Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
4.01 Draft CC 03-31-2003 Min G&O
An adjourned regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Monday, March $1, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti, Zika and Mayor Lockhart.' ABSENT: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Lockhart led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments were made at this time. STATUS REPORT ON 2002~2003 GOALS & OBJECTIVES AND CONSIDERATION OF 2003-2004 GOALS & OBJECTIVES 6:02 p.m. 8.1 (100-80) City Manager Richard Ambrose presented the Staff Report. 2002-2003 Goals & Objectives Status Report The adopted Goals & Objectives Program for 2002-2003 included a total of 96 objectives. Of those objectives, 77 objectives were assigned a high priority, 15 objectives were assigned a medium priority, and 4 objectives were assigned a low priority. Since the CNf'Y COUNC}!., ~HNUTES V©LUME 22 ADJ©URNED REGULAR MEET~iNG Council's adoption of the Goals & Objectives Program, a total of 20 additional major assignments were undertaken by Staff. The preponderance of these assignments were Council initiated. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF 2002-2003 OBJECTIVES LEVEL OF ACCOMPLISHMENT (7/1/2002- 1/31/2003) NEARLY I PPdOPdTY TOTAL COMPLETE COMPLETE UNDERWAY i NO PROGRESS % # % # % # % # % # % High 80.2 77 100 24 31.2 5 6.5 42 54.5 6 7.8 Med 15.6 15 100 I 6.7 0 0.0 4 26.7 10 66.7 Low 4.2 4 100 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 100.0 Subtotal ~ 100.0 96 100 25 26.0 5 5.2 46 47.9 20 20.8 Added + 20.8 20 100 2 10.0 2 10.0 16 80.0 0 0.0 Total I 116 100 I 27 23.3 I 7 6.0 62 53.4 20 I 17.2 Of the 77 High Priority objectives, 29 (38%) have been completed or nearly completed to date. There were a total of six (6) High Priority objectives for which there has been no progress made to date. They were: Complete Scarlett Court Specific Plan Amendment- Deferred by the City Council to October 2003; Update Facility Use Agreement with Dublin Unified School District; Develop a master plan and phasing plan for the Sports Park on Gleason Drive and Fallon Road including evaluation of BMX Track; Explore opportunity to use Dougherty Hills Open Space on Amador Valley Blvd at Stagecoach for Dog Park & Community Garden; Open Media Centers/Computer Labs and Libraries in the evening at Dublin Unified School District facilities through City's Parks & Community Services Department; and Determine need and viability of the installation of automated traffic devices (digital cameras) at major intersections to enhance traffic enforcement of red light violators. Further progress on High Priority objectives has been impacted by 20 additional major assignments during the year; significant resources allocated to growth issues; and Staff vacancies in the Community Development and Public Works Departments. C~TY COUNCiiL ~!INUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR M.EET~NG Capital Projects Status Report The City Council approved a total of 60 Capital Projects to be undertaken during 2002- 2003. Since the adoption of the Budget, the Council has added one (1) additional project and carried over seven (7) from the previous fiscal year for a total of 68 capital projects. Eleven (11) projects are behind schedule. 2003-2004 Goals & Objectives The City's Management Team prepared a preliminary list of Goals & Objectives for 2003- 2004 for Council consideration. A total of 96 objectives in seventeen different program areas were identified in the Preliminary 2003-2004 Goals & Objectives Program. Of this total, 33 objectives are new and 63 objectives are recommended to be carried over from last year. Mayor Lockhart asked anyone in the audience that wished to address the Council on any individual item listed on the Goals & Objectives or the Budget Study Session to come forward. . No testimony was entered by any member of the public at this time relative to these issues. The Council discussed those Goals & Objectives which had been ranked with differing priorities: FINANCE OBJECTIVE #4: "Complete feasibility analysis for the DBX Bond refinancing." Cm. Oravetz asked for clarification regarding this issue. City Manager Richard Ambrose explained why the assessment district was formed, indicating that it was formed when interest rates were higher. Interest rates for municipal financing have dropped, which means if the City refinanced the bonds at lower interest rates, the property owners who participated in that particular assessment district would receive lower property tax assessments. Finance Manager Fred Marsh clarified that only 12 property owners would benefit by this objective, which was why it was rated by Staff has a medium priority. This objective is a costly and time-intensive multi-step process, including property appraisals and the hiring of bond counsel. The majority of Staff's time is currently used dealing with GASB 34. Mr. Ambrose noted that none of the property owners had contacted the City regarding this issue. Staff thought it would be a good idea, if time allowed. Mr. Marsh advised that the property owners did have, with this bond, the option to pay of their assessment at once, if