Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2002-05-30 5-29-02 / 5-30-02 Attest: 91<.,,?J;~ City Clerk I Seal Beach, California May 30, 2002 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:00 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Larson Councilmembers Antos, Campbell, Doane, Yost Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Danes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Mr. Vukojevic, Deputy City Engineer Chief Sellers, Police Department Captain Schaefer, Police Department Ms. Arends-King, Director of Administrative Services Ms. Hull, Assistant Finance Director Chief Cushman, Lifeguard Department Lieutenant Pounds, Lifeguard Department Ms. Yotsuya, Assistant to the City Manager Ms. Yeo, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Doane moved, second by Antos, to approve the order of the agenda as presented. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmember Antos reported a request that the Council speak louder or use the microphone, and mentioned that there were members of the audience that wished to ask questions relating to budget issues. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments were made at this time. I BUDGET WORKSHOP The City Manager requested Council direction relating to the two proposed revenue enhancements, parking meters and the Transient OccupancyTax~ Councilman Doane mentioned that about two years ago an ad hoc committee was formed to look ,into all parking issues, parking meters was the last issue to be discussed at which time the discussions became rather controversial, all members participated, eventually the vote to submit the issue to the Council was eleven to three in favor of meters, at that time 5-30-02 the work of the committee was turned over to staff to prepare a recommendation based upon the findings of the committee. Mr., Boyd had been Chair of the committee, Mr. Anderson was Vice-Chairman, the Mayor recently appointed Councilman Antos to the committee, his recommendation would be that Mr. Anderson assume the Chair and that Councilman Antos be Vice- Chair, the committee should meet one more time to ratify the committee recommendations. The City Manager stated he felt the issue is fairly close, the parking meter issue still needs to come to the Council for detail work and review of the committee report, this project will likely take six to eight months to go through Coastal Commission etc. to be implemented, this was included as a revenue enhancement in that there were few enhancements to consider, the figures of $292,000 to $425,000 is merely a range, the lower figure is felt to be conservative based upon a thirty-five percent occupancy rate. I Councilman Antos stated he would consider leaving this issue for future consideration, his feeling was to adopt it now would be wrong. In reference to the current meters he said he did not feel that whomever is maintaining them is doing a very good job, there are some in the Main and Electric lot that run at different speeds, the timing is not being checked, thus customers of businesses in that area are being cautioned to not park at certain meters. Councilman Antos recalled making a suggestion that the business community needed to survey themselves to determine if they were for or against meters, if they are in favor then they should check with their customers as well, if the customers are not entirely against meters the issue could then be brought to the City, if fifty percent of the customers say they will not patronize the businesses if there are parking meters then that is harmful to the ability of the merchants to make a living and in turn impact the sales tax revenue to the City. He mentioned also that if the intent is to put meters on Main then the parking lots, such as Main and 10th Street, should have them as well, also, since there is occasional public parking in the 8th/Central lot, if revenue is the issue then look at the beach parking lots for citations too. Councilman Doane noted that the intent of the committee was a parking solution, the primary consideration at the time was not revenue where it is now, it was mostly to solve the issue of the beachgoers occupying most of the parking on Main Street. Councilman Antos mentioned too that with two hour parking on Main Street the beachgoers are taking advantage of that rather than paying to use the beach lots which in turn takes away customer parking, to that he has suggested two sets of signs, one hour parking for the summer, two hour' parking for the winter. Councilman Doane stated those are the types of suggestions that the committee submitted to staff. Councilman Yost suggested that before the parking committee is reconvened that the membership be looked at since there has been a change in the Council. Councilman Doane mentioned that the only change is the substitution of Councilman Antos for Mr. Boyd, explaining that the committee was not disbanded just inactive for the time being until staff had an opportunity to look at the findings of the committee, the remaining members are" in the community and willing to finalize their task. Councilman Yost again asked to see a list of the members. Councilmember Campbell expressed her feeling that whatever the parking solution it needs to be comprehensive, taking into consideration the beach, Main Street, parking lots, people are going to go where there is free parking, as long as there are differences such as in the I I , 5-30-02 I cost of parking, the people will go to where parking costs less. Councilmember Campbell expressed her concern with the current system at the beach, it seems to be unworkable for some people, they do not have change or have problems with the type of system where money is inserted, she would like to see one set fee citywide for parking, in the beach lots she would like to see a person taking the money for the parking time actually used, people do not want to park in a $5 or $6 per day lot when they only stay at the beach for maybe two hours. Councilman Doane mentioned that one of the committee considerations was to not have the parking on Main Street cheaper than the beach lots or visa versa, if the fee is the same the beachgoers would choose the beach lots. The Lifeguard Chief explained that when there was a beach attendant a parking pass was issued and time stamped, yet some people would wait until the parking attendant would leave their post at days end before exiting the parking lot therefore not pay for their use of all day and early evening parking, this was true during summer and winter months, the gate for entry was closed however there had to be an open exit to leave the parking area. The Chief noted that the present system with AMPCO has a variable usage menu, one hour is $1.50, two hours is $3.00, or $6.00 for all day. He mentioned that AMPCO is presently considering putting in new machines that will be more user friendly to the point that they will talk to the customer, at present $1, $5, or $10 bills can be used for change configurations or a debit card can be used, any problems that were realized initially have been basically worked out, he understands the desire to have a person at the lot yet there is no accountability comparison to the AMPCO system, AMPCO collects the money, makes the deposits, and returns the percentage share to the City. The Director of Administrative Services pointed out that the City receives a daily audit sheet from each machine which can be reconciled, before AMPCO there was no accountability. Mayor Larson recalled having voted against the AMPCO contract, the argument presented to Council was the issue of accountability, his preference was to have an attendant, argument was also made that AMPCO was the best system available, now there is mention of getting a new and better system. The Lifeguard Chief mentioned that the new system will have better visibility, will talk people through situations, there will be a computer in Zero Tower that will have the ability of calling up each machine to determine the amount of money coming in, that is even more accountability. Mayor Larson mentioned that there is a need for clearer signs, as the parking machines are probably staying. Councilmember Campbell described a scenario where a gate goes down on egress from the parking lot at the time of lot closing, what happens, to that it was stated that it is not certain that one could legally trap someone in their car in the lot, it would possibly need to have some type of boot device. The Lifeguard Chief mentioned that that type of scenario was looked at before the City went to machines, a system with better accountability is basically about $50,000 per parking lot, some beaches have twenty-four hour per day operations, along with that is a cinderblock building, restroom, attendant, bulletproof glass, a totally secure facility, the initial cost of $50,000 per lot plus labor was felt to be quite high. A member of the audience inquired as to what would happen if the beach were to close at a certain time. The Lifeguard Chief responded that signs as well as the machines state that the beach closes at 10:00 p.m., the gate goes down at 10:00 o'clock, the police patrol the beach at 10:00 o'clock, a problem is that there is the off-shore I I 5-30-02 oil operation where cars are left in the lot for two to three days at a time, oil workers come and go at various times. Councilman Yost inquired as to the difference between revenues from the machines versus the attendant system, the response of the Lifeguard Chief was that last year AMPCO did not do well because of the weather, it was cold, there were beach closures, etc. Councilman Yost noted that with his recent use of the 1st Street lot the machines worked well, took $1 bills, credit cards, in the beginning there were problems with the machines not working but recently they have, to that comment it was mentioned that this system is being used elsewhere, beachgoers are likely getting used to using the machines. Councilman Antos said when people use the lots and take a ticket do they pay up front or when leaving, the explanation was that the user parks their car, goes to the machine and chooses the time they intend to park, they pay for the ticket and then display it on their dash, an alternate method that was looked at was more convenient for Code enforcement whereby the user parks in a sp~cific space, is issued a ticket that goes with the user, there is nothing left on the car, the machine then tells enforcement which spaces have current money, if there was no money a citation would be issued. It was noted that at one time there were objections in Huntington Beach because people had to exit their vehicle, go to the machine, and then return to the car with the ticket. Mayor Larson suggested that the Parking Committee be reactivated and that the issue of parking and meters be considered by them again. The Manager said the issue is being looked at from a fiscal standpoint, whether this is a consideration as a revenue enhancement, if it is not then more cuts are necessary, again, it is felt that meters could be within six to eight months, the need is to determine whether this is a viable consideration. Comment was made that to refer back to the Committee could mean a delay of two to three months but this could possibly be viable for the second year, if the Committee approves the meters it will be somewhat of a bonus, however if it is included as a revenue enhancement and they do not approve it there will be more of a shortfall at the end of the year. Councilman Yost stated his position has been against meters all along, yet if he is forced to make a difficult decision between cutting people who work for the City and metering Main Street he may have to rethink his position, however he would remain against meters unless the situation is drastic. A member of the audience stated in the past it was the beauty parlors that objected to taking out the meters, businesses should also be encouraging their customers to utilize parking behind their stores adjacent to the alley, she has not heard objections to parking meters. I I The second revenue enhancement item is to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax from nine to twelve percent, this tax applies primarily to hotel customers, the additional revenue generated will not be a great deal, about $75,000 annually, this would be an amendment to the Municipal Code. It was noted that the percentages vary a great deal, Seal Beach at nine percent is in the lower range. A consensus was indicated to give consideration to the TOT as a revenue enhancement. I Councilman Antos mentioned the authorization given by the Council at the last meeting for the staff to look into the news rack issue, there is no idea how much revenue that may bring yet it is presumed that the ordinance would contain a license amount for each set of racks, similar to that in the I I I 5-30-02 Buena Park ordinance, a P~blic Works permit that would cover the cost of inspections, and inquired as to what could be expected in terms of a business license fee. The response was that the business license fee is $163 per year per rack, is adjusted each year by the CPl. It was mentioned also that another option would be for the City to install the racks and in turn lease the racks to the newspapers, a fee would need to be developed for the encroachment. It was noted again that there would be some revenue yet at this point it is not known what that might be. Discussion continued with regard to the proposed budget reductions. * The Director of Administrative Services explained that the projections include the beginning fund balance for fiscal 2002/03, taking out reserves, with estimated revenues and expenditures, the deficit is shown at $290,000, the cuts were included as a result of the budget meeting the previous night, that resulted in a balanced budget for the first fiscal year and increase the fund balance, an undesignated fund balance of about twenty percent, in the next fiscal year where the expenditures go from about $17 million to $18 million the cuts do not balance the budget, there is a deficit of $683,000, that reduces the undesignated fund balance, however if the same expenditures continue with a CPI adjustment and the same revenues are collected, in year 2004/2005 general fund revenues include estimated sales tax revenues for the Kolls Department Store, that results in a $821,000 deficit with a fund balance of sixteen percent, in the next fiscal year, 2006, the fund balance is depleted to just less than ten percent; * A comment from the audience was that if positions are vacated and are not going to be filled that is a saving that has not been considered; * Comment of staff was that at this point the budget is being considered as status quo, there are decisions that are yet to be made by the Council, if someone retires it will be included on the spread sheet and that would make a difference; * Mayor Larson said it appears the consensus of the Council at this point is that they will not fill the Police Captain position but are not inclined to make employee cuts other than that, that may be necessary, however there is a minimum staff right now; * For information of the Council, staff reviewed the cuts made at the prior meeting; * Councilman Yost noted that there is a positive balance for this fiscal year with a twenty-five percent fund balance, twenty-one percent the following year, yet the status of things are in such a flux, the budget is balanced without taking police officers off the street, without eliminating Public Works employees or the Animal Control Officers, there are other things that could be done however he does not want to be that aggressive at this point in time, especially with the reserves staying as they are, possibly go back to the one year budget until things settle down; 5-30-02 * Councilman Antos agreed, noted that for some of the things that have been cut there possibly may be grant monies forthcoming that could cover those one hundred percent, an example could be the Traffic Signal Backup, then those items could be put back into the budget because the monies are not coming from the General Fund; * Councilmember Campbell noted the discussion to eliminate the professional services agreement with the Washington, D. C. lobbyist, it may be possible to renegotiate that agreement down substantially, and spoke in support of the two year budget which allows the Council to see where it is going, noted too that each of the departments prepared the list of cuts, although they may not like them, it was felt they could live with therefore it does not appear they will impact safety of the Police or Lifeguard departments, otherwise they would not have made them; I * A counter comment was made that some of the cuts made may pose a danger to safety on the beach, as taking officers off the streets or eliminating a Sergeant will impact public safety; * The Manager noted that the budget is about $21,000 out, whether it be a one or two year budget the future is known, the Council will be having the same discussions next year, every dollar that is saved now will be a savings in the future, also, when reserves are held back that generates interest which in turn is a revenue source, when they are used that reduces the interest income; I * Mention was made that the reserves are the only asset that makes the City money, all others are looked at as a liability; * With regard to properties owned by the City, it was noted that the City uses Bancap, a property management company, Rivers End and Ruby's are properties that generate revenue to the Tideland Fund; * Comment was made that there will likely be a considerable increase of revenue with regard to Ruby's as it is going out to bid and it will be seen what the actual market rate is; * Page 20 of the budget shows rental properties, a large portion of that is the cell towers, they pay a monthly rent, those rent payments go to the General Fund, rentals of Ruby's and Rivers End goes to the Tideland Beach fund, that helps pay for beach expenses; * In response to an audience question, it was reported that the loan of $75,000 to a former City Manager was repaid to the City in accordance with his employment contract shortly after his house was sold; I * Also, it was pointed out that the Chamber of Commerce pays $1 per year for their office, and the claim that the Chamber was given up to $25,000 of discretionary money was emphatically denied; * A comment from the audience was that essentials must be paid before other things; I I I 5-30-02 * In response to an audience question as to whether or not the utility users tax is legal inasmuch as it has not been voted upon, it was stated that at this point it is legal, the issue is to determine whether or not charter cities must vote on the utility tax, charter cities are awaiting the court to make that decision, which way the court will go is unknown, the charter cities and the League of Cities believe a vote is not required; * with regard to pursuing all businesses operating in the City to assure they have a business license, is there any idea how much revenue that might bring to the General Fund - the response was that since February of 2001 staff has been trying to clear up the business license issue, there are about one hundred fifty businesses where it is uncertain if they are operating in the City or what they are doing, staff continues to send information to them, they do not respond, the next option is to have a contract Code enforcer go out and try to make personal contact, there is one member of staff that has been attending meetings for training of employees as to what municipalities can do legally to collect the business license tax, staff is working closely with the attorneys to make certain it is done correctly, there are two ways for the City to collect the business license tax, if a company is a manufacturer it is based on gross revenue of $.40 for every $1,000, the two companies in Seal Beach are Boeing and Accurate Metals, the remaining companies fall under the $163 per year fee; * Comment was made that one hundred fifty businesses at $163 is a $24,450, yet if they are no longer operating in the City the business license can not be collected; * It was noted that the City works closely with the firm of Hinderlider and deLamas, they provide sales tax reports monthly and note which businesses should be looked into, there are a number that have sales tax licenses, those are being looked at; * A member of the audience suggested that if someone is operating a business without a license they should be shut down, and claimed that there are people on every street that are doing business at home but do not have a business license; * with regard to the undesignated fund balance, the Finance Director confirmed that the balance is the highest it has been in about ten years, it has been increasing slowly; . Council comment was that that is the reason for being against making large cuts or laying off personnel because the fund balance is the highest it has been in ten years, there is a positive budget for the coming fiscal year, this may be the most unpredictable time in the City's economic history, it is not felt that an assessment can be made at this point where the finances are in the black, there is the highest reserve in ten years, there are all of the other assets and other revenues coming in that have not yet been accounted for, there will be more revenues as a result of Ruby's lease being renegotiated, more revenue from the Rossmoor Center, Bixby is not totally running as yet, those are 5-30-02 recurring sources of increases of revenue, there are also other options that the City can fall back on if necessary, metering Main Street a possibility if necessary as well as other possibilities for cuts, if it is necessary to come back and do some of those things in six months so be it, the feeling is that a two year budget can not be done in this type of climate, there is not a willingness to lay an employee off because of something that may happen in a year when there is a positive, balanced budget for this year; I * Mention was made that it was a former member of the Council that, shortly after joining the Council, pointed out that the City was illegally not providing reserves, and with that budget the Council began putting money away to rebuild the reserves in order to come into compliance with State law; * A counter comment was that the target was twenty percent, reserves are now twenty-six percent, projected to be twenty-two percent next year without any increase of revenues being put in, this is felt to be a very conservative budget; * It was pointed out that should another restaurant replace Ruby's there will be no forthcoming revenue for some time because the whole building needs to be refurbished, the time to do that will take longer than anticipated, recalled that ten years ago when there were no reserves there were times where it was uncertain if payroll could be made, that is no way to run a city, there needs to be reserves to meet whatever crisis may occur, the pier fires are examples, these may be the highest reserves in ten years yet is it still enough, the two year budget forecast is good, most companies do so for five or ten years, it is important to plan ahead; I * with regards to Ruby's, the understanding is that when the City built the restaurant it also put in the fixtures, etc., if there are now new fixtures needed within the building the