Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-08-08; City Council; Minutes* 7 B 0 F LS NCBLMf Meeting of: CITY COUNCIL (,4djourned Regular Meeting) Time of Meeting:. 7:30 P.M. Date of Meeting: August 8, 1978 ROLL CALL: E481 BALLOT MEASURE - ARGUMENTS The Mayor announce the deadline for filing arguments is August 21, 1978. He suggested a committee of two draft arguments for the Council's approval. Councilman Skotnicki volun- teered to serve on the committee and Mayor Packard appointed Councilman Anear to work with Councilman Skotnicki. -It was pointed out the Clerk will post a notice giving notice to the electors of the date after which no arguments for or against the measure may be submitted to the City Clerk. This would allow any group of citizens or an individual to submit an argument. C681 Councilman Skotnicki inquired about the current status of Assembly Bill 3695 and Senate Bill ' 1746, which w.ould eliminate CPO. Mayor Packard indicated that these had both been withdrawn and placed in a one year interim study period, specifically for Mayors and City Councils to give local input into next years legislation. He added that there was no need for the Council to take action at this time. BUDGET E291 Council discussed various means of making budge reductions and indicated a preference for im- plementing percentage cuts rather than program cuts. They agreed to select a general means of handling budget reductions that would apply to all departments, and to consider requesting specific departments to submit reports as to how they would make additional reductions. The majority of the council concluded that request- ing departments to make 30%-35% reductions would be too drastic and wou-ld eliminate some departments completely, and agreed to request that department heads from all departments sub- mit reports to the City Manager as to h.ow they would reduce their respective departments by 10%. Councilman..&ewis commented that he felt that some departments, such as Police, Fire, Paramedics, City Manager's and City Attorney's offices should not be cut. The question was raised concerning whether or not the City would be getting any surplus funds from the state. The City Manager commented that he had some doubts about the City's eligi- bility to receive surplus funds, and'added that if the City did receive funds from the state, it would be restricted from cutting back certai 4 - D 0 F b -2- August 8, 1978 Councilman Skotnicki referenced the memorandum of July 31, 1978 from Councilman Anear to the other Council members regarding the City Budget The memo, he indicated, proposed a.genera1 15% budget reduction in'all departments, with the exception of a 32% reduction in the Library budget and Parks and Recreation budget and a 33 redu-ction in the Chamber of Commerce budget. Also proposed was the postponement or eliminati of some of the items in the Capital Improvement Program. The Mayor indicated his concurrence with the re-evaluation of the Capital Improvement Proram since it has greater flexibility than the oper- ating budget. He expressed the .feeling that delaying some of the items in the Capital Impro ment Program would benefit person'nel and indi- cated that this would be an appropriate time for Council to discuss the matter. He indicate that Council should consider items other than those that are paid for by special funding and the gasoline tax. ".\f \ Council considered the first 10 items in the Capital Improvement Priority List submitted by the Proposition 13 Implementation Advisory Committee. Councilman SKotnicki questioned Item No.7, Monroe-Elm Avenue to Marron (design) due to the fact that it was included in last years Capital Improvement Program as well as in the proposed Capital Improvement Program for 1978-79. Council considered Items No.. 11-20.in the Capital Improvement Priority List. It was- suggested that Item No. 12, Pine Field Lighting be moved to No. 30. Counc'l'l discussed the proposed Swimming Pool, and four options were mentioned as possible courses of action: 1. That the pool" be built as proposed at the estimated cost of 1.2 million dollars. 2. That the pool be built without the extra features to reduce the cost. 3. Proceed-.%ith plans for the pool with the $433,000.00 originally budgeted ,for the project. 4. Eliminate or delay the pool project. Councilman Anear commented on the es'tf.mated annual maintenance cost of $100,000.00 for the proposed pool, and inquired if the Ci.ty would now have to bear the entire expense. Staff indicated that the School District, due to the loss of funds resulting from Proposition 13, does not presently anticipate that they will be able to share in the cost of maintain- ing the pool as p.reviously agreed. Councilman An,ear then suggested that Council reconsider the possibility of building a 25 meter pool instead of a 50 meter pool in order to reduce costs. NCILk4E ~ [ i ~ e- * ,. IT NClhME -3- August 8, 1978 Councilman Skotnicki commented that he would not vote in favor of a pool which would cost 1.2 million dollars to construct and $100,000.0 annually to maintain. Council inquired about possible results of cancellation of the pool project. Staff indi- cate'd that they were reasonably sure that re- negotiations could be made in the event that Council decided to cancel the pool project, and that the land deeded back to the School Distric Mayor Packard suggested, and Council agreed tha the pool project should be placed on the Council agenda for further consideration and action. 1 .. .. -.