desired. Mayor Lockhart indicated that if more property owners were involved or the affected property owners were pushing for this objective the Council might consider reprioritizing the objective. As that is not the case, she would leave her rating as a medium. The collective City Council ranking remained MEDIUM. INTERGOVENMENTAL RELATIONS #3: "Work with cities in the Tri-Valley to establish a clearinghouse to develop and maintain affordable housing opportunities and publicize and coordinate the region's housing." Mayor Lockhart indicated, although Staff and the other Councilmembers rated this priority a medium, she rated it as high because it is something the City is trying very hard to accomplish. Many people call daily to find out if affordable housing is available yet or where can they get help. It would be much easier if there was just one location that had accurate information was available to the public. Cm. Zika indicated that Congresswoman Tauscher had earmarked money for this project, but until the budget comes out, we don't really know where it's at. For now, we just have a loose consortium of people from San Ramon through Livermore and the County working with it. Until we get some major funding where one person coordinates the effort on a continuous basis it's an iffy process. It is an outstanding idea; hopefully Tauscher's money will come through. Vm. McCormick indicated that the objective is premature. The people are ready, but our housing is just not on the ground yet. It would probably get a High on next years' goals and objectives. The collective City Council ranking remained Medium. PUBLIC RELATIONS OBJECTIVE #1: "Produce Annual City Newsletter.'' Cm. Oravetz indicated that he liked the calendar the City published last year for its 20~ anniversary and asked if it could be included now? Mr. Ambrose indicated that it had not been included in the Goals & Objectives, but could be included at Council's request. As part of this process, Staff would come back with an analysis as to whether it could be staffed and funded. Significant Staff time and funding is involved in publishing the calendar, which has historically been done only at major City milestones. During our 20th anniversary year, thc calendar was done in lieu of the annual newsletter. Cm. Zika indicated that the newsletter should be done two or three times a year to accommodate new residents. Mayor Lockhart suggested giving the newsletter to realtors to distribute to new residents. Mr. Ambrose noted that the website, which has recently been significantly enhanced, is another great tool. The Council discussed the issue and agreed that all City events should be as well publicized as possible. The collective City Council ranking remained HIGH. PUBLIC RELATIONS ADDITIONAL OBJECTVE #3: "Develop Leadership Academy in conjunction with Chamber of Commerce & others to train and identify potential leaders in the community and to encourage participation in leadership roles in the City." V©L~D~ME 22 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETi~NG PAGE ~ 6~ Mayor Lockhart indicated that both she and Vice Mayor McCormick had included this as an additional objective and rated it as High. Dublin is probably the only city in the Valley that does not have a leadership program in existence and is not looking at training future leadership. It is very important that Dublin begin a program to give people the opportunity to educate themselves and see if they have a future as a leader. Other cities work with their Chambers of Commerce, and our Chamber has expressed an interest in working with us on this project. Cm. Sbranti asked how the program would be structured? Mayor Lockhart indicated that, if the objective received a high priority, she would suggest that a subcommittee be formed to work with the Chamber to look at the programs already established in other cities to see what would work for Dublin. Typically there is a fee attached to the program to help cover costs. Staff members provide a lot of information in their areas of expertise, and the Chamber could help in recruiting academy membership and work with the local businesses. It would be a real benefit to the businesses in Dublin to understand how the municipal government works. If we don't go out and actively pursue people to take that next step, we are going to have a tough time finding people to step in a do the job. Vm. McCormick noted that the program wouldn't be just for people heading toward elective office. It would prepare people to serve on all of the commissions and committees available. It is way past time Dublin did this. Academy graduates come away with a realistic idea of what it takes to be in a leadership role, including time commitments. Cm. Oravetz asked if it would be a shared cost with the business community? Mayor Lockhart advised that it would depend on how extensive that program was set up. Cm. Sbranti inquired as to the approximate cost to the City, and what role would Staff play? Mayor Lockhart recommended that a subcommittee be formed from the City Council to work with representation from the Chamber, with Staff input from both the City and the Chamber. The subcommