Loading...
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