+. > Council considered Items No. 20-3.0. Council inquired about Item No. 22, the Vapor Recovery System, specifically, if the requirement date has been set by the San Diego County Air Pollu- tion Control Board. Council discussed moving Item No. 17, Repair of Storm Damage (AT&SF stor drain) to No. 21, and removing Item No. 23, the Sycamore, Chestnut; Maple - Storm Drain fro the Capital Improvement Budget for this year. r I Staff indicated that the storm drains are lo- cated near Carlsbad Boulevard, and are part of the Bike Lane P,roject. I Council discussed Item No. 24, City Hall Expan- sion, Members agreed that the expansion was. needed, but differed on how and when it should. be done. It was agreed that due to.the passage of Proposition 13, this pro.ject would have to re-eval uated. Councilman Skotnicki stated that the expansion was tpo large a project to undertake on a 'pay as you go basis, and suggested the possibility of a bond issue to finance it. He conceded, however, that clarification of the restrictions imposed by Proposition--13 would have to be made first. Councilman Lewis commented that the money set aside for City Hall expansion could be used to purchase land for the expansion, wh.ich in the event it were no+-ased, could be sold. Following further discussion, it was moved that Items No. 1-19, with the exception of Item No. 14 (Swimming Pool - to be discussed separately) would be retained in the Capital Improvement Program for 1978-79. Following diiscussion of the motion, Councilman Lewis amended his motion to approve projects Nos. 1-19, with the exception of Item 'N.o. 14 (to be considered separately) and Item No. 12 (to be eliminated) as part of the Capital Improv ment Program for 1978-79. € / I) B Cl -4- _. Further motion was made that Items No. 20 & 24 be mzde the next two priorities on the Capital Imprgvement Program. Following further discussion, Councilman Anear withdrew his motion. It was moved that Items No. 20 & 24 be added to the list of those previously approved as part o the Capital Improvement Program for 1978-79. Mayor Packard inquired about the amount of over time paid to Street Department employees. Staf indicated that it was high due to the amount of storm damage this past winter. .. -.'.A .\ Council returned to the matter of discussing a general percentage reduction for all depart- ments and referenced their decision of July 25, 1978 to seek a budget reduction of one and one- half million dollars. It was estimated that with the proposed cuts in the Capital Improve- ment Budget, a 10% overall reduction in the operati.ng budgets in each department would be sufficient to bring the total reduction t.o the one and one-half million dollar figure previous discussed by Council. F'ollowing discussion as to whether or not all departments should be requested to submit re- duction proposals for consideration, it was moved that every department be requested to report back with proposals to reduce their . department by 10%. Councilman Lewis indicated that he felt that certain departments could not afford a reduc- tion, while others, such as Parks and Recreatio and tbe Library could absorb a greater reductio It was moved that Council accep't the recomrnenda memo regarding minimum-.cuts in the Operations and Maintenance Budgets of 15%, with the excep- tion of 32% cuts in the Library and Parks & Rec- reation Department, and 33% cut in the. Chamber c Commerce Budget. KECESS: "-,- , Mayor Packard called a recess at 9:30 P..M. and Council reconvened at 9:40 P.M. with five mem- bers present. Council discussed the concept of prog'ram cuts and the possibility of financing some programs by charging fees to make them self-supporting. The majority opinion of Council was' that two departments in particular, the Library and Par.k! and 'Recreation Department could afford to cut more that 10% from their budgets. e tion of Councilman Anear in his July 31, 1978 WNClLME e. -5- Council discussed the Library in general, and made inquiries in several areas including: the number' of non-resident patrons; funds allocated to the audio visual department; shut-in services; the Bookmobile; Library hours; and the cost of and benefits from membership in the Serra Regiona Library System. Councilman Anear referenced statistics which indicated that 41% of the Library patrons are non-residents and suggested charging fees for non-resident use of the' Library. Mrs. Georgina Cole, City Librarian, responded to Council's questions. She commented that the Library may lose the benefits it receives from its membership in the Serra Regional Library System if it charges fees to non-residents. She stated that a large portion of the Library Budget is allocated to overhead, which the other individual departments do not have to account for. She indicated that though an in- .convenience to many patrons, budget cuts would reduce the number of evening hours the Library doing so. .. -.,y . '> would be open, due to the expense involved in that she did not believe that it could operate if the budget were cut drastical:y, and that it should not be cut more than the budgets of any of the other departments.. Following further discussion., it was the majorit opinion of Council that the Library and Parks & Recreation Department could afford to be cut more than the other departments. She'concurred with Mrs. Munn's statement that . the Library should not be cut more than -any othe department, and commented on various ways to help support it i.EcJuding charging fees to non- resident patrons and co-operating agreements with other cities. The nlotion died for lack of a second. 1 ~ . -6- It was moved that Council request the Parks & The Mayor indicated that the decisions made at this meeting were not final, that adjustments could' still be made, and the recommendations requested from-the department heads should be based upon and assuming that they will have to live with their recommendations. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:58 P.M. " -P"-