Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2000-07-03SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 3, 2000 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Barbara Heller, Vice -Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBER - 7:00 PM Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item. CLOSED SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBER - 7:00 PM 1. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code Section 54957) Title: City Manager City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Minutes approved as submitted. Meetings Re: Budget Hearings of Tuesday, June 1, 1999 and Wednesday, June 2, 1999; and Special and Regular Meetings of Monday, June 19, 2000 (CC) 3. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) - File 116 x 9-1 4. Monthly Investment Report (MS) - File 8-18 x 8-9 Approved staff recommendations: AB 1219 (Kuehl) Land Use. Water Supplies: OPPOSE; SB 165 (Alacron) Local Government Finance. Special Taxes: OPPOSE; SB 987 (Karnette) Substance Abuse. Adult Recovery Maintenance Facilities: SUPPORT. Accepted Monthly Investment Report for month ending May, 2000, as presented. 5. Resolution Appropriating Unappropriated a. RESOLUTION NO. 10653 - Revenues for 1999/00 and Approving 2000/01 RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING Appropriations Limit (MS) UNAPPROPRIATED REVENUES - File 8-5 FOR 1999/2000. b. RESOLUTION NO. 10654 - RESOLUTION APPROVING 2000/2001 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 2 6. Resolution Setting the Special Tax Rate for RESOLUTION NO. 10655 - 2000/01 on All Taxable Property Within the RESOLUTION SETTING THE SPECIAL Community Facilities District No. 1992-1 DISTRICT TAX FOR LOCH LOMOND (Loch Lomond #10) (MS) - File 6-50 x 5-1- #10 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-01. 297 7. Resolution Amending Resolution No. 10450 Pertaining to the Compensation and Working Conditions for Unrepresented Management and Mid -Management Employees and Elected City Attorney and City Clerk (One -Year Agreement from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001) (MS) - File 7-3 x 7-3-2 x 9-3-14 x 9-3-16 8. Resolution Authorizing the Establishment of the PARS Defined Contribution Retirement Plan for the Exempt Management and Mid - Management Group, to be Administered by Phase II Systems, PARS Trust Administrator (MS) - File 7-1-36a x 7-4 RESOLUTION NO. 10656 - RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 10450 PERTAINING TO THE COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR UNREPRESENTED MANAGEMENT AND MID -MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES AND ELECTED CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK (July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001). RESOLUTION NO. 10657 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PARS DEFINED CONTRIBUTION RETIREMENT PLAN FOR THE EXEMPT MANAGEMENT AND MID -MANAGEMENT GROUP, TO BE ADMINISTERED BY PHASE II SYSTEMS, PARS TRUST ADMINISTRATOR. 9. Approval of Troy Harris as Replacement Approved staff recommendation: Appointment to Fill Vacancy on the General Appointed Troy Harris to fill Plan Steering Committee (CD) vacancy on the General Plan - File 115-1 x 115 Steering Committee. 10. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1752 - An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael Amending the Zoning Map of the City of San Rafael, California, Adopted by Reference, by Section 14.01.020 of the Municipal Code of San Rafael, California, so as to Reclassify Certain Real Property from "O" (Office) District to "LI/O" (Light Industrial/Office) District (located on Gary Place) (APNs 18-051-01, 12, 13, 16 and 17, and 18-063-04) (ZC 00-01) (CD) - File 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-1 11. Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Rafael to Authorize the City Manager to Extend an Agreement with the Department of Corrections for the San Quentin Work Crew, Effective July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2002 (PW) - File 4-10-224 12. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement Between the City of San Rafael and Brent Zerull Regarding Future Annexation of Real Property, APN 016-041-24 to the City of San Rafael (Re: Seaview Avenue Annexation #6 to San Rafael Sanitation District) (PW) - File 5-2-95 x 12-7 Approved final adoption of Ordinance No. 1752 - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE, BY SECTION 14.01.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM "O" (OFFICE) DISTRICT TO "LI/O" (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE) DISTRICT (LOCATED ON GARY PLACE) (APNs 18-051-01, 12, 13, 16 AND 17, AND 18-063-04) (ZC 00-01) (CD) RESOLUTION NO. 10658 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXTEND AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FOR THE SAN QUENTIN WORK CREW, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2000 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2002. RESOLUTION NO. 10659 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND BRENT ZERULL REGARDING FUTURE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF REAL PROPERTY AT 222 SEAVIEW AVENUE, APN 016-041-24, TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 2 15. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER AN INCREASE IN THE VOTER APPROVED PARAMEDIC SERVICES SPECIAL TAX IN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CSA 13, CSA 19 AND MARINWOOD CSD, AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING TAX RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES (MS) - File 9-3-31 x 4-13-56 x 9-12 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. Assistant City Manager Ken Nordhoff reported that in 1979 the citizens of San Rafael approved a new tax for the sole purpose of funding a paramedic program. He explained that tax was initially levied on residential properties only; however, it was amended in 1988 to include non-residential commercial and industrial properties. Mr. Nordhoff stated that since 1979, the Council has, on an annual basis, reviewed the cost of providing this service and set the tax rates for both residential and non-residential properties, as a matter of recovering the costs for providing the program. Mr. Nordhoff reported that in 1996, Proposition 218 was passed, which put limits on the City's ability to set the tax rate locally. At that time, the rates were $40.00 per residential unit and $.05 per square foot on a non- residential basis, and those rates have been frozen in place since that time. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 3 13. Baypoint Lagoons Landscaping and Lighting a. RESOLUTION NO. 10660 - District: (PW) - File 6-48 RESOLUTION DIRECTING FILING a. Resolution Directing Filing of OF ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORT, Engineer's Annual Report BAYPOINT LAGOONS b. Engineer's Annual Report 1999-2000 - LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING This is to be filed DISTRICT (Pursuant to the C. Resolution Approving Engineer's Report Landscaping and Lighting Act d. Resolution of Intention to Order of 1972). Improvements (and setting public hearing for meeting of 8/7/2000). b. Engineer's Annual report 1999- 2000 - FILED. c. RESOLUTION NO. 10661 - RESOLUTION APPROVING ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORT, BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT (Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act Of 1972). d. RESOLUTION NO. 10662 - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER IMPROVEMENTS, BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT (Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)(and setting Public Hearing for meeting of 8/7/2000). 14. Request for Approval of Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 10663 - Authorizing Closure of Additional Downtown RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING City Streets, on Fourth Street from Cijos to ADDITIONAL STREET CLOSURES FOR Lincoln, and on Cijos from Fourth Street to THE WEEKLY DOWNTOWN FARMERS' Third Street, in Connection with the MARKET (Fourth Street from Farmers' Market Festival on Thursday Cijos to Lincoln, and Cijos Evenings (RA) - File 11-19 x 104 from Fourth Street to Third Street, both from 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM on Thursdays during the Market season). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARING: 15. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER AN INCREASE IN THE VOTER APPROVED PARAMEDIC SERVICES SPECIAL TAX IN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CSA 13, CSA 19 AND MARINWOOD CSD, AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING TAX RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES (MS) - File 9-3-31 x 4-13-56 x 9-12 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. Assistant City Manager Ken Nordhoff reported that in 1979 the citizens of San Rafael approved a new tax for the sole purpose of funding a paramedic program. He explained that tax was initially levied on residential properties only; however, it was amended in 1988 to include non-residential commercial and industrial properties. Mr. Nordhoff stated that since 1979, the Council has, on an annual basis, reviewed the cost of providing this service and set the tax rates for both residential and non-residential properties, as a matter of recovering the costs for providing the program. Mr. Nordhoff reported that in 1996, Proposition 218 was passed, which put limits on the City's ability to set the tax rate locally. At that time, the rates were $40.00 per residential unit and $.05 per square foot on a non- residential basis, and those rates have been frozen in place since that time. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 4 Mr. Nordhoff explained the passage of Measure P, the City's paramedic tax measure last November, authorized an increase in the rates of up to $53.00 on a residential unit, and $.07 per square foot on non-residential properties. He noted similar measures had been passed in the prior year, by both the County Service Areas 13 and 19 and the Marinwood Community Services District. He stated all four entities are currently under the same taxing authority, and all have taxing authority to the year 2003, with a maximum tax that can be set of up to $53.00 for residential, and $.07 per square foot for non-residential. Mr. Nordhoff explained the staff report proposes the budget for the paramedic program for fiscal year 2000/2001 at slightly over $3 million. He stated he had worked with Fire Chief Marcucci in calculating the cost of the service, noting they had also met with representatives from both County Service Areas 13 and 19 and Marinwood. Mr. Nordhoff stated staff was recommending that this year the tax rate be established at $49.00 per residential property, and $.06 per square foot on non-residential property. He acknowledged this was a little unusual, in that CSA 13, CSA 19 and Marinwood Community Services District had the authority in the prior year, because of the agencies having passed their tax measures, to set those rates at $46.00 and $.053 per square foot. However, because of the City's own lack of having an approved tax measure, the City's rates were capped at $40.00 and $.05. He