SANTA ROSA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1999
COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL, 100 SANTA ROSA AVENUE
REGULAR MEETING

4:00 P.M. - REGULAR SESSION

1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

Mayor Condron called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m.

2. CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Condron, Vice Mayor Martini, and Councilmembers Vas Dupre, Evans, Rabinowitsh, Runyan, and Wright.

3. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS

There were no proclamations or presentations.

Teen Council Member: Mayor Condron introduced Trevor Harper, a member of the Teen Council and a student at Rincon Valley Christian School, who is being mentored by Councilmember Evans. Mayor Condron briefly explained that each Teen Council member will have an opportunity to shadow a Councilmember and attend a City Council meeting. Each Teen Council member will also meet with staff and learn about the City structure.

4. CITIZEN PUBLIC APPEARANCES

Bill Pisenti, Redwood Empire TRIM (Tax Reform Immediately), distributed a position paper which states TRIM's opposition to increasing taxes for the purpose of widening Highway 101, although TRIM does not oppose the widening of that highway. Mr. Pisenti discussed the organization's belief that local representatives must put pressure on County, State and Federal agencies to find out what is happening to the funds for the roads and highways and to obtain the funding that is needed to build/improve them. He referenced the golf center project on Highway 12, explaining that members of TRIM, as a property rights organization, do not think it was unreasonable to erect the poles and that the use should be permitted. He referenced a newspaper article regarding the City's surplus funds and said his organization thinks those monies should be refunded to the taxpayers.

Jack Osborne referred to the Brown Act, citing the Attorney General's position regarding portions of it as he explained why he believes members of the public should not only have an opportunity to speak under Citizens Public Appearances for three minutes for items not on the agenda, but should also be given an opportunity to speak on Consent Items and on Closed Session topics prior to adjournment to Closed Sessions. He cited language which he believes prohibits discussions or actions related to compensation unless those discussions relate to a reduction in compensation. He noted that there are 11 Consent Items on today's Agenda and asked for an opportunity to speak for three minutes on those items, noting that he believes being denied that opportunity is a violation of the Brown Act.

Mayor Condron reminded those present that Council's policy is that the three-minute time limit for Citizens Public Appearances includes an opportunity for citizens to comment on Consent Items as well.

Terry Hilton, representing Concerned Citizens for Southwest Area Youth, extended a welcome to the new Councilmembers and expressed his organization's appreciation for Council's actions on behalf of youth in the Southwest Area. He particularly expressed appreciation for the work being done on Bellevue Avenue. He noted his meetings with Patrick Scott's family, as well as an upcoming meeting with the Engineering Department, regarding ideas related to safety features in the area. He invited Council to attend the next Southwest Business Association meeting which will be held at Carl's Junior on Stony Point Road on January 29 at noon.

Mr. Hilton referred to Item 7.1 of the Agenda, Timothy Road Apartments, and said his organization has looked at this request for are classification. They want to ensure that a recreation area for the youth is provided. He also noted that the units are supposed to be affordable.

Duane DeWitt, Santa Rosa resident, said his resolution for this year is to advocate for greater citizen participation in the decision-making processes for the City. As a result, he asked Council to schedule next week's Study Session with the Redevelopment Agency regarding Southwest Santa Rosa/Roseland in the Council Chamber in order to allow increased attendance. He also asked Council to permit public input at that meeting. He requested that a community meeting about the project be scheduled. He asked about the status of the Community Action Team. He volunteered to assist in order to increase citizen participation on this committee.

Mr. DeWitt said he will also be focusing on the issue of affordable housing for people of modest means. He discussed the objective of the General Plan to provide 150 new, affordable housing units per year and the last Annual Report of the Housing Authority which reaffirms that goal. He referred to a "Helping Hand Assistance" newspaper story which pointed to the urgent need for housing. He noted that there are 7.5 acres zoned residential which are available for purchase on Melita Road. He suggested that the land be purchased with HUD (Housing & Urban Development) funds and rezoned for higher density housing similar to what has occurred in Roseland. In conjunction with this suggestion, he also suggested Council review the CDBG funds with the idea of maximizing their effect.

Don Taylor, member of the Executive Committee for City Vision, referred to Item 7.10 (R/UDAT Report) and expressed appreciation on behalf of the Committee for Council's support of the R/UDAT process and report.

Laura Graham suggested Council install electric left-turn signals at Farmers Lane, Montgomery Drive and Sonoma Avenue. She expressed concern regarding articles in the newspaper which indicate that consideration is being given to making the old General Hospital a substitute for the Armory Shelter. She discussed her opposition to this proposal. The facility currently benefits families and is housing a Headstart School which should not be disrupted. She suggested considering a building at the corner of Cleveland and College Avenues which has been vacant for years as a replacement for the Armory. She briefly referred to the Church of Incarnation's program, "The Living Room," which assists homeless women with children who are afraid to go to the Armory for help. She suggested that Council consider a facility in a commercial area as a replacement for the Armory. She reiterated that no changes should be made to the uses in place at the old General Hospital.

Mayor Condron responded to some of the previous comments. She noted that Council is taking whatever action they can at the State and Federal levels to obtain additional funding for transportation purposes. Regarding Consent Items and issues related to the Brown Act, she explained that the three-minute time limit under Citizens Public Appearances meets the requirements of the Act. Citizens can make their comments during this period related to Consent Items. However, Council's policy also enables citizens to speak at the end of the meeting if they so desire.

Mayor Condron acknowledged Mr. Hilton's efforts on behalf of Patrick Scott's family. She noted that she will investigate his request regarding Timothy Road Apartments. She concurred with Mr. DeWitt's comments that there is a need for increased citizen involvement, noting that that is one of her goals. She noted that she will be distributing a list of Council appointments to the various City boards and commissions later in the meeting and said consideration will be given to the current and future status of the Community Action Team, as well as to how citizen interaction can be increased at the community level. She pointed out that this is one of the major recommendations resulting from the R/UDAT Report. She explained that the City's policy regarding Study Sessions is to move into the Council Chamber if there is not adequate space in the Conference Room.

Mayor Condron stressed that the facility at the General Hospital will remain functioning as it has in terms of a family center. However, the entire site is being considered for its potential for a homeless facility. Other options are also being considered and there is still some question at the State level as to whether the Armory may continue to be available. Council is aware of the importance of the General Hospital site and the family center currently in operation there.

Vacancies - City Boards/Commissions: At this time, Mayor Condron referenced an overhead showing the current vacancies on City boards and commissions. The following vacancies have been advertised during the past month:

Board of Community Services - One Vacancy

Cultural Heritage Board (Architect) - One Vacancy

Design Review Board (At Large) - One Vacancy

Board of Building Regulation Appeals - Two Vacancies (One Architect and One Electrical Engineer or Contractor)

Mayor Condron said that at this time only six applications have been received for the five vacancies. The positions will remain open for another month. Applications are available in the City Manager's office or can be obtained from her and/or other Councilmembers.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of December 22, 1998.

MOVED by Vice Mayor Martini, seconded by Councilmember Runyan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 22, 1998 MINUTES AS PRESENTED.

6. STATEMENTS OF ABSTENTION BY COUNCILMEMBERS

Vice Mayor Martini announced for the record that he will be acting on Item 8.3 (Joint Powers Agreement/Detention Basin). As he stated when this matter came up at previous meetings, he is the Chairperson of the A Place to Play subcommittee of the Santa Rosa Youth Athletic Field Trust. The Trust is a non-profit, for public benefit corporation. He stated that he does not receive compensation for the time he serves on that subcommittee. Mayor Condron stated that she also serves on the subcommittee and does not receive compensation for the time she serves on it. Therefore, she will also be acting on Item 8.3.

7. CONSENT ITEMS

7.1 ORDINANCE ADOPTION - RECLASSIFICATION - TIMOTHY ROAD APARTMENTS

7.2 ORDINANCE ADOPTION - RECLASSIFICATION - RANCHO FRANCISCO

7.3 RESOLUTION - PROPOSAL AWARD - SURVEILLANCE VAN

7.4 RESOLUTION - BID AWARD - MONTGOMERY DRIVE WATER TRANSMISSION LINE

7.5 RESOLUTION - BID AWARD - BENNETT VALLEY GOLF COURSE CART PATHWAYS - PHASE II

7.6 RESOLUTION - BID AWARD - WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS - VARIOUS LOCATIONS

7.7 RESOLUTION - CONTRACT EXTENSION - JANITORIAL SUPPLIES

7.8 RESOLUTION - APPROVAL TO USE REDEVELOPMENT LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING SET ASIDE FUNDS OUTSIDE THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA

7.9 RESOLUTION - APPROPRIATING FUNDS - SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

7.10 RESOLUTION - ACCEPTING R/UDAT REPORT AND SUPPORTING FURTHER DISCUSSION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REPORT

7.11 RESOLUTION - RATIFYING APPOINTMENTS OF CHAIRPERSONS OF CITY BOARDS/COMMISSIONS

Regarding Item 7.1, Mayor Condron noted that she had indicated to Mr. Hilton earlier that an investigation would be made into his request for recreation facilities for youth in the Timothy Road Apartments project. Mr. Blackman confirmed that staff will follow up on this request.

Vice Mayor Martini referred to Mr. Hilton's comments regarding Item 7.1 and stated that because Council acted unanimously on this matter at the previous meeting, and because the project was unanimously supported by the Planning Commission and staff, he is prepared to adopt the ordinance at this meeting.

MOVED by Vice Mayor Martini, seconded by Councilmember Wright, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXTS OF (Items 7.1 and 7.2):

ORDINANCE NO. 3400 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 122 SEBASTOPOL ROAD - FILE NUMBER REZ98-017.

ORDINANCE NO. 3401 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 2195 SAN MIGUEL AVENUE AND 2190 FRANCISCO AVENUE - FILE NUMBER MJP98-007.

At this time, Councilmember Evans indicated her desire to make the motion for Item 7.10.

