Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1983-07-11 7-11-83 Seal Beach, California July 11, 1983 'I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Grgas Councilmembers Brownell, Laszlo, Risner, Vanderstaay Absent: None Also present: Mr. Parker, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Johnson, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Chief Picascia, Police Department Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Laszlo moved, second by Vanderstaay, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Grgas, Laszlo, Risner, Vanderstaay None Motion carried AGENDA AMENDED By consensus of the Council, the agenda was amended to include a proposed resolution, consider Item "K" out of order, and a presentation by Mr. Blackman, Seal Beach Lions Club, as requested by the Mayor. Mr. Blackman was not present at the meeting. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3293 - HONORING SALLY ANN WOODSON - MISS SEAL BEACH Resolution Number 3293 was presented to Council and read in full by Mayor Grg.as entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HONORING SALLY ANN WOODSON, "MISS SEAL BEACH." Risner moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3293 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Grgas, Laszlo, Risner, Vanderstaay None Motion carried 1 ITEM "K" - STATE BUDGET UPDATE The City Manager reported that staff had contacted the Sacramento League office this date and had been informed that there were no new developments with regard to adoption of the State budget, only that the Governor had met today and will meet tomorrow with the Democratic leadership in an attempt to resolve the impasse. The City Manager stated that the city's budget reflects approximately $270,000 in anticipated State subventions that could be lost if the ABa deflator is enacted. Councilmember Risner stated that pursuant to information she received from Assemblyman Dennis Brown and Senator Speraw, it is felt the local tax option will be withdrawn and that the State subventions will be forthcoming. ~ 7-11-83 , \ PUBLIC HEARING - STREET LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING DISTRICT NO.1 Mayor Grgas explained the rules of conduct for the public hearing and requested the cooperation of those present. Councilmember Laszlo moved that local street tree maintenance be removed from the proposed Assessment District, reducing the assessment by $60,000. Discussion followed. Mayor Grgas seconded the motion. Councilmember Risner moved to amend the motion to also delete park maintenance. There was no second to the amending motion. I . AYES: NOES: Brownell, Grgas, Laszlo, Risner Vanderstaay Motion carried Mayor Grgas declared the public hearing open to consider Landscaping and Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1. The City Clerk certified that notice of public hearing had been posted and published, and 5934 notices had been mailed to property owners as required by law. The City Clerk reported that five hundred seventeen (517) written communications had been received, five hundred fifteen opposing the formation of the Assessment District, and two communications, from the U. S. Postal Service and the State Lands Commission, confirming their exemption from payment of taxes and assessments. The City Attorney stated that the City Council was proceeding pursuant to the State Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 under which an assessment district may be established to include maintenance of street lighting and landscaping throughout the city. The City Attorney explained that the 1972 Act differs from other assessment districts that apply to a localized area for particular improvements, where the 1972 Act allows assessment on a city-wide basis. Mr. Stepanicich explained there is no fixed formula for spreading assessments, that the 1972 Act leaves to the discretion of the City to establish uniform, fair and nondiscriminatory assessments of benefitted parcels throughout the City, and that the decision of the City Council is final and conclusive. The City Attorney reported that the validity of assessment districts under Proposition 13 was sustained by a Court of Appeal decision in 1979, City of Fresno versus Malstrom, which determined that a special assessment is not a tax under Prop 13, a petition for hearing was denied by the Supreme Court in this case. Mr. Stepanicich continued, reporting another court decision upholding the validity of special assessment districts. Mr. Stepanicich then discussed the Court of Appeal case of City Council versus South which held that assessments for landscape maintenance were invalid under Proposition 13, however, the Supreme Court has granted a hearing in this case and is expected to reverse the decision which is presently vacated. Councilmember Risner referred to Streets and Highways Code Section 22525 and inquired if monies from an assessment district could be used to build a. park. The City Attorney stated that landscaping and ornamental improvements would be permissible under the 1972 Act, however construction of buildings or other structures would not be an allowable use of such monies. Mr. Roy Butler, Willdan Associates, stated that the parcel assessments were based on special benefit received from lighting and landscaping within the City. Referring to the basic assessments by zone, Mr. Butler stated that the assessment formulas were based on the land use, area and/or front footage of a parcel, and noted that over forty cities in Los Angeles County and eleven cities in Orange County have enacted assessment districts under the 1972 Act. I~ .1. ~ 7-11-83 I Mayor Grgas invited those members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone, state their name and address for the record, and be sworn by the Clerk if desired. Mr. Hal Halldin, 635 Silver Shoals, was duly sworn by the Clerk and asked if funds resulting from the proposed Assessment District are to be used for replacement of city vehicles as indicated by the mailed notices, noting that the city presently has a Vehicle Depreciation Fund, asked why that fund is not being used for such vehicle replacement, and inquired as to the percentage of taxes collected by the County that are returned to the city. Mayor Grgas stated that seventeen percent of collected property taxes revert to the City, that the law requires that the Assessment District funds only pay for those services that are benefiting those persons who receive the services of street lighting and landscaping and that the Assessment District will relieve the General Fund and other funds of this expense so that the City can proceed with capital improvements that have been postponed for some time. The City Manager confirmed that a Vehicle Depreciation Fund does exist which shows approximately $200,000 positive balance, and pointed out however, that the General Fund carries a negative balance of approximately, $900,000 therefore there is actually no cash available in the Vehicle Depreciation Fund. Mr. Parker also referred to the Plant and Equipment Fund which reflects a positive balance and again referred to the negative General Fund balance, explaining that throughout a fiscal year the General Fund borrows from the Plant and Equipment and Vehicle Depreciation funds to carryon day to day business pending receipt of revenues, and noted that all monies borrowed must be repaid to those reserve funds at year end. Mr. Halldin referred to a recent increase in federal gas tax and possible increase in State gas tax, which in turn would increase gas tax revenues to the City, and expressed concern that additional assessment districts for other purposes may be imposed in the future. The City Manager stated that gas tax money can only be spent for such items as street and signal maintenance and street sweeping, and that the General Fund has traditionally funded any difference. Mr. Parker affirmed that the recent federal gas tax increase has provided some saving of General Fund monies and will be used for local match to Federal, State and County funding for local projects. The City Manager clarified that gas tax funds cannot be used for residential street improvements. Mr. Halldin referred to a previously proposed assessment district initiated by citizens of College Park East for a specific purpose which was not approved by the Council and for which one half million dollars of pUblic money was spent for that improvement. Councilman Laszlo spoke to the sound barrier wall construction referred to by Mr. Halldin and clarified that no city money had been spent for that project. Mr. Halldin concluded his remarks stating that he felt there was no need for the proposed special assessment district. Mr. Harold Biggerstaff, 4457 Hazelnut Avenue, expressed his objection to the proposed assessment and to the short time period between notification and this hearing, stated that he felt the City should have proposed an assessment for the specific capital improvements that are planned rather than for lighting and landscaping, and asked if there was a time period for the assessment. The City Manager responded that this is a one time assessment and in order to renew the assessment for the next year it will be necessary to go through the public hearing process once again. Mr. Biggerstaff asked if there is ,I I ~ 7-11-83 any provision for returning excess assessment funds to the taxpayer. Mayor Grgas stated should there be excess funds it is likely a special account will be established for same, and also that it would be his intent to reduce the proposed assessment if excess funds result, if such action did not fiscally impact the operation of the city. Councilmember Risner stated it was her understanding that there is presently no provision of the law that governs the return of assessment monies to the taxpayer, that the excess would be credited to the following year's assessment amount. Mr. Butler confirmed Mrs. Risner's statement. Councilman Laszlo stated it was his intent to make a motion that any excess assessment district monies will be mailed back to the taxpayer, and that if the State allows cities to impose a one cent sales tax, he would support same and request that the Council cancel the Assessment District. The City Manager confirmed that under State law assessments can be no greater than the costs incurred and that the law provides that any surplus funds would be held over to cover costs incurred in the subsequent year, allowing the assessments to be reduced by that amount. The City Attorney stated that an action of the Council to refund any surplus funds would comply with State law. Mr. Butler explained that the assessments were determined by the special benefit to each parcel within each zone, noting that street lighting costs in Zone 1 and Zone 2 differ due to the type and number of lights. Mr. Butler stated that the total assessment for Zone 1 would be approximately $4.00 per month and a multi-unit in Zone 2 would be approximately $3.00 per month. Mr. Biggerstaff expressed his opposition to the Assessment District. Mr. John FOllis, 4372 Elder Avenue, requested clarification of what had been deleted from the assessment. The City Attorney stated street tree maintenance had been removed, that that service will continue to be funded through the General Fund. Mr. Follis voiced his objection to the work schedule and supervision of Public Works Department personnel performing street tree maintenance, recommended that the city contract with private enterprise to provide this service and stated his objection to the proposed Assessment District. Fran Levy, 4197 Birchwood Avenue, also objected to street and tree trimming services provided by the Public Works Department, recommended that the city cut expenses and improve efficiency as intended by Proposition 13. Mrs. Levy requested clarification of the use of gas tax funds and stated the assessments should be equally distributed to each parcel within the city. The allowable use of gas tax funds was again reviewed, and it was pointed out that general benefit street lighting and landscaping on city arterials is equally spread in Zones 1 through 4, that the only direct benefit assessment is for street lighting. It was clarified that an equal assessment of each parcel within the District is not legally allowed under the 1972 Act. The Mayor reported that the Council has requested a report setting forth cutbacks and reductions since enactment of Proposition 13, some of which includes twenty percent reduction in the city work force excluding fire personnel, contracting for fire and paramedic services, refurbishing of police vehicles for extended usage, and a $150,000 annual saving through self-insurance. Mr. Chester Kyle, 1744 Catalina Avenue, commended the city for any cost saving efforts that have been implemented, referred to the number of Orange County cities that have formed assessment districts, and stated that his property taxes paid to the city will be increased by seventy percent with the proposed assessment. Mr. Kyle also stated he felt I I I 7-11-83 I the assessment was being instituted to pay for something other than lighting and landscaping. It was again clarified that the Assessment District will pay for the cost of lighting and landscaping only, therefore freeing other monies to provide some capital improvements. Also, in response to a question posed by Mr. Kyle, the Director of Public Works reported the only new street lights installed over the past several years were those along Westminster Avenue and included as part of that improvement project. Mitzi Morton, 153 - 13th Street, asked if the 1972 Act was designed for new forms of assessments or if it allows cities to pay for improvements and existing services that are being presently maintained by General Fund monies. The City Attorney stated that the Act of 1972 provides for new improvements and the maintenance of existing improvements, that under the Act there is no limitation on assessing property for the maintenance of street lights and landscaping that was previously paid for by General Fund revenues. With regard to street sweeping, the City Manager stated it is city policy to pay for that service from gas tax funds, and that assessment for this service could be imposed if'voter approved. Ms. Morton expressed support for previous Council action deleting the street tree assessment, referred to the assessment as a violation of Proposition 13, gave examples of the percentage increase of taxes with the assessment for single family and multi-family residences, suggesting assessments be made by front footage rather than by unit. Mr. Rappaport, 1712 Harbor Way, stated his objection to the Assessment District and further that it was a violation of Proposition 13, and referred to upcoming legal challenge of assessment districts as a form of taxation. Mr. Rappaport questioned assessment notification to Leisure World residents and objected to the amount of their assessment. Councilmember Vanderstaay explained that Leisure World pays for their own lighting and landscaping and stated that notice of the proposed assessment had been provided in the local paper. Councilmember Brownell explained that Leisure World operates on a corporation basis and pays taxes as such, also that each Mutual was mailed the legal notice of this hearing and the amount of assessment, and stated each Mutual member will be assessed equally. Mr. Rappaport objected to the city retaining a consultant to prepare the Assessment District data and also suggested a single traffic signal be placed at Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway rather than the present signalization as a cost saving action. Mr. Rappaport again expressed his opposition to the Assessment District. Ms. Morton stated she had discussed the mailing of the notices with the Postmaster, noting that Seal Beach mail is processed in Long Beach where mailing may have been delayed. Mrs. Emogene Parko, 313 Central, stated she felt everyone should be assessed equally, expressed her dissatisfaction with Public Works services, suggested monies from parking tickets be used for these services in lieu of the assessment, and complained about the lack of parking enforcement on residential streets. Mr. Robbie Watkinson, 524 Galleon Way, inquired if the proposed assessment would be tax deductible. The City Attorney stated he would investigate and report to Council. Councilmember Risner requested that an I.R.S. ruling be obtained. Barbara Lukinovich, 701 Marvista, stated her objection to the Assessment District, expressed concern that future assessments will be substantially increased, objected to any assessment for parks from Marina Hill residents or the addition of any new parks in the City. Mr. Carl San Filippo, 801 Avalon, 'I I , 7-11-83 expressed his objection to the proposed Assessment District, recommended a twenty percent budget reduction instead and voiced support for the city's police department. In response to Council, the Police Chief stated the estimated cost of the five police vehicles proposed to be replaced is $10,500 each and explained that four additional units are proposed to be refurbished. Maintenance and legal liability of parkway trees was discussed. Mr. San Filippo also expressed his objection to the City's Redevelopment Agency and the Utility Users Tax. Les Holt, 713 South Shore Drive, spoke regarding employee efficiency and suggested that the city contract for certain services with private enterprise. Mr. John Kittlaus, 1705 Harbor Way, also spoke to services performed by city crews, urged that private enterprise be explored, and suggested that new ways of financing government operations be pursued. Mr. Tom Gilmore, 530 Coastline Drive, referred to a newpaper article that stated the assessment was not necessary and suggested the replacement of police vehicles be removed from the assessment. It was again clarified that the Assessment District is to pay for the cost of street lighting and landscapi.ng. Bette Sorenson, 126 - 14th Street, spoke regarding increased property tax forthcoming to the city upon resale of property; the City Manager responded that the City receives seventeen percent of the increased tax. Ed Wulf, 115 Surf Place, expressed his objection to the Assessment District and yielded further comments to Mr. Halldin. Mr. John Harper, 1305 Sandpiper Drive, stated his opposition to the proposed Assessment District, referred to a proposed State ballot measure that would clarify what is or is not a tax, stating that he feels assessment districts such as the one proposed would be grandfathered into this proposition, and questioned annual renewal of the of the proposed Assessment District if the ballot measure is approved by the voters. The City Attorney responded that it is not presently known how the proposition will be worded and the precise wording of that measure will determine if such assessment districts are valid under the new constitutional amendment if it is approved. Mr. Harper stated his concern is not necessarily with the additional $60.00 annual tax, more so with the increase of this tax in the future years. Mr. Harper referred to the City of Lakewood that contracts for their services, questioned the need for the Assessment, and recommended private contracting for city services. Mr. Bob Cook, 441 Central Avenue, expressed concern with the negative comments directed to the City staff, stated he did not question the need to replace vehicles and implement capital improvements as shown in the budget, however recommended that the City consider presenting their needs to a vote of the people rather than through formation of an Assessment District. Mr. Lawrence MacIntyre, a Norwalk resident, addressed the Council on behalf of his mother who resides at 209 - 14th Street, and stated that he felt the assessments as proposed are dividing the city, referring to the percentage.of population versus assessment in the Leisure World community, and stated he felt those residents should be assessed more than proposed since they do use city streets, parks and shopping centers. Mr. Butler clarified that there are 126 actual parcels in the Leisure World area of the City, and a member of the audience interjected that there are 6,482 single units and 126 condominiums. Councilmember Brownell responded that approximately one third of the city's population resides in Leisure World with an internal budget equal to that. of the city. Mr. Brownell stated further that Leisure 1 I. I: 7-11-83 1 World pays for its own street lighting and street maintenance as well as property taxes, seventeen percent of which is returned to the City's General Fund, and that none of these services to Leisure World are paid from the General Fund. Mr. MacIntyre suggested that Councilmembers Brownell and Vanderstaay abstain from voting on this matter. The City Manager reported that the results of a revenue study conducted in 1981 showed that Leisure World pays approximately one million dollars more in revenue to the City than it receives in services. Walter Lanz, 3580 Ironwood, expressed opposition to the Assessment and asked what services the College Park East area receives from Leisure World monies. The City Manager invited Mr. Lanz to contact his office for the information requested. Mr. Lanz also asked if the assessment would be a legal tax write-off or a business expense. Mr. Bruce Collier, 4548 Fir Avenue, cited hazardous street conditions in need of repair in the College Park East area, suggested that assessments be made for a specified purpose annually and not be ongoing. Mr. Collier also stated he would favor a local sales tax and recommended that the City lobby for such legislation in Sacramento. Decker McAllister, 145 Surf Place, indicated his objection to the Assessment District, the Utility Users Tax and Gum Grove Park and stated that the budget should be closely reviewed for further reductions. With regard to park assessment, Mr. Butler noted that the park assessment is based upon the benefit to parcels throughout the city with the exception of Leisure World since they maintain their own parks. Mr. Halldin again addressed the Council, spoke in support of the deletion of street tree maintenance from the assessment and asked if the staff could report any inequities in the spread of assessments in proportion to the benefits received. The City Manager responded on behalf of his office, the City Engineer and the City Attorney, stating their support for the engineers report, explaining that the 1972 Act appears to provide the fairest manner of assessment. Mr. Halldin asked if the condominiums located in Leisure World, in College Park East, and on Montecito Road are assessed equally. Mr. Butler reported that the condominiums on Montecito front on County property therefore are not assessed for direct street lighting and that there is no direct street lighting or park assessment for those condominiums in Leisure World. With regard to the assessment for the shopping areas, Mr. Butler stated the assessment had been determined upon nighttime and people use and the . size of the area. Mr. Butler recommended that the shopping center assessments be adjusted to reflect moderate nighttime use for the Safeway and Leisure World Centers and that the Rossmoor Center parking lot area be increased to moderate nighttime use, thereby reducing the assessment of the Safeway and Leisure World Centers by approximately $750.00 each and increasing the Rossmoor assessment by about $3800.00, which would result in an approximate decrease to the single family residence assessment for general benefit street lighting and landscaping about twenty cents. Mr. Halldin referred to street lights that had been installed on westminster Avenue and on Beverly Manor Road prior to 1978, stating that the Westminster lighting benefits all residents, however Beverly Manor lighting primarily benefits residents of Leisure World and recommended Leisure World be assessed for that lighting. Mr. Halldin also recommended a reduction of one person in the Building Department or contracting for those services, reduction in vehicle maintenance personnel, and referred to increased city revenue from property and utility users taxes as means to eliminate the need for an Assessment District. Mr. Butler responded I I 7-11-83 to Melba Linnell, 1614 Ocean Avenue, explaining the assessment formulae for multi-units, noting that the assessment for street lighting decreases with the increased number of units, however the assessment for general benefit would be the assessment amount times the number of dwelling units, or an approximate $3.00 per month per unit assessment. Ms. Linnell voiced her objection to the proposed assessment. Mr. Ken Radcliff, 4880 Hazelnut Avenue, offered two suggestions for cutting expenses: 1) eliminate the landscaping 1 on Lampson Avenue and brick those areas; and 2) eliminate street sweeping and place the burden of cleaning the streets and gutters with the homeowner. Mr. John Schaefer, Dolphin Avenue, expressed his objection to the Assessment District. Mr. Terry Barton, 415 Ocean Avenue, stated he had been provided with several blank letters of protest, and that within a short period of time on an at random basis he had gathered approximately sixteen protests from residents of District One, and referred to the letters of protest reported by the City Clerk, noting that the ten percent protest appeared to substantiate the feeling of the citizens. Mr. Barton stated his feeling that the Council was considering the wrong vehicle to increase revenues for the right purposes. The Mayor invited Mr. Barton to make any suggestions he deemed reasonable in lieu of the Assessment District prior to the conclusion of the meeting. Mr. Jim Funk, 215-1/2 lOth Street, commended the city's staff, expressed appreciation for the time and effort put forth by the council and staff to resolve budget issues while meeting the needs of the community, and that while any tax has some inequitable aspects, stated his appreciation for the attempt to fairly distribute the assessment costs. There were no other pUblic comments; Mayor Grgas declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Grgas declared a recess at 10:31 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:49 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. I The City Clerk certified that based upon the written protests received, that a majority protest to the proposed Landscaping and Street Lighting District No. 1 had not been filed. The City Council commenced their deliberations with Councilman Brownell explaining that the City Council has dealt with numerous difficult problems in an attempt to put the city in a financial position so that it will be possible to implement certain needed capital improvements that have been deferred for over ten years, principally repair of city streets. Mr. Brownell pointed out that many streets are in critical need of repair and resurfacing, noting that the longer such projects are delayed the greater the cost. In addition, Mr. Brownell referred to the deletion of street tree maintenance and adjustment of the assessment for shopping centers and stated that the benefit approach of assessment on a businesslike basis appears to be the fairest means of assessment to all parcels in the community. Mr. Brownell stated that the Assessment District is necessary if the city is going to meet its obligations to the community. Councilmember Risner expressed appreciation to those in I attendance at the meeting, stated she wished to accommodate the capital improvements set forth in the budget however could not support increased taxes and continued, commenting on the public hearing notices, the number of written protests filed, notification to the Leisure World residents, and the approximate $108,076 business inventory tax. It was noted by Mrs. Risner that there is a possibility that the City may lose State subventions for motor vehicle in-lieu 7-11-83 1 fees and cigarette tax estimated at nearly $144,000. Councilmember Risner suggested that an approximate $200,000 budget reduction could be made by reducing the unallocated June 1984 ending General Fund balance by $106,600 which would leave an ending General Fund balance of $184,160; add $35,000 unanticipated revenue from Exxon; delete the $5,500 budgeted expenditure for the tram operator; reduce the travel and meeting expenses by a total of $3,855, $1,500 from the Council budget, fifteen percent or an amount determined by the City Manager from each department budget, with the exception of the City Manager's budget; $1,000 reduction from memberships and dues accounts; an additional one-half percent reduction in salaries due to personnel turnover, $23,000; add anticipated revenue from increased dog license fees, $2,400; and an additional reduction of the ending fiscal year General Fund balance by $4,845 leaving an unallocated balance of $179,315, for a total reduced budget figure of $182,200, eliminating the assessment for general benefit parks and street trees. Councilman Laszlo expressed his concern with any reduction of the General Fund, citing the unknown need for emergency expenditures and incomplete salary negotiations and objected to any expenditure of reserve funds. The potential loss of revenue from the State was again discussed as well as a possible $300,000 property tax loss from the County. Risner referred to actions taken by the Council during the past fiscal year to approve funding of the Surfs ide revetment wall from the Plant and Equipment Fund, this fund showing an increased balance in the 1983/84 budget, and the $20,000 lifeguard station addition, resulting in a deficit budget ending balance. The City Manager clarified that the loan for the revetment wall will be repaid from Redevelopment Agency tax increment funds and that the increase in the Plant and Equipment Fund was due to a payment from the water utility. Discussion continued. Councilmember Risner suggested that action on the Assessment District be postponed pending additional information regarding State and County revenues and stated she did not feel State subventions would be lost. With regard to postponing a decision on the formation of the Assessment District, Mr. Butler recommended that final action be taken no later than July 14th. The City Manager stated that the concept behind the Assessment District was that it would provide a sufficient saving to the General Fund to allow funding of certain capital improvements such as repair of residential streets in College Park East, slurry seal of Marina Hill streets, landscaping of First Street median, and repair of McGaugh pool, stating that a means must be found for the city to resolve these problems. Mr. Parker referred to the deficit budgets and reduced surplus funds under which the city had operated for several years and strongly recommended against depleting any surplus funds. The City Manager stated that should the Council determine that the Assessment District is not the proper device to relieve the General Fund of street lighting and landscape expenditures, it would be his recommendation to the Council that the capital improvements be deleted from the bUdget, retaining only the expenditure of $160,000 for equipment replacement, which could be accomplished through some of Councilmember Risner's recommendations. Councilmember Vanderstaay reported that several other Orange County cities have established Assessment Districts that work satisfactorily according to her discussions with officials from those cities, stated that the need does exist to provide funding for capital improvements and that she felt certain adjustments would be made to the Assessment should other revenue sources I I 7-11-83 become available. Mr. Laszlo stated that no member of the Council wished to raise taxes, however pointed out the need for major capital improvements that have been long postponed, and referred to the previously considered Assessment District that was not approved by the Council which in turn postponed necessary improvements. Mr. Laszlo continued, pointing out the loss of revenues from the pier, oil island and the drastic reduction of State subventions over the past few years with more anticipated this year, 1 and reviewed the many reductions in the City's operating costs since the passage of Proposition 13. Mr. Laszlo again expressed his support for a one cent sales tax in lieu of the Assessment District should the State allow cities to impose same. Mayor Grgas referred to the uncertainty of revenues forthcoming to the City, time constraints for forming the Assessment District and the City's need to fund certain capital improvements which can no longer be postponed. Mr. Grgas commented on the Council's previous consideration of increasing the oil barrel tax and urged that it be reconsidered. Mrs. Risner moved to reduce the Assessment District by $182,200, deleting local street trees and general benefit parks, and implement the budget adjustments she previously stated. Councilmember Risner requested a report regarding the oil barrel tax for consideration at next meeting. Mayor Grgas seconded Mrs. Risner's motion to reduce the Assessment District by $182,200 for discussion, however, expressed concern with the City's financial condition should the District be reduced by that amount. Discussion continued. Vote on the motion to reduce the Assessment District by $182,200: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Risner Brownell, Laszlo Grgas, Vanderstaay Motion failed I. After further discussion, Grgas moved, second by Risner, to amend the 1983-84 fiscal year budget and reduce the park assessment as follows: 1) add $35,000 to Tideland Beach revenue; 2) reduce $5,500 allocated for tram operation; 3) reduce travel expenses by $3,855; and 4) reduce memberships and dues by $1,000, a total of $45,355. Mr. Butler clarified that this action plus deletion of the street tree maintenance would reduce the assessment of a single family residence by approximately $17.00 per year. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Grgas, Laszlo, Risner, Vanderstaay None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3290 - STREET LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING DISTRICT NO.1 Resolution Number 3290 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH CHANGING A REPORT, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS AND CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT IN CONNECTION WITH STREET LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING DISTRICT NO.1." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3290 was waived. I The City Attorney recommended the following changes to proposed Resolution Number 3290: Subsections "iii", "iv" and "v" be added to Section 1 to read: (ii i) the deletion of assessment for the maintenance of local street trees; (iv) the Safeway Shopping Center, the Leisure World Shopping Center, and the Rossmoor Shopping Center Parking Lot Parcel shall be assessed based upon moderate nighttime use; and (v) the net amount to be assessed upon assessable lands 7-11-83 I within the District for park maintenance shall be reduced by $45,355; 2) deletion of Section 2-D relating to local street trees, Section 2-E to become 2-D; 3) Section 3 of the Resolution amended to read "The City Council hereby orders the maintenance described in such Engineer's Report, as changed pursuant to Section 1 above, and the formation of Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 as described herein, and hereby confirms the diagram and assessment as set forth therein"; and 4) Appendix E, Findings and Conclusions, Section D deleted, Section E to become Section D. Laszlo moved, second by Vanderstaay, to adopt Resolution 3290 as amended by the City Attorney. Councilmember Risner referred to Section 2 of the Resolution, and inquired if a finding had been made declaring that vacant parcels receive no benefit. The City Attorney stated that by adopting the Engineers Report, Council would be approving the finding that vacant parcels would not be assessed until developed, and stated assessment of vacant land had been discussed at length and that it would be difficult to develop a fair method of assessment for vacant parcels that would be uniform with the existing method of assessment as presently set forth in the Report. Discussion continued. Councilmember Risner questioned the new Section 2-D of the Resolution and Section D of the Findings, which did not exclude Leisure World from the park assessment. The City Attorney recommended for clarity, that the first sentence of those Sections be amended to read "...residential lot or parcel within the District, except those certain lots or parcels located within Leisure World,...". With consent of the makers, the motion to adopt Resolution Number 3290 was amended to include these changes. I' Vote on the motion to adopt Resolution 3290 as amended. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Grgas, Laszlo, Vanderstaay Risner Motion carried Brownell moved, second by Risner, to continue all remaining agenda items except Items "G, I and L" until next meeting as requested by the City Manager. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Grgas, Laszlo, Risner, Vanderstaay None Motion carried ITEM "G" DEMANDS Laszlo moved, second by Vanderstaay, to approve regular demands numbered 48623 through 48640 in the amount of $62,220.28 and payroll demands of June 30, 1983 number 5455 through 5633 in the amount of $133,514.91 as approved by the Finance Committee and that warrants be drawn on the Treasury for the same. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Grgas, Laszlo, Risner, Vanderstaay None Motion carried I ITEM "I" - PIER RECONSTRUCTION - CONSULTANT SERVICES Brownell moved, second by Risner, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Don Hellmers Engineering for pier design services in the amount of $38,000 and to further authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Don Hellmers to perform the inspection/construction engineering upon the successful completion of the pier design phase. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Grgas, Laszlo, Risner, Vanderstaay None Motion carried 7-ll-83 / 7-25-83 ITEM "L" - APPOINTMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION - DISTRICT FIVE Councilmember Brownell moved to to the Planning Commission from for the term ending July 1987. the motion. appoint Mr. James A. Murphy Councilmanic District Five Councilmember Risner seconded AYES: NOES: Brownell, Grgas, Laszlo, Risner, Vanderstaay None Motion carried I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. ADJOURNMENT Brownell moved, at 12:33 a.m. second by Risner, to adjourn the meeting AYES: NOES: Brownell, Grgas, Laszlo, Risner, Vanderstaay None Motion carried Appr~d,-r~ t.64Y Mayor Attest: I Seal Beach, California July 25, 1983 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Grgas Councilmembers Brownell, Laszlo, Risner, Vanderstaay Absent: None Also present: Mr. Parker, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Johnson, Director of Public works/ City Engineer Mr. Antos, Principal Planner Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I