Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2007-06-12 Seal Beach, California June 12, 2007 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in adjourned budget session at 5:35 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Larson Councilmembers Antos, Levitt, Shanks, Ybaben Also present: Mr. Carmany, City Manager Ms. Yostuya, Assistant City Manager Mr. Beaubien, Interim Director of Administrative Services Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Vukojevic, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Chief Kirkpatrick, Police Department Captain Bailey, Lifeguard Department Mr. Crumby, Deputy City Engineer Mr. Papa, Associate Engineer Mr. Spitz, Associate Engineer Ms. Gonzalez, Administrative Services Manager Ms. Jacobson, Budget Analyst Mrs. Devine, City Clerk BUDGET WORKSHOP: Copies of the Budget in Brief, proposed Budget for Fiscal Years 2007/08 and 2008109, and the proposed 5-year Capital Improvement Program are on file in the Office of the City Clerk until final adoption of both documents. I The Interim Director of Administrative Services indicated that the Council was provided a hand-out answering some of the questions asked at the previous budget workshop. Sand Reolenishment Proiect: Continued The Interim Director of Administrative Services stated that the Council has the staff recommendation on the sand replenishment project and Council has the option to direct staff to move forward or alter the recommendation. · (Antos) - Stated that he had called Congressman Rohrabacher's office and spoke with the Chief of Staff - Kathleen Killngsworth explained the beach sand problem and asked for the Congressman's support. Was told to send a letter out-lining the problem and any suggested solutions, upon receiving the City's letter they would contact the Army Corp. of Engineers and work through any problems regarding the City tying in with their existing project with Surfside. · (Larson) - Reviewed the staff recommendation: Approve to allocate $150,000 to begin environmental process and to designate $1,000,000 in the reserve fund for future beach sand replenishment project. · (Shanks) - Need to show the City is willing to make a commitment to this project and provide for matching grant funds. I Shanks moved, second by Antos, to direct staff to allocate $150,000 to begin environmental permit process and designate $1,000,000 in the reserve fund for future beach sand replenishment project. AYES: NOES: Antos, Larson, Levitt, Shanks, Ybaben None Motion Carried Caoital Proiects: The Director of Public Works gave an overview of the proposed 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP on file): · Five year CIP = $39 million; FY 07108 $11,000,000; FY 08/09 $10,000,000; Areas - Beach & Pier, Buildings, Parks, Sewers, Storm Drains, Streets, and Water System. Page 2 - Budget Workshop 06-12-07 . Reviewed the funding sources and projects (proposed 5-year CIP document) . Reviewed past year projects: sand groin, pier deck phase 1, tennis center, city hall, Zoeter School, Zoeter Park, Edison Park, Gum Grove Park, pump station 35 phase 1, West End pump station, Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach Blvd., slurry seal & concrete, Navy reservoir, Leisure World water line connection. . Reviewed pie charts - percentage of work by areas and percentage of source of funding. Questions & Comments: . (Levitt) - Seal Beach Blvd. Edison Underground Project - $40,000; Resoonse: Current program where in the utility bills all residents pay for future underground project for a major arterial - Edison has been banking money for the last ten years to be able to put the utility lines underground along Seal Beach Blvd. The $40,000 line item is budgeted for two years in order for Public Works to hire a consultant to assist staff to get through the project (plan review, inspection, etc.). . (Ybaben) - Are general fund monies being used for projects listed in the charts for state grants & development fees and street funds? Resoonse: The only one project using general fund money is the pier deck rehab project (matching funds of 50%) - next fiscal year general fund money = $250,000 and grant money = %200,000 grand total of $50,000; The presentation is a summary of the 5-year CIP for more details refer to the CIP notebook - the pier project is under tab 3 - project 50217. All projects are listed in the budget book on page 145 with breakdown of funding. Proposed street projects will only be done with outside funding sources for the next fiscal year (City has discretion as to what projects would be done). . (Antos) - The streets scheduled for repairs are listed in the Pavement Master Plan; Resoonse: The presentation reflects the program that the council is investing in with the available funding. Slurry seal work is not determined on the condition of the streets only the streets on the local rehab program are prioritized by condition. . (Shanks) - Are Enterprise projects going to bonding? Is it budgeted for each Councilman to have $20,000 to spend at their discretion? Resoonse: Sewer Master Plan indicated two alternatives in order to fund the $15,000,000 of sewer projects - gradual rate increase along with floating a bond to bring the money upfront to begin the investment back into the pipes. Council authorized staff to bring back information - no bonds have been authorized at this time. The $20,000 budget item last year for each Councilmember was for one time. . (Ybaben) - Annual concrete rehab (street funds) for only streets? Back log of projects, especially the sidewalks that trees have uprooted. Sidewalks citywide are a major problem and needs to be addressed. Would like to see more money allocated for sidewalk repair. Resoonse: Annual concrete rehab is used for both curbs and gutters and sidewalks; policy in the past years was to focus on the high pedestrian (sidewalk) areas this focus was moved to match the street (curb and gutters) projects - limited amount of money budgeted. Last year an additional $50,000 was budgeted for sidewalk repairs. Grinding down the high spots in sidewalks has