Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPJT Minutes 1995-06-26SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JUNE, 26, 1995, AT 8:20 PM Special Joint Meeting Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor/Chairman San Rafael City Council/ Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember/Member San Rafael Redevelopment Agency Barbara Heller, Councilmember/Member Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember/Member David J. Zappetini, Councilmember/Member Absent: None Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager/Executive Director Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk/Agency Secretary BUDGET HEARINGS - 1995/96 BUDGET - File 8-5 x (SRRA) R-103 Mayor/Chairman Boro described the process to be followed for the budget hearings. City Manager/Executive Director Nicolai stated that before she gives her overview of the budget she wanted to personally thank both Suzanne Golt and Randy Coleman for their work on the budget, as well as the department heads who worked well together on preparing the budget. She stated that tonight, in addition to some of the highlights which are covered in the budget message, she will mention a few items which changed after the budget went to print, one of which is the sales tax revenue. Also, there is a Worthy but Unfunded Project list which was given to the Council tonight which are items to keep before them as they go through the department budgets. Ms. Nicolai explained that this is the second consecutive year of what we consider a relatively stable economy, primarily because California's economy as a whole, and San Rafael's to a certain extent, has not declined and has actually shown some growth. At this point in time, the State is not threatening to take money from San Rafael or to pass new laws which would allow someone else to take money from us. Therefore, we are maintaining practically a status quo. On the various departments the budget reflects the negotiated salary increases from the year before, so there is no significant change as far as the service level is concerned. Ms. Nicolai stated that Finance Director Coleman will go over the draw -down on the reserves issue, which the Council had previously been aware of, and which for this year will be approximately $170,000. He will also explain the changes which have occurred in the new sales tax figures. Ms. Nicolai noted that this Council has allowed carrying over what has been saved and primarily use it to fund some of the capital projects, which is what allows us to net only a $170,000 draw -down. Ms. Nicolai added that the Budget Oversight Committee had been working with staff this past year and spent a significant amount of time becoming oriented to the City's functions. Also, during that process they gave staff feedback and ideas on how to reformat the budget, not only to provide more information, but how to develop a context in which the budget is reviewed. They want to get involved in putting together the Five Year Plan, as well as doing more in the upcoming fiscal year well in advance to deal with some of the budget format changes they would like to suggest. In addition, the Data Processing Committee of the Budget Oversight Committee has come forward with a proposal which is included in Supplemental Information which was furnished last week to the Council, requesting $50,000 to award the contract to the Data Processing consultant whom they interviewed. Their second request, which will be discussed tomorrow night, relates to the Volunteer Coordinator for which they are asking the Council to authorize $25,000. Regarding the Federal Crime Bill status, Ms. Nicolai explained that we can make only one request; however, none of the terms and conditions have changed. Her feeling at this point in time, about which she has spoken with Police Chief Krolak, is that if there were any level of additional commitment the Council wanted to make to the Police Department, we might want to authorize a position. Instead of doing it through this mechanism which has so many strings attached to it, we could take the money which would have been our match and allow the Department to either add an officer and/or do other things, like some automation which they have been wanting to do. We could make the commitment directly to the Department. She noted that can be discussed when the Police Department budget is being discussed. Regarding the Davidson Bequest, Ms. Nicolai noted that as outlined in the Budget Message, this is a policy issue which will be coming up in the Library Department budget. She explained the draw -down procedure for the book budget, which she is recommending be changed. Ms. Nicolai next discussed the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) for which $100,000 is being allocated this year to deal with the ongoing priorities which the Council received in the ADA reports. Regarding the Capital Improvements list, Ms. Nicolai noted it only addresses the General Fund contributions to the Capital Improvements. One item in that list she would like to modify is the $50,000 for the Congestion Management Program. It had been slightly higher, but she found that 630 of it can be charged to Gas Tax, so it will amount SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 1 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 2 to a net savings to the General Fund of approximately $42,000. Ms. Nicolai noted that the Capital Improvements list is not just a "wish list". She explained that the General Fund contribution continues to be quite minor. On the other hand, significant amounts of Capital Projects have been accomplished through other revenue sources, such as Redevelopment Agency, Gas Tax, and Traffic Mitigation fees. She stated it is important to keep in mind that the program which is put together includes multiple sources of revenue, only one of which is the General Fund. The General Fund, at some point in time, should play a larger role in it. Ms. Nicolai added that they are continuing to work on Redevelopment refunding and be able to continue with some projects, not only the Capital projects but other priority issues, such as fulfilling the Downtown Vision and others. She noted that within each budget she has indicated the sources of revenue related to each department, so the Council will have an understanding of what money flows and how it is generated by the departments. Ms. Nicolai closed by stating this has not been a cut-back year, but it feels like one when you have significant salary increases and you are wedging it into a smaller percentage growth rate. This required creativity on the part of the people putting the budget together, and she appreciates the efforts of staff in working together to accomplish it and finding ways to address the service level issues. Councilmember/Member Cohen inquired about the status of the Budget Oversight Committee recommendations. He noted that the material sent to the Council, dated June 22nd, stated that staff supports the request for $50,000, which is on the Worthy but Unfunded list. Ms. Nicolai explained that staff supports it, and it is on that list so that as the Council makes their decisions they will consider it. It is not in this budget because it was still being considered at the time the budget went to print. The Committee was still interviewing at that time, but have since made their selection of a consultant for the Data Processing part of it. The Volunteer program, for which they wanted money reserved, was basically her (Ms. Nicolai's) suggestion to do it at this time to make sure the $25,000 would not be requested a short time after the budget has been approved. Finance Director Coleman gave an overview of the Reserve situation, before discussing the major revenue sources. He reported that we started off the beginning of this fiscal year with about $4,020,000. We now expect that at the end of this fiscal year we will generate approximately $251,000 which we can carry over into the next fiscal year. At the moment it appears that the expenditures are running about 1% below the estimates, and the revenue is running about $150,000 below the revised estimates. The net difference is that we should be generating approximately $251,000 which we could carry into the next fiscal year. Assuming that we do that, then the draw -down on reserves would be about $170,000. We would go from $4,020,000 to approximately $3,850,000 as of June, 1996. That is how it stands, without considering any changes the Council may make during the budget process. Mr. Coleman added that there are many revenues in the City which are on a cash basis and some which are on an accrual basis. We now have a new pronouncement from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board which changes the method of accounting for sales tax. Prior to that, all of the cities in California were recording sales tax on a cash basis. GASB has now indicated that they want us to start accruing sales tax, which will have the impact of having one period of time where we will have 13 months of sales tax rather than 12 months. They will go back and accrue the July, 1994 sales tax revenue and re -state our balance as of last year, and we will from that point forward record the sales tax, probably on an August to July basis. It has not been finalized yet as to how they will implement this new requirement, but