keeping areas. Mayor Forster concluded
the Council's discussion on the Planning staff by stating that this
Department in his experience had historically operated 20 to 30 per-
cent understaffed and could justify additional clerical help. The
Mayor then turned Council's attention to function 4240.
FUNCTION 4240 - Building Department
A lengthy discussion followed on the costs and benefits of a
City -operated building department. From records produced by the
Director of Finance, the Mayor stated that he identified nearly
$42,000 in building permit revenues in fiscal 1969-70, and he felt this
might pay for a City building inspection operation. The Administrator
stated that he had rejected staff's initial recommendation for a City
building inspector because assumptions on costs, revenues and the
number of people required for the department had not been adequately
studied and justified. The Administrator suggested that one way of
creating a City department would be to do it in stages. He said, as
an example, a building inspector could be hired by the City and
put to work in the County Department of Building and Safety to become
familiar with County techniques, procedures, forms and methods of
administration at which time he could then move his operation to the
City office. The Administrator also pointed out that more than a
field inspector was needed in the building department and minimal grad-
ing control and inspection as well as structural plan checking would
be required along with some clerical help.
Councilman Chermak suggested that since contract negotiations
were forthcoming on County building inspection service that the
$22,000 figure recommended by staff be left unchanged and a decision
could be made following budget adoption on where the building function
belonged. He commented that the City had organized to provide itself
with local home rule and the sooner we assume these necessary functions
the better the City service would be to its residents. The Mayor said
that the Administrator's idea of phasing in a building operation by
training a man at the County level was a good possibility and might
be offered to Council later as Alternate "A", with other alternates
including a fully staffed building department to be created immediately
and possibly a one-man department with other services contracted out.
The Mayor said that the City of San Juan Capistrano has a reputa-
tion of being the hardest City in the County to do business with in
terms of building and land development, and he felt that we must find
a way to improve this area of operation. Councilman Gammell asked if
the County would accept a plan where we hired a building inspector
and trained him at the County level. The Administrator said he felt
there was a good possibility of this. Mayor Forster asked staff to
bring back alternate studies for a City -operated building department
by June 28 and was told this would be done.
-2-
61-?177 /
22
FUNCTION 4311 - Engineering
Council then turned its attention to the engineering portion of
the proposed budget. Councilman Chermak asked staff what portion of
the engineer's fees paid by the City was recovered from developers.
The Director of Finance said that in general terms about 207o of these
fees came from developers.
Following a brief discussion on special engineering costs, the
Council determined to leave this budget unchanged for the time being
with a possible study on the need for a City engineering office in
mid -fiscal year. ,
Council then recessed at 9:08 p.m. and reconvened at 9:16 p.m.
FUNCTION 4180 - Civil Defense
There were no comments or changes on this budget.
FUNCTION 4170 - Leeal Services
Council and staff discussed the increasing cost for this function,
including growth of the City, its legal needs and requirements for
legal representation which accounted for the cost increase. Addi-
tionally, the need for a law library in the City offices for staff
and attorney reference was shown as one of the causes for budget
increase in this area. No initial changes were made.
FUNCTION 4220 - Fire Department
The reduction in costs for this operation was explained as being
due to a County decision not to charge contract cities for non-
structural fire department responses.
FUNCTION 4420 - Parks & Recreation
The Mayor opened the subject of the Parks & Recreation budget
with a comment that this budget item would require considerable
discussion and clarification. Chairman Paquin of the Parks & Recrea-
tion Commission presented a written statement to the Council urging it
to meet the community's health, safety and welfare needs through early ^
development of a parks system. After reading it, the Mayor said that th
statement was a generalized treatment of the matter but did not offer
any detailed justifications. Mayor Forster then asked Councilman Thorpe
for his comments. Councilman Thorpe responded that the Parks & Recrea-
tion Commission's problems as an advisory body could be attributed in
part to a lack of Council direction and action. He also observed
that perhaps one of the City's problems was that it was acquiring
too much land from developers instead of fees to properly develop a
park system. The Mayor opined that his philosophy was to take all
the land we can get since it will never be obtained at less than today's
cost. He also gave examples of areas where park -type use is available,
including school district property, as well as some open land. Chairman
Paquin observed that he felt Council had an obligation to give leader-
ship and should not be simply operating a land bank. He also pointed
6/9/71
-3-
23
out that the City's general plan identified specific park sites that
should be developed.
A lengthy discussion ensued on the various philosophies applied
to community park systems, their value, social function and desira-
bilities. The Mayor asked the Administrator if his proposed budget
as opposed to that asked for by the Parks & Recreation Commission
met all of the City's contractural obligations in 1971-72. The
Administrator replied that it did with the exception of an estimated
$30,000 cost for street improvements in the vicinity of the Troy
Homes Development Park. He said that this was still a matter of staff
debate as to whether the gas tax fund or the parks fund should pay
this cost, it was determined that the Director of Finance would
research this question to determine eligibility for this street pro-
ject under gas tax funds.