MOVED by Councilmember Evans, seconded by Vice Mayor Martini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 7.10):

RESOLUTION NO. 23830 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA ACCEPTING THE REPORT OF THE REGIONAL URBAN DESIGN ASSISTANCE TEAM AND DIRECTING FURTHER DISCUSSION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REPORT.

MOVED by Vice Mayor Martini, seconded by Councilmember Wright, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXTS OF (Items 7.3 through 7.9 and 7.11):

RESOLUTION NO. 23823 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL OF SIRCHIE FINGER PRINT LABS, INC., MEDFORD, NEW JERSEY FOR THE PURCHASE OF A SURVEILLANCE VAN.

RESOLUTION NO. 23824 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT NO. 98-016 TO PIPELINE EXCAVATORS FOR MONTGOMERY DRIVE WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN.

RESOLUTION NO. 23825 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT NO. 99-002RP TO DHR CONSTRUCTION FOR BENNETT VALLEY GOLF COURSE CART PATHWAYS, PHASE II.

RESOLUTION NO. 23826 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT NO. 98-036 TO L J CONSTRUCTION OF SEBASTOPOL FOR WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS - VARIOUS LOCATIONS.

RESOLUTION NO. 23827 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. 98-5227 WITH J.C. NELSON SUPPLY COMPANY FOR THE PURCHASE OF JANITORIAL SUPPLIES.

RESOLUTION NO. 23828 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE SANTA ROSA CENTER/GRACE BROTHERS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA IN THE NORTHPOINT APARTMENTS WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT AREA.

*RESOLUTION NO. 23829 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA TO ESTABLISH AN APPROPRIATION FOR SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PROJECTS.

*Clerk's Note: Please see reconsideration of Resolution No. 23829 (Item 7.9) following Item 8.1. The original motion was rescinded and the resolution was adopted by a 6-0-1 vote, with Councilmember Runyan abstaining.

RESOLUTION NO. 23831 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA APPOINTING CHAIRPERSONS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (Board of Community Services - Michelle Konicek, Board of Public Utilities - Dick Dowd, Board of Building Regulations Appeals - John King, Community Action Team - Jo Sandersfeld, Cultural Heritage Board - Thom Stewart, Design Review Board - Scott Bartley, Downtown Partnership Committee - Chris Facas, Luther Burbank Home & Gardens Board - Jim Hinton, Personnel Board - Ellie Lowry, Planning Commission - Vinny Denietolis, and Mobilehome Park Policy Board - Charles Evans).

8. SCHEDULED ITEMS

8.1 REPORT - PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP - EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS)

Tony Pini, Fire Chief, made the initial presentation. Chief Pini said that as a result of the recommendations made by the Master Plan Committee which was established in May 1996, the Santa Rosa Fire Department has been exploring options for a private partnership for an EMS delivery system. Such a partnership has been proposed with the existing provider and staff is looking at such partnership with whomever the new provider may be. Council has directed staff to continue to explore the options of a public/private partnership with one clear caveat: any improvement to the system must come at no additional cost to the City of Santa Rosa.

Chief Pini said that at this point there is agreement among Fire Department staff, the consultant, and both ambulance companies bidding on the new contract that there is enough money within the existing EMS system to upgrade the EMS skills of a limited number of the City's Firefighters through this public/private partnership. As proposed, the partnership can improve response times and service levels for Santa Rosa's citizens at no additional costs. Chief Pini thanked Council for their support in this matter and asked for further direction.

At this time Bart Lewis, Deputy Fire Chief, provided Council with additional details about the proposals. The County will be receiving proposals this Friday from organizations interested in providing ambulance service within the central core of the County, including the City of Santa Rosa. The County's Request for Proposals (RFP) for ambulance service includes concepts developed from a two-year process involving the redesign of the EMS system in the County. Those concepts include public/private partnerships and delivery of paramedic services on a first-response basis by Fire Departments. He pointed out that the County's RFP encourages such service delivery methods by distinguishing the difference between paramedic and ambulance services; allowing the ambulance contractor to meet response time requirements through the response and arrival of Fire Department paramedic units; tightening response time requirements for paramedics; and requiring a dedicated paramedic unit in the Oakmont area.

Mr. Lewis noted that Redwood Empire Life Support (RELS) and American Medical Response (AMR) have indicated that they will be submitting proposals for the ambulance contract. In addition, both firms have approached Santa Rosa's Fire Department with proposals to form a partnership which would result in placing paramedics on the Fire Department's engine companies. Mr. Lewis compared the plans proposed by both companies.

Mr. Lewis said that RELS would place paramedics in all nine fire stations that serve Santa Rosa as well as in fire stations of surrounding jurisdictions. This would occur by July 1, 1999. RELS proposes that the system be placed under the control of a consortium board consisting of representatives from participating agencies. They also propose that the 911 ambulance profits be returned to public agencies participating in the consortium to be used for public benefits.

Mr. Lewis indicated that AMR would place two paramedic engine companies in service to begin with: one on the west side and one on the east side of the City. Additional paramedic units may be added at a later time. The AMR proposal also includes an offer to contract with the City for dispatch services or to otherwise jointly form a cooperative dispatch arrangement which would give the City some control over ambulance response as well as revenue for dispatch costs. This partnership would be in the form of a contract with the City.

Mr. Lewis pointed out that the proposals by both firms would enhance the EMS delivered to the public and that both firms propose to cover all of the City's costs to implement the paramedic engines. He said that both firms have requested letters of intent to negotiate a partnership with the City of Santa Rosa which would be submitted with their proposals to the County this Friday. He stated that the County will make the decision as to the best proposal and will select the ambulance contractor. It is anticipated that the County will make this decision in February.

Mr. Lewis reiterated comments made by Chief Pini previously, particularly stressing that provision of a paramedic service will improve life-saving services to the community and that implementation of a public/private Fire Department paramedic program is financially viable without subsidy from the City's General Fund.

It is recommended by the Fire Department that the City Council, by resolution, authorize the Fire Chief to sign letters of intent, with either or both of the firms submitting bids for ambulance service to Sonoma County, for the development of a public/private partnership for the provision of paramedic services by the Fire Department. The letters will identify the general parameters of a partnership and will stipulate that an actual partnership agreement will require the approval of the City Council.

In response to Councilmember Runyan, Mr. Lewis indicate that Council has the ability to comment and make recommendations related to the proposals or to direct staff to bring recommendations back to Council. Staff has not seen the full proposals, but rather the portion that pertains to the City of Santa Rosa. He confirmed that both proposals include emergency dispatch services.

Terry Tinagero urged Council to approve the recommendation since it would result in increased medical treatment using the City's fire trucks, it would not cost the City anything to implement it, and the City will be able to approve the final proposal.

Fred Hawkins, Vice President of American Medical Response, said the County has been very specific in what they are asking for related to the core components of the County's RFP. Those components include: response time standards, which are non-negotiable; full-time services with a paramedic service must be maintained in Oakmont; EMS dispatch is an absolute; there is a fail-safe provision for financing and equipment (County will become provider by default if the system fails and assumes control of all assets); rates are set by the County; and there is an opportunity to provide enhancements not included in the RFP. Mr. Hawkins pointed out that enhancements and savings will occur if public/private partnerships can be entered into with the City of Santa Rosa Fire Department. Those savings are in the money that does not have to be spent on equipment and manpower. He referred to the criteria produced by the City Fire Department for a public/private partnership and pointed out that AMR has met that criteria.

Craig Lowe, City Fire Captain, stated his support of the staff report and the request for issuance of letters of intent. He noted that other agencies in the area already provide fire-based paramedic services to the people in those areas. He discussed the efforts of the Firefighters who worked as part of the County redesign task force in getting to the point where this issue is today. He noted that the proposals will greatly enhance the services to the citizens of Santa Rosa without impacting the General Fund. He referred to incidents which occur regularly for which this program will make a great difference. He asked Council to approve the report and the request for letters of intent.

Jim Hummer stated that the City is fortunate to have received the proposals before them. The request is to allow both proposals to proceed and this is the time that they both should be submitted in the spirit of competition and providing better services for the citizens. He said the proposal from RELS meets the criteria and RELS would not have a problem submitting a copy of the proposal to Council on Friday after it's been submitted to the County. He reiterated that the two major components of this proposal are: a full-time ambulance at Oakmont and upgraded Firefighter service at all nine stations. He stated that what is important is that both proposals must be submitted to the County on Friday and both need Council's support. In addition, he noted that Council will ultimately have to review and sign the contract with whatever bidder is selected.

Mike Sechrist, Director of Operations of RELS, said this project provides an opportunity to substantially increase services. He discussed the opportunity RELS has had to try this proposal on the largest demand on the system and pointed out why he believes this to be an exceptional system. He referred to a presentation RELS made to the citizens of Oakmont, who have heartily endorsed the plan. He referred to information distributed at the meeting, including an executive summary of the budget, and pointed out that there will be funding left over for a return to the General Fund, for joint dispatch, or for a reduction in rates.

Audrey McDonald, Oakmont, said she is a registered nurse and an independent contractor for personal emergency response systems for people living at home and people at risk. She discussed the benefits of paramedic services. She said the current question is how to bring more paramedics to more people as soon as possible. She discussed the four concerns she believes Council has, while simultaneously pointing out how those concerns have been resolved: 1) The number of people that can be served with the new plan - RELS can offer enough paramedics to serve as many people as necessary in the greatest area. 2) Improved response time - This goal will be met if more paramedics are working with more Fire Departments. 3) Is this plan affordable - The costs have been addressed and if additional costs should arise in the future, they would be insignificant in comparison with the value of a human life. 4) Servicing as many people in the greatest area in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County as possible - The plan has addressed this issue absolutely. She said there is no reason good enough for Council not to adopt the proposed plan.

Mr. Lewis responded to questions raised by Vice Mayor Martini. He explained that Council is not being asked to endorse a partial plan. Rather, they are being asked to give each firm (RELS and AMR) a letter of intent to negotiate a public/private partnership that would meet all of the necessary criteria of and be approved by Council. Additionally, he explained that under the County's RFP the response time requirements have been significantly modified from the current requirements. Specifically, response time for paramedics has been lowered from eight minutes 90% of the time throughout the contract area to seven minutes 90% of the time. At the same time, it has been recognized that a paramedic does not necessarily equate to an ambulance and so the ambulance response time, in urban areas for example, is being allowed to extend to eleven minutes. Mr. Lewis said that the work-up time by the paramedics will exceed the increase of response time for the ambulance. He explained why the new process will not impact the number of engines or firefighters involved in a given situation. For example, if the medical situation experienced by a patient is serious enough to require advanced life support or paramedic skills, the situation will require more help than just from the paramedics. In those cases, the City's Firefighters are already present. In serious cases, the Firefighters ride in the ambulance to the hospital to assist the paramedics in providing care. This means that there would not actually be an increase of what currently occurs in terms of commitment by the engine company at the scene of a situation.

Vice Mayor Martini noted comments by the public that more paramedics would be placed on the streets. He said his understanding is that part of the proposal would enable the providers not to have as many paramedics since there are more with the Fire Department. He said that the City would actually be taking on the responsibility of providing additional paramedics while the franchise would be getting a break. In other words, the City would be assuming more services. He asked if this action is a disservice to Santa Rosa's citizens. Mr. Lewis responded that that is not the case since the paramedic would be arriving at the scene as fast as or faster than the ambulance.

Vice Mayor Runyan said it is his understanding that at this time if a 911 is made by a resident of the City, the City's 911 center receives the call and is the responder. The City's first response is to dispatch an engine company. He asked if the determination is then made as to whether an ambulance should be dispatched. Mr. Lewis clarified that in all cases the County, who dispatches the ambulance company, is notified essentially at the same time the fire unit is being dispatched. No delay is made to determine whether an ambulance is needed; the ambulance is automatically dispatched at the same time. He also clarified that with the proposed program, this procedure will not necessarily be handled by a single dispatch. However, while that requirement is not written into the RFP, it is a goal that all agencies are working toward; i.e., a regional fire and EMS communication system. The proposal from one of the companies addresses that specific issue. The other company has discussed this possibility as it relates to using the profits derived from the proposed program for that purpose.

Councilmember Runyan stated that it is important the Council meet with the County once the RFPs have been opened and before they make a decision. Mr. Lewis indicated that he believes the County Director of Health Services will make a recommendation on February 19. Councilmember Runyan reiterated the importance of members of the Council reviewing the proposals with the County and noted that he has some questions/issues that need to be addressed prior to that decision being made. He referred to the emergency dispatch component of the proposal, noting that it will change the situation substantially. He pointed out that the EMTs (Emergency Medical Technicians) on the fire trucks currently are able to provide defibrillation services or can be certified to perform that service. He asked what procedures would be followed in the process for hiring paramedics if the proposal is implemented. Mr. Lewis said the same hiring process would be followed.

Councilmember Evans briefly referenced the duration of this process and noted that the Citizens Fire Department Master Plan Committee and the City's EMS consultant both recommended that a paramedic program be instituted for the Fire Department. She said there was a recommendation for a pilot paramedic program and asked for information related to the parameters of that program. Mr. Lewis responded that the general parameters of the pilot program were recommending the implementation of two paramedic engine companies: one on the east side and one on the west side of Santa Rosa. The Master Plan Committee's recommendation did not go beyond that. However, the consultant's report found that the City would cover all its costs and, in fact, gain revenue to offset General Fund expenses if it went into the ambulance service and provided paramedic services. That proposal involves a decision that lies with the County. In addition, a paramedic program with paramedic services delivered by all of the engine companies was found to be financially viable to be funded through the system as a public/private partnership as proposed. He reminded Council of the recommendation brought before them last April for a pilot program. At that time, Council declined to enter into that program, but rather determined to wait until they saw the County's RFP and a longer-term vision. The City is now at that point.

Councilmember Evans said that some of the significant language in the proposed resolution gives the Fire Chief the authority to see the general parameters of the public/private partnership. She asked what those parameters would be. Mr. Lewis said that with RELS, those parameters would include the provision of paramedic services at all nine stations that serve the City. Those paramedics would be employees of the City Fire Department or would be employees of RELS until such time as the Fire Department is able to hire and/or train, through attrition, new paramedics. In other words, RELS would be placing a fourth person on an engine company that would be a private paramedic. RELS would pay for all costs incurred by the City for providing the paramedic service. It would operate within a cooperative model which would include other public agencies. A Board of Directors representing those agencies and RELS would govern the cooperative. He noted that implementation of the partnership requires successful negotiation between the City and RELS after award of the contract to them by the County. Additionally, ultimate approval of the Cooperative Agreement of the City Council and the Sonoma County Director of Health Services would be required.

Mr. Lewis went on to discuss the parameters for AMR, which are generally similar. The Fire Department would provide service from a minimum of two engine companies. The Fire Department's response time would be used to meet the response time requirement placed on AMR for those two paramedic units. The paramedics for the Fire Department would be employees of the City. AMR would cover all of the costs. AMR would provide quality improvement clinical oversight and a data management system to facilitate that process. In addition, they would provide paramedic, EMT and defibrillator training as needed at no cost. AMR offers to contract with the City for the provision of dispatch services for approximately $350,000 a year. In addition, they desire to provide an integrated fire and EMS dispatch system. The number of medic engine companies may be increased. The scope of services provided by either party may be enhanced through mutual agreement. In addition, City Council approval of an ultimate partnership would be required.

Mr. Lewis explained that staff has not seen the full proposal from either firm and won't see it until after it is presented to the County on Friday. The direction he is seeking from Council is whether to pursue the paramedic program and whether they will authorize the Fire Chief to enter into letters of intent to proceed to the next step in this process.

Councilmember Evans discussed her support of pursuing the paramedic program and proceeding to the next step. She said while there are some differences in the contracts, she supports the underlying concept of providing the services. Mr. Lewis said that from staff's point of view, both proposals would be an enhancement to the current system and beneficial to the citizens.

In response to Councilmember Runyan, Mr. Lewis clarified that on an interim basis, under the RELS proposal, the fourth paramedic on the City's fire engine would be a paramedic employee of RELS until such time that the Fire Department had enough paramedic staff for this purpose. Once the Fire Department has trained paramedic personnel, the fire engines would be staffed with three people.

Councilmember Wright questioned the benefit of entering into a letter of intent for each proposal at this time given that after a selection is made, negotiations will be entered with the provider. She explained why she is uncomfortable with the language in the resolution which authorizes the Fire Chief to enter into a letter of intent with either or both firms submitting proposals. Mr. Lewis said staff's intent is, at this point in time, to enter into a letter of intent with both bidders, the word "either" should have been deleted. He pointed out that there is a significant benefit to and need on the part of the bidders for the letter of intent. They must demonstrate to the County with their proposals that they do have some type of commitment/direction for partnerships. He clarified that the primary parameters outlined will be negotiated, but will not necessarily be the extent of those parameters. He noted that staff has met with both companies, reviewed the systems, run case studies, and considered impacts and benefits to make the determination that both proposals would provide an enhancement of services.

Councilmember Wright referred to the discussions related to cost recovery and asked whether additional staff training time, including overtime and time off for that purpose, has been taken into consideration. Mr. Lewis confirmed that all costs are included (i.e., specialty pay for paramedics, costs for required equipment and supplies, management staff costs, administrative costs, etc.). Both bidders propose to cover 100% of those costs and provide for inflation for the duration of the contract with the County. He noted that the initial contract is for a six-year period and contains provisions for two two-year extensions. He confirmed that the City does not currently have a requirement that Firefighters newly hired have to be trained paramedics. However, the last five hired were certified paramedics. There are currently seven paramedics on staff and an eighth one will be on staff in the near future. If the City were to put a paramedic on every engine company, there would be a need for 39 paramedics. Whether a differential in the salary range will be established for newly hired paramedics is subject to the meet and confer process.

Vice Mayor Martini clarified what is being requested of Council; i.e., a letter of endorsement of a plan that would be included in the proposal packet. He noted that the Council is interested in pursuing this proposal. He suggested that a letter from the Council to the County representative may accomplish the same thing that would be accomplished by a letter of intent. The letter would suggest the Council's interest in a public/private partnership to the extent that it would enhance services to citizens, would not detract from the current level of service, and would not potentially impact the City's fiscal soundness. Such a letter would be sent directly to the County and could also be included in the proposal packets. Mr. Lewis responded that while such a letter would show some intent, what is being requested are letters stating that the Council is comfortable with the general direction of the proposals from both firms. This would establish, up front, parameters that would allow staff to negotiate effectively once one of the proposals has been chosen.

Vice Mayor Martini noted that the County will have a process whereby it will evaluate the proposals, including the enhancements contained in those proposals and the letters of intent submitted by the City indicating its support. He gave an example of an enhancement that may be offered by one company and expressed concern regarding what may occur, once the County has awarded the contract, if that enhancement can't be successfully negotiated. Mr. Lewis explained that the final contract approval is much the same with the County Board of Supervisors as it would be with the City. A tentative award would be made to one of the bidders. If the requirements in the letter of intent aren't met during the final negotiations and the County had awarded the contract for that reason, the County would pursue a different course of action.

Vice Mayor Martini stated that he supports the direction in which this proposal is proceeding. He noted that the dispatch issue is a critical one, as is the provision for service in Oakmont. However, while he does not have a problem with either proposal moving forward, he is not comfortable with the process. He suggested that Council should write the letter of support to negotiate with whichever company is chosen in order to increase the service to the community. He expressed concern related to the type of message sent to the County if a separate letter of intent accompanies each proposal; i.e., the question could be raised as to what the Council is really supporting. He reiterated that what the Council wants to support is the public/private partnership and improving the levels of service.

Councilmember Wright concurred. She questioned why the City isn't writing a letter indicating what it will accept.

Councilmember Rabinowitsh said he likes the direction in which this process is moving, but questioned whether the City has been too passive in the process. While the County must make the decision, because the citizens of Santa Rosa make up a large portion of the service area, the City should more actively state its priorities in terms of service. Mr. Lewis explained that to some degree this has occurred. He referred to a list of requirements provided to the County several months ago which the City believes are essential. In part, that list envisioned, ultimately, paramedic services at all nine fire stations and required that all costs be covered. He briefly reviewed the discussions which occurred with RELS and the proposal received from AMR last week. Following analysis, staff felt both proposals would benefit the citizens.

Councilmember Rabinowitsh stressed the importance of geographical equality in terms of levels of services provided; i.e., there must be a parity in the levels of services regardless of the location. Mr. Lewis stated that this parity is definitely staff's intent.

Councilmember Evans asked for clarification regarding the significance of the letters of intent. She questioned why they are more significant than a letter to the County. She suggested that such a letter is a statement of intent to work with these contractors if they can meet the City's requirements. She suggested that this would be a significant message to send to the County; i.e., that the City intends to work with this company if they meet the specified criteria. She said this issue could either be addressed in a letter of intent or a letter to the County. Mr. Lewis gave the following example: The City establishes an intent/desire to deliver paramedic services ultimately out of nine fire stations. The proposal from AMR is initially a more conservative approach, starting out with paramedic services out of two stations. The City is attempting, by the letters of intent, to avoid missing that opportunity to improve that increment of services. He briefly reviewed the general statement included in the proposed letters of intent. He confirmed that each letter of intent would contain different provisions since each company is pursuing different approaches.

Mayor Condron said that she does not think the Council is in a position to make the specific judgments that would be contained in the letters of intent. It is important to note that there are two good options before Council and Council does not want to be put in the position of making a decision between the two proposals. Therefore, it makes sense that a letter of intent be prepared for both proposals. However, the question of whether the Council signs the letter or whether it is authorized by the Fire Chief is not a large issue, since the letter only states the intent to establish a contract at a later time. Council will become a part of that process at that time and will be able to ensure that the proposal is adequate or to require that certain elements be specified. She noted the amount of time and study which has been undertaken related to this matter and the benefit which has resulted from proceeding in this direction in a competitive way. She said she is not uncomfortable with proceeding with the letter of intent.

Councilmember Runyan reiterated his earlier concern that it is paramount that representatives from the Council meet with representatives from the County to review the RFPs after they've been received.

Discussion followed regarding the need for the City to be part of the process of deciding appropriate and adequate services even though the County will be making the contract decision.

Vice Mayor Martini explained why he believes that one letter should be submitted to the County supporting both proposals as they are being proposed. He also agreed with Councilmember Runyan regarding the need for the City to be at that table to ensure the City's interests are heard. However, the main concerns are that the best services will be provided to the residents, that the services already being provided are not jeopardized, and that some level of fiscal soundness is maintained as this proposal moves forward. He does not support the message that would be sent with different letters of intent for each proposal.

Councilmember Evans concurred with the previous comments and said she would be most comfortable if the Council set forth its criteria either in a letter from the Council, one letter of intent, or a resolution; i.e., such a document would state the services the City wants to provide. That criteria should be forwarded to the County and included in its decision-making process.

Mayor Condron noted that Council had agreed early on to allow staff to move forward in looking at agreements with RELS and AMR, and the requirements were stipulated at that time. She suggested that a letter of intent be authorized, while at the same time a letter would be forwarded to the County referencing the letter of intent, explaining the partnership possibilities, and stating the City's desire to be part of the County's consideration of the proposals.

In response to Councilmember Wright, Mr. Lewis stated that the City has not been invited to participate in the selection process for the franchise. However, the process calls for a committee which is representative of the service area to analyze and make recommendations related to the proposals, so he assumes that it would include someone from the City of Santa Rosa. Councilmember Wright said she would support one letter containing one set of criteria the City wants considered. She would not support two separate letters containing different information. She said that it would be irresponsible to endorse either proposal at this time without additional information.

In response to Councilmember Runyan, City Attorney Rene Chouteau indicated that the County will simply be making a selection between the two providers. What is being presented to Council at this time is approval of two letters that would go to the County indicating that no matter which provider is selected, the City can work with either. The general parameters of the partnership would be outlined in those letters of intent. If, on the other hand, Council sends one letter of intent to the County with the criteria that would be acceptable, it may be that either provider could meet the criteria. If Council chooses to send one letter to the County, they could so move at this meeting and then determine whether they want to see that letter before it is forwarded to the County.

Councilmember Wright asked if it would possible to prepare one letter of intent, present it to both providers, and ask them to enter into and sign it. Mr. Chouteau said that would be possible. Councilmember Wright said that would be her recommendation. Such a letter would include the City's requirements.

Mayor Condron questioned whether the requirements (i.e., levels of service) were originally set by the City early in this process. Mr. Lewis responded that staff established what they felt were appropriate criteria based on the consultant's report. He suggested a single letter should be more general so as not to eliminate the ability to at least incrementally improve the system.

Councilmember Vas Dupre noted that it is her understanding that the original recommendation was to entrust this responsibility to Fire Chief Pini. She asked for input from the City Manager on this matter. Mr. Blackman responded that he is inclined to think that the County's receipt of either one or two letters isn't going to make a real difference to the County and the Council will ultimately approve or not the agreement which ultimately results from the County's decisions.

Councilmember Wright expressed concern that the City may lose some negotiating ability if one firm has a more generous letter of intent than the other. If the one with the least generous letter receives the contract with the County, it may present a problem to the City. Mr. Blackman noted that this situation is offset by State law which dictates that the County makes the decision. He suggested that some of the concerns expressed may be addressed by Councilmember Runyan's suggestion that in advance of the County making the decision, there be a meeting with Council representatives which would enable the Council to give input to the County staff.

Councilmember Martini discussed his belief that it is important for the Council to state that they have considered the proposals and to the extent that they enhance the City's services, will move forward; if the services will not be enhanced, the Council will not move forward. He noted that the County should be notified that the City recognizes the value of public/private partnerships.

Councilmember Evans recommended that by revising the resolution by striking the words "either or" in the last paragraph of the resolution, Council could adopt it and give direction to the Fire Department that the letter of intent is a single letter and is a little more generic in its content, setting forth what the Council wants to provide as a City in terms of services for its residents. In addition, Council could delegate one or more Councilmembers to sit at the table with the County on this decision.

MOVED by Councilmember Martini, seconded by Councilmember Evans, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE WORDS "EITHER OR" IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH AND TO DIRECT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE ONE LETTER OF INTENT THAT IS MORE GENERIC IN NATURE AND THAT SETS FORTH WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO PROVIDE AS A CITY IN TERMS OF SERVICES TO ITS RESIDENTS.

RESOLUTION NO. 23832 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE FUTURE AMBULANCE SERVICE PROVIDER FOR SONOMA COUNTY IN THE DELIVERY OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IN SANTA ROSA.

Council consensus was to direct Councilmembers Runyan and Wright to represent the City on this matter.

Reconsideration of Item 7.9

Councilmember Runyan referred to Item 7.9 (School Pedestrian Safety) and said that when issues arose at previous meetings regarding this matter and issues related to the Bellevue Ranch subdivision, he abstained from acting on or discussing those issues. He stated that he should have abstained on Item 7.9 at this meeting and so asked that the previous motion be rescinded and a new motion made.

MOVED by Vice Mayor Martini, seconded by Councilmember Wright, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO RESCIND THE ORIGINAL MOTION RELATED TO ITEM 7.9.

MOVED by Vice Mayor Martini, seconded by Councilmember Wright, CARRIED BY A 6-0-1 (Councilmember Runyan abstaining) VOTE TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF RESOLUTION NO. 23829.

Mr. Chouteau noted that the basis of that abstention was Councilmember Runyan's former investment in the Bellevue Ranch subdivision.

Council recessed from 6:05 to 6:15 p.m. and reconvened with all members present.

Mayor Condron reordered the agenda at this time to consider item 8.7.

8.7 PUBLIC HEARING - CDBG PRIORITIES FOR 1999-2000

Pat Fruiht, Community Affairs Coordinator, made the staff presentation. Annually the City Council holds a public hearing to set the priorities for the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Over the past several years the Council has had the following priorities.

Youth-Related Programs

Homeless-Related Programs

Ms. Fruiht noted that the staff report indicates a major change in funds from last year. In addition to the CDBG funds that have been available for youth-related and homeless-related programs, the Housing Authority has, in the past, allocated approximately $290,000 from their Homeless Assistance Funds (HAF) to support homeless-related programs. This year they are allocating $200,000, which is a $90,000 decrease. This decrease will increase the pressure for CDBG funds.

Ms. Fruiht indicated that staff is seeking direction from the Council at the close of the public hearing to determine if there are different priorities or if there are percentages the Council wants to give to the Committee that will be reviewing the public service programs as it begins its process.

In response to Vice Mayor Martini, Ms. Fruiht indicated that the decision to reduce the Housing Assistance funds was either made by the Housing Authority or Redevelopment Agency.

Gale Brownell, Housing Programs Coordinator, referred to a Redevelopment Agency staff report and a letter from the Agency's legal counsel, regarding the use of Low and Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside funds. She explained that the letter recounts State law related to the use of those funds. Funds may be used by homeless providers for the development and rehabilitation of emergency shelters and transitional housing. They may also be used for the operations of those facilities. However, the operations of facilities are limited to a proportion of the funds. That proportion is not specified in State law, but must be less than a majority of the funds. Those funds are classified as the planning and administration funds. Ms. Brownell said that in the past more funding has been available. Therefore, in addition to the stipulation of this ruling that only a minor portion of the funds can be used for assisting the operations of homeless services, less funding is available with which to operate.

Ms. Brownell noted that this decrease in funds is due to a decline in revenues; i.e., from the loss of real estate transfer tax and the loss of substantial interest earnings from funds that were committed but not yet disbursed since the related projects had not moved forward. There is competition for the funds: permanent affordable housing (which is the primary purpose of the use of them) and activities in the Apple Valley Lane/Papago Court area, which fit into the planning and administration category.

Vice Mayor Martini asked for clarification: was money lost or was a decision made to follow the regulations? In other words, are more funds available now for the development of housing while there is less available for the operation of housing? Ms. Brownell responded that there are less funds for both purposes. She explained the reason for the loss of real estate transfer taxes. In the early 1990s, those monies were initially dedicated/designated for housing purposes. That designation was changed in 1994. Those funds were available but had to be committed to other projects; i.e., new development. Because those funds were not disbursed since the projects were not ready to proceed, interest earnings accrued which also added to the revenues available. Those interest earnings were used for a period of years.

Councilmember Rabinowitsh asked for clarification related to the amount of funds being lost due to the legal interpretation of what the funds can be used for. Ms. Brownell responded that the legal interpretation is one of the reasons the funds have decreased. The $90,000 is a decrease which was actually projected to be larger. However, the Housing Authority decided to use reserves for the upcoming year. There are no excess reserves that can be used beyond the upcoming year.

Councilmember Rabinowitsh asked for additional clarification related to the amount of the funding affected by the legal interpretation (i.e., the "minor" part of the funds that can be used). Ms. Brownell said that because the legal interpretation is only one portion of the reasoning, it is difficult to provide a specific amount impacted. For example, this year there is $290,000 available in Homeless Assistance Funds. Over the past three years, that amount averaged approximately $310,000. If the amount of money allowed is strictly determined by the legal interpretation, it is thought that the Community Development Block Grant ratios should be relied on; i.e.,15% of the Housing Assistance Funds can be used for public services ($50,000). Councilmember Rabinowitsh noted that it was not clear in the opinion letter that the percentage has to be that low. Ms. Brownell said that the State law does not contain specifics. The percentages provided to Council have been discussed with the Redevelopment Agency and are what the Agency felt comfortable using. She noted that the Agency has not taken specific action on that matter.

In response to Councilmember Rabinowitsh, Ms. Brownell confirmed that the lesser amount available for the homeless is not a State law, although State law affects it; it is a local decision.

Mayor Condron opened the public hearing.

Helga Lemke, Executive Director of Sonoma County People for Equal Opportunity (SCPEO), said SCPEO currently receives funding from the City for both homeless and youth services. The City's funding helps to support SCPEO's emergency shelter for single women, the HCA program, and youth services in two of the poorest areas of the City (South Park and the Comstock/Apple Valley area). She urged Council not to pit funding for homeless services against youth services. The City has been very forward-looking in its support of both of these areas. She said it is a poor idea to restrict homeless funding to "bricks and mortar." The families' abilities in terms of life and coping skills are equally important to housing. Additionally, the needs of the City's youth are critical and should not be compromised. She noted that the amount of funding being discussed is a relatively small amount (i.e., $100,000). It was originally her understanding that the City is not allowed to use the same amount of Homeless Assistance Funds, but she is not as clear on this matter at this time. It appears that the City has that flexibility. She expressed appreciation to Council for their support of SCPEO and other agencies in the community, and urged Council to continue to maintain that support. She referred to the current healthy economy and noted that the City has a healthy reserve.

David Brigode, Housing Director of SCPEO, referred to the newspaper article which appeared on Christmas Day regarding an anonymous donor who contributes $300,000 a year to Sonoma County. His organization facilitates that program with the City's support. He said the City has made a very proper commitment to a continuum of housing services. He noted that the population his agency services are in the 5% to 10% median income range. There is not a lot of housing produced for this population and a great deal of work must be done to assist that population to access housing. The SCPEO programs are the only ones available for entry into affordable housing. He said that to only consider the "bricks and mortar" production program does not serve the entire continuum. He suggested that there needs to be a balance for all of the programs. He noted that the State now has a new Democratic Governor who will be able generate funds from a State level to assist cities and counties in the bricks and mortar aspects of creating more affordable housing.

Mr. Brigode discussed some of the funds which are no longer available (real estate transfer taxes, etc.) and shared some of his ideas related to funding. He said the possibility of using in-lieu development fees for homeless services is within the control of the Council. He noted the potential ambiguity in the legal opinion which may permit some flexibility in the use of those funds. He referred to the reserves, noting the healthy financial condition of the City. He questioned whether the funding for the Community Organizer in Apple Valley could come from some funds other than housing. He said that if the Homeless Assistance Funds are reduced, SCPEO's ability to leverage additional funds from the County, private foundations, the State and the Federal government, will be reduced. He urged Council to make efforts to restore Homeless Assistance Funds at least to its preexisting level without setting homeless and youth services programs against each other.

Patty McCaffrey, Principal at Fremont Elementary School, expressed appreciation to Council for the Block Grant Funds provided last year which, in part, served the homeless and youth at Fremont Elementary School. She discussed the tutoring and recreational activities which were offered as a result, and in collaboration with her staff, Santa Rosa City Schools, and the City's Recreation and Parks Department: She said she hopes Council will take these programs into consideration when making their decisions related to funding.

Mara Leon, Santa Rosa (Apple Valley area) resident for 13 years, discussed the positive impacts which the programs offered as a result of the City's funding has had on her life. She is now able, through the funding, to assist youth and adults obtain jobs, provide recreational opportunities, and assist youth with their drug problems.

Laura Edwards, Homeless Services Director for Community Support Network, noted that her agency provides services to people with mental illnesses. She is concerned with the potential cut in services that may result from the reduction in City funds. Without these services, many of the people her agency now services will not remain successful in or be able to maintain their housing. She said she is concerned for the following year. Some reserves are available through her agency for 1999-2000, but not for the future. She urged Council to find funds for these programs. She cited information from "Health Profile 1996," and noted that one-third of Sonoma County homeless are seriously mentally ill. She said she doesn't want these or other homeless people forgotten.

Mo Aimaq, Homeless Outreach Coordinator for Community Support Network, said his responsibilities involve an outreach on the streets and bringing homeless people to services such as those that have been mentioned. He spoke about his clients, some of whom are mentally ill, and said these people are taught basic life skills in order to enable them to move them on to the next step. These people are either very low income or homeless people. He explained why if the funding is lost these people will also lose their voice. He asked Council to keep this in mind.

Brenda Madriz, member of SCPEO and its Youth Development Team, asked Council to continue supporting her organization. She said she also attends and assists at the South Park Youth Center. She will not be able to continue to provide this assistance without the City's financial support.

Mussie Girmay thanked Council for supporting him and others like him, indicating that Council's support gives them a place to go and something to do.

Cristina De Parf said she is from South Park and thanked Council for their assistance. She asked them to continue providing financial support.

Vince Harper also thanked Council and noted that it is nice to work with the young people. He said that the funds from the Block Grant has enabled them to provide a high quality of services to the youth in South Park as well as in the Comstock area. He said that while Council's support has been wonderful, there is still a great deal more that needs to be done. It is very important for the youth to have places to go and things to do and this availability is a benefit to the community.

Tula Jaffe, Coordinator of the Task for Sonoma Homeless, expressed her hope that Council will recommit themselves to the homeless. She referred to the 1991 Housing Authority budget goal for homeless assistance ($375,000). She said she knows that Council recognizes that people need a sense of security. The City's 29% budget reserves reflects that awareness. However, homeless people have nothing in reserve. She asked Council to pay attention to that and to the people who live in Santa Rosa without security. She referred to monies spent on other projects (on parks, Fourth Street improvements, etc.) and said that while these things are important, it is most important that people have a basic sense of security and that they know that they will have a place to sleep at night. She discussed what is meant by the "continuum of care" concept and said that it is an entire system with an identifying outreach which provides emergency shelter, transitional housing, support services, etc. and, finally, permanent, affordable housing. She said that her agency fears that the most vulnerable people (those in shelters and the homeless) are being sacrificed. She said that unless the City supports homeless people in shelters, they will never attain low-income affordable housing. She urged Council to recommit themselves to concept of continuum of care and to find the money and political will so that people in Sonoma County have a place to stay.

John Lowry, Burbank Housing, said his agency lends its support to the concept that housing is more than just buildings; i.e., services that assist people to stay and live successfully in those buildings. Burbank Housing also supports the continuation of funding for housing-related services. He pointed out that Burbank Housing builds more affordable housing in Santa Rosa than any other agency. The question has arisen as to whether Burbank Housing should build more houses or provide more services. They think the current level of services is very important and should be seen as a priority at the very least. He urged Council to look at other sources of funding. He said there are two questions pending: is there an assumption that there is only one fixed source of funds for housing, housing services and youth services for which choices must be made, or are there other potential sources of money that are not housing funds that could fund these services? He referenced the time when transfer taxes were increased and said the concept was, at that time, that the funds resulting from the increase were meant to assist Housing and housing-related functions. That has not occurred for quite some time. He suggested that Council should seriously consider designating a portion of that money for funding the homeless and youth services. He referred to the four sources of housing-dedicated funds (CDBG, HOME, Redevelopment Set-Aside, and In-Lieu Funding) and said the position of the Housing Authority is that two of those sources are off-limits for services and two have statutory limitations on the amounts that can be used for services, but one of those limitations is vague. He closed by again urging Council to look at other sources, and, barring that, to consider funding these services with housing funds. He urged Council not to cut the programs.

Andrea Learned, Executive Director of Face to Face, said her agency operates a six-bed residence in the City. She said the providers of homeless services are asking for a minimum of $175,000 from CDBG or any other funding source. This request is above and beyond the Housing Authority's recent recommendation of $200,000 from their reserve fund. She said this request is being made because of concern for the health and welfare of all the people in the community. She said that her agency's task is to provide services to people who are temporarily homeless. On any given night, 432 homeless people are housed in Santa Rosa Shelters. In any given year, an additional 2,400 other homeless people receive other types of homeless services in Santa Rosa. She pointed out that cities that have not chosen to pay attention to their homeless problems have other real problems. She discussed the per day and per night costs to the City related to homeless services, and said that the City's funds pay for less than 10% of the costs for homeless care and shelter in Santa Rosa. She said the needs of the increasing population and outreach costs cannot be met without the City's support. She asked Council to make homeless services a priority for CDBG funding.

Danielle Ergus, said she represents Routes for Youth, a program which administers Teen Theater and the Sonoma County Teen Court. She thanked Council for their dedication to the youth and homeless services. She noted that a large part of the Teen Court Program is funded through the CDBG. She said she is encouraged by the number of individuals who have urged Council not to force competition between youth and homeless services providers. She asked Council to find other funding for the youth services in the City. She discussed the benefits She received from these programs when she was younger: a sense of respect from others, increased self-esteem, and support to move forward and make an impact in the community. She said that funding prevention and diversion programs through youth services is an opportunity to maintain cost-savings benefits to the community and to encourage future leaders of the community.

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

Mayor Condron asked for additional information regarding the amount of money that will be available and for clarification as to the degree to which the legal opinion must be relied on as the reduction in funds is considered.

Before Ms. Fruiht responded to Mayor Condron's questions, she clarified that Council is not being asked tonight to determine what programs they will be funding. That hearing will probably be held in April. Council's charge at this meeting is to decide priorities; i.e., youth services/homeless services. Council does not have to choose one above the other. They can give the committee direction or they may choose not to. If Council indicates that they want to fund both homeless and youth services, the Committee will move forward with that recommendation and attempt to determine the best use of the funds available. She noted that it is not intended that homeless and youth services be pitted against each other.

Ms. Fruiht displayed a chart showing a historical perspective of the percentages and dollar amounts allocated to the homeless and youth services providers from CDBG funds. In 1995-96, 40% of the funds were given to homeless services and 60% were given to youth services. That percentage has decreased for homeless services and increased for youth services over the years. The reason for this adjustment is because Homeless Assistance Funds have been available (i.e., between $290,000 and $315,000).

Ms. Fruiht displayed a chart showing the historical perspective of the percentages and dollar amounts allocated to the homeless and youth services providers from the total funds available. Homeless providers have received between 65% and 68% percent (i.e., Homeless Assistance Funds and CDBG dollars combined). Youth services providers have received between 32% and 35%. These percentages have been fairly consistent since 1995-96.

Vice Mayor Martini asked for clarification. Staff is requesting direction from Council as to what to do with the available funds. However, before Council provides that direction, the question of whether there are additional funds available must be answered and it must be determined whether Council has discretion to deal with the decision made by the Housing Authority. Mr. Blackman responded that there are two sources of funds being considered: CDBG and Housing Set-Aside money. The change has occurred in the Housing Set-Aside funding which is generated out of the Downtown Redevelopment Project. In the past, larger sums of money have been available for housing programs than are available at the present time. Staff requested clarification from legal counsel on a restriction on how much of the Set-Aside money could be used for homeless programs. The response is that there is a restriction. There is some flexibility in terms of the percent, but a percent in the amount of 15% is being considered. It became necessary for the Housing Authority to take from its reserves to augment the funding above that 15%. As far as the Housing Authority is concerned, there is a permanent reduction in the amount of Housing Set-Aside funding that can be used for homeless programs. He noted that additional money could be taken from the General Fund reserves if Council desired to do this, or they could terminate other City programs and transfer the funds. The real estate transfer tax funds referenced earlier were redesignated to pay public safety salaries and add personnel in 1994. That money is not available at this time. He said Council could establish other taxes; i.e., increase the Transient Occupancy Tax (which would require a vote of the public).

Councilmember Evans said it is her understanding that if the Council wants to continue its historic funding of the same programs at the same level, additional funding must be found. If Council doesn't want to do that, they will have to make decisions regarding how to designate the CDBG funding, which will pose the problem raised by the public of competing programs between youth and homeless services. She referred to the legal opinion and said it does not contain a clear answer as to whether the Homeless Assistance Funds can or cannot be used for homeless services. She referred to page 4 of the opinion, regarding the area of uncertainty related to the extent to which those funds may be used, and said that in her reading of the opinion it appears to be a gray area and does not necessarily prohibit those funds from being used. In other words, it seems to be open to interpretation and she would like to interpret it differently. She requested the City Attorney's comments on this matter.

Mr. Chouteau indicated that because the letter was just received today, he would have to review it further and discuss the opinion with the legal counsel who wrote it. He said the Housing Authority is making their determination based on the legal counsel's advice. That may or may not be the same decision the Council would reach based on the same facts. Aside from Council asking the Housing Authority to reconsider their determination, Council is limited and cannot overrule their determination.

Councilmember Evans restated that Council's options, then, would be that they could either ask the Housing Authority to reconsider their determination or could look for additional funding elsewhere.

Councilmember Vas Dupre indicated that because she was at the Wastewater Plant today, she did not receive the legal opinion earlier. She thinks it deserves careful consideration. She discussed her awareness that because there are many people who are not as fortunate as she is, it is incumbent on her to, in a sense, look after every person. She acknowledged staff's concerns and thoroughness, and said she is looking forward to working with them to determine how to better address this situation. She noted that there are other cities in which the funding has been found. It is incumbent on the Council to work with the County in this regard. She discussed the need to look at prevention as a key concept in this situation. She said that prior to Council making any specific decisions they should give careful consideration to the legal opinion. Consideration should also be given to the possible use of the transient occupancy tax and real estate transfer tax to help with funding. She pointed out that there is a need to work extra hard to communicate with the County related to these and other needs. Those persons who have testified related to these needs should assist in enlisting the aid of the County as well.

Councilmember Rabinowitsh said it is important to maintain the same funding level and not to get into the position of having to choose between homeless and youth services. He acknowledged that while Housing Assistance Funds compete with other important housing programs, these funds are an option that needs to be considered. In addition, other revenue sources should be considered (transient occupancy and real estate transfer taxes). He suggested that one possibility to consider may be to place a cap on the amount of money received from certain sources (for example, transient occupancy or real estate transfer taxes). Revenues received up to that cap would continue to go to the current designated fund and revenues exceeding that cap could be dedicated to funding some of these programs.

Councilmember Runyan referenced his experience on the CDBG Committee and noted the large amount of community needs. The City is not going to be able to meet those needs. He briefly discussed the monies the State has diverted from cities since 1992. He said his preference is that the percentages remain as recommended under the options contained in the staff report (i.e.: CDBG funds only - 22% homeless, 78% youth services; CDBG and HAF funds - 64% homeless and 36% youth services). He also said Council can look at other sources of revenues, though it will be difficult to find them. He said that there about 600 non-profits in the County and this asset is also a big liability. The number of non-profits should probably be reduced in order to eliminate duplication of services and to more efficiently use the same amount of money. He said that if cuts are necessary, they should be made proportionately.

Vice Mayor Martini Council said it is clear that Council needs to move forward on this issue and that the subcommittee of the Council receive direction. The one alternative is to use a percentage, across-the-board split. He suggested, however, that Council needs to consider, if these cuts are to be made, whether or not there are some programs that may fall below a "basic lifeline" for those programs. Council may be able to make some difficult decisions not to fund one or two programs in order to fully fund programs that are vital.

Mayor Condron noted that she and Councilmember Runyan spent time reviewing this matter and, as a result, have included some recommendations for criteria and priorities for consideration by Council (page two of the staff report). She recommended that Council stay with the same funding split as it has in the past and direct that the percentages remain approximately the same, with some flexibility (i.e., up to a 5% shift). She said that the Homeless Assistance Committee of the Housing Authority recommended some priorities in terms of homeless funding (item A. of the staff report, stated earlier in the minutes). The Committee also recommended that the priority for funding for youth services should go towards keeping youth physically healthy and for after-school programs. In addition, it was recommended that Council consider the number of people served and the amount funded by the City in terms of the overall program budget. Another criteria to be considered would be how a program which has been funded is performing. It was also recommended that Council not look to funding new agencies.

Councilmember Evans said she would support the recommendations/criteria discussed by Mayor Condron, but noted that this does not respond to the fundamental issue of the drastically reduced amount available. The reason for that drastic reduction is because of the interpretation by the Housing Authority of what the City is allowed to do by law with the Housing Assistance Funds. She said her preference is to attempt to maintain the same funding level. An alternative to finding other funds (other than CDBG funds) is to ask the Housing Authority to reinterpret the language in the counsel's opinion. Barring that, this matter will have to come back to Council for direction regarding whether Council wants to commit funds and where those funds should come from. She said she is not willing to cut $90,000 this year and $290,000 next year.

Councilmember Vas Dupre concurred with Councilmember Evans.

Mayor Condron recommended that Council continue action on this matter to the next Council meeting in order to provide the City Attorney with an opportunity to examine the opinion of the legal counsel and to come back to Council with a recommendation as to whether it would be appropriate to request the Housing Authority to reconsider this matter. Council concurred.

Mr. Chouteau stated that the public hearing has been closed. He will report back to Council on this matter at the next meeting for Council consideration.

It was the general consensus of the Council that youth and homeless services will remain as priorities. In addition, Council concurred that Ms. Fruiht can proceed with the application process, recognizing that the total dollar amount available may change. However, such a change will most likely not impact the way the applications are submitted.

Mayor Condron clarified that her recommendation, in part, is that the percentage not be changed but that an effort be made to obtain additional funding.

Mr. Chouteau reiterated that the public hearing for this matter has been closed but consideration by Council has been continued to the next Council meeting.

8.2 REPORT - REASSESSMENT AND REFINANCING OF FOUNTAINGROVE PARKWAY EXTENSION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BONDS

Stan Lindsay, Director of Administrative Services, made the staff presentation. In 1994, the City sold Fountaingrove Parkway Extension Assessment District Bonds in the amount of $16.7 million. Proceeds from the bond sale were used to finance the property owners' share of building the Fountaingrove Parkway Extension.

At the time of the bond sale, ownership of the properties within the boundaries of the Assessment District was in the name of three entities. Today, the Parkway has been built. Significant development has taken place. A variety of homebuilder/developers have completed much of the public subdivision infrastructure for the District. Homes have been built and are occupied.

With completion of the Fountaingrove Parkway and the subdivision of much of the bulk parcels of land within the District, the risk, in the opinion of the investors, has improved considerably. At the time the Assessment District bonds were sold in 1994, the appraised value of the undeveloped land was $50.2 million. The appraised value of the land and improvements today is approximately $75 million.

In today's bond market, the estimated average interest rate on refunding bonds would be between 5.5% and 5.75%. Such a reduction in interest rates will result in annual debt service saving of approximately $200,000, representing cumulative savings of $4.5 million over the remaining life of the debt. This savings will be passed along to property owners.

It is recommended by the Department of Administrative Services that the City Council, by resolutions, authorize the reassessment and refinancing of Fountaingrove Parkway Extension Assessment District Bonds. To accomplish this, the City Council needs to approve three resolutions, a Fiscal Agent Agreement and an Escrow Agreement. These documents have been prepared by the City Bond Counsel, Jones Hall. It is further recommended that the firm of Stone & Youngberg underwrite the refunding bond issue.

Mr. Lindsay displayed a chart, "Comparison of Economic Factors," and explained how the outstanding debt can be refinanced at an interest rate of 5.75% instead of the average interest rate of 7.5% in June 1994. The net savings to the property owners of the District will be approximately $200,000 a year. The savings will not come to the City, but rather to the owners of the properties within the District.

In response to Mayor Condron, Mr. Lindsay explained that the amortization schedule on the debt will not change. The principal amount on each lot will remain the same as before the refinancing, but the interest rate applied to that amortization schedule will be lower.

Councilmember Wright asked if the taxes will decrease for individual property owners. Mr. Lindsay confirmed that those taxes will decrease.

Councilmember Evans asked if this action will result in any costs to the City. Mr. Lindsay said that there will be costs, but they will be paid for through the refinancing and will be assessed to the property owners. Taxpayers will not have to absorb those costs nor will there be any obligation to the City of Santa Rosa.

MOVED by Councilmember Wright, seconded by Vice Mayor Martini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.2):

RESOLUTION NO. 23833 ENTITLED: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING REASSESSMENT REPORT, CONFIRMING AND ORDERING THE REASSESSMENT BY SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO: CITY OF SANTA ROSA FOUNTAINGROVE PARKWAY EXTENSION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (REASSESSMENT AND REFUNDING OF 1999).

MOVED by Councilmember Wright, seconded by Vice Mayor Martini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.2):

RESOLUTION NO. 23834 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY REASSESSMENTS AND TO ISSUE REFUNDING BONDS: CITY OF SANTA ROSA FOUNTAINGROVE PARKWAY EXTENSION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (REASSESSMENT AND REFUNDING OF 1999).

MOVED by Councilmember Wright, seconded by Vice Mayor Martini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.2):

RESOLUTION NO. 23835 ENTITLED: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING BONDS AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING RELATED DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS: CITY OF SANTA ROSA FOUNTAINGROVE PARKWAY EXTENSION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (REASSESSMENT AND REFUNDING OF 1999).

8.3 REPORT - JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND DUAL USE OF RECREATION AREA AND DETENTION BASIN AT HERBERT SLATER MIDDLE SCHOOL

Colleen Ferguson, Supervising Engineer, made the staff presentation. An Agreement for Funding of the Carley Road Detention Basin with the Sonoma County Water Agency (Agency) in the amount of $811,000 of Laguna-Mark West Zone 1A funds was approved by the City Council on December 22, 1998. The agreement was approved by the Board of Directors of the Agency today. The Carley Road Detention Basin project is proposed to help alleviate street and backyard flooding which occurs along Carley Road and the surrounding area.

The location of the Carley Road Detention Basin is the playing field area of Herbert Slater Middle School adjacent to Carley Road. A Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Santa Rosa High School District (District) has been prepared under which the City and District would jointly develop and maintain dual use facilities at Herbert Slater Middle School. The dual use would be for recreational facilities and a detention basin. This agreement was approved by the District Board on December 16, 1998.

Funding of the Carley Road Detention Basin consists of $198,150 for design and construction and $612,850 for acquisition of an easement from the District for a total amount of $811,000. The project is funded by Zone 1A under the above-described funding agreement. The District plans to install and develop playing fields and other recreational facilities within the easement. The Carley Road Detention Basin project is proposed to be designed and constructed through a design-build contract administered by the District. Design is scheduled to begin soon after execution of the funding agreements with construction scheduled in 1999.

Ms. Ferguson acknowledged the members of the A Place to Play Committee for bringing this project together.

It is recommended by the Public Works Department that the City Council, by resolution, authorize the execution of a Joint Powers Agreement for Development and Dual Use of Recreation Area and Detention Basin at Herbert Slater Middle School with the District in the amount of $811,000 with the source of funds being the Laguna-Mark West Zone 1A from Project No. 8139.

There were no questions of staff.

MOVED by Vice Mayor Martini, seconded by Councilmember Runyan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.3):

RESOLUTION NO. 23836 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA APPROVING A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND DUAL USE OF RECREATION AREA AND DETENTION BASIN AT HERBERT SLATER MIDDLE SCHOOL.

8.4 REPORT - COOPERATIVE PURCHASE - POLICE PATROL VEHICLES

Ron Bosworth, Deputy Director of Administrative Services, made the staff presentation. The Police Department has submitted a requisition for the purchase of eleven police patrol vehicles. In past procurements of police patrol sedans the City has exercised the option to buy sedans through the State of California Cooperative Purchasing Program. By exercising this procurement method, the City takes full advantage of the State's purchasing power for CHP patrol sedans which match the City's vehicle specifications.

The delivered price of each vehicle is $26,939.27 which includes sales tax, 1% State handling charge and delivery.

Delivery of the eleven patrol vehicles purchased through the State of California Cooperative Purchasing Program is ninety days after receipt of purchase order from the City.

Based on the City's ability to use the State of California's Cooperative Purchasing Program for the purchase of full size patrol vehicles and continued need by the Police department for full size patrol vehicles, it is recommended that the City Council, by resolution, authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order for eleven Ford Crown Victoria Class "E" police patrol vehicles via the State of California Cooperative Purchasing Program to Downtown Ford of Sacramento in the amount of $296,331.97.

In response to Councilmember Wright, Mr. Bosworth said he believes the City purchases warranties when the cars are purchased. He noted that while the cars are only approximately 18 months old when they are replaced, they will have approximately 90,000 miles on them. The City adopted a guideline that it would be most cost-effective to replace the vehicles when they have reached 90,000 miles.

Responding to Councilmember Evans, Mr. Bosworth said that the vehicles being replaced will be sold to the highest bidder at the City's annual auction.

MOVED by Councilmember Evans, seconded by Councilmember Runyan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.4):

RESOLUTION NO. 23837 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ELEVEN CHP TYPE SPECIAL SERVICE VEHICLES THROUGH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE PURCHASING PROGRAM.

8.5 PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION - TURNBULL SUBDIVISION

Sonia Binnendyk, City Planner, made the staff presentation. On November 12, 1998, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend the City Council rezone 1.06 acres at 184 Boas Drive from the "A" (Agricultural) District to the RR-20 (Rural Residential) District. Further, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve a Tentative Map subdividing the property into two rural residential lots consisting of 22,100 and 23,900 square feet subject to City Council approval of the rezoning request.

The property is located in the Boas Island, most of which is already in the RR-20 District requested by the applicant. Ms. Binnendyk displayed a map showing the location of the proposed site and surrounding area. The main difference between the property's existing "A" District designation and the proposed RR-20 District is in lot size requirements. The "A" District requires a one-acre minimum lot size whereas the RR-20 District requires a 20,000 square-foot minimum lot size.

The General Plan designates the project site for Very Low Density Residential land uses which permits a maximum two units per acre. The proposed zoning district is consistent with this designation as is the density of the proposed subdivision (1.89 units per acre).

A Negative Declaration has been posted for the project.

It is recommended by the Planning Commission that the City Council, by resolution, adopt a Negative Declaration and introduce an ordinance rezoning 184 Boas Drive from the "A" (Agricultural) District to the RR-20 (Rural Residential) District.

Mayor Condron opened the public hearing.

Denise Peter, Carlile Macy, said she represents the property owners. She discussed the development of the property seven years ago and pointed out that no further public improvements are required on the site. She noted that the project is consistent with the General Plan. She said the applicant is in agreement with the staff report and all of the conditions of approval.

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

There were no questions of staff.

MOVED by Councilmember Rabinowitsh, seconded by Councilmember Wright, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.5):

RESOLUTION NO. 23838 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA APPROVING AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE RECLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 184 BOAS DRIVE - FILE NUMBER MJP98-011.

MOVED by Councilmember Rabinowitsh, seconded by Councilmember Wright, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO INTRODUCE AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.5):

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 184 BOAS DRIVE - FILE NUMBER MJP98-011.

8.6 PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION - TRAILWOOD

Marie Meredith, Senior Planner, made the staff presentation. On November 12, 1998, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of a rezoning involving a modification to the Development Plan for the Woodside Hills Subdivision on Lot 11. A new building envelope is proposed on the 4.28-acre lot which would be relocated further to the west, reduced from 25,296 square feet to 19,380 square feet and reconfigured. No other policies would be changed. At the public hearing no one spoke in opposition to the proposal. An initial study identified no significant environmental effects; a Negative Declaration was issued.

Ms. Meredith displayed and discussed a map of the proposed site, as well as the original and proposed location of the building envelope.

It is recommended by the Planning Commission and the Department of Community Development that the City Council, by resolution, adopt the Negative Declaration and introduce an ordinance rezoning the subject property.

Mayor Condron opened the public hearing.

James Hummer discussed the location of the original building envelope of the site and positive impacts resulting from changing the location of the building envelope. He stated that the adjacent property owners were very supportive of the proposal. He noted that in the new building location only two or three trees will be lost, rather than ten trees as would occur with the original location. He briefly reviewed the proposal, including the modification to the final map, and noted that the Planning Commission, by a unanimous decision, and staff concurred with the proposal.

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

MOVED by Councilmember Vas Dupre, seconded by Councilmember Wright, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.6):

RESOLUTION NO. 23839 ENTITLED: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA APPROVING AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE RECLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5767 TRAILWOOD DRIVE - FILE NUMBER MJP98-035.

MOVED by Councilmember Vas Dupre, seconded by Councilmember Wright, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO INTRODUCE AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF (Item 8.6):

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 5767 TRAILWOOD DRIVE - FILE NUMBER MJP98-035.

9. MAYOR'S/COUNCILMEMBERS' REPORTS

MOVED by Vice Mayor Martini, seconded by Councilmember Runyan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADD ITEM 9.2 TO THE AGENDA.

9.1 APPOINTMENT - POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Mr. Blackman referred to the letter received from the County asking whether a member of the Council wants to serve on the Policy Advisory Committee. In the past, a staff person has filled that position. Each City participating in the program is entitled to have one representative. The question before Council is whether they want staff to continue serving in this capacity, or whether a member of the Council wants to attend the meeting and participate. In response to Councilmember Vas Dupre, Mr. Blackman said it is possible that there could be a combination of both; i.e., staff could serve as an alternate and a Councilmember could be the directly appointed representative.

Mayor Condron referred to a letter from the City Manager of Rohnert Park which lists the number of vacancies on various associations. These vacancies will be raised for consideration at the Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association meeting on January 14. These vacancies are in addition to the one for the Policy Advisory Committee.

Following a brief discussion, Council consensus was that Assistant City Manager Marc Richardson should serve as the City's primary representative and Director of Transit & Parking Bob Dunlavey should serve as the alternate.

*9.2 APPOINTMENT TO METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. Blackman said this item is before Council because the City Select Committee, at their meeting next week, will be considering appointing a member to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Councilmember Wright has filled that role on the City's behalf for the past several years. He indicated that there is competition for this position and suggested it would be appropriate for the Council to endorse Councilmember Wright's candidacy.

Councilmember Runyan recommended that the Council endorse Councilmember Wright for appointment and Vice Member Martini concurred, noting why it is paramount for her to continue to be involved on this Commission.

Councilmember Wright said she has sent letters to and will be contacting by telephone the other Mayors this week. She noted that seniority in regional government is important. Because of her four years of service on this Commission, she now serves as the Vice Chairperson of the Grant Review and Allocation Committee. This Committee allocates the funding of the monies. In addition, there is a possibility that she may be considered either for the Executive Committee or Chairmanship, which would be of greater benefit to the City.

Council indicated their unanimous support of Councilmember Wright's continued appointment. Mayor Condron will prepare a letter indicating this unanimous support and reemphasizing the importance of her continued service.

9.3 ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION TOPICS

Mr. Chouteau announced the following Closed Session topics:

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - POTENTIAL LITIGATION (ONE CLAIM)

(Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9)

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS

Property: 521 Seventh Street (APN 010-035-033)

Negotiating Parties: City of Santa Rosa and Robert Fischer

Under Negotiation: All Terms of Possible Lease, Sale and Other Acquisition of Interests in the Real Property

Mayor's/Councilmembers' Reports

Vice Mayor Martini said he and Councilmember Martini will be meeting with representatives from the Board of Community Services and the Planning Commission on Friday, January 15, to discuss issues related to the relocation of the Church of One. They will report back to Council on the status of that meeting.

Councilmember Vas Dupre discussed her and her husband's participation in the First Night event. There was an impressive showing, through the Recreation & Parks Department, of the Young Will Shakespeare Company. She noted that she received inquiries at that event regarding the location of the AA and NA meetings and said she is pleased that the City provides a safe place for these meetings to occur.

Mayor Condron reviewed the vacancies for the Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association Committees. Mayor Condron asked Councilmembers to let her know if they are interested in any of these appointments and noted that it is important for them to send letters to each of the other Councils, and particularly the Mayors, so that they are aware of that interest.

Solid Waste Management Alternatives Analysis - Policy Advisory Committee: Two vacancies.

County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District Advisory Committee: One vacancy. Two letters have been received from people interested in this appointment (Larry Barnett of Sonoma and Kent Mitchell of Healdsburg).

County Child Care Planning Council: One vacancy. Councilmember Vas Dupre indicated her interest in serving on this Council.

Executive Board , North Bay Division, League of California Cities: One vacancy.

ABAG Executive Board: One vacancy. Councilmember Rabinowitsh indicated his interest in serving on this Board. Councilmember Wright indicated that she does not think the opening for ABAG is for the Executive Board, but rather for ABAG in general.

Councilmember Runyan noted that he already serves on the Executive Board of the North Bay Division of the League of California Cities.

Mayor Condron reminded Council of the upcoming openings in March on the Bay Area Air Quality Management Board.

Councilmember Wright briefly discussed Mr. Mitchell's commitment to the Open Space District, noting his prior service on that District and his background, and said she would support his appointment to that District. Mayor Condron briefly reviewed the letter which includes information regarding his background and noted that he was unanimously endorsed by the Healdsburg City Council.

Councilmember Vas Dupre indicated that while she does not know Mr. Mitchell, she knows Mr. Barnett. She said he has been an avid environmentalist and has pushed forward environmentally sound planning in Sonoma.

Vice Mayor Martini indicated that he does not know Mr. Barnett and so would support Mr. Mitchell's nomination.

Mayor Condron distributed a list of the 1999 Council Committee Assignments. This document is on file in the office of the City Clerk. She said there was a great deal of interest in participating on the Downtown Partnership/City Vision Committee and she believes all Councilmembers will be involved in the efforts of this Committee.

Mayor Condron reemphasized the vacancies on City boards and commissions and urged community members who are interested in serving to obtain committee applications. Councilmember Evans read the list of vacancies:

Board of Community Services - One Vacancy

Cultural Heritage Board (Architect) - One Vacancy

Design Review Board (At Large) - One Vacancy

Board of Building Regulation Appeals - Two Vacancies (One Architect and One Electrical Engineer or Contractor)

10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (AND POSSIBLE COUNCIL ACTION)

10.1 COMMUNICATION - League of California Cities Legislative Bulletin.

This item was provided for informational purposes only. Mr. Blackman noted that the Mandatory Social Security issue is discussed in the Bulletin and staff is monitoring this matter closely. In response to Councilmember Runyan, Mr. Blackman indicated that the City has joined with other cities in demanding an after the count review.

10.2 COMMUNICATION - Department of Community Development re: Sign Code (Directional Signs - Citywide).

Mr. Blackman indicated that this communication is related to a recommendation the Council forwarded to the Planning Commission sometime ago regarding a request by Paradise Ridge Winery for authority to place a directional sign on Fountaingrove Parkway. The Planning Commission considered and rejected this request. Councilmember Evans said she is interested in pursuing this matter further, as is Councilmember Wright. Councilmember Runyan asked whether it was the idea or design of the sign that was rejected by the Planning Commission. Mr. Blackman said he believes it was the idea that this would be a directional sign located off-site, which is not permitted by the City's Sign Ordinance. There was some discussion regarding the difficulty of locating the winery, following which there appeared to be consensus to pursue this matter further.

10.3 COMMUNICATION - L. Daniels re: R/UDAT Recommendations and Financing Changes on Fourth Street.

This item was provided for informational purposes. Staff will forward this communication to the City Vision Committee.

10.4 COMMUNICATION - Redevelopment Agency Annual Report to the State Controller's Office.

This item was provided for informational purposes only.

10.5 COMMUNICATION - P. Grimm re: Appreciation for Use of Finley by Neptunes.

This item was provided for informational purposes only.

10.6 COMMUNICATION - Human Resources Department re: Information on the Portland Police and Citizen Mediation Program and on the Job Description of City Ombudsman.

This item was provided for informational purposes. Councilmember Evans said she was in favor of investigating the possibility of an ombudsman initially and is interested in pursuing it further. However, her original concept was that such a position would not serve solely to resolve concerns related to the Police Department but concerns related to all City services. She is still interested in pursuing this concept.

Mayor Condron requested that discussion regarding this issue be held during a Council goal-setting session.

10.7 COMMUNICATION - J. and B. Van Blaricom re: Stop Signs - Corner of Hidden Valley Drive and Rolling Hill Drive.

This item was provided for informational purposes only.

10.8 COMMUNICATION - Community Development Department re Status - General Permit Application.

This item was provided for informational purposes only.

10.9 COMMUNICATION - Doyle Trust re: Donation toward Doyle Park Improvement.

This item was provided for informational purposes only. Councilmember Wright indicated that she has received several telephone calls from one member of the Board who wants to know exactly where money is going and how it will be used. Mr. Blackman confirmed that a response will be forwarded. Councilmember Wright said, for the benefit of the public, that this donation is used for specific projects in Doyle Park. During the past two years it has been used for the horseshoe pits.

10.10 COMMUNICATION - HUD re: Fiscal Year 1999 Formula Allocation.

This item was provided for informational purposes only.

10.11 COMMUNICATION - Cobblestone Homeowners re: Opposition to Designation of Sutter Hospital as Sonoma/Mendocino County Trauma Center.

This item was provided for informational purposes only.

10.12 COMMUNICATION - F. Posner, The Rosenberg Building, re: Future of Downtown.

This item was provided for informational purposes only.

10.13 COMMUNICATION - Fire Department re: Recommendation for Director of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Council concurred with staff's recommendation to endorse State Fire Marshal Ronny J. Coleman for this position.

10.14 COMMUNICATION - Oakmont Property Owners Association re: Becoming Part of Oakmont Village Association.

This item was provided for informational purposes only.

10.15 COMMUNICATION - L. Carlile, Board of Community Services Church of One Tree Subcommittee re: Status of Church of One Tree.

This item was provided for informational purposes only.

10.16 COMMUNICATION - Piner-Olivet Union School District re: Pedestrian Safety.

This item was provided for informational purposes only.

10.17 COMMUNICATION - Homeless Shelter Operators and Advocates re: Funds for Homeless Programs.

This item was provided for informational purposes only.

10.18 COMMUNICATION - G. Johnson re: Request Postponement of Resolution Accepting R/UDAT Report and Supporting Further Discussion and Implementation of the Report.

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 8:16 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 January 12, 1999, at a time to be set by the Mayor.

1/5/1999