based on preliminary discussions with the City's auditor, that is how it is expected to be. This would probably result in the City re -stating our opening balance by about $650,000. He explained this is an accounting adjustment and does not mean that our revenues have changed at all. It will be a one-time adjustment on the sales tax revenue, and will be discussed further with the auditors. Ms. Nicolai noted this issue has just come up within the last week, and the Council will be informed when the mechanics have been finalized, so there would not be a misunderstanding later on regarding this one-time 13 months of sales tax reporting. Mr. Coleman added that every city in the State of California will be doing the same thing. There followed a general discussion of the issue among the Councilmembers/Members on their understanding of the situation, and Mr. Coleman stated that when the auditor comes back in August there should be firm information on the implementation. Councilmember/Member Cohen noted that last Fall Mr. Coleman had come back to the Council with final numbers on the actual revenue vs. expenditures which showed a larger figure than the Council had previously anticipated. He asked if staff is able this year to state that the $250,000 is pretty much what it is going to be, or are there other areas where we might see additional adjustments either up or down, excluding the issue of the sales tax which we just discussed? Mr. Coleman replied that last year the tide was running in our favor, and just about everything came in above the estimates. We had been conservative because we had two or three years of negative figures. This year, he is seeing the reverse of that. Several of the revenues we had estimated for this year are coming in lower than the revised estimate, so right now he is looking at a revised estimate of revenues which would probably be lower than what is in the printed budget before the Council tonight, for 1995. He noted the sales SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 2 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 3 tax has already come in, and it is about $100,000 less than the revised estimate. Property tax may come in about $25,000 lower than the revised estimate. The other major one coming in lower than estimated right now is the hotel tax. The property transfer tax is also coming in a little lower than was estimated. He added that, on the other side of the coin, we will be expecting to receive more revenue from the Motor Vehicle In -lieu Fees, which is our third largest source of revenue. We may be coming in below what is in the printed budget. Councilmember/Member Cohen stated he would appreciate having a brief memo for tomorrow night's budget hearings, regarding the change in accounting for the sales tax, so it would be on the record. Mr. Coleman agreed. Councilmember/Member Phillips stated that, rather than have the auditor make the determination regarding the issue of the $650,000, we might have some discretion over the sales tax revenue through June 30th. If there is, in fact, an additional month in there of $650,000, we might want to establish our policy within the guidelines and decide where we stand with regard to the application of that principal, because it does affect our budget. Councilmember/Member Cohen agreed. Mr. Coleman replied that the bottom line is that we would find out what the generally accepted accounting practice is going to be for that particular revenue source, and that will be the way we will probably record it before we close the books. He has been in touch with Concord and Santa Rosa, and they are no farther ahead than we are in terms of how they are going to deal with it. He would make a decision based on the generally accepted practice of some of the other cities and the discussion with the auditors. He explained that what we report should be consistent with what the other cities are reporting. Mayor/Chairman Boro stated that he feels that the Council would like to discuss this further with Mr. Coleman to understand it and see what options we might have. Mayor/Chairman Boro stated he has a question on the revenues. He was told previously by the former County Assessor that as housing prices in Marin County started to go back up, which he understands they now have, that there are a number of properties whose values were either frozen or downgraded as a result of the recession several years ago, and at some point they would kick back in and we should see an appreciable increase in property taxes. He asked has that happened yet? Mr. Coleman relied that has not yet happened, but he is hoping that at some point there is a turnaround in the property tax. The property tax is based on the roll as it existed in March of this year. The increases were not very good, and one thing which is holding back the increase this year is that Proposition 13 allowed for an automatic 20 increase each year, but because of the economics which currently exist, the cities will not be getting that 20 increase, but only a 1.2% increase. In addition, there does not seem to be enough turnaround as of this Spring to warrant any major change. We have gone from almost double-digit increases each year in property tax down to where we now are hanging in there with 2.50 or 30. We were 3.5% this year, and a lot of that is attributed to the fact that we started off with a 20 automatic increase and then the balance of that usually comes from the resale of property. He added he is hoping there will be a turnaround. There was a small "spurt" in the Property Transfer tax when the rates were down, and then they went back up and that tax dropped off. Mayor/Chairman Boro stated he understands that the increase would come about, not because of an increase in sales, but because of an increase in selling prices, not in volume but in amounts. He asked Mr. Coleman to keep aware so we can take action when the values go up again. Mr. Coleman stated he is looking forward to going back up to at least a 4% growth in that area. Mr. Coleman recapped, stating that the property tax has been low this year, and is not expected to grow considerably, according to his discussions with the County Assessor in March. Sales tax, our largest source of revenue, is starting off about $100,000 lower than we expected because we will end the year about $100,000 lower. A major question mark is Home Depot. Originally it was supposed to open in October or November, and now they are looking at February of 1996 before they open. The impact on our sales tax for the coming fiscal year is probably going to be a small amount, so at this point we are looking at the impact of most of Home Depot coming in the fiscal year 1996/97. Mr. Coleman stated that the rest of the items show moderate growth. We have not had a whole lot of growth in the Franchise Tax, which is a combination of Viacom and P.G. & E., and we expect that to be pretty flat. The Business License Tax will grow no more that probably the CPI (Consumer Price Index) or a little less on a historic basis. The Paramedic Tax reflects the new rates the Council approved at a recent meeting. The Building Permits are flat, and are based on estimates from the Building Department. They do not expect any major new construction. Parking Fines are expected to get back to the higher levels. There was a dip this year, but they are expected to get back to a more normal level. Interest Income should generate about the same amount of revenue this year. The interest rates have gone up and then come down a little, and may go up again next year, but we do not expect a major change in that source of revenue. Mr. Coleman explained about the Motor Vehicle In -lieu Fees. He explained that we have historically relied on the State of California to give us the estimates for the In -lieu Fees. Last year their estimate for this fiscal year was $1,710,000, and they were giving that figure as late as March. They sent a letter stating that next year we should expect $1,738,000. It turns out that this fiscal year we will have about $1,838,000 and next year, based on what we have so far, it should be about $1,870,000. There is quite a bit of variation between the estimates from the State and the actual figures. SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 3 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 4 Mr. Coleman stated that Proposition 172 is pretty much capped, and he does not expect that to change from $200,000, possibly $198,000. With regard to Charges for Service, some of that depends on building activity, and we do not expect a whole lot of activity. The one big change in this category will be a full year of third party billing. At present we have almost $380, 000 which we received this fiscal year, and we could conceivably end up with one more payment this fiscal year, so we feel confident that the $570,000 we have in there for next year is a pretty good figure. Mr. Coleman concluded by stating that those are the facts concerning the major revenue sources which affect the General Fund, and the other revenues really do not have much impact on the General Fund. Most of the money in the Parking Fund comes from the parking meters in the garage. The Gas Tax monies are supplied by the State of California. The Recreation Revolving Fund should be self-supporting based on their estimates of revenues and expenditures. The Capital