been used to repair most of the sidewalks - using this method the City is able to repair ten times the amount of locations instead of removing and replacing the sidewalks. . (Shanks) - Grinding only works for some sidewalks - where it does not work the City then pours asphalt patches - this causes trip and fall liability. This issue needs to have a higher priority. . (Ybaben/Shanks) - Requested that staff increase the allocated amount for sidewalk from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. The Interim Director of Administrative Services recommended that the increase be taken out of the General Fund - there was no Council objection. . (Antos) - Requested that staff look into using a rubberized material for sidewalks around the trees - last time this was requested the cost was high and would like staff to see if the cost for this is more reasonable. . (Ybaben) - What is the budget balance after deducting the money allocated for the sand replenishment project ($2 million), is the budget balanced or is there a deficit; Resoonse: The only item in the budget for the sand replenishment project would be the $150,000 for the environmental permit I I I ,. Page 3 - Budget Workshop 06-12-07 I process and there needs to be Council consensus to place in the budget a reserve of one million dollars of fund balance for the future sand replenishment project - technically this would mean that the money is set aside in the reserves earmarked for this project and does not go into the budget as an expenditure because it will not be expended in this fiscal year. This would mean that the proposed budget started out with $400,000 surplus - taking out the $150,000 for the environmental process and the $50,000 for the additional sidewalk allocation - it would leave about $200,000 surplus in the General Fund up to this point. . Consensus of the Council is to leave a reasonable reserve for emergencies and to be able to fund projects that run over or for any uncertainties that may come up. If Council does not hold back money in the reserve fund then cuts have to be made in projects and programs that were budgeted. . (Ybaben> - Unexpected repairs and emergencies have been anywhere from a half a million dollars to three quarters of a million dollars each year. The current level of reserves is about $10,000,000 - Council needs to look at the General Fund projects and unfunded CIP needs and start putting money towards some of the projects: Community Center Improvements ($100,000) - in the unfunded needs for building improvements is almost $2 million; City park repairs ($100,000) - unfunded needs is $2 million; Storm drains ($1.2 million) - unfunded needs is $15 million. Council needs to get serious and put some money in these areas. Need to give direction to staff as to what Council priorities are in what areas. · (Antos) - Storm drain projects are safety projects for resident's property and needs to take priority over park beautification projects. Seal Beach 5K110K Run Committee raises money for parks and recreation programs. Mid-year budget review would be a good time to adjust the project funds. · (Larson) - Staff recommends what is needed to keep the City functioning and always has a list of unfunded projects. Council I here to serve the people the best they can and make sound decisions. . Staff recommendation is setting aside $600,000 for two years to begin the priority list on the storm drain projects (each project is about $1 million - could do one project every two years). · (Antos) - Would support staff recommendation and not increase the funding. . (Ybaben) - If Councilman Antos does not want to add more funds for storm drain projects would recommend increasing funds to the parks projects from $50,000 to 100,000 a year and take the funds from the reserve funds. · (Antos) - Would not support the increase - staff has looked at the budget and this is their recommendation - does not want to make the changes just for beautification. There is a master plan on the facilities. · (Larson) - Does not want to be frightened by the unfunded liability list - $15 million in storm drain improvement projects is a scare figure. All the unfunded needs projects all sound like good things that people would want. · (Ybaben) - AdHoc Storm Drain Committee generated a list and budget and Council needs to give the list some creditability. Staff proposed a budget identifying projects and allocated funding based on needs, money, and Council priorities. Unfunded needs list is always ongoing. Undesignated fund balance is $14 million - should consider using some of the funds. · (Larson) - Appointed a committee to look at the storm drain problems and they made a list of recommendations some reasonable some not, some indicated a lack of knowledge of public financing, some recommendations were made that Council knew the public would never approve. The Council adopted the approach that is being followed by the staff. · (Levitt) - This has been a very dry winter and there was no flooding and there does not appear that there will be any flooding in the near future but come this January things change and we have an EI Nino, the City will not be concerned about how the community centers look. We need to be concerned about the possible flooding. · (Larson) - Terms were never defined regarding what is a 50 year flood, 100 year flood, 1,000 year flood; Council made a projected judgment regarding what type of flood may occur and this could be wrong; the channel behind Leisure World was built for a 25 year flood it this gets full and the City has a high tide and this backs up and the gates do not work there is a triple problem. If Council wants to do the ultimate project we need to ask the expert flood engineers what a 100 year flood would look like; then we double or triple I I Page 4 - Budget Workshop 06-12-07 the size of the pumps; spend a fortune on storm drains but in doing this we would be taking away a lot of benefits in living in Seal Beach by having to cut funding to parks, streets, sidewalks, trees, community recreation, and the beach. · (Ybaben) - Ready to hear from the public and would like Council to direct staff to look into what a reasonable amount of the reserves that can be spent in the areas discussed and still maintain a functioning City. Public Comments: . Robert Goldberg - Bridgeport and former chairman of the AdHoc Storm Drain and Street Improvement Committee, gave a brief review of the actions taken by the committee: the committee was given the task to examine several options that totaled up to $30,000,000 in improvement projects to prevent a 100 year flood; provide Council with a short list of high priority projects that can be reasonably funded and would have an impact on the problem; the projects suggested would help mitigate the next big rain not necessarily protect against the next 50 or 100 year flood. Presented Council a proposal of priority storm drain projects for consideration that can be done right now. The total of $3,000,000 should be advanced this fiscal year and not allocated at $600,000 a year. There are two out of the six recommended projects that are ready to start, just waiting for funding - Candleberry Avenue and Electric Avenue (provided a chart). The cost to complete these projects is increasing due to the cost of materials and labor. The Ocean Avenue project took priority over the storm drain projects - these projects need immediate attention - can not take a chance with the weather - constituents will not agree with taking a chance. There is a history of flooding in the City. The designated reserves total about $10,000,000 and that leaves undesignated reserves with over $13,000,000 and the City's fiscal policy states that there should be 25% of the operating funds set aside - that means there should only be about $6.6 million. Funding the two projects this fiscal year would save over the next five years. The committee did not think it was practical and never went with the $15 million total for projects this was recommended by the engineers. . Serreta Fielding - Seal Beach Blvd. and member of the AdHoc committee, stated she was flooded three times; the committee presented priorities for Council consideration; ballot measure to increase Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) was passed by the voters with understanding that the increase monies would go toward storm drain improvements; the priority list was established to prevent flooding of homes and cars in the City; and water from all areas of the City flood the areas of Seal Beach Blvd. and Electric Ave. (lowest point in the City). Requested Council consider the recommendations from the committee. . Vic Grgas - Old Town resident, expressed his support for the AdHoc committee's recommendations; Council needs to address this issue to indicate to the residents, especially on the east side, that they are serious about dealing with the problem; and this flooding issue is not just one day event it is months of cleaning up with emotional and financial concerns. Was a Council member in 1983 and lived in a house built 50 years ago (15th Street and above Electric) and his garage was flooded but water never reached the house level - moved into a brand new home built in 1983 (by City code standards) and has been flooded three times - how can this happen - Council needs to five staff direction to correct this from happening to all residents. . Joyce parque - Old Town, stated that the storm drains will help provided the pumps are working. Concerned about the police department jail contract - who is responsible to pay the lawsuit; who is paying the settlement of $2.5 million to Officer "A"; as long as the City has a 11 % utility tax there should not be a surplus; lost $1.6 million in sales tax when Home Depot was discouraged to locate in the City: suggest 4 years ago that the City install a traffic light camera (Los Alamitos installed one at Katella and receives $6 million a year); sewer fees for Sunset Aquatic Park was being paid for by residents of Old Town, College Park East, and the Hill; there is a cloud over the City regarding the former treasurer - what is happening about him and when will he be charged; property tax for Surfside going to Sunset Beach - why was this not identified earlier; and should eliminate giving staff money for continued education - paid the former treasurer $10,000. I I I Page 5 - Budget Workshop 06-12-07 I . Schelly Sustarsic - College Park East, commented on the increased $60,000 allocated for Bluebell Park renovations. this amount is not due just because of the increase of construction costs - the original $190,000 budget would have been enough for a straight forward rehab of the park - the additional cost is caused with the plan that Council approved that totally reconfigures the park - this is a waste of money. The current plan for the park project was rejected by the Parks and Recreation Commission - they voted to preserve the practice fields. Residents of CPE also oppose the current plan (250 signatures gathered). The monster trees have been trimmed and a noise engineer would not find any significant difference in noise level in the park; it is quieter than the tennis center. Bluebell park has been a safe place to play with the tall fence - the plan to eliminate and lower sections of the fence would negatively impact the use of the park and endanger the children playing there, passing automobiles, and property of neighborhood homes. Beautification of the park should not reduce the use of the park - CPE is a family neighborhood and areas for recreation should not be eliminated. Bluebell park is different from the other parks the fenced lighted field allows uses that other parks can not - neighborhood practice fields. She stated she is a supporter of the parks after serving on the Parks and Recreation Commission for 8 years - Bluebell park definitely needs repairs and improvements - it is wrong to spend an additional $60,000 on a renovation plan which was not supported by the Commission and not favored by the public. should not waste General Fund money or Prop 42 money - the money can be used for other parks. Requested Council to reconsider the Bluebell park project plan. Mayor Larson declared a recess at 7:20 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. I Council Comments: . (Shanks) - With some uncertainty in the issue facing the Council would suggest that Council not take anymore action on the budget until more details are presented. · (Larson) - Never know from one year to the next what Sacramento will do about the funding that cities are supposed to receive. · (Shanks) - It is disingenuous to think allocating the entire $3 million in this fiscal year is better than over the next 5 years - can not buy the argument that doing the two projects now would stop the flooding - it is an endless issue (list of projects). Not opposed to funding the projects would like to think about it. . (Levitt) - This could be the same argument as to why paint the community center when you will only have to do it again - same with the sand project you will only have to replace it again - this is the wrong attitude to take. You have to prepare for the floods - the storm may be too big to handle not matter how much preparation is done - you have to constantly invest in the infrastructure. . (Antos) - The residents voted to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax and the amount the City collected in 2005/06 was just under $700,000 and the estimated amount for 2006/07 would be around $850,000 - with the amount from the increase designated for the storm drain projects and the amount staff has proposed for storm drain projects it is possible to advance the timeline for the projects. Not comfortable taking the 5 year plan for the projects and pushing all of the $3 million into one year. - does not want to jeopardize other projects or the financial stability of the City. · (Ybaben) - Give staff guidance regarding the list of storm drain projects to precede one project at a time - upon completion of one review the finances to proceed to the next project. Allocate enough money to complete one project not spread funding over multiple years for multi projects. City Manager will be able to make the judgment as to when the projects need to be tackled. · (Larson) - If Council allocated $1.8 for the first project and it takes 1 or 2 years that amount is appropriated for just that project and no longer in the reserves. · (Shanks) - What is the $600,000 a year designated for? Resoonse: The first project would be Electric Ave. and Seal Beach Blvd. - estimated cost $1.2 million - setting aside $600,000 at the end of 2 years. · Staff Response . The question to Council is how fast they want the projects completed and what is the availability to appropriate the money towards the I Page 6 - Budget Workshop 06-12-07 projects. The way staff has presented this is that one project to be built every two years. Each project is situational - one project does not necessarily relate to the next. The projects have changed from the original master plan - more accurate cost needs to be updated. Projects and costs have changed since 1999. The strategy for the storm drain improvement budget was to be able to get one of the projects built at the end of the 2 year budget cycle (allocated) - public works estimated that $1.2 million would be needed, with approval start the process to getting the project done, and award of the contract would be more at the end of the second year. The goal was to get a project funded and built within the 2 year budget cycle. Need to keep in mind that the sand I replenishment project may require a large amount of funds. · (Larson) - City is fortunate to have the reserves they have - every decision that is made is a gamble - will not vote to cut the police department, lifeguards, or fire service - the storm drain program that was adopted indicated that there will be protection to the City when completed - need to proceed one step at a time. . (Ybaben) - Concern is having too large of a reserve and having resident's homes being flooded. . (Antos) - There have been projects already done - Seal Beach Blvd. along Electric (increase size of pipes); Electric and 12th Street; Bridgeport; and College Park East. Staff is trying to do the projects in order. . (Ybaben) - Council is nervous about spending money for the storm drain projects that would protect a lot of homes Citywide from flooding would they have the same reservation about the sand project that would only protect a few homes along the beach. . (Shanks) - Look at your address "Seal Beach" - there is the aspect to a large extent the sand project will protect the residents along Seal Way - this is a beach city - what is a beach city without a beach or sand - have to protect the image of the City. The sand does protect more than just the homes on Seal Way. . (Antos) - Have to protect the homes along the beach, the flooding would go I up along Pacific Coast Highway and ends up flooding all the way to Main Street and the homes in between. . (Ybaben) - There are more options with sand than with drainage. Started out indicating the three areas that should receive more funding: Storm drains, parks, and city buildings. . (Shanks) - The $1.2 million project is being addressed in the budget - it is a 2 year plan. The community parks and buildings are not in that bad of shape. . (Antos) - Need to have an update on the Master Facility Plan. Staff clarification: It does not appear that there is Council consensus to change any of the proposed projects (CIP) except to add more funding toward sidewalk repairs. The budget presented for the public hearing will be the proposed budget as presented adding $50,000 more each year for sidewalk repairs. No other changes will be made and Council will have the opportunity to make changes at the Council meeting during the public hearing. Adiournment With no objections the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. to June 25th, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. for the City Council and Redevelopment Agency to meet in closed session. r\ . ;/<, .:~ tUi/ Hf1:l.' ~erk City of Seal Beach I Approved: J()Hlh~ ~t~ ayor Attest: cJ;y/Yf/dtr. ~ City Clerk