feeling is that it should be treated as tenant improvements just like any other commercial operation, the City is responsible for the exterior walls, floor, roof, and possibly plumbing going to the building; * It was noted that the restaurant building was done at a time when there was not a lot of interest in that facility so the City made some concessions to bring this operation into the Main Street area, Main Street is now viable, agreement was indicated that the interior should be considered as tenant improvements, the City no longer has to give someone a turnkey operation, however of concern is that while the tenant improvements are being made the restaurant is closed and there is no generation of revenue; I * It was mentioned that irrespective of whether it be Ruby's or someone else there will still need to be some improvements, even if the City was to put in the improvements the restaurant would be closed, the intent here is that the City not put money into that facility; * Question was raised as to whether there are any other leases, licenses, franchises, or whatever coming up - a I I I 5-30-02 response was that the refuse contract has an automatic renewal provision for a specific number of years, the renegotiated franchise agreement was about four years ago; * Mention was made that Adelphia may file for bankruptcy, the Comcast franchise was for a period of ten years and it was felt at the time that someone was going to buy them out; * In response to the initial question, the response was that with the exception of a few minor leases it is felt that most other agreements and franchises are in place for the time being; * It was pointed out that according to the projections at the end of four years the reserves will be less than two percent, somehow it needs to be recognized how that is going to be taken care of, it would not be good to go for two years thinking everything is okay where it is going to drop to ten percent in 2004 and less than two percent in 2005 unless there is some other corrections that can be made, maybe sales tax will increase enough to pick up some of the shortfall; * Question was posed as to how much revenue the oil business in the Mitchell Plaza generates, it is interesting to note that this business does not generate much traffic or impact on the community yet is one of the highest sales tax generators, other similar opportunities should be looked at and pursued as a benefit to the City; * A suggestion was made in jest that Boeing should consider Seal Beach the point of sale for their 747's; * Mention was made that at a local meeting it had been said that Boeing was considering some point of sale manufacturing, that should be encouraged in the discussions with Boeing - to that a comment was made that Huntington Beach and Long Beach have Boeing operations, in those communities Boeing offers to give a portion of the sales tax back to the cities; * A member of the audience claimed that Boeing makes $8 million dollars just on one floor of the satellite building so why is the City not getting some of that sales tax - the response was that it is not sales tax rather federal contracts where there is no sales tax; * To a question as to whether there will be a surplus for the second year of the budget, the response was that it is projected to be down to seventeen percent, however with the cuts next year there will be $96,000 excess; * , It was explained that water is not a part of the General Fund, it is a fee based fund, the enterprise funds are supposed to be self-supporting based upon the fees charged, at this point it is the capital reserves that are being used to keep the water fund going, a recent water rate study will be forthcoming to the Council in the near future; * A comment from Council was that it is felt that the cuts need to be dealt with now in order to be ready to deal 5-30-02 with what is coming in the near future, that is a concern; * Mention was made that if this budget is adopted there would be an approximate twenty-five percent surplus, the next year it would be down to eighteen percent, and, even though there is a two year budget if the surplus is down there will be a need to make further decisions at the end of the year, support was indicated for that scenario; I * It was mentioned out that the City has no idea what the Governor or the legislature is going to do with the State budget, it is said the Governor may do some take- aways which will likely be known by the end of the year, that would seem to be the time when the budget should be looked at for the upcoming year, at that point it may be necessary to act on the remaining reduction items and do further revenue enhancements, that again is dependent upon what the Governor does or does not do, by then more should be known about the recommendation from the parking committee, newsracks, Ruby's, and business licenses; * The response was that that is in fact the concern because that is how the City ended up with the utility tax in 1992 as it now exists, at that time the State took away property taxes, now the possibility is the Vehicle License Fees, there is fear that the Governor or the legislature is going to do that to the cities, the State typically balances its budget on the backs of the cities, the concern is that the City is leaving itself open for exposure because there are too many unknowns; I * It was declared that a conclusion needs to be reached, there are a number of possibilities, one can not assume that all of the bad things are going to happen, the Governor did not say that cities would not get the VLF, he did not propose it in the budget, but the legislature could do that, there are other things that could be lost; * The suggestion again was that as soon as it is known what the State does, likely in December, the Council should revisit the budget, at that time an amended budget could be done for this year or for next year, and more will be known about the Police Department internal reorganization from a personnel standpoint; * A member of the audience said the City needs to keep its Police Department, making reference to the past contracting for fire services, people operating without a business license know that they are doing that, they need to be fined, people park where they are not supposed to, and for days at a time, they need to be cited; I * It was mentioned that the fines for parking violations were adjusted in recent months; * There was agreement that if some of the proposed cuts are made could also impact liability with regard to public safety whether it be lifeguards on the beach or police on the street, those cuts can not be supported especially with the $96,000 surplus for the upcoming I I I 5-30-02 year and even though there is a projected deficit the following year the reserves are still over twenty percent, another review of the budget in six to nine months could be supported, also, it was helpful at a time in the past to do a line by line review of the budget in order to understand the flow of money, where it came from and where it goes; * All of the cuts were looked at, the Council does not want to tamper with public safety but how much safety can the City afford to buy, it is the departments that proposed the cuts, it may be necessary to reorganize the Police Department, a proposal was made a couple of years ago to turn the Police over to Orange county Sheriffs, that was strongly opposed, but that is where the majority of dollars are spent, however you do not get to cuts of $1.3 million through $1,000 and $2,000 items, it is through the big dollars, if it is the intent of the Council to put off the cuts then everyone is just put on notice; * A member of the audience stated that the noise law needs to be enforced, the stated goal of the City is quality of life for all residents - the response was that extra attention will be paid to noise levels; * It was confirmed that the Recreation Department will be moving back to City Hall; * A member of the audience said it just came to her attention that the Mary Wilson Library is only charged $1 per year as is the Chamber, the Library provides many services, the Chamber does nothing - the response was that the Chamber had approached the City for some assistance, it was a policy decision of the Council to offer $1 per year rent, that is how that agreement was reached, in turn the Chamber provides services to the City, the beach cleanups are a good example; * It was noted that on the Heal the Bay Report Seal Beach was listed as one of the three best beaches in California based on water quality and cleanliness, and it is believed that the Chamber also does a cleanup outside the City boundaries as they know that that water flows into the City, anything that the Chamber is able to clean up assists the City in keeping the beach clean and the less debris that needs to be collected; * A complaint from the audience was that organizations are charged for holding events but the Chamber is not charged for any of their events, everyone needs to be treated the same or it is illegal; * To that a response was that other cities subsidize their Chambers of Commerce, Los Angeles provides a building, the Chamber brings people into town, they spend money, and that enhances revenue to the City, Los Alamitos and Huntington Beach subsidize their Chambers, Seal Beach does not subsidize the Chamber; * It was stated that when the budget was first seen, into which there was considerable work, there was not one budget reduction that was wanted, however upon review of the budget in detail reductions were identified that came within $200,000 of balancing the budget for both 5-30-02 years, no police personnel were deleted except for the retiring Captain, so it can be done, and more can be done than has been done so far, it is not desirable to reduce services, more has to be reduced otherwise the reserves will be impacted, in 1991 the new City Manager was appalled at the fact that for the previous decade all of the reserves had been depleted, he recognized that they needed to be rebuilt, that had just started when in 1992 the State resolved their budget problems on the back of the cities, that is when the utility users tax increase became a necessity, this City could be in danger of a repeat performance if the reserves are reduced, the labor groups worked with the City, they went three years without a pay raise, that situation would not like to be seen again, so more cuts need to be made; I * In response, it was offered that before cutting into existing reserves another budget session is requested, the proposed budget for the upcoming year does not cut into reserves in fact in adds $96,000, for the following year reserves will be impacted unless more cuts are made, therefore suggestion was made to go back to adopting a one year budget that does not cut into reserves with the cuts made thus far; * It was stated that if the State takes something like the VLF then additional cuts will be needed - another review of the proposed reductions was suggested - many of the items on the list from the last meeting were indirect or alternative reductions, there are things that were not acted upon that could potentially be cuts; I * Item 33, Planning Department records retention program, $2,000 - comment was that the Planning records are important, it would be wise to continue that program, an example was when an attempt was made to determine when a building was built as compared to when the zoning Code was enacted and no records could be found; * One of the things not discussed was eliminating the street tree planting in the CIP, item 30, would the City then go to grants - response was go to grants and then use a small amount of reserve to meet the matching funds requirement; * Suggestion was made to renegotiate the Washington, D. C. lobbyist agreement, item 4 - request could be made to provide certain services yet keep the amount at what it is now, it is felt it could be kept around $36,000 for both years, this can be looked into; * It was presumed that the lobbyist provides services to cities other than Seal Beach, presumed also that unless the City wants him to deal with a particular issue, except for watching legislation he is not lobbying, inquiry was if he is on a per month retainer where he might be available to a telephone call - it was noted that he is working on the sand replenishment for Surfside, landscaping and beautification issues with the Navy, the second entry issue, keeping the Navy at the base, he made certain that communications from the City got to the right people, he monitors the BRAC, etc. and responds to the City; I I I I 5-30-02 * Noting that there is another study session scheduled for the following week, it was suggested that someone from Congressman Rohrabacher's office be asked to attend, ask them if they are going to support Seal Beach in washington, or just deal with Huntington Beach issues - response was that as a politician he will say yes, it would likely be his chief of staff; * An experience was relayed that at one time it took only three phone calls, no lobbyist,' to get the federal budget amended as it sat on the desk of the. President; * It was explained that a lobbyist gets things done by talk{ng to people, by opening doors, they are not lawyers or a legal analyst, ~e has been important to the sand issue, it is not felt that reducing ,the funding will help, he is there working on issues of benefit to the City - suggestion was to leave in tact the lobbyist funding; * Mention was made that the Navy property issue is very important, Rohrabacher should be working for the City's interests - comment was that Congressman Rohrabacher may have other interests with regard to Navy property, politicians get pulled in lots of ways, usually in the direction of whomever has the greater billfold; * It was believed that the Washington lobbyist was actually set to move forward on the 22 freeway widening issue as it related to the Navy property - in the meantime CalTrans and OCTA changed their plans to where neither the taking of the six houses nor an easement'was needed; * In regard to .Item 4, it was stated that a letter will be prepared to be sent to Del Smith advising of the Council decision to stay with the current contract at $2,000 per month, the savings will be $12,000; wi th regards to the terms of ,the Ruby's agreement it was explained it is a base rent plus a percentage, the City was obligated to do the tram, when the City stopped the tram then Ruby's stopped paying anything above the base rent, it was basically a wash, that is where it stands today, the City is out with a request for proposals seeking a new vendor - to that it was explained that that was not a City Manager call, it was a Council as a whole call, several attorneys talked to the Council about the pluses and minuses, it never penciled out financially, extending the lease was discussed, that might not have been the most favorable for the City, the worth will not be known until it goes to bid, which is now, the primary interest is to get the best financial deal for the community - in addition, the desire was to not have any further damage to the pier from the tram running back and forth, there is also a restriction on the number of vehicles that can be on the. pier and the number of times, the tram also posed a liability issue - Ruby's had said the City broke ,the lease because of not providing a tram and caused them damages, they did not provide the City with information requested so the City said they broke the lease, from that the City Attorney was directed to file suit against Ruby's, then the bad comments ceased, and the determination was that when the lease term ran it would be put out to bid; * 5-30-02 * To the comment that the Building Department services agreement is costing $800,000 per year - the response was that the Charles Abbott and Associates contract is on a percentage basis, much like the contract that had been with Milad and Associates who served the City for twenty-five years, when Abbott was selected the City also picked up enhancements such as a part time Code enforcement officer who has started working on a backlog of cases, they provided updated computer systems that produces reports relating to the number of inspections, time, etc., again, it is on a percentage basis leased on the number of building permits, the more permits the more money they receive - page 60 of the budget under Contract Professional Services reflects a figure of approximately $249,600; I * Question was posed if there has been any negative . feedback from the oil island workers due to the stopping of the tram, which is actually why the tram was put into operation - response was that no complaints have been heard from the oil island workers. Mayor Larson noted that the next workshop will be June 5th, inquired if the intent is to individually go through the budget to look for additional cuts. Councilmember Campbell distributed a sheet that showed the cuts already made, the lobbyist was not shown however. The City Manager stated that revised numbers will be available on Monday, confirmed that there were no further budget enhancements to discuss. It was mentioned that this budget may be worthless by Christmas depending upon the actions taken by the State. Mayor Larson offered that people have said that Proposition 13 was adopted because the State had too big of a surplus, they did not need. the money, which was true. I ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Wednesday, June 5th at 4:00 p.m. By unanimous consent, the meetinqwas adjourned at 7:55 p.m. clerk Approved: I Attest: ,