Councilman Chermak said that he wanted to see sources of adequate
revenue before he would authorize any major new activities as repre-
sented by the Parks & Recreation Commission's proposed budget. He
suggested that perhaps the taxpayers should have a choice in how
these new activities would be financed, including the possibility of
additional taxes. He felt that the general fund should not be obligated
to maintain local neighborhood parks. The Mayor brought up the Adminis-
trator's suggestion from his budget transmittal letter that park fees
from developers should not be projected as revenues in the year received,
but placed in a trust fund for expenditure in following years. He
pointed out that these fees are for development, not maintenance and
operation, and suggested that special assessment districts might be
created for the maintenance and operation of neighborhood parks. This
generated considerable discussion on the pros and cons of special
assessment districts and their equity to various segments of the
community versus the general benefit of parks to the community as a
whole.
The Parks & Recreation Chairman pointed out at this time that there
were sources of federal and state funds available for park development
and open space, however the City did not have sufficient staff to
investigate all these possibilities. The Administrator then suggested
that before M & O costs could be discussed informatively, the Council
should know what these costs were projected to be for the parks pro-
posed to be developed. After some study, it was determined that M & O
costs would be in the vicinity of $14,000 per year for the four parks
proposed. Chairman Paquin suggested that maintenance and operation
for the parks could be contracted out to local landscape and gardening
firms. Commissioner McCary said that he agreed with those Council
members who objected to local neighborhood parks and were in favor of
centralized major park facilities. He said that he also objected to
Council saddling the Parks & Recreation Commission with small park
land donations from developers and preferred to see major size central
park sites. He suggested that the City should use stream beds and
flood plain areas for large park sites to gain economy of maintenance
and better use. Further discussion followed on the Parks & Recreation
-4- ���i�
24
Commission's $48,000 M & O budget. Chairman Paquin explained the
budget break down and some costs including those for irrigation
systems. Councilman Chermak Qhallenged the estimated costs for
irrigation systems.
The Mayor asked if the Parks & Recreation Commission could
come up with some minimal development for the four parks in their
budget which would make them at least safe and usable if not fully
developed per Councilman Thorpe's earlier suggestion. Chairman
Paquin said that this could be done and would satisfy the Commission
more than that presently authorized in the budget at this time. The
question again arose on the probelm of maintenance and operation
following development. The Administrator was asked about the source
of additional revenue for parks maintenance and operation. He
advised Council that state law authorized a tax rate above and beyond
that allowed for general fund purposes for park and recreational
facilities.
The Mayor and Councilman Chermak favored taking the question of
an additional tax rate to the people as a ballot question. Councilman
Thorpe said that he needed more information on M & O costs but was of
the immediate opinion that new taxes were not needed and there was
room in general fund revenues for these expenses. Councilman Gammell
asked Councilman Thorpe how much he felt the general fund could afford.
Councilman Thorpe responded that this depended on how many parks and
to what extent they were developed.
The Administrator interjected that the maximum 10 acres of parks
_proposed in the Parks & Recreation Commission's budget would require,
in his opinion, a salaries and S1 & 0 combined budget approximately
between $20,000 and $25,000 in the first year. This cost would
include some initial capital expenditure for equipment. Chairman
Paquin informed Council that he felt the Administrator's compromise
suggestion for design and engineering of all currently proposed parks
was a good approach and that only fine grading of the park sites was
needed to make them at least minimally usable for the public. Council
concurred with this suggestion, and following a motion by Councilman
Chermak, seconded by Councilman Gammell, the Council unanimously voted
to rework budget page 84-A providing funds for engineering, fine
grading and consultant fees in the following amounts -for the specified
parks: Westport No. 1 - $4,540; Westport No. 2 - $17,000; Four Oaks
Park - $10,400; Troy Homes Park - $6,000, for a total of $37,940.
FUNCTION 4420 - Parks & Recreation Commission Maintenance and Operation
Budget.
The Council reviewed the Parks & Recreation Commission's maintenance
and operation budget. Chairman Paquin suggested that Object 200 for
Services - Professional and Technical, in the amount of $37,790 be
removed, leaving a balance of $1,995 for Commission activities and
staff salaries of $2,586 for a new total of $4,581.
-5- 6/8J7l
25
The City Administrator said that this could be inserted under his
recommendation column on a new budget page. The Mayor then asked the
Council for its feelings on an`April, 1972 ballot question allowing
the public to vote on a specific parks M & O tax rate. Council
consensus was that this was a generally good idea, but would study
it before making it an official proposal. The Mayor also reminded
Council that the question of adequate staff for the Parks & Recreation
Commission must be resolved.
Council adjourned its meeting at 11:04 p.m. to an adjourned
regular meeting June 10, 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber for addi-
tional budget study.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk