SANTA ROSA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1998
COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL, 100 SANTA ROSA AVENUE
REGULAR MEETING

3:30 P.M. - STUDY SESSION - FINANCING OF LONG-TERM WASTEWATER ALTERNATIVE

The Study Session was called to order at 3:35 p.m., following interviews for the Personnel Board. Mayor Wright, Vice Mayor Runyan, and Councilmembers Berto, Condron, and Wiggins were present. Councilmembers Evans and Martini were absent.

Stan Lindsay, Director of Administrative Services, said the City is in the process of the preparing for the upcoming sale of wastewater revenue bonds to provide funding for the preliminary phases of the Geysers project and necessary improvements to the Laguna Treatment Plant. The sale of these bonds differs from others sold by the City in that the proposed issue will be primarily variable rate taxable bonds, not fixed rate tax exempt bonds.

Dan Carlson, Utilities Capital Project Coordinator, provided an overview of how the $32.5 million in funds generated by wastewater bonds will be spent. The $30 million would be taxable and would be used for the Geysers recharge project. The other $2.5 million would be tax exempt bonds sold for upgrades to the Treatment Plant which are required to keep it in compliance for the long-range project through the year 2020. He explained why it is feasible to include funding for the expansion with this bond issue.

Mr. Carlson described the $30 million in funding that will begin the Geysers recharge project and related it to the overall estimated project need of $115 million, which includes $85 million for the Geysers recharge project and $30 million for agricultural reuse expansion. These bonds do not include funding for the agricultural component, since "seed money" was available from the last bond issue. The $30 million will help fund the design contract, right-of-way acquisition, and the first construction contracts. He indicated that it is not known how much of the $85 million for the Geysers project will have to be provided through bonds. If the goal of obtaining the $30 million in grants is achieved, it will reduce the remaining amount to $55. Other sources may reduce this amount further.

Mr. Lindsay noted that the presentation made to Council at this Study Session was also made to the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) at their meeting of July 16. The BPU endorsed the concept. This matter will be brought back to the Council for approval on August 18. However, because variable rate taxable bonds are a different type of financing, staff wanted Council aware of what is being proposed.

Bill Madison, Bond Counsel for Jones Hall, gave an overview of the reason for selling variable rate taxable bonds. He briefly discussed the types of bonds issued by the City since 1988, all of which have been tax exempt. He explained the IRS rule for tax exempt bonds, clarifying the difference between private and public use and noting the way in which "public use" is defined by the IRS and Congress. He explained why the long-range wastewater project would normally be defined as "public;" i.e., because the City's motivation is to develop a weather-independent system. However, in this case the pipeline is being built to provide wastewater to companies that will be making a profit from its use. The IRS has been asked to make a ruling on this matter so that a determination can be made as to whether these bonds can be tax exempt. However, until that ruling is received, and in order to move forward to obtain funding, it is being recommended that the $30 million bond be issued as a taxable, variable rate one. If a tax exempt ruling is received, the bond could then be prepaid, with a 30-day notice and tax exempt bonds issued. This program will provide the City with the greatest flexibility in funding.

Sohail Bengali, Stone & Youngberg, discussed the difference between municipal and corporate markets and what the proposed action will mean in terms of selling the bonds.

Mr. Lindsay, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Bengali responded to Council questions. It is anticipated that the IRS will make their ruling within a month or two; however, they could take up to six months or a year to do so. The ability of the bonds to be redeemed was further noted, as was the flexibility proposed to be included in this program. There was some discussion regarding what other entities are doing related to variable rate interest. In addition, Mr. Madison briefly explained that the focus of this matter with the IRS is the contract for the Geysers project. If a similar contract were in place with the farmers, the issue would be the same.

Mr. Madison discussed the resolutions which will be coming before Council at their meeting of August 18. He discussed the Letter of Credit which will be secured to "insure" the bonds. Mr. Bengali briefly discussed what the banks take into consideration when determining whether to provide a Letter of Credit and said that eight out of the twelve banks solicited submitted bids for the City's transaction.

The Study Session adjourned at 4:05 p.m.

4:00 P.M. - REGULAR SESSION

1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

Mayor Wright called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m.

2. CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Wright, Vice Mayor Runyan, and Councilmembers Berto, Condron, and Wiggins.

Absent: Councilmembers Evans and Martini.

3. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS

None.

4. CITIZEN PUBLIC APPEARANCES

Jack Osborne indicated that he has not yet received a response to his questions regarding: 1) a possible violation of the Brown Act related to discussions about the City Manager's and City Attorney's compensation, and 2) why Hewlett Packard was not able to bid on a spectrometer. He referenced a newspaper article regarding the cost of housing being adversely impacted by sewer and water demand/services fees. He explained why he disagrees, noting that the value of the property increases after the sewer and water has been connected. He stated that the response to the Grand Jury Report should be made in public and that the public should have an opportunity to comment on the response.

Rich Scheblik, SEIU Shop Steward for the City's Maintenance Unit, referenced comments he had made at the previous meeting regarding the IBN and mediation processes. Since that time, the second session has been held with the State Mediator. He expressed his concern that Management's positions on key compensation issues and a fair share/agency shop election have not changed since April or during the mediation sessions. He stated that an agreement will not be reached in light of what would essentially result in a pay cut as a result of inflation. He extended appreciation to coworkers, constituents, and family members who showed their support by attending this meeting.

Tony Ryback, City Maintenance employee, expressed concern that the Unit is working without a contract. He also expressed concern regarding and discussed the inflation rates in Sonoma County. He pointed out that a number of jurisdictions have reached contract agreements and discussed the COLAs (cost of living increases) given by those jurisdictions. He referenced the COLA and benefits package given to Santa Rosa's Transit Unit and the upcoming COLA for the Police Department. He referenced the best offer made to the Maintenance Unit, 2.5%, and pointed out that the withdrawal of that offer is counter to the negotiations process. The current offer has no value and is unacceptable to the Unit. He discussed the level of service and the quality of work provided by the Maintenance employees, noting that benchmark studies have indicated that these employees ranked highest nationwide.

Debbie Bautista discussed her concerns related to the changes proposed in parking fees and the parking situation in the Downtown. She expressed her belief that Downtown employees are being criticized for abusing the parking system and keeping shoppers out of the Downtown. She stated that Downtown employees are also shoppers. She asked Council not to require that employees park on the roof levels. She suggested that more parking should be provided in the Downtown, that Downtown parking should be set for two hours except on Fourth Street, and that the businesses should be offered more incentives to purchase parking permits for employees. She asked that parking garages be made safer. She also asked Council not to refuse to pay employees in a way that would keep up with inflation, particularly in light of the City's reserve.

Maria Peluso, Business Agent and Political Director for SEIU, discussed the number of households in Santa Rosa that have been identified with union members; i.e., almost 3,000 registered voters. She suggested that they are looking for a labor-friendly Council that will authorize a fair share vote. She requested that Council reconsider their position and authorize that vote.

Frank Ribera, SEIU Shop Steward, discussed morale issues which have resulted because the employees are working without a contract and because there is no fair share agreement. He asked Council to allow the fair share vote. He expressed a need for cohesion in the work place. He noted that the 2.5% COLA was offered before the failure of Measure C and that the Maintenance Unit is feeling the brunt of that failure, although the Unit endorsed and supported the Measure C campaign. He asked Council for assistance in reaching an agreement.

John Jones, Maintenance employee and Union Steward, said he is a member of the SEIU bargaining team. He read a statement which voiced his frustrations with the year-long negotiations process. He referenced the IBN training and discussed the purpose of the IBN process. He discussed the negotiations environment, which did not coincide with what was intended by the IBN process. He expressed concern that a sense of teamwork has been lost. He indicated that the major problems seemed to occur with the failure of Measure C. He said he is concerned that without assistance, and without a compromise and a return to the IBN process, no agreement will be reached.

Tom Drumm, staff member at SEIU Local 707, noted that a large number of agreements were reached during the negotiations process. He then referenced Measure C and discussed its impact on the process. He explained why he does not believe Measure C was intended to be a citizen mandate that the maintenance employees should not receive a COLA. He spoke about the collective bargaining process and suggested that the City has not bargained in good faith since the failure of Measure C. He discussed the package to which SRCEA had agreed which did not include a COLA, explained why that agreement should not limit the Maintenance Unit, and explained why the Council has an obligation to bargain in good faith with the Maintenance Unit.

Dan Adams, City Bus employee, reminded Council of comments he had made at a previous meeting regarding fair share and asked that Council allow a fair share election.

Beth Morrison, representing the Youth Group of Girls, said that the topic the girls are studying for the month of July is citizenship and country. Therefore, they are in attendance to observe how government operates on a local level. The girls, who are fifth and sixth graders, introduced themselves.

Tom Jackson presented Council with a letter from the Active 20-30 Club and said that a tentative agreement has been reached with Home Hospice regarding their involvement with the Annual Tree Lighting Ceremony. He asked Council to enter into another three-year agreement with the Active 20-30 Club to host the Tree Lighting Ceremony. He said the Club will make arrangements for Home Hospice to participate, as well as other service organizations that may be interested. Mayor Wright said that this item can be discussed during Mayor's/Councilmembers' Reports and placed on a future Consent Calendar if Council concurs.

Mayor Wright asked City Attorney Rene Chouteau about the status of his memorandum to Council and Mr. Osborne regarding the Brown Act Violations and the inability of Hewlett Packard to bid on the spectrometer. Mr. Chouteau provided Council with copies of the memorandums and noted that Mr. Osborne would be provided with the responses after Council has had an opportunity to review them.

Mayor Wright responded to some of the previous comments. She noted that Council has not yet received information regarding the meeting with the State Mediator, but will receive an update during the Closed Session. She again noted that if there are no objections by Council, the request by the Active 20-30 Club regarding the Tree Lighting Ceremony will be placed on a future Consent Calendar.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of July 21, 1998

MOVED by Councilmember Condron, seconded by Councilmember Berto, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE THE JULY 21,1998 MINUTES AS PRESENTED.

6. STATEMENTS OF ABSTENTION BY COUNCILMEMBERS

None.

7. CONSENT ITEMS

7.1 ORDINANCE ADOPTION - CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO THE PERS MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACT

Item 7.1 was pulled from the agenda. It will be acted on at the meeting of August 18, 1998.

7.2 ORDINANCE ADOPTION - AMENDING CITY CODE - MOBILEHOME RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE

7.3 RESOLUTION - SANTA ROSA DRUG SUPPRESSION IN THE SCHOOLS GRANT PROGRAM

7.4 RESOLUTION - VOIDING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR WALGREENS DRUG STORE PROJECT

7.5 RESOLUTION - SUMMARY VACATION OF FORMER ALIGNMENT OF RAILROAD STREET SITUATED ACROSS FRONT OF DAYS INN

In response to Councilmember Wiggins, Mr. Blackman confirmed that Item 7.3 funds one officer.

MOVED by Vice Mayor Runyan, seconded by Councilmember Wiggins, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF:

ORDINANCE NO. 3376 ENTITLED: ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA AMENDING CHAPTER 6-66 OF THE SANTA ROSA CITY CODE TO CLARIFY APPLICABILITY OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS AND SPECIFY THE TIME FOR MAKING REQUIRED DISCLOSURES TO PROSPECTIVE HOMEOWNERS.

MOVED by Vice Mayor Runyan, seconded by Councilmember Wiggins, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXTS OF:

RESOLUTION NO. 23643 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA AUTHORIZING A THIRD YEAR OF PARTICIPATION IN THE SUPPRESSION OF DRUG ABUSE IN THE SCHOOLS GRANT PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING.

RESOLUTION NO. 23644 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA SETTING ASIDE AND VOIDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WALGREENS DRUG STORE PROJECT.

RESOLUTION NO. 23645 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA SUMMARILY VACATING, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS, A SUPERSEDED PORTION OF RAILROAD STREET SITUATED SOUTHERLY OF THE STREET'S INTERSECTION WITH THIRD STREET.

8. SCHEDULED ITEMS

8.1 REPORT - BID REJECTION - BRUSH CREEK RESTORATION

Colleen Ferguson, Supervising Engineer, made the staff presentation. The Brush Creek Restoration project was established in the City's Capital Improvement Program on January 7, 1997, with an initial financial contribution of $50,000 from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB). The funding was the result of a fine imposed by the NCRWQCB on private parties for the illegal discharge of pollutants to a creek. In addition to the $50,000, all other funds for the project design and construction have come from private, federal, state, or county sources.

The purpose of the Brush Creek Restoration project is to enhance habitat for steelhead, other fishes, songbirds, small mammals and amphibians, and to improve water quality while maintaining the carrying capabilities of the channel. Many organizations and individuals have participated in the planning and design phases of the Brush Creek Restoration project, have pledged a contribution toward the project construction, and/or have supported the project in other ways such as writing a letter of support for grant funding.

The project was advertised on June 22 and June 29, 1998, and bids were received on July 15, 1998. Two bids were received, ranging from $406,406 to $437,865. The apparent low bid was rejected due to a deficient bid bond. The second low bid was 156% above the Engineer's estimate of $170,540. Ms. Ferguson briefly explained why the bids were higher than anticipated. The original estimate was prepared at the time when it was anticipated a contractor would be working on the Calloways subdivision adjacent to this project, which would reduce equipment moving costs and costs for bringing in boulders. Additionally, because of the current construction season, the contractors are exceptionally busy and are having difficulty locating subcontractors. She pointed out that if Council does not reject the bids, an additional $191,485 would be needed to build the project.

It is recommended by the Community Development and Public Works Departments that the City Council, by resolution, reject all bids for Contract No. 97-034, Brush Creek Restoration, and authorize the Public Works Department to re-advertise the project at a later date.

Ms. Ferguson responded to Council questions. Meetings will be held to determine if the specifications can be adjusted to facilitate a lower bid. She cited examples of what may be possible. She indicated that an attempt is being made to locate additional funding sources, as well as to secure an extension of the $150,000 California Department of Water Resources/National Fish and Wildlife Foundation matching grant. In addition, staff will discuss the feasibility of proceeding with a portion of the project.

MOVED by Councilmember Wiggins, seconded by Vice Mayor Runyan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF:

RESOLUTION NO. 23646 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR CONTRACT NO. 97-034, BRUSH CREEK RESTORATION.

8.2 REPORT - CONTINUUM OF CARE PLAN

Karen Weeks, Housing Programs Specialist, made the staff presentation. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that each locality develop a Continuum of Care Plan for homeless services. Such a plan must be in place before nonprofit organizations can apply for a current round of homeless funding. Staff from the County of Sonoma, the City of Petaluma, the City of Santa Rosa, and numerous community groups have been working to develop this Plan in order to meet the deadlines as established by HUD for the current funding round which could result in $700,000 coming to Sonoma County.

The Housing Authority reviewed and endorsed the Plan at their July 27 meeting. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to review this Plan at their July 28 meeting.

The agencies applying for funds under the applications associated with the plan are: Sonoma County Housing Authority with Face to Face, Community Support Network, Sonoma County Mental Health for housing vouchers for homeless special needs; Catholic Charities for landlord outreach and housing retention; and Committee on the Shelterless for their Armory program and transitional housing program.

It is recommended by the Department of Housing and Redevelopment that the City Council, by motion, approve the Continuum of Care Plan.

Vice Mayor Runyan, Councilmember Berto, and Councilmember Condron noted and commended the various agencies and citizens for their involvement in the community outreach.

MOVED by Councilmember Berto, seconded by Councilmember Condron, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF:

RESOLUTION NO. 23647 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA APPROVING A COUNTYWIDE CONTINUUM OF CARE PLAN.

8.3 REPORT - ANNUAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BUDGET

Stan Lindsay, Director of Administrative Services, made the staff presentation. Annually the City Council must approve a budget for the benefit assessment districts that exist within the City of Santa Rosa. The districts are the Railroad Square Assessment District and the Central Parking Service Facilities District, Series 1998 refunding bonds. These proceedings are not affected by Proposition 218.

Upon approval of the respective assessment district budgets, the calculated annual assessment levies against properties within the boundaries of the districts will be forwarded to the County of Sonoma for placement on the 1998-99 tax roll. The 1998-99 budgets for the two assessment districts are attached as an addendum to this summary agenda report. Mr. Lindsay pointed out that the amount of the assessment for the Railroad Square Assessment District is increasing only by $2,277. However, the amount of the assessment for the Central Parking Services Facilities District involves a major change. The Council authorized the refunding of two bond issues in April of this year. Additionally, the interest costs have been reduced on that debt. As a result, the assessments for each year for the next 17 years will be less than if that debt were not refinanced. Mr. Lindsay noted that at the time the refinancing was recommended, Council directed staff to notify property owners of the savings. The notice has been sent to each property owner in the Central Parking District. The average decrease will be approximately 8.6%.

It is recommended by the Department of Administrative Services that the City Council, by two separate resolutions, approve the Annual Special Benefit Assessment Reports for the 1998-99 fiscal year.

Jack Osborne asked for clarification regarding whether the City will have to pay the liens out of its surplus money if the property owners do not pay the assessments.

Mr. Lindsay explained that the lien for the payment of the bonds is the responsibility of the property owners. A reserve has been set aside in the bond proceedings for delinquencies. That money would be used to pay off the bondholder while the City proceeds with foreclosure. If an owner were to fail to pay the assessments, the City would sell the property for the amount of the value of the delinquent assessments, rather than for the value of the property. He pointed out that while there have frequently been delinquencies, the City has not foreclosed on a piece of property in any district in the City.

MOVED by Councilmember Condron, seconded by Councilmember Wiggins, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF:

RESOLUTION NO. 23648 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA ADOPTING REPORT OF ANNUAL SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 - RAILROAD SQUARE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT.

MOVED by Councilmember Condron, seconded by Vice Mayor Runyan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF:

RESOLUTION NO. 23649 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA ADOPTING REPORT OF ANNUAL SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 - SANTA ROSA CENTRAL PARKING SERVICE FACILITIES DISTRICT - SERIES 1998.

Because it was not yet 5:00 p.m., the Mayor reordered the agenda as follows:

9. MAYOR'S/COUNCILMEMBERS' REPORTS

9.1 APPOINTMENTS TO PERSONNEL BOARD

After casting ballots for the Personnel Board applicants, the following motion was made:

MOVED by Vice Mayor Runyan, seconded by Councilmember Condron, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPOINT KAREN FURUKAWA-SCHLERETH TO THE PERSONNEL BOARD FOR AN UNEXPIRED TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1998.

9.2 ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION TOPICS

Mr. Chouteau announced the following Closed Session topics:

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION

Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: One Case

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

Property: Assessors Parcel Number 34-09-091

Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Rosa and Imwalle

Under Negotiation: All Terms of Possible Acquisition

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR

Meet and Confer: Unit 2 - Firefighting

Unit 3 - Maintenance Unit

Negotiator: Karen Walker, City of Santa Rosa

The Conferences regarding Existing Litigation and Meet and Confer with the other units were not held.

Mayor's/Councilmembers' Reports

In response to Councilmember Wiggins, Mayor Wright noted that the Council subcommittee was directed to discuss a possible legislative agenda and to bring it back to Council for review. Following Council review, a meeting will be scheduled with the legislative advocate to review that agenda. Mr. Blackman noted that a draft of the legislative agenda will be provided to the subcommittee in their packets this Friday. He will then contact the subcommittee members to schedule a meeting. Councilmember Condron requested that the meeting not be scheduled next week since she will be on vacation.

Vice Mayor Runyan discussed the tour of the Potter Valley/Eel River area regarding the possible impacts which would result from diverting the water. He noted that Councilmembers Berto and Condron also attended. Councilmember Condron briefly noted her concerns and said that she has requested a Study Session for the purpose of providing additional information to the entire Council regarding this matter.

Councilmember Berto discussed his attendance at the League of California Cities Conference in Monterey last week. He noted that the session on how to lobby legislators was particularly significant. Another significant program dealt with the partnerships between educational entities and municipalities. He will provide Council with additional information regarding the sessions. Councilmember Condron indicated that she will also provide Council with information related to the Conference.

8.4 PUBLIC HEARING - ANNUAL SIDEWALK REPAIR

Roz Daniels, Director of Public Works, made the staff presentation. The Public Works Department, with the assistance of the Recreation and Parks Department, has recently completed administering the Annual Sidewalk Maintenance Program 1996-97 under Public Works Contract No. 97-020. Ms. Daniels acknowledged and commended the team that handled this program: Lisa Grant (who was unable to be present) and Dan Watts of the Recreation and Parks Department, and Colleen Ferguson and John Best from the Public Works Department.

Ms. Daniels explained that the maintenance of sidewalks under the Streets and Highway Code is determined to be the responsibility of the owner fronting the property. The term "sidewalk" includes parking/planter strip, curbs, driveways, and other appurtenances that support improvements to protect the sidewalk. The City has a policy that governs the funding distribution for that responsibility. That responsibility could be entirely the property owners responsibility, but because of the City's interest in the maintenance of trees, Policy No. 100-04 provides that sidewalk damage caused by trees is 50% the responsibility of the property owner and 50% of the City. If sidewalk damage is not caused by the trees, the responsibility is 100% the property owner's. All work performed in the planter strip is 100% the City's responsibility and all work performed on trees behind the sidewalk (private trees) is the responsibility of the property owner.

Ms. Daniels discussed the notification process. A letter of information was initially sent on January 31, 1997, and was followed by the two official notices of repair: February 27 and March 6, 1997. If the property owners decline to do the work themselves, a "location assigned to contract" notification is sent. That notification was sent on May 20, 1997. Following the completion of the project, two notices were sent regarding this public hearing: July 6 and July 20, 1998.

The Superintendent of Streets Report has been prepared for the Annual Sidewalk Maintenance Program 1996-97.

Repairs were completed at 148 property locations for a total project cost of $249,044.78. The City is financing 61% and the property owners are financing 39%. The property owners' cost was $72,368.18. Ms. Daniels pointed out that in addition to the sidewalk repairs, the pedestrian ramp program was combined into this contract. Therefore, $79,538.76 was for City-funded pedestrian ramps.

Ms. Daniels discussed the number of trees that were removed and the number of trees with which they were replaced. She referenced Council Policy No. 000-30 which mandates two reviews of this program by the Design Review Board. The first review, March 20, 1997, was done prior to any work being done. The second review followed the completion of the contract, July 16, 1998.

Ms. Daniels pointed out that the Council has discretion under California State law to reduce or eliminate any sidewalk assessments as deemed appropriate. Staff does not have that discretion.

It is recommended by the Public Works Department that the City Council, by resolution, confirm the Report of the Superintendent of Streets. It is further recommended that the costs shall be assessed against the properties listed in the Superintendent of Streets Report and if not paid by December 1, 1998, said individual assessments shall become a lien on the property. Payment of such assessments of one hundred dollars ($100.00) or more shall be made in annual installments, not to exceed five, together with 6% interest on the unpaid balance.

Councilmember Wiggins asked for clarification regarding curb cuts. Ms. Daniels confirmed that the curb cuts were done in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the cuts are usually done as a separate project, they were combined this time for ease of administering the project.

In response to Vice Mayor Runyan, Colleen Ferguson, Supervising Engineer, explained that the costs for the pedestrian ramps are not included in the calculation of the percentages for the sidewalk program cost distribution. She also clarified, for Councilmember Wiggins, that separate from the amount of the contract which was completed was a charge for a portion of the City's costs to administer the contract; i.e., the 10% incidental expense. She explained how the total costs were calculated.

Mayor Wright opened the public hearing.

Elizabeth Schroeppe-Whistler referenced her previous complaints regarding the sidewalks west and east on North Street, and said she now realizes the owners should be contacted in that area. She contacted Bekins and was informed that they lease that property. She said that the strip of land between Third and Second Streets and Brookwood Avenue has been overgrown for a very long time. She had thought that the full costs to fix the sidewalk and the parking strip may bankrupt the owner and so was glad to know the City's policy regarding the costs.

Phil Graf expressed concern that it is the City team/staff that makes the decisions regarding a program that involves property owners' money. Additionally, he questioned whether any of the notices were sent via registered mail. He asked how--if staff is making the determinations on behalf of property owners regarding the need for repairs, negotiating the contract for repairs, charging fees, assessing those fees, and placing liens on property--that coincides with the right of the owners to be free and secure in their own property and with Council's oath of office. Additionally, he said he has spoken with several contractors who indicated that they charge cities more because it is more costly for them to deal with cities. Therefore, no economies of scale are passed on to property owners.

Hearing no further comments, Mayor Wright closed the public hearing.

Ms. Daniels compared the noticing process with that for the weed abatement process. Notices are sent out via regular mail, utilizing the most current assessment roll, which is in accordance with California State law. However, because Council has been concerned about providing adequate notice so that owners could effect their own repairs, a letter of information is also sent to the owners, explaining the circumstances, requirements, and options for the owner. The responsibility for maintenance of the sidewalk is clearly stated in California State law; i.e., with the adjacent property owner. The City has responsibility for ensuring that maintenance takes place. She discussed the proactive position Council has taken regarding street trees. She pointed out that it is not unusual for other cities to require 100% payment by the property owner. However, in Santa Rosa, the City has historically covered approximately 60% to 65% of the costs.

Ms. Daniels responded to Council questions. She noted that there is a backlog of about 3,500 locations. Vice Mayor Runyan indicated that he would like the City's program to become more aggressive; i.e., to become less of a deferred maintenance program. Daniels briefly referenced the letters that are sent to the property owners and noted that there is about a four-month period of time from the first notification until the assignment of the project to a contractor, during which period of time a property owner can make arrangements to have the work done. Occasionally property owners have notified the City that they want to do the work themselves after the contract has been assigned. Staff will allow them to do that. She pointed out that staff utilizes current assessors rolls for sending out notices and that if property has been sold, there is a responsibility on the part of the selling party to make full disclosure to the buying party.

MOVED by Vice Mayor Runyan, seconded by Councilmember Wiggins, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF:

RESOLUTION NO. 23650 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS REGARDING THE IMPROVEMENT OF SIDEWALKS BY THE ANNUAL SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 1996-97.

8.5 PUBLIC HEARING - STORM WATER CHARGES

Bruce McConnell, Accounting Officer, made the staff presentation. Under the Federal Clean Water Act, when its population exceeded 100,000, the City was required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. A joint permit was issued to the City, the County of Sonoma and the Sonoma County Water Agency.

To comply with the NPDES permit's requirements, and to control and reduce flooding, property damage, erosion and storm water quality degradation in the City, the City Council added Title 16 to the City Code which created a storm water enterprise and utility. Under Title 16, the City Council was authorized to prescribe and collect charges (assessments) for the services and facilities of the storm water enterprise.

The Council in 1996, by resolution, levied annual charges for the enterprise and stated its intention to place the charges on the tax roll for collection with general and property taxes. Title 16 utilizes a State code procedure for placing the charges on the tax roll, which requires that a noticed public hearing be held annually on the matter.

The annual charges of the storm water enterprise, established in 1996, less the current credit allowed against those charges, have been fixed by the Council at $9.30 per equivalent residential unit (ERU) for fiscal year 1998-99. To simplify the payment process for property owners and to reduce collection expenses, the City, as directed by the Council, proposes to collect the charges on the tax roll to be paid at the time and together with general and property taxes. Mr. McConnell noted that the estimated cost for the City to do the billing would be approximately $23,000, whereas if the County were to do the billing, the City's cost would be approximately $5,000. The only subject of the public hearing is whether to place the established charges on the tax roll. At the public hearing, property owners may protest the proposal to place the changes on the tax roll but not the actual charges. Placement of the charges on the tax roll for collection requires the adoption of a resolution by the affirmative vote of at least five Council members.

It is recommended by the Department of Administrative Services that the City Council, by resolution, place the storm water enterprise charges on the tax roll to be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected.

Responding to Councilmember Wiggins, Mr. McConnell clarified that the charge is $9.30, which was set by Council in April. However, what is before Council is not the charge, but the means of collection: i.e., placing this assessment on the tax roll so that the County can collect the funds or requiring the City to do its own billing. Councilmember Wiggins referenced the Zone 1A County tax which was approved and asked how much it is. Mr. McConnell indicated that it is $10 per parcel.

Mayor Wright opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, she closed the hearing.

Councilmember Wiggins stated that she will oppose the action before Council since she opposed increasing the amount of the Zone 1A tax and also opposed the $9.30 amount in April.

MOVED by Councilmember Berto, seconded by Vice Mayor Runyan, CARRIED BY A 4-1 VOTE (Councilmember Wiggins opposing) TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF:

A RESOLUTION ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA ADOPTING A REPORT AND ORDERING THAT ANNUAL CHARGES OF THE CITY'S STORM WATER ENTERPRISE AND UTILITY BE COLLECTED ON THE TAX ROLL.

NOTE: Following consideration of the next item (8.6), Mayor Wright indicated that there was a need to revisit this item (8.5). Mr. Blackman pointed out that five affirmative votes are required to establish the collection of the charges. He suggested that it would be appropriate to rescind the previous motion and continue action on this resolution to the second meeting in August (August 11), at which time the full Council will be present.

MOVED by Councilmember Berto, seconded by Councilmember Wiggins, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO RESCIND THE ADOPTION OF THE ABOVE-REFERENCED RESOLUTION AND TO CONTINUE ITS ADOPTION TO THE MEETING OF AUGUST 11, 1998.

8.6 PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION - 416 KING STREET

Joel Galbraith, City Planner, made the staff presentation. On June 11, 1998, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council reclassify 416 King Street from the R-4 District to the R-2 PD District to allow the existing home on the site to be replaced with a duplex. The parcel is 3,283 square feet in size and is located Downtown. The General Plan Designation for the site is office; however, within the Core Area residential uses are allowed in any land use designation.

At the June 11, 1998, hearing, the Department of Community Development recommended approval. No one spoke against the proposal. It was the Planning Commission's position that the reclassification to the R-2 PD District was appropriate due to the small size of the parcel which makes redevelopment difficult. The Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval of the reclassification.

It is recommended by the Planning Commission and the Department of Community Development that the City Council, by resolution, adopt a negative declaration and introduce an ordinance to rezone 416 King Street to the R-2 PD District.

Mayor Wright opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, she closed the public hearing.

MOVED by Councilmember Wiggins, seconded by Vice Mayor Runyan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF:

RESOLUTION NO. 23651 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA APPROVING AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE RECLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 416 KING STREET - FILE NUMBER MJP97-033.

MOVED by Councilmember Wiggins, seconded by Vice Mayor Runyan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO INTRODUCE AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF:

AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE SANTA ROSA CITY CODE - RECLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 416 KING STREET - FILE NUMBER MJP97-033.

At this time, Mayor Wright stated the need to revisit Item 8.5. See the minutes following that action for further information and additional motions.

8.7 PUBLIC HEARING - PARKING DISTRICT USER FEE CHANGES

Robert Dunlavey, Director of Transit & Parking, made the staff presentation. The Downtown Partnership Committee and the Department of Transit and Parking are recommending to the City Council that the free parking time in City-attended parking facilities be adjusted from 90 minutes to 60 minutes. Additionally, that the hourly rate after the free parking time in the City-attended parking facilities be reduced from 75 cents per hour to 50 cents per hour.

The Downtown Partnership Committee and the Department of Transit and Parking are also recommending that monthly parking permits be sold for the roof level of City Garages No. 1 (located on Seventh Street) and No. 12 (located on First Street). These permits shall be sold at a monthly rate of $15.00 and use of these monthly permits shall be restricted to the roof level of the designated facility.

It is recommended by the Department of Transit and Parking that the City Council, by resolution, approve the adjustments to the free parking time and hourly rates in the City-Attended parking facilities. It is further recommended that a monthly permit be established for the roof levels of City Garages No. 1 and No. 12.

Mayor Wright opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, she closed the public hearing.

Mayor Wright referenced comments made during Citizens Public Appearances and explained that Council has not criticized Downtown employees for their unwillingness to pay parking fees. Rather, it is Council's intent to provide parking opportunities both for the shoppers and for Downtown employees. Council is cognizant of the benefits the Downtown receives from Downtown employees. Mr. Dunlavey pointed out that the Downtown Partnership Committee made every effort to balance the needs of both the Downtown patrons and employees. The recommendations brought before Council address both those issues; i.e., short-term turnover parking and long-term parking required by employees.

Councilmember Condron noted that people who have upper-level parking permits but who are parking on the first floor create a larger problem than people moving their cars throughout the day. It is hoped that the proposal will make other options available so that employees will not have to move their cars. She suggested that while security will be less of a problem on the upper levels because of the additional cars, additional security should be considered. Mr. Dunlavey said that at this time the roof levels for the two facilities referenced have been closed because of a lack of activity. When they are opened to permit parkers, security will patrol those floors along with the others.

In response to Councilmember Berto, Mr. Dunlavey displayed and discussed the types of bumper stickers that will be required for permit parking. The stickers will be color-coded for type and parking level.

MOVED by Councilmember Condron, seconded by Councilmember Wiggins, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF:

RESOLUTION NO. 23652 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA APPROVING THE ADJUSTMENT OF FREE PARKING TIME AND HOURLY RATES AT CITY-ATTENDED PARKING FACILITIES AND ESTABLISHING ROOF PERMIT RATES IN CITY PARKING FACILITIES.

10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (AND POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION)

10.1 COMMUNICATION - League of California Cities Legislative Bulletin.

This item was provided for informational purposes only. Because the language in Senate Bill 50 (School Bond Package) has changed considerably and the MIRA aspect was removed, it was Council consensus to take a position of opposition to this bill. Staff was directed to send letters of opposition as soon as possible.

10.2 COMMUNICATION - T. Dunn, So. Co. Independence Day Celebration, Inc. re: Thank You for Support.

This item was provided for informational purposes only.

10.3 COMMUNICATION - M. L. Tuxhorn, the Tuxhorn Co., re: Allotments Bellevue Ranch Subdivision.

This item was provided for informational purposes only. Council directed staff to refer this communication to the Council Housing Committee for a recommendation.

10.4 COMMUNICATION - Sonoma County Center for Peace and Justice re: Police Accountability.

This item was provided for informational purposes only. Mr. Blackman indicated that a Study Session will be scheduled in the near future regarding this matter.

10.5 COMMUNICATION - Chris Giblin re: Youth Activities.

This item was provided for informational purposes only. A copy of this communication was forwarded to Chuck Rust, Director of Recreation and Parks, who has asked the author to participate in a meeting scheduled through the Board of Community Services for youth activities in the community.

10.6 COMMUNICATION - Various Telephone Companies re: Local Competition.

This item was provided for informational purposes only.

ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION

Hearing no further business, the Mayor adjourned the meeting to a Closed Session at 5:45 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no announcements to make after the Closed Session, the Mayor adjourned the meeting to the next regularly scheduled meeting to take place on August 4, 1998, at a time to be set by the Mayor.

7/28/1998