explained the City would now be bringing all of the rates to the same place, with rates of $49.00 and $.06 per square foot, reiterating that was within the authority approved by all the jurisdictions. He noted this would also eliminate a subsidy from the General Fund of approximately $194,000 in the coming year. He explained this program would now be fully self-supporting, with two-thirds, or almost $2 million, coming from the tax, and approximately $1 million from third -party billing, which relates to the transportation of patients and the collection related to that service. Councilmember Heller noted this action would take care of the tax rate until 2003, and asked, if the City wanted to make any changes to the rate, under Proposition 218, would the City have to go back to the voters again? Mr. Nordhoff stated that was correct, explaining that when the voters approved Measure P and similar measures in the other areas, it was for a four-year period; therefore this would take the City through the year 2003. Ms. Heller asked if that meant that all of the entities would be set the same, and if adjustments needed to be made, they would all be made at the same time? Mr. Nordhoff stated it would be staff's recommendation that if the City chose to increase those levels, they would all be done at the same time. There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SETTING THE PARAMEDIC TAX RATE, COMMENCING WITH FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001, AT THE RATES ALLOWED IN ORDINANCE NO. 1747 FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND FURTHER CONFIRMING THE PARAMEDIC TAX RATES, COMMENCING WITH FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, THE MARINWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 13, AND COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 19" ($49.00 residential rate and $.06 per square foot for non-residential). Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety, and to refer to it by name only, and to pass Ordinance No. 1753 to print, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 5 OLD BUSINESS: 16. TWO-YEAR, MID -PERIOD BUDGET REPORT AND RESOLUTIONS AMENDING CITY BUDGET FOR YEARS 1999/2000 AND 2000/2001 (MS) - File 8-5 Assistant City Manager Nordhoff explained the staff report contained a summary of the financial changes for the two budget years, which began last July and will carry through until June, 2001. He noted last week the Council had looked at several hundred objectives which had been laid out by the various City departments, and staff will again prepare a progress report in January, allowing the Councilmembers to again look at the progress on the two-year budget. Mr. Nordhoff stated staff was now presenting a series of Resolutions and schedules that make amendments to both fiscal year budgets, noting there were a few items he wished to point out. He stated all the budgets and all the funds remain balanced through the end of the next fiscal year, service levels Council approved last July will continue into the next fiscal year, and there will be no changes other than some very minor adjustments with respect to part-time staffing. Mr. Nordhoff also pointed out the City is continuing to see a robust economy, and that is carrying forward a lot of opportunities for the Council, noting the Council has had the chance to fund a number of one-time activities and capital needs. He stated staff expected to return to Council in August with a one-time source of funds, a more formalized list, and more refined costs, giving the Councilmembers the opportunity to decide the highest and greatest uses of those funds. Mr. Nordhoff stated that in this budget the City would continue to meet all the obligations under the various labor contracts approved last year; therefore, to the extent there are cost increases generated with those, they have been built into the budget, and the City will continue to meet the compensation objectives set forth in those contracts. Mr. Nordhoff pointed out he had tried to delineate some of the operating cost changes versus capital expenses. He noted there were a fair amount of capital costs the Council appropriated to projects in prior years, and those projects tend to run multiple years; therefore, staff was bringing those unspent balances forward, as discussed last week. He explained that would include such things as street resurfacing, park improvements in North San Rafael, traffic signalization, and a variety of other projects. Councilmember Cohen stated Mr. Nordhoff had mentioned the impact in fiscal year 1999-2000 of Motor Vehicle License Fees and State back -filling, noting that was one of the ways the State had decided to do a tax rebate this year. He asked what the impact of that would be to the City, and whether the State was going to back -fill Vehicle License Fees? Mr. Nordhoff explained this was actually the third tier of the Vehicle License Fee rebates, noting the State has continued to back -fill whatever the loss has been to the cities, including San Rafael. Therefore, even if that tax reduction is accelerated, staff was not anticipating it would mean any loss of Vehicle License Fees to the City. City Manager Gould stated that as long as the economy is strong and the State is experiencing surpluses, it was probably not a big issue. However, it must be remembered that the State has to appropriate the VLF back -fill each year; therefore, the City is completely at the whim of the State as to whether or not to keep that promise and commitment. He stated that although the City is all right this year, it is a year to year issue, and one the City has to watch, because there is no Constitutional protection, and nothing other than the Legislative intent to back -fill, which must be acted upon each year in conjunction with all the other priorities in the State of California. Referring to expenses, Mr. Cohen noted the article in the Marin Independent Journal with respect to booking fees, which are not appropriated. Mr. Gould stated there was no confirmation as to what the status is there. He reported staff had called the City's Lobbyist, Ken Emmanuels, who was unaware of this, and when he tried to reach various members of the Legislature, most of them were out. In addition, Mr. Gould noted staff was not certain the League of California Cities recognized there may be a problem here. Mr. Gould stated, based on the newspaper article, there appeared to be some kind of dispute between the Controller and the Governor regarding this issue, and staff hoped this could be resolved rapidly, as it SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 6 was real money to the City. Mr. Cohen asked if any of that was reflected in the figures in the staff report? Mr. Nordhoff stated approximately $162,000 had been built into the budget for booking fees; however, he noted that was based on the fact that he had no understanding or knowledge they would not be appropriated or funded, as he had assumed when the bill was passed last year that this would continue at a fixed level, in perpetuity. Mayor Boro asked if this meant there was a potential shortfall? Mr. Nordhoff explained there was a surplus of approximately $375,000 in the General Fund, which was going to be held until August; however, if that has to be revised because of whatever comes of the booking fee situation, staff will make the appropriate adjustment. Mr. Cohen asked, assuming there was no money coming from the State for booking fees, would the City have the $162,000? Mr. Nordhoff stated that was correct. Mr. Gould stated staff did not yet see this as a crisis, as the issue had only just come up, noting he was 80% sure staff would be able to resolve this. Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Nordhoff and all the people who worked on the results brought before the Council, noting he particularly appreciated Mr. Nordhoff's analysis in Table A, the Authorized Positions. Mayor Boro stated he was pleased to see that over the last three plus years the size of the City's staff has grown at a rate of approximately 20, and considering all the new tasks the City has taken on and the exceptional work undertaken by the City, he believed that showed how well the City is run. Mr. Nordhoff stated Assistant Director of Financial Services Dennis Shives should receive the credit for the Authorized Positions table. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution amending the 1999/2000 budget. RESOLUTION NO. 10664 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE 1999/2000 BUDGET. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution amending the 2000/2001 budget. RESOLUTION NO. 10665 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE 2000/2001 BUDGET. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None NEW BUSINESS: 17. REPORT ON VEHICLE REPLACEMENT STUDY (PW) - File 9-3-80 x 9-3-40 Deputy Public Works Director Frank Prim explained the City had undertaken this project to try to better manage its fleet and resources, explaining this had been done by using the consultant approved by the Council last June. He reported one recommendation of this study included having the City establish a Fleet Advisory Board to best manage the City's fleet and standardize purchasing procedures, which Mr. Prim stated has been done. He noted they had their first meeting a week ago, and members of the Board are listed in the staff report. Mr. Prim stated the report also recommended better tracking of resources and maintenance expenditures by updating the department's computer system, and at the first Fleet Advisory Meeting the Board decided to create a subcommittee to look into what off -shelf software packages are available that might be utilized by both the Public Works Department and the Fire Department in the maintenance aspect of Fire apparatus and Public Works fleet vehicles. Mr. Prim noted the subcommittee is to report back to the Advisory Board in January with a recommendation. However, Mr. Prim pointed out the Corporation Yard will be moving, and the expense of obtaining new software and having the necessary workstations installed would not be viable at this time because of the move; therefore, staff would try to wrap the computer system upgrade and the moving of the Corporation Yard into one process so they do not "double spend" the money. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 7 Mr. Prim noted the third major recommendation would be to revise the "ghost vehicle" policy and resolve the funding deficit. Mr. Prim stated the ghost vehicles in the City are a problem, explaining a ghost vehicle is one that has outlived its life. For example, he noted the Fire Chief had a car that was amortized over a period of time, it became due for replacement and a new car was purchased, and the old car was rolled into the fleet as a pool vehicle. Therefore, the City received no revenue for rental on the new vehicle, and when it dies, needs to be replaced, or needs major work, there is no rental income to support the vehicle. Mr. Prim stated it was a way to augment the fleet without coming before the Council and purchasing new vehicles in lean times, which, he noted, was a practice that is done throughout California. Mr. Prim stated staff was requesting that the City eliminate the ghost vehicles assigned to the pool and assign them to user departments, who would be responsible for the rent and care of them, and then, according to the replacement schedule, they would be replaced in a timely manner. He stated that if the fleet needed to grow from this point forward, that would become a budget item, explaining that during the budget process staff would have to request a new vehicle, and if the City Manager chose to include that in the budget process the Council could act upon it, and then staff would purchase a new vehicle for that specific user department, put it in the fleet, and amortize it over its life cycle. Mr. Prim reported staff was also evaluating whether there is a necessity for all the pool cars, whether they are being utilized to their best ability, if the City really needs them, and whether one particular department is the greatest user of non -revenue cars. He explained that when this has been determined, those departments would be the ones that are assigned the ghost vehicles, which will become part of their budget process. Mayor Boro noted that in Mr. Prim's example, a vehicle has been amortized, then goes into the pool, and then eventually that pool vehicle needs to be replaced, yet there is no money for it because it is a vehicle that has already been amortized; however, Mayor Boro pointed out that in following that sequence, the new vehicle which replaces the extended life vehicle would eventually be available to go into the pool. He clarified that staff was recommending the funding of both the pool vehicle, which, in essence, is now a cast-off, in addition to the replacement vehicle. He asked why the City would not want to have a plan to take those other vehicles and continue to utilize them, rather than having two tiers of new cars, one for the pool and one for the departments? Mr. Prim stated there was a maintenance obligation curve, whereby, as the vehicle life increases, so does the maintenance cost; and the vehicles that are rolled into the fleet after eight or ten years are high usage maintenance vehicles, which causes the level of service in the garage to have to go up. Mr. Prim reported that while determining their goals and objectives a couple of weeks ago, they noted a marked increase in how much servicing of vehicles the department was doing, because of the aging fleet. Mayor Boro asked if Mr. Prim was stating the City could, in essence, reduce maintenance costs? Mr. Prim stated that was correct. Mayor Boro asked what that equated to, dollar -wise, versus the $500,000 shortfall, and if it would be better for the City to have a specific core number of pool vehicles; then when someone needed one, rather than maintain a car here, would it be better to just go out and rent one instead of funding a new vehicle? Mr. Prim acknowledged day-to-day rental could be a possibility for short-term usage. Pointing out that in the pool study they had polled three other cities, he reported the City of Napa did lease vehicles, but only for undercover police work because they had such a high turnover in the Narcotics Bureau, and every three months they changed cars so they could not be identified in the field. Mr. Prim also pointed out staff has found that with drilling holes to install radios, necessary first aid equipment, and other items the City is required by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and State law to carry, staff realized that at the end of the lease when they prepared to turn the vehicles in, because of the mileage and the wear and tear, the City could have bought them. Mayor Boro focused on the extended life vehicles, that pool of cars for which staff is stating the City is short $500,000. Mr. Prim explained the City would be short if it proceeded to replace everything the consultant recommended, and reported the Fleet Advisory Board was waiting to come before the Council at a later date to state they disagreed with that recommendation. Mr. Prim noted one of the vehicles on the replacement list SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 8 for this year was the vehicle he drives, explaining it meets the criteria for replacement because it is nine years old. However, he stated the vehicle had at least three or four years of life left in it and the Board was deferring replacement, pointing out that as the replacement list is whittled down, the $500,000 would be shortened substantially. He stated the $500,000 had been meant as a worst case scenario, and of that $500,000, the ghost vehicles represented approximately $140,000 for replacement. Mr. Gould stated there were really two different issues involved. One was the life -cycle costing of the fleet which, as Mr. Prim explained, was not just the purchase price of the car, it was also how much maintenance and repair is put into it over its lifetime. Mr. Gould explained fleet maintenance science tries to teach that there is an optimum life -span of any type of vehicle, given its use in the fleet, and they try to determine that so the vehicle is replaced before reaching the point where just another year with the vehicle will cost more than it would to replace it. He stated that was what staff was trying to determine. Mr. Gould noted that of the $500,000 the consultant recommended, the majority had to do with the consultant's suggestion that the City is keeping some of its cars too long, and that it would be better to replace many of them much sooner, and get them into a shorter life -cycle. He explained $140,000 was for the ghost vehicle syndrome explained earlier by Mr. Prim; however, he noted Mr. Prim had also stated the Fleet Advisory Committee wanted to review every one of those vehicles and determine what the City's real need is, whether or not they can be shared, whether staff can justify making a ghost vehicle a budgeted vehicle, and whether the life -span is correct. He stated that in that way, staff can decide what to recommend to the Council as an appropriate fix for the Vehicle Replacement Fund, noting it may be something the Council would want to phase in over time. Mayor Boro stated that along with those criteria, also paramount was the safety of a vehicle once it has reached a certain age. He acknowledged that maintenance costs money, although the City does have its own maintenance, and asked what the pluses and minuses were of spending money on maintenance versus buying another car, and when does the City reach the point where it is spending more maintenance money that it should? Mr. Prim noted, as an example, Salt Lake City turns over its cars every one to two years, and regenerates their vehicle replacement fund through the resale value of their cars, pointing out that the longer a city holds on to its cars, the less they get back for their vehicle replacement fund when the cars go to auction. Mr. Prim stated a faster turnaround of the vehicles, with less mileage and in better condition, generates more income to be put back into the vehicle replacement fund, which reduces the rate the end user has to pay in rental rates. Mayor Boro stated what had been misleading to him in the staff report, and the reason he zeroed in on the $500,000, was that it appeared from reading the first paragraph that the ghost vehicle fleet inventory was up to $522,000, although Mr. Prim reported it was $140,000. Councilmember Heller asked if the Fleet Advisory Board would be reviewing the Salt Lake City plan, noting she had been fascinated that they were only keeping their cars for a couple of years and then reselling them, and wondered whether they had been doing that for a long time, whether it was workable, and if it might be something San Rafael might work toward? Mr. Prim reported that had been brought to the Fleet Advisory Board as an example, and was not something the Board wished to pursue. Mr. Prim stated that although that would be the ideal situation for any fleet manager, the financial impact of setting it up the initial time would be staggering. He stated he did not know how Salt Lake City had phased it in, although it has been in operation for close to ten years. He noted they have their own downtown car lot, where they first offer the cars to the taxpayers at a reduced cost, and they also donate them to different agencies. Mr. Prim stated he does not know where they came up with their money; however, it does work, although he did not believe the City would be able to come up with the kind of money it would take to begin such a program. Mr. Nordhoff explained it would take a huge one-time investment infusion to be able to do that. Mr. Prim stated the consultant also evaluated the shop and its staffing, including the level of manpower and their ability to do their job, noting this had been a "no holds barred" evaluation of the people in the shop and the working conditions. He reported they identified specific issues that needed to be changed, and those issues will soon be addressed through SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 9 attrition and the reclassification studies. Ms. Heller noted the report had stated the level of computer skills was lacking, and asked if that was something that could be worked on, and rather than waiting for attrition to take care of the problem, perhaps provide a little computer training and get a little more substantial work? Mr. Gould explained the employee in question was within a year or so of retirement, and would not be taking part in further computer training. Referring to the consultant's recommendation to update the Policies and Procedures Manual, Mr. Prim stated that because there are no documented policies regarding vehicle usage or replacement cycles, that was included as part of this study, and the Fleet Advisory Board was now reviewing it. He explained this would become a living document that would be adopted by the City Council, although staff would come back with changes and recommendations on the various policies and procedures. Regarding the evaluation of the shop, Mr. Prim noted staff had sent out questionnaires to all of its users, and a representation of that was included in the study. He congratulated the people at the Corporation Yard, noting they came out very well in an evaluation of comparable cities of our size when looking at levels of service being provided to the end users, and the amount of work done in the shop. Councilmember Phillips stated he was unclear how the ghost vehicles were being used, asking Mr. Prim to describe those vehicles. Mr. Prim stated a prime example was Vehicle 116, which is the Fire Chief's old response car. He explained that car had been replaced with a new command vehicle, which the Fire Chief now drives, and the old car was rolled into the pool. He noted the Public Works Department has a pool log, and any employee who has to do City business during the course of the day can sign out a vehicle from the book. He stated there is currently one car assigned to a staff of four from the Traffic Division for employees who go out and conduct traffic counts, speed surveys, and respond to citizen requests. In addition, he pointed out the Community Development Department has no common pool vehicles assigned to it, rather it has Building Inspection and Engineering vehicles assigned to it, and if one of the Planners needs to go out and meet with a community group or one of the Code Enforcement officers needs a vehicle, they also come to the Public Works Department and sign -out a vehicle for the day. Mr. Prim stated that for a time, until one of the Astro Vans in the Fire Department was replaced, the City's mail person also used a pool car, and although he now has a mail van assigned to the mail department, it is also a ghost vehicle assigned to him, because it was once a Fire Inspector's car. Councilmember Phillips stated $140,000 sounded as though it must represent quite a few vehicles. Mr. Prim stated there were 11 ghost vehicles identified for replacement. Mr. Phillips asked if they were then assuming an average of $14,000 per vehicle? Mr. Prim stated that was correct, noting that in reviewing the intended usage for the ghost vehicles, they determined they needed something like a Ford Taurus or a Chevy Capri, something that was standardized so there would only be one maintenance inventory to repair the entire fleet. Councilmember Phillips stated he was pleased staff was reviewing this issue, acknowledging there is a point where it makes little or no sense to keep certain vehicles because of the maintenance costs. Councilmember Cohen noted the recommendation in the staff report is for the Council to accept the report, and direct staff to implement the recommendations and analyze the funding options. Mr. Cohen stated it seemed the Council was being asked to implement the recommendations, with the exception of FCS's recommended purchase program, instead asking staff to evaluate which vehicles should be purchased and how they should be funded. He noted that was a bit broader than simply adopting the recommendations and determining how that should be funded. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to accept the report as presented, to direct staff to implement the recommendations contained in the study, with the exception of FCS's recommended plan for purchase and replacement of vehicles, directing staff to analyze that, as well as the various funding options, and return to Council at a later date. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 10 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro asked when staff anticipated returning to the Council with funding recommendations? Mr. Nordhoff stated staff would like three or four months to go through the entire study, as they would like to include the Policies and Procedures, allowing staff to present a recommendation that reflects the entire picture. Mayor Boro asked if that meant it would likely be the next fiscal year that this would be implemented? Mr. Nordhoff stated staff needed to take a comprehensive look at the level of funding that would be required for the fleet, how that could be set up, and how staff would make it work. Therefore, it likely would be in the next fiscal period. Mr. Prim stated staff would also be coming before the Council in the near future with some of the expenditures on the replacement list, with regard to those vehicles already due to be replaced. He noted they have one vehicle with a cracked frame, as well as other vehicles with serious issues, and some of those vehicles need to be replaced. He noted they would go forward with that process through the Fleet Advisory Committee, and would likely be returning to Council with Consent Calendar items after going to bid. Mayor Boro asked if those vehicles were currently being amortized, noting that if they were, there should already be money for them. Mr. Prim stated they did have the money for them, but because of the amounts involved, staff would require Council authorization. Councilmember Heller thanked Mr. Prim and the Advisory Committee, noting staff had presented an excellent report, and she was pleased they were working on this study, as she believed it would benefit the City and everyone in the community once this is under control. Councilmember Phillips noted they had discussed the amortization period and the life of the vehicles, as well as the accepted practice that the vehicles then remain within the pool. He asked if that implied they should be using a different amortization period? He felt perhaps the whole issue of use within the City, under current policy, should be reviewed. Mr. Prim explained a portion of the Policies and Procedures Manual refers to such issues as the authorized use of City vehicles; what constitutes an end user; and evaluating whether the car should be permanently assigned to that specific department if a user takes a pool car more than 40 consecutive hours per month, which impacts that department's budget. Mr. Prim stated that currently, every pool car is owned, maintained, and operated at the expense of the Public Works Department, and regardless of who the end user happens to be, or who comes and takes the keys, it still comes out of the Public Works Department's Garage Fund, which is neither equitable or fair. He stated that was what they were attempting to correct. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 18. a. RE: YOUNG PERFORMERS PRODUCTION OF THE KING AND I - File 120 Councilmember Cohen stated San Rafael's Community Services Department, in conjunction with Pied Piper Productions, was presenting the Young Performers in a production of the King and I at the Showcase Theatre, Marin Civic Center, on Thursday, July 20th at 7:30 PM, Saturday, July 22 d at 7:30 PM, and Sunday, July 23rd at 1:00 PM. He urged everyone to attend, noting his younger daughter is in the cast. There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 2000 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/3/2000 Page 10