Improvement Fund this year will rely primarily on the interest income it may receive this coming fiscal year. Mayor/Chairman Boro commented that he knows Mr. Coleman works with the Budget Oversight Committee. Some of the charts on which Mr. Coleman collaborated, such as the one on page 7 which shows where money goes, indicates that the average homeowner who pays $2, 000 in property tax pays less to the City of San Rafael than their Cable TV fee, which he finds very informative. Also, there is a chart on page 10 which reflects the property tax per capita of the different cities, and San Rafael is actually the lowest because Novato, which is lower, does not include their fire tax. Councilmember/Member Phillips noted that parking fines went from 270 up to 360 as the estimate, and asked the reason for the change. Mr. Coleman explained it has to do with enforcement at any given time. This year we have not generated as many parking citations and moving violations. They reflect the level of fines and the types of parking citations, as well as the volume of citations and violations issued. Ms. Nicolai added that for a time during that period we had only two parking meter enforcement officers instead of the usual three people, and that made a difference in the number of citations issued. Councilmember/Member Phillips noted that amounted to $90,000, which reinforces the need to keep the staff at the higher level. Councilmember/Member Phillips noted Other Revenue, which went from actual $464,000 down to $200,000 and projected at $200,000. Mr. Coleman explained that Other Revenue is really basically leftover revenue that we do not have accounted for anywhere else. Back in 1993/94 we had substantial refunds on some insurance and other one-time revenues, which we do not expect to have either this year or next year. Councilmember/Member Zappetini asked, on the Paramedic figure where the summary comparison on page 5 shows it has gone up 40.10, is the money we paid to Marinwood in that or has it already been deducted? Mr. Coleman explained that this fiscal year we will be getting $1,225,000. That is the revenue from our own corporate limits, as well as the revenue received from the Marinwood (CSA 19), and CSA 13. Ms. Nicolai explained that these charts are pure revenue and have nothing to do with expenditures. Expenditures for that contract will be in the Fire Department budget under Paramedics. Mayor/Chairman Boro noted the Council received a memo recently from staff regarding the agreement with MAPE (Marin Association of Public Employees) and the Management Employees with respect to the revenue projections and the impact. He asked if that is calculated in the $170,000 draw -down on reserves? Mr. Coleman replied there is a figure in the Non -departmental Account for that contingency, and as it turns out we will be implementing it. Mayor/Chairman Boro stated we will take the budget by department in accordance with the agenda. He explained for the benefit of the audience that he will call upon each department head to comment on the budget. The Council will ask questions and will give the public an opportunity to ask questions. Once the questions are completed, he will ask for a motion to approve that particular budget in concept. He asked that if any Councilmembers have questions of staff regarding any of these budgets or the ones to be heard tomorrow night, they should be put on the table tonight. CITY COUNCIL (Page 17) Ms. Nicolai the City Council budget was put together with the same guidelines as the departments' budgets, and covers the wages and benefits for the Councilmembers. The only change included is, if the Council wants to fund their Travel and Conference Account at the same level as they will spend this year, they will need $1, 000 in there in order to meet the same guidelines as every other department, which has been pared back. Councilmember/Member Zappetini noted there was a cutback a while ago, regarding coverage for a spouse. Ms. Nicolai stated that was medical coverage. Mr. Zappetini stated he would like to keep that open so that if someone does apply it will not be something which would stop SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 4 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 5 him from applying. Ms. Nicolai replied that is a Council decision. The Council basically decided that they wanted to cover themselves, so that is up to the Council. Mayor/Member Boro explained for the benefit of those not aware, that prior to this past year the medical insurance the Councilmembers had included the Councilmember and their spouse and/or families. Last year, recognizing our budget situation, the Council reduced it to cover the Councilmember, and that is the reason for the decline in the budget figure under Fringe Benefits. Councilmember/Member Zappetini explained that if someone wanted to run for Council that could be an incentive. He is not suggesting it be put back in the budget, but that it should be left open. Councilmember/Member Phillips noted it could not be left open, unless it was put back in the budget. Councilmember/Member Cohen pointed out that could not be done on an elective basis, because then you would have a difference in compensation for the Councilmembers. Councilmember/MemberZappetini stated he knows that was a concern of someone considering running for office. Mayor/Chairman Boro noted that the Council has not voted itself an increase for four years. He then suggested that the Travel Expense be kept at the same level as last year, which would be with the $1,000 added. That would keep the Supplies and Services budget to the same level this year, making it $4,950 vs. $3,975. Ms. Nicolai noted that $3,500 of that would be for travel. Councilmember/Member Phillips asked about the recent increase in travel expense, and Councilmember/Member Cohen explained that a few years ago when the budget was cut back the City Council deleted the Travel Expense item entirely, along with the health services for dependents. Ms. Nicolai pointed out that this is a small amount, and enumerated the times when it is necessary for Councilmembers to attend related conferences in the area. Councilmember/Member Heller noted that the League of California Cities Conference will be in San Francisco in October, and it would benefit the Councilmembers to attend because it provides excellent training for new Councilmembers. Councilmember/Member Cohen moved and Councilmember/Member Heller seconded, to conceptually approve the City Council budget in the amount of $59,543, with the addition of $1,000 to the Supplies and Services category. AYES: COUNC ILMEMBERS /MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor/Chairman Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None CITY CLERK (Pages 18/19) The Councilmembers/Members reviewed the City Clerk's proposed budget. Councilmember/Member Heller inquired of City Clerk/Agency Secretary Leoncini about any capital outlay or new computers. Mrs. Leoncini explained that they were able to, through salary savings, upgrade one of their computers this past year. Mayor/Chairman Boro asked for questions from the audience, and there were none. Councilmember/Member Phillips moved and Councilmember/Member Cohen seconded, to conceptually approve the City Clerk's budget in the amount of $182,580. AYES: COUNC ILMEMBERS /MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor/Chairman Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None CITY ATTORNEY (Pages 20/21) Ms. Nicolai stated that the City Attorney's budget reflects the status quo with the current elected City Attorney and the Assistant City Attorney, a part-time Deputy City Attorney and a Legal Secretary. The increases in the Salary and Wages reflect the salary increases. It is basically a 5% increase. The increase reflected in the Services and Supplies is the contractual arrangement which the Council approved for using the City Attorney's Office for some of our liability claims. There is a net savings to us, rather than having it charged to the Liability Account. It appears as an increase, but it is a very effective practice for liability claims relating to land use. Those are the only changes for this budget. Councilmember/Member Phillips inquired about the $1,800 for capital improvements. Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan explained the method by which they are upgrading their computers to link them together for efficiency of operation. This money would be used to upgrade the other two computers. It will also upgrade their capability in research through a CD-ROM. Councilmember/Member Cohen asked about a budget impact on land use litigation. City Attorney Ragghianti explained that in the land use processing arena we will be seeking for the first time reimbursement for the time that the City Attorney's Office spends in dealing with the Planning Department, consulting with them and reviewing documents, just in connection with the processing of land use entitlements. There is also third party litigation, which is brought against the City by a neighborhood group, or a party to a land use entitlement, for instance. We will require that the person who is the applicant indemnify the City against that. This practice is already in effect in almost all of the cities in Marin County. It SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 5 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 6 depends to a great extent on whether there is any litigation, but if there is, that will, hopefully, have an impact. It will not affect us where we are sued directly by someone claiming that we did something wrong in terms of how we processed something. Ms. Nicolai added that the expense of that will be reimbursable. Councilmember/Member Heller inquired whether our level of litigation has gone up or is it the same as the last few years? Mr. Ragghianti replied that as far as our Contractual Services Account is concerned for the 1993/94 budget year we spent $55, 000. For this year we show $49,000 so far. As far as outside counsel is concerned, for fiscal year 1993/94 there was $253,000 spent, and for the year we are about to conclude, we are at $220,000. In 1991/92 it was $343,000 for outside attorneys. It depends on the year and the cases, and we do not have control over it. He pointed out that outside counsel handles all of the court litigation, and the City Attorney's office is concerned only with land use. He noted that some years we have no litigation, whereas last year we had four cases. Mayor Boro asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Council on the City Attorney's budget. There was not response. Councilmember/Member Cohen moved and Councilmember/Member Zappetini seconded, to conceptually approve the City Attorney's budget in the amount of $322,754. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor/Chairman Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER (Pages 22/24) City Manager Nicolai reported that the City Manager's budget also reflects the status quo as far as staffing level is concerned. In the past there was some money in the City Manager's account to do Management Training and Development, which was used to sponsor workshops for mid -managers and managers together. She noted that has been cut back in order to meet the guidelines of the rest of the departments. Other than that, there are no significant changes. Councilmember/Member Heller stated she does not like to see management and mid -management educational training programs cut back. She asked, "Does this take in the whole City?" Ms. Nicolai explained that she has an account for her and her staff to do certain amounts of travel and conferences. There was another line, which allowed them to plan for an event or training session for all management and mid -management together. She explained they had speakers come in and talk about automation, and similar programs. Assistant City Manager Golt added that one time we had between $15,000 and $20,000 in the account, but that was when we were much more active in the management team training activities. Mayor Boro inquired as to what would be a reasonable number, if we wanted to gradually start such programs again? Ms. Nicolai suggested that $5, 000 to $7, 000 would be a way to provide a couple of sessions, perhaps conducted twice a year. Councilmember/Member Heller suggested adding that item to the Worthy But Unfunded list, and then go back to it. She feels it is quite important. Mayor/Chairman Boro asked if anyone in the audience would like to address the Council regarding the City Manager's budget. There was no response. Councilmember/Member Heller moved and Councilmember/Member Cohen seconded, to conceptually approve the City Manager's budget at $360,311. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor/Chairman Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None FINANCE (Pages 26/28) Finance Director Coleman stated there is not much in the way of dollar change in this year's budget, but there are several changes which were impacted by three retirements. The most significant change will be that they will be combining two part-time positions which were charged to the Finance Department, and try to have within the Finance Department a person primarily responsible for purchasing. There will also be other changes in duties within the department, but that would be the most significant one to be implemented this coming fiscal year. He stated that the bottom line is that, because of all of the changes in vacancies and people starting off at different salary steps, and there being vacancies for a period of time, the total dollar volume is not much different, but there are a lot of changes. Councilmember/Member Heller inquired about the proposed program for using credit cards. Mr. Coleman explained that the State of California has started a credit card program which they are offering to all of the agencies within California. We are looking into participating in that program so that we can eliminate a lot of the open accounts we currently have, and some of the petty cash transactions, and replacing them with a credit card program. SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 6 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 7 Councilmember/Member Heller asked if that will be easier for the department accounting -wise? Mr. Coleman replied it will eliminate having to write quite a few checks to a lot of vendors, and will allow the vendors to be paid right away rather than, in some cases, waiting 30 to 45 days to get paid. It should help with our vendor relations, and will simplify the number of checks we have to write. Councilmember/Member Heller noted that business licenses have gone up this year, and asked for the reason. Mr. Coleman explained that a lot of the business licenses are out-of-town people who come in to do one-time projects, or contractors who come in from out of town, so that probably reflects that there are more people coming in from out of town to do business. Also, we have better enforcement on the contractors. Mayor/Chairman Boro asked if individual credit cards will be issued to City employees, or will there be a Master credit card? He is concerned about control. Mr. Coleman explained that the State's program is very detailed and has quite a few procedures involved in it. The credit card would be in the specific name of the employee, there would be descriptions on the dollar volume per transaction, the dollar volume per month, the type of expenditure for which the credit card could be used, and these would all be factored into the State program, which is different than the usual type of credit card. The program has many more safeguards than an ordinary credit card. Ms. Nicolai added that the Budget Oversight Committee recommended that the City take a good look at the program, since it is commonly used for purchases in the private sector. The controls and balances were discussed, and the Committee felt it could minimize the use of petty cash. She noted that issue was mentioned in the Hughes-Heiss report. She feels the program is more efficient and gives us greater control than the current practice, in a different way. Mayor/Chairman Boro asked, if the individual be billed and pay the bill personally, and be reimbursed through a voucher system, or if the bills would come to the City for payment? Mr. Coleman replied that the bill will be the responsibility of the City. The bills will come to the City and the person who has the credit card will get a copy of all of the invoices in the statement. The supervisor will also get a copy, and the Finance Department will be given a copy, so there will be a lot of reporting, and checks and balances. Councilmember/Member Phillips inquired about the new position under Authorized Positions, Administrative Assistant. He asked what that person will be doing. Mr. Coleman replied that is the position he spoke about, primarily responsible for purchasing. We are taking the current part-time positions we had in Finance, a Revenue Enforcement Officer and a Purchasing Agent who was responsible for purchasing but was physically located in the Public Works Department. Their primary responsibility was not Purchasing, but Public Works. With the retirement of both the person in Public Works, as well as the Enforcement Officer, we are combining those two into the Administrative Assistant, whose primary function would be purchasing. Councilmember/Member Phillips asked about the five-year projection which had been discussed previously. Mr. Coleman replied there is the five-year revenue projection in the budget, but in terms of actually developing a full-fledged five-year plan, he expects to be working with the BOC on that, and would hope to have one by the next budget year. He added that there was a multi-year revenue and expenditure projection, which was in the supplemental material which was forwarded to the Councilmembers last Thursday. There was also information on the Capital Improvement Fund, which is separate from the General Fund. Mayor/Chairman Boro asked if there were any members of the audience wishing to speak on the Finance budget. There were none. Councilmember/Member Heller moved and Councilmember/Member Cohen seconded, to approve the Finance Department budget in concept, in the amount of $526,040. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor/Chairman Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None CENTRAL SERVICES (Pages 30/31) Assistant City Manager Suzanne Golt explained that the Central Services budget is essentially a maintenance of effort budget with very limited changes. Central Services is a small Division which provides a wide variety of City activities, and also has a number of contracts in its Contractual Services budget. The increases in this budget are primarily related to the annual increase in the BRC contract, which is in the second year of a two-year approved contract. Also, there was about a 10o increase in postage for essential services. Those are the two major items impacting this budget. There were no questions from the Council/Agency, nor from the audience. SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 7 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 8 Councilmember/Member Phillips moved and Councilmember/Member Zappetini seconded, to approve the Central Services budget in concept, in the amount of $830,318. Under Question, Councilmember/Member Cohen asked if the City has looked at contracting with other neighboring communities to provide services, and generate some revenue, since we already have the facilities. Ms. Nicolai responded that we have talked to the School District in the past about the duplicating functions, since they send much of their work out. They will be looking at it further. In the arena of data processing, we have discussed it with some of the smaller jurisdictions, and one of the things about the renewed contract with BRC last year, and switching to different machines to give us greater capability was a result. The capability of the data processing system was to allow that to happen, with the idea that the revenue would offset part of the BRC contract. Those issues should become part of the long-range look at the data processing. Councilmember/Member Heller stated her question is about the Goals and Objectives, about developing a formal division safety program and meeting schedule, which was a carry-over goal. She also asked what is the stores operation being phased out? Ms. Golt explained that the stores operation is a very small program with a minimum amount of primarily office supplies. They have a large supply of flags, and other miscellaneous items. Staff has learned that we can better the prices which we get through catalog shopping if we go to Office Depot, and they deliver the products, which is much more convenient. The departments are behind the suggestion of having the stores phased out. There will still be the supply of flags and other odd pieces of equipment. Mayor/Chairman Boro asked about the safety program. Ms. Golt explained that she does not want to convey that there is a lack of a safety program, but we have not gotten to the point of having a schedule for periodic meetings. It is a small division with two full-time people and one half-time employee. Having a meeting schedule is an important goal. Councilmember/Member Heller noted that postage and mailing is an important item, and asked if we had the Post Office come in and take a look at our operation, and see how it could be scaled down in cost. Ms. Golt responded that if we had, it was probably along time ago, but that is something we could do, noting it is a good idea. AYES: COUNC ILMEMBERS /MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor/Chairman Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None PERSONNEL (Pages 32/34) Personnel Director Daryl Chandler stated there are no significant changes, other than the elimination of the IEDA Contract. Everything else remains about like it was last year. Mayor/Chairman Boro inquired about the value of the IEDA Contract, and Mr. Chandler replied it was approximately $32,000 a year. Mayor/Chairman Boro noted that two of the bargaining units and the Council agreed not to use IEDA, but the third bargaining unit was pretty successful with IEDA. He asked, "Next year will all three bargaining units come up concurrently?" Mr. Chandler stated that is correct. Mayor/Chairman Boro asked if it is realistic not to have anyone in for a potential contract? He noted he is not suggesting this particular company. Ms. Nicolai stated it is very important to have the availability of outside negotiators. When we discontinued that service we basically told the Council that we would be severing that relationship. She added that there are actually more than three units. There are Child Care, Police Mid -Management, the Supervisory Unit within MAPF, so there are three MAPE units, in addition to Police and Fire. She stated that next year it would be well worth our while to go out and get proposals from various people and interview them. It is worth investing and having that assistance. Councilmember/Member Phillips inquired if there is an adequate amount in the budget for that? Ms. Nicolai responded we have no money budgeted for any outside assistance. Councilmember/Member Phillips asked is Ms. Nicolai suggesting that we add to this budget, and she responded that she is, and staff would support that if the Council wishes to take that action. Mayor/Chairman Boro noted that the amount in the past was $32,000. Mr. Coleman explained that usually with contracting firms such as that, this is an annual amount regardless of the number of contracts being negotiated that year. If it is converted to an hourly basis it would be cost saving. Councilmember/Member Cohen recommended adding this item to the Worthy But Unfunded items to be considered tomorrow night, or possibly holding it over for more information and a recommendation on the process, rather than just authorizing $30,000 "off the cuff". Mayor/Chairman Boro stated that the concept makes sense, and if outside help is needed, we will go out with RFPs for that. If we have it budgeted, we can decide if we want to do it when the time gets closer. Mr. Coleman noted that the Council could also consider the fact SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 8 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 9 that if negotiations start in February or March, we might start the contract sometime in January, and we would be looking at a five to six month commitment in the next fiscal year. Councilmember/Member Cohen stated he does not feel we need to make the decision now, but could put something in the budget to reflect future discussion. He stated he would like to see information come back to the Council. He noted it would take $15, 000 if we started in January. Ms. Nicolai stated she thinks it would probably range from $35,000 to $40,000, and it depends on whether you would get a firm like IEDA which takes on the entire package for an annual amount. It is far less expensive than if we picked one type of firm to deal with the Police Department and then another to deal with Fire, and another with MAPE. Given staff's experience, that would be really expensive. She suggested a certain amount could be allocated tonight, explaining that it is for half a year. The Council may wish to take some time making a final decision. Mayor/Chairman Boro asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on the Personnel budget. There was no one who spoke. Councilmember/Member Zappetini moved, and Councilmember/Member Phillips seconded, to grant conditional approval of the Personnel budget in the amount of $203,259, with a further look to be taken at increasing the budget at this time. Mayor/Chairman Boro stated he would support it, with the understanding that staff is to come back to the Council with a proposal, because he feels it is imperative to have a strategy for our labor negotiations. He noted that the Council is not saying they do not want to spend the money, but that they do not want to allocate it tonight because they do not have a plan. He will be looking for something to come back in the Fall. The Council agreed. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: SAFETY SERVICES (Pages 76/87) i*0}6{01 Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro None None Ms. Nicolai reported that this budget is "status quo". The Budget Message mentioned the idea of the grant, and that if there was any desire on the part of the Council to pursue allocating more resources to the department, they could consider that it be done directly. There are some options the Police Chief may wish to discuss with the Council as it relates to that. Ms. Nicolai pointed out that with regard to the Worthy But Unfunded list, as we proceed into this radio study there are no funds allocated in this budget to address the Police radio issue. She added that we do not know the amount at this time, but having it on the Worthy But Unfunded list will keep it in mind that an unknown amount of money will need to be allocated for that purpose. Police Chief Robert Krolak informed the Council that this is a relatively status quo presentation. There have been some increases, such as insurance, in Surety Bonds of approximately $40,000; the increase for the Major Crimes Task Force, $48,000; another $24,000 was added to cover the radio maintenance to carry us through at least the fiscal year, depending on whatever happens to the radio system. The vehicle replacement costs have gone up approximately $27,000, and we are asking for an additional $7,000 to do some work within the department; and moving some offices around to make it a little more compatible for communication within the department. Councilmember/Member Cohen inquired what the Radio Committee envisions as being the smallest conceivable amount we might have to earmark for improvements to the radio system? Councilmember/Member Heller stated she sees the smallest amount we would be spending is $600,000, and probably it will end up being over $1 million. Chief Krolak noted that Councilmember/Member Heller has been participating in all of the Radio Committee meetings and meeting directly with the consultants, and she has a much better idea specifically as to what the figure would be. Councilmember/Member Cohen asked if anyone from the Police Department was participating in those meetings? Chief Krolak replied that Commander Pennington has been chairing the Committee, and several members of the Department in the positions of sergeant, patrolman and dispatcher have been participating on the Committee because they all have input as to what the ultimate resolution of the entire problem will be, working with the consultant and coming up with a solution. He added that either this week, or next week at the very latest, we will have the consultant's report, which will include the Committee's recommendations, so the Council will have a chance to read it for a few weeks before the August 7th regular Council meeting. Commander Pennington and the consultant will be present at that meeting to make presentations and recommendations. Ms. Nicolai pointed out that it is very difficult at this point in time to predict the recommendations. It is her understanding that the timing of this is now dovetailing with some things the County is doing in looking at their entire system. If we are going to be SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 9 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 10 in a position of transitioning into anything, part of what we should look at is what the County is going to do, and how we fit into that picture. That was not the situation six years ago when we first adopted this system. The County is in the process of hiring a consultant to look at the Countywide system and if they can come up in a timely fashion with a decision which would work with our consultant's report, we will have a better idea of what we are moving toward. However, there is no official information at present on the County's probable action. Councilmember Heller agreed that the Committee will be looking at the possibility of a Countywide system, which would include Police, Fire, Public Works and other entities. She stated it sounds encouraging. Councilmember/Member Cohen agreed that the possibility is very encouraging. Mayor/Chairman Boro stated that when the report from the Committee comes in he hopes it contains an assessment about the risk factor associated with the radio system, as far as waiting to see about the County plan. That would be the time to start earmarking the money. It seems premature at this point. Ms. Nicolai noted that the previous system, which was expensive, was financed, so there are alternative ways. When we finally know a number we can figure what the most viable options are, and we might borrow from the Reserve Account and then pay it back in the Police budget every year, as we did previously. That is why the item is on the Worthy But Unfunded list. The timing is important, and the County's decision may not come until September. Councilmember/Member Cohen stated it may be worthwhile to wait to hook up with the County's system, if that turns out to be the best decision to make. We know we will have to spend some money, and should start developing a strategy. Councilmember/Member Heller noted there will be some major commitments for our funds in the next decade, with computers costing between $5,000 and $10,000 now, and we really need to look at our technology and what we might be spending in the next few years. She stated she would like to have the BOC group look at it and see how they feel. Councilmember/Member Phillips stated that there is a larger issue, and that this is really no different than any of the other unfunded portions of the infrastructure and other items. He stated he would encourage the Council to pursue the five-year plan so we would know what is out there and what does need to be funded, and how we are going to go about it. Councilmember/Member Cohen stated that we should figure out a pay-as-you-go for the radio system. Mayor/Chairman Boro noted that Finance Director Coleman is going to come back in the August time -frame with a resolution on the sales tax, and in that same time -frame we will get the report on the radio system. At that point in time it would be prudent to have this discussion again, and start to think about where we want to go with it. Hopefully, by then we will have some more projections on the five-year plan as well. Mayor/Chairman Boro asked if there is a long term plan for having a lap top computer in every patrol car? Chief Krolak replied that one of the issues he discussed at the retreat in January was a program of packaged software to allow us to have the lap top computers in the cars. The officers could enter the information on multiple report forms and have it automatically transferred. Toward that goal, we have applied for a Federal Crime Bill grant, which is specifically for technology related programs. It would include 10 lap tops, which would bring the total to 14 for the cars. Commander Pennington has applied to one of the Elks Club foundations for 3 or 4 lap tops, but they turned us down. However, we are still searching for other resources. Mayor/Chairman Boro suggested the Council go through each of the four Police Department division budgets, and see if the Councilmembers/Members have questions. Councilmember/Member Zappetini inquired about the Federal grant for two officers, and asked if there has been any thought given to groups in San Rafael who are looking to put in their own security officers at night. He asked if we are going to apply for a grant, if any of the groups in San Rafael are willing to pay for service, and to form some type of special assessment district and generate enough funds to create another position? Chief Krolak pointed out there is specific criteria you have to meet when requesting funds through these grants. For personnel services or salaries, the people who are hired under that grant have to be used. In order to do that, we would have to get a license from the State (Consumer Affairs) to allow us to compete with security companies. We have not taken any steps to do that, but it may be possible. Councilmember/Member Zappetini asked if it is worthwhile to find out if we do not have to go through Consumer Affairs, that perhaps it could be an officer who meets the criteria for the grant, and then have it subsidized by the City and by individuals who were requesting the service. Chief Krolak responded that would have to go through Consumer Affairs. Councilmember/Member Zappetini asked, in the criteria for what an officer can or cannot do under the grant, if one of the things is patrol, and if he could patrol in areas where they are not getting patrol because we are short of staff, and the people who live in that area are willing to put up funds to hire the service, could we take those funds, match them with City funds, and then have the Federal funds combined, and everyone gets better coverage for safety? Chief Krolak responded that under the Federal Crime Bill it has to be specifically SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 10 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 11 for community policing functions, and for us to supplant the basic function we should be doing anyway, patrolling the City, they would not allow us to do that. They would see that as trying to supplant that function using their funds, and that would get us in trouble. That would not be possible. He stated it would be safer for the City, in the long run, to look at the Consumer Affairs permit or licensing process and do it in that fashion. Councilmember/Member Zappetini asked if it is worthwhile to try? Chief Krolak responded we would have to determine that based on how much of a need there is. If some of the people who have spoken to Councilmember/Member Zappetini would notify the Police Department or, specifically, get them together so we can see what the need is and whether it would be beneficial to them and whether we should look into that. Councilmember/Member Heller referred to the Consolidated budget and asked how many of the 97 positions are filled at this point in the officer category. Chief Krolak replied that as of today we have two vacancies. Councilmember/Member Heller noted that would be 42 officers, and Chief Krolak agreed. She asked if there are any other vacancies within the department, and Chief Krolak responded there are two Records Clerk positions which are vacant, one Police Service Aide position vacant, and a part-time Dispatcher which is still vacant. He noted that not only do we have a vacancy, but we are using one of the existing people about 650 of their time to do the abandoned vehicle program, which brings in revenue. He noted that on page 76 in the overall numbers the Abandoned Vehicle Officer is budgeted 0, and then under page 112 in the Special Accounts, that position is totally funded through the State program through the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles). That position is now filled, so that will not be drawing away from the revenues from the Parking Enforcement. Councilmember/Member Phillips asked if it is Chief Krolak's intention to have the department fully staffed, with the enumerated vacancies filled? Chief Krolak responded it is. At present there are two or three reservations in the next Police Academy, which is August 14th, so the other two police officer vacancies will be filled. Also, we have contracted to do the background on all of the civilian positions because there is a different State mandate as far as the background we have to do for those positions. There are sworn officers doing the sworn officer positions, which are more critical. Chief Krolak added that Personnel Director Chandler has been extremely liberal in helping with the recruitment process and setting up the eligibility lists. Mayor/Chairman Boro asked if there were any further questions regarding the Administration budget? Councilmember/Member Cohen asked for more detail on the Supplies and Services figure, since it appears there is an increase of $120,000 in this division, which is the largest increase in the budget. He noted that $48, 000 is for the Major Crimes Task Force. Chief Krolak explained there is $40,000 for potential liability; $30,000 for overtime; $7,000 for capital outlay, which is listed; and also $5,200 to start a replacement process on our protective vests for the officers. Councilmember/Member Phillips asked about the potential liability costs. Chief Krolak explained that refers to the lawsuits in which they are involved. Ms. Nicolai explained that the charges which relate to particular kinds of claims for liability are charged to each department which incurs the incident. We then take an average over a period of years. Some departments might have one claim in ten years, and others have a fairly steady number of claims associated with their operation, so we monitor and average them out. Mr. Coleman added that for the Police Department we put a three year running average in. At present, we have an increase in the liability claims in the department, which is reflected in that average. Ms. Nicolai noted that while the number of claims might be going down, there may be a few which were quite expensive. There are also related expenses, such as outside attorneys. For that reason it is not necessarily the number of claims, but the higher dollar amounts which are significant. She stated she will furnish the periodic report to the Council. Councilmember/Member Phillips noted the Capital Outlay had gone from $53,000 to $13,000, then to 0 and back up to $7,000. He referred to the "Wish List" with the computers. He asked for discussion. Ms. Nicolai explained that the computers and software are not on the Wish List because Chief Krolak has a grant application in to fund a significant number of those. Councilmember/Member Phillips asked Chief Krolak what the probability is of getting the grant? Chief Krolak replied that for this particular grant he has no idea. The Federal Crime Bill is still being dealt with in Washington. The Senate, as of last week, did not have it up yet for consideration. Councilmember/Member Phillips stated that is not particularly encouraging, and he feels we should also be considering alternatives; however, there is not adequate information to discuss the issues at this meeting. Ms. Nicolai stated this would be very beneficial and it would be worth waiting a month or so to see if we can get it. If not, we would come back before the Council. Mayor/Chairman Boro noted that on page 80 it speaks about coordinating community policing. He stated there have been good programs in the past year, such as the bikes and the baseball cards, but asked what else might we see happen along the lines of community policing? Chief Krolak explained that the Community Policing Committee within the department is made up of SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 11 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 12 about thirteen representatives from all different ranks and functions within the department. They have been meeting on a regular basis, checking over the concepts and possibilities of how it can be more specifically implemented. A lot of different kinds of ideas are coming up, but he cannot say at this point specifically what we will be seeing. The department has been meeting with the various neighborhood associations when they are invited to do so, and also with the Downtown business group when they had their annual meeting recently. Our Crime Prevention Officer, Mick Bunker, and also Jack Martin, one of the Downtown officers, met with them. The process is working without having anything formal. The department also worked with CalTrans and Public Works regarding the clean-up of the northern end of Lincoln Avenue. Mayor/Chairman Boro asked for discussion on the Special Operations Division. He asked Chief Krolak about the Street Crimes Unit, and what their full strength will be. Chief Krolak explained that at present we have one Sergeant, two Corporals and an Officer, and may conceivably have one more Officer. Mayor/Chairman Boro asked if there were any questions from the Council on Information Services, page 84. He noted several of those issues have already been discussed. Chief Krolak clarified that the Capital Outlay amount of $24,000 is really a budget transfer. He explained they have been financing their document imaging system over a period of time, and have now put it in Capital Outlay. Mayor/Chairman Boro asked if there were any questions on the Patrol Division budget, and there were none. He then asked if anyone in the audience would like to address the Council on the Police Department budget. There was no one who spoke. Councilmember/Member Zappetini moved and Councilmember/Member Cohen seconded, to conceptually approve the Police Department budget in the amount of $8,236,319. AYES: COUNC ILMEMBERS /MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor/Chairman Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None NON -DEPARTMENTAL POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE (Pages 112/113) Chief Krolak explained that these accounts have been funded for the most part through asset seizure money in the past (which is dramatically declining), and /or donations. In the case of the Youth Services Bureau, we actually charge fees for those services. If these funds are not available, we would look to the Department budget, or just not do the function. There is also the Abandoned Vehicles which, again, is money derived from DMV through a $1 assessment we all pay for abandoned vehicles. That funds the disposition and the maintenance on the vehicles, and the supplies. Councilmember/Member Cohen clarified that these budgets reflect the Department's best estimate of what amounts will be coming in, and how it will be spent, with the amounts being adjusted accordingly. Chief Krolak stated that is correct. Councilmember/Member Cohen moved and Councilmember/Member Zappetini seconded, to adopt the Police Special Revenue Fund in concept - Crime Prevention Funds $10,460; Drug Asset Seizure Funds $17,300; Youth Services Counseling Fees $5,400; and Abandoned Vehicles $46,433. Councilmember/Member Phillips inquired if the revenue sources are allocated based on the four categories listed; in other words, if there are no drug asset seizure funds, would the services listed under $17,300 not be provided, or would it be split across the board? Chief Krolak stated it would be split across the board if one account has less. Ms. Nicolai clarified that there are restrictions. You cannot take the $46,433 for Abandoned Vehicles and do the Puppet Show, for instance. Actually, that program is currently being audited, to assure that the program is actually addressing abandoned vehicles. She stated there might be more flexibility in the Crime Prevention funds if it is just a donation to the Police Department, but it is not totally flexible. Chief Krolak noted that the Drug Seizure Assets would also have restrictions. Councilmember/Member Phillips noted that these programs are driven by outside sources, and he wonders if there are any which are essential to the City which should not be necessarily tied to the other outside events? He asked if we should be funding some of these? Chief Krolak responded that in the past we have funded them and found that we can derive the revenues or donations to do it this way. Councilmember/Member Phillips stated it would not be unreasonable for him to ask, as we progress throughout the year, if it is found that some of these programs are not funded because the income is less, that Chief Krolak come back to the Council with an interim report as to how these programs are progressing. Ms. Nicolai stated that if it got to the point where one of these was in jeopardy, which we feel is really important, we would come and ask the Council for the money. For instance, the Puppet Show was originally a grant funded program, and once the demonstration period lapsed, it became a General Fund funded program. There are other ways of funding, such as service clubs. Councilmember/Member Phillips suggested that part of our motion might include providing for SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 12 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 13 these programs, and if that is not possible, that staff would return to the Council for possible funding. Mayor/Chairman Boro stated that would be the understanding. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor/Chairman Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None FIRE (Page 88) Ms. Nicolai stated the Fire Department budget is status quo. The big transition period has been this last year with the closure of the station and the implementation of the second Paramedic unit. The fire station which is being rebuilt in Terra Linda will flow into this upcoming fiscal year. She stated Chief Marcucci will answer questions on the departmental budget as presented. Fire Chief Robert Marcucci stated that as Ms. Nicolai reported, this budget reflects the full funding of our agreement with Marinwood, and also reflects the cost of paying our third party biller for his services, which last year was not handled in that fashion. We are finally going with Station 6 and getting it rebuilt. During the past year we have formed a very effective relationship with the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods and doing weed abatement, and in dealing with the community regarding wildland fires and having them work with us. It has been tremendously effective. The Federation has received nationwide recognition for the work they and the Fire Department have done. He noted the Fire Department is predicated on goals and objectives which staff works over every year, so we can report on the service level based on our goals and objectives. Mayor/Chairman Boro stated there is an issue on which he would like the Council's reaction, and possibly also Chief Marcucci's. He noted Chief Marcucci has just talked about the fire safety issues we have been dealing with. Mayor Boro recently met with the Fire Commission, and one of the things discussed was stronger activity on our part as a City with respect to enforcement of weed abatement. One of the concerns is how we fund that, and one thought might be to set up some level of funding in a revolving fund. There is another issue to address, as owners of property in the City, and that is that we have open space areas in the City which need to be maintained and have safety problems. He stated that there was considerable volunteer effort in the community in dealing with wildland fires, and it seems to him that possibly we may want to make some level of authority through the Conservation Corps or San Quentin crews, on some of our own open space, because it would be a shame if these neighborhoods did all the work they did and then the open space became a problem. Mayor/Chairman Boro stated that he is asking that, possibly tomorrow night, we discuss some level of dollars which would allow us to put money in a revolving fund so the Fire Department can go out and abate after noticing residents. If someone is not willing to cooperate after receiving notice, we fund the work and then collect it either through billing, or have the City Attorney assist us in going through Small Claims Court. It would be worthwhile to see if we could do this, and he would ask for Chief Marcucci's judgment regarding the level of funding we might want to start with this year. Chief Marcucci responded that is a very good point. One of the difficulties in the past has been the line between private property and the land owned by the City. It is difficult to tell a property owner to clean up his land when he can point to public land and say it should be cleaned up also. Asking homeowners' associations to clean up their property has been very effective. He stated that he and Ms. Nicolai have been discussing this issue for a couple of years, and he would think that somewhere between $15,000 and $20,000 for public, and between $15,000 and $20,000 for private lands, would be the seed money we would need to run the program. The money used on public lands would not come back to us, but that which we use on private lands, as Mayor/Chairman Boro indicated would come back to us and refund the seed money. Ms. Nicolai added that one of the concerns we have had is working with the weed abatement Ordinance, which includes liening the property, and which is a very long-term mechanism. Some of the biggest up -front costs are going to be getting started and getting the message out, and payback will be far down the line. If we were to modify the Ordinance and check with the City Attorney regarding going to Small Claims Court for items under a certain amount, we could recoup it a lot faster. We do not necessarily have to be perfect regarding open space, but we should make a good faith effort. It is along the lines of how we are addressing ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). It is one thing to not have funded any part of it, and it is another thing to say it has to be completely cleaned -up before we can enforce it. We should make a good faith effort in such areas as San Rafael Hill and the Gerstle Park area, with the Conservation Corps, and then make a commitment to keep it up in the future. We do not have to do the whole thing, since it is such a huge project, but we should identify some critical areas this year and allocate a certain amount to it. Chief Marcucci agreed with that concept. Incrementally, over three or four years the open space property could be cleaned -up. Councilmember/Member Heller stated that fire safety certainly needs to be one of our top priorities, especially this year. SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 13 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 14 Councilmember/Member Zappetini noted that there was a cost override for Station 6. Chief Marcucci explained that there is money in the budget for Station 6. Ms. Nicolai pointed out that the budget message mentions that $90,000 more is being put from this upcoming year's budget into that account. It is no different than what we have been talking about when it went to bid. We added money to it last year from the disbursement to the schools, and at that time we said that in this upcoming year we would pull the final funding package together. She explained that rather than a cost override, we have been spending years accumulating an amount, and when we went out to bid, we learned what the real amount was. It should be fully funded with the $90,000. Councilmember/Member Zappetini thanked Ms. Nicolai for the clarification. Councilmember/Member Cohen stated he would like to see a report tomorrow night on the weed abatement program as just discussed. Chief Marcucci responded he will be happy to provide one. Councilmember/Member Heller inquired about the Consolidated budget, the $74,000 under Capital Outlay, and what is in that account. Chief Marcucci responded there is about $10,000 in fire hoses, $5,000 for nozzles and fittings, and a sewing machine because we do a lot of our own repair work and have a person who is an expert on making repairs. There is furniture in the budget for some of the stations in which the furniture is almost thirty years old and needs to be repaired to keep up with the MMWD Fire Flow Program. Those items total $74,000. Mayor/Chairman Boro asked Chief Marcucci to comment on the Pen Based Computer System for Fire Department activities. Chief Marcucci explained that when we contracted with the third party provider for the billing, one of the features he would make available to us is a computer which we could use to record not only information on the patient, but also the medical HMO's. We would load that information into a PC, which he would also provide to us, and that information would be electronically sent to the third party providers, who would then bill us. It is something we are working on own, and is a way of expediting the billing process. Otherwise, we have to use hard copy, which is a time-consuming process. With this method we would receive our money quickly. Under Goals and Objectives, Chief Marcucci explained the table top exercises in connection with the City's Emergency Plan. It is similar to exercises done by the military. Each department is reviewing their segment, and in September we hope to have our first table top simulation. Each department has its representatives, who are kept informed of the program. The command post is the City Council Chamber. Councilmember/Member Cohen referred to the EMS budget vs. the CSA #19 budget, stating the entire Paramedic service budget is in the EMS budget, so it is a separate contractual relationship. A ballot measure for CSA #19 was just on the ballot to increase their Paramedic tax; the rate is not set by us. Chief Marcucci stated that CSA #19 is primarily fire protection. Councilmember/Member Cohen stated that was what he thought, but he wanted to be certain. Mayor/Chairman Boro asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Council regarding the Fire Department budget. There was no one who spoke. Councilmember/Member Cohen moved and Councilmember/Member Zappetini seconded, to approve the Fire Department budget in concept, in the amount of $8,142,909. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor/Chairman Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None Mayor/Chairman Boro stated that this completes the agenda for this evening, and staff has their direction on the reports required for tomorrow night's meeting. Ms. Nicolai stated they will have the reports ready. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk/Agency Secretary APPROVED THIS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DAY OF 1996 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 14 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 15 CHAIRMAN OF THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 6/26/95 Page 15