Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 2009-02-19 - Special Meeting 30 City Council, Special Meeting Council Chambers 777 Cypress A venue Redding, California February 19,20099:30 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Bosetti with the following Council Members present: Dickerson, Jones, McArthur, and Stegall. Also present were City Manager Starman, Assistant City Manager Tippin, City Attorney Duvernay, City Clerk Strohmayer and Assistant City Clerk Mize. Priority Proiect Setting Workshop and possible determination of City Priorities (A-050-060 & A-050-080) City Manager Starman summarized the following goals of the Priority Projects Setting Workshop: 1) Review projects selected during the 2007 Priority Project Setting Workshop; 2) Provide an update on the progress for those projects and seek City Council's direction regarding completion ofthe unfinished projects; 3) Review the City's Mission Statement and Vision Statement; 4) Review the Budget Reduction Guidelines adopted in November 2008 and reaffirm or modify those guidelines; and 4) Determine City Council's project priorities for the upcoming two-year budget period. I Existing City Priorities ( A-050-060) City Manager Starman recalled the priorities set at the workshop conducted in February 2007 and asked Council to provide Staff with direction if any items should be re-prioritized. While Council Member Stegall acknowledged that several of the priority projects from 2007 were complete or nearing completion, she recommended that staff continue work on the unfinished 2007 priority projects as the constrained budget allows. Council Member Jones expressed concern regarding additional staffing in the Police Department in light ofthe current economy. City Manager Starman responded that a seventh police beat had been added, however, reductions were made elsewhere in the department due to budget reductions. I No changes to the 2007 Priority Projects plan were suggested by Council. Vision Statement and Mission Statement (A-050-060) Council Member Stegall suggested that the City Mission Statement and Vision Statement be reviewed to remind the City Council and the community of established goals and objectives. She asked if the other Council Members feel comfortable with the current Vision Statement and Mission Statement. Council Member Dickerson remarked that the Vision Statement reads more like a list of goals and objectives rather than a Vision Statement. He suggested and Council Member Stegall agreed, that it be revised to more clearly state the vision for the City and to include the current goals as a roadmap to achieve that vision. Mayor Bosetti believed the Mission Statement and Vision Statement provide a framework that the current and future City Councils can follow to achieve the goals of the community. Council Member McArthur indicated that the current Statements are sufficient. I Budget Reduction Guidelines (B-130-070) City Manager Starman recalled that in November 2008, City Council adopted the Budget Reduction Guidelines. He asked that City Council either reaffirm or modify the guidelines, especially Item #6 regarding placing "strong emphasis on maintaining frontline public safety services". Council Members Jones and Stegall, and Mayor Bosetti reaffirmed support for the existing guidelines. 2/19/2009 31 I FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR 2009-1012010-11 BIENNIAL BUDGET (B-130-070 & A-050-060) City Manager Starman explained that, periodically, the City Council reviews current and future City projects and services, determines or rearranges priority status, makes modifications as necessary and provides direction to staff. He said the focus of today's meeting is to receive direction from the City Council on the projects and programs that the Council would like staff to aggressively pursue and he also asked that Council Members rank them in priority preference order. Mr. Starman added that Council's direction will serve as a basis for staff as it begins preparation of the upcoming biennial budget. Mr. Starman provided a brief overview ofthe List of Potential Projects and Programs and asked Council members to rate the projects in priority preference using the following scoring scale: Priority 1 - Very High Priority. Add this topic to the City's current list of priorities. The City should use any discretionary resources to fund this project, program, or initiative as soon as feasible. Direct staff to work on this issue and report back to the City Council before the City adopts its next Biennial Budget. Priority 2 - High Priority. Add this topic to the City's current list of priorities, but only if additional resources are available. The City Council will discuss this topic again before the City adopts its next Biennial Budget. Priority 3 - Medium Priority. The City Council may add this topic to the City's list of priorities at a later date, but only after the City has completed some of its other priority projects. Priority 4 - Low Priority. The City does not intend to work on this topic at this time. PROJECTS & PROGRAMS FOR CONSIDERA TION I River Bend Golf Course (P-050-665) Community Services Director Niemer summarized the possible acquisition ofthe River Bend Golf Course for conversion to a City park facility. She noted that the current owners have offered the property, consisting 000.5 acres, a clubhouse, two tennis courts, a small driving range and a parking lot for sale. The current owners have stated that maintaining a financially successful golf operation in the current economic environment is not feasible. Ms. Niemer advised that the River Bend site is an ideal location for a park in the Bonnyview area which was identified as under-served in the 2004 Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan. She recalled that Staff met with area homeowners in. December 2008. Some homeowners expressed concern that the golf course was for sale and might be converted to a park while others preferred a park over other potential uses for the property. At a meeting in January 2009 with the golf club members, they indicated no interest in utilizing their right of first refusal to purchase the property. I Ms. Niemer indicated that she had received a proposal from a golf course expert to appraise the property at a cost of $15,000 and that staff estimates the value of the property to be between $1.4 and $2 million. According to Ms. Niemer, It is likely the property could be acquired for less than it would cost to purchase and improve a similar site. Additionally, she said it may be possible to create some residential lots on the west side of the property which could be sold to reduce the overall cost of acquisition. Should the City decide to purchase the property, she said it may be possible to lease the property as a golf facility until the City is ready to convert the property to a park. Ms. Niemer assured that, although the Park Development Fund does not have adequate resources for the full acquisition at this time, staff will not seek general fund money but explore other sources such as grants. In response to Council Member Jones, Ms. Niemer stated that some homeowners expressed concerns regarding CC&R fencing restrictions and the possibility of illegal activity in a park. Council Member Dickerson commented that this is a golden opportunity for the City to acquire an almost complete park facility and that the City would not be displacing golfers noting that the facility is available for sale as a result of fewer people playing golf. 2/19/2009 32 Mayor Bosetti and Council Members McArthur and Stegall expressed support for the project. Council Member Jones expressed concern that a golf course within the City would be lost and not likely replaced in the future and he was uncomfortable with the source of the money which would be used to purchase the property. Bosetti Dickerson I . Jones McArthur Stegall Ranking Average 2 2 3 2 1 2 PRIORITY RANKING Stillwater Business Park - Secondary Access (E-050-500) City Manager Starman advised that a letter of support had been received from the Greater Redding Chamber of Commerce. I Rob Middleton, chairman ofthe Shasta County Economic Development Corporation (EDC), recommended that the City Council give the Stillwater Business Park-Secondary Access project the highest priority because the EDC believes the project will bring immediate returns to the area in the form of high-paying jobs. Mr. Starman recalled that Phase I ofthe Stillwater Business Park has been under construction since July 2008. Prior to construction, the Redding Fire Department determined that once a threshold of 150 employees was met at the business park, secondary access would be required in the form of a southern connection to Fig Tree Lane. This would require a bridge over Stillwater Creek to provide for safety ingress an egress in times of emergency. After reviewing the City's grant pre-application, the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) has indicated a strong interest in Stillwater and invited the City to submit a formal application for grant assistance. Although there is no guarantee, he said staff has been told that there is a very good likelihood of approval. According to Mr. Starman, the total project cost estimate is $6,940,000. The EDA grant would provide 50 percent of the funding, and the City would need to identify the sources of revenue for the 50 percent match. I Council Member Dickerson and Mayor Bosetti noted that they received letters of support for the project from Patrick Wallner of Wallner Plumbing and a board member for the EDC. Council Member McArthur asked Economic Development Director Zauher to estimate the number of businesses necessary to reach the 150 employee threshold causing the needed for the secondary access. Mr. Zauher responded that a large manufacturing plant (10 acre site) could employ 150 while an office type business in the same space could employ up to 400. Council Member Stegall asked ifthere are any firm commitments from companies to locate to Stillwater and Mr. Zauher responded there is only preliminary interest at this time. In response to Council Member Stegall, Mr. Starman explained that it may be possible to pursue the grant next year, however, many things could change in the interim and the likelihood of receiving the grant funds could decrease. Council Member Jones reiterated his doubts regarding the Stillwater Project but recalled his support for the bond issue. He believed bond money should be used on the project for which . it was originally intended and that the City should take advantage of grant funds. I Council Member Stegall recalled her consistent support of Stillwater as a top priority and recognized its importance for bringing jobs to the area. She also expressed cautious optimism for its eventual success. While Ms. Stegall supported the first phase of construction, she did not favor spending more funds on Stillwater until businesses were utilizing the facility. Mayor Bosetti and Council Member Stegall believed the $4.5 million needed to match the grant could be used for more pressing projects. In light of the availability of matching funds, Council Members Dickerson and McArthur ranked this project as a one. 2/19/2009 33 Bosetti Dickerson I" Jones '.' McArthur Stegall . Ranking . ~ verage 3 1 1 1 3 1.8 PRIORITY RANKING I Oasis Road Interchange - Proiect Study Report (S 070-100) G'I7~t:'-//" City Manager Starman recalled thatCity Council selected the Oasis Road Interchange as a high priority during the Priority Setting Workshop and indicated completion ofthe Project Study Report (PSR) was a critical step in the interchange construction process. If approved, Staff would perform preliminary design, obtain Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) approval, and develop funding options for a phased interchange improvement project at Oasis Road and Interstate 5. He said the estimated cost of the work is $250,000 which could be funded from existing traffic impact fee programs and may be recaptured with the development of the area. Dr. Randy Smith, Planning Commission Chair, urged Council to consider the Oasis Road Interchange and the Hawley Road extension together. He recalled that a previous Council overruled the General Plan and the recommendation of the Planning Commission to complete the Hawley Road extension and asserted that the extension is badly needed. If considered with the Oasis Road Interchange, he opined that it could result in a significant cost savings to the City. Gary Cadd agreed that Oasis Road Interchange and Hawley Road Extension should be considered together, and noted that there is a project currently being considered which would eliminate the possibility of extending Hawley Road. Council Member Dickerson interjected that the issue is whether Council should direct staff to proceed with the Oasis Road Project Study Report (PSR) and does not include deciding to proceed with the improvements or the extension of Hawley Road. I John Schuller, Ross Peacock, Evan Redmon, Gail Rich, and Vincent Neidlinger opposed extension of Hawley Road citing the following: The issue was resolved six years ago; funds should be spent on public safety and not on a road which is not necessary; studies concluded it is not necessary to support the Oasis'Road Interchange; extension would adversely impact 23 homes; utilize wetlands as a park with walking and bike trails; emphasis should be on Stillwater and Oasis Road; and extend Shasta View Drive instead. . Bosetti Dickerson Jones McArthur Stegall Ranking " ' . Average 1 1 1 1 1 1 PRIORITY RANKING I Circulation Element - Hawley Road Extension (G-030-070) City Manager Starman encapsulated the history of the potential extension of Hawley Road noting the most recent Council action was in conjunction with the Oasis Road Specific Plan (ORSP) in 2006. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended that the City retain the extension of Hawley Road on the Transportation Map as a future arterial street from its current terminus at Highway 299, north to Oasis Road. He said the previous Council, however, eliminated the extension of Hawley Road from the General Plan Circulation Element. Mr. Starman related that Council Member McArthur requested that this issue be brought to the attention of the current City Council for discussion and consideration. While Council Member McArthur was empathetic to the homeowners who would be displaced with the extension of Hawley Road, she stated that in light of the potential economic stimulus funding for the Oasis Road Interchange, it was worthwhile to revisit this issue and determine the transportation needs of the community as a whole. Council Member Jones expressed continued support for the extension of Hawley Road noting that it was originally planned to connect with Oasis Road in order to provide more efficient traffic circulation and it makes sense with or without the Oasis Road Interchange. He expressed regret that homeowners would be displaced but asserted that this is sometimes the cost of progress. 2/19/2009 34 Council Member Stegall was perplexed that this issue was before Council since it had been thoroughly vetted by the previous City Council. She opposed the extension of Hawley Road when extending Shasta View Drive could resolve the traffic issue without displacing homeowners. Council Member Dickerson concurred. Mayor Bosetti recalled that when he was a member of the Planning Commission in 1988, Hawley Road extension was part of the General Plan. While he did not want to see the progress of the Oasis Road Interchange hindered, he was open to further discussion of Hawley Road extension in the future. Bosetti Dickerson Jones McArthur Stegall Ranking Average 3 4 1 1 4 2.6 PRIORITY RANKING I On-line Registration - Recreation Division (R-006-650) Community Services Director Niemerrelated that atthe recent Recreation Strategic Planning Meeting and focus groups conducted with parents and participants, the number one priority was availability of on-line registration. She estimated that efficient software could be purchased for $85,000 with an annual maintenance fee of$15,000 and these costs could be funded through the implementation of an appropriate and reasonable surcharge on Recreation Division transactions. Mayor Bosetti and Council Member Stegall voiced support for the project asking that, when Staff returns to Council with the final proposal, estimates include the amount of the convenience fee if it were charged on all transactions and the fee amount if it applied only to registrations made on-line. Bosetti Dickerson Jones McArthur Stegall Ranking Average 2 2 2 2 2 2 PRIORITY RANKING I Citizens on Patrol Program (P-150-150) City Manager Starman stated that the Redding Police Department is researching the feasibility of implementing a Citizens Volunteer Patrol Program however, due to the current budget restraints resulting in staff reductions, this may not be the appropriate time to implement a new program. He suggested that a modest program could be initiated in 2010 focusing on parks, trails and open spaces and utilizing the services of youth with the idea of expanding the program in the future. Although Police Chief Hansen strongly supported formation of a Citizens Patrol, he recommended postponing implementation of the program until 2011, in light of the recent loss of eight police officer positions as a result of budget and grant cutbacks. Council Member McArthur relayed a citizen's remark that Shasta Lake City and Anderson have successful citizen patrol programs, and she maintained that utilizing volunteers would help bridge the gap created by the staff cut backs. Council Member Stegall commented that the Neighborhood Watch program has been successful and perhaps it could be expanded. She supported the concept of citizen patrols for parks and trails in the future but opposed adding the burden of organizing and supervising a citizen patrol on the already reduced police force. I Council Member Jones favored citizen patrols only if additional resources were available. While Mayor Bosetti supported the concept, he did not believe the timing was right financially. Council Member Dickerson concurred with Chief Hansen's proposal to postpone the program for two years. 2/19/2009 35 Bosetti Dickerson Jones McArthur Stegall Ranking Average 2 4 2 1 4 2.6 PRIORITY RANKING I California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) (L-040-300) City Manager Starman recapped the requirements of AB 32 and related legislation and reviewed three possible steps that could be taken by the City to begin to meet the challenges created by AB 32. Those include: 1) monitor SB 375 through the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTP A) Board; 2) consider adoption of the California Green Building Code; 3) consider establishing a "GHG Policy Team" consisting of staff members to monitor the status of AB 32 implementation and to update the Council on the topic. Douglas Bennett, Peggy Ribel and Leslie Bryan expressed their support for formation of a "GHG Policy Team" or "Green Task Force" and urged Council to include community members rather than only City staff when forming the committee. They pointed out that numerous groups throughout the City are already working toward goals similar to AB32 and would be able to offer new ideas and knowledge. Council Member Dickerson remarked that AB 32 is a state law therefore addressing it is not optional. He favored forming a policy team and suggested that staff present suggestions for the composition of team members at a later date. Council Member McArthur expressed concern that the committee not become an additional hurdle to developers. Council Member Stegall said that formation o,f a City team was a good first step and in the future would like to see the team expanded to include the other two local cities, Shasta County, and citizens. I PRIORITY RANKING Bosetti Dickerson Jones McArthur Stegall Ranking . Average Railroad Grade Separation Project - South Street (T -100-300) City Manger Starman recalled this project was extensively studied in 2000 and numerous applications for grant funding were submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission to no avail. He added that, while an additional grade separation would be advantageous to the community, no funding source for this project is currently available. Council Member McArthur stated that an additional railroad crossing would diminish traffic problems in the area and would minimize the commute to local hospitals. In response to Council Member Jones, Assistant City Manager Tippin related that the cost to construct a crossing would be approximately $7 to $10 million and even if a grant were secured, it would only cover $5 million of the cost. I Due to the lack of available funding, Council Member Jones viewed this as a low priority. , Bosetti Dickerson Jones McArthur Stegall Ranking Average 3 4 4 1 3 3 PRIORITY RANKING 2/19/2009 36 There being no further business, at the hour of 1: 17 p.m., Mayor Bosetti declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED ~/u~-- Mayor I ATTEST: ~'~r1 City Clerk I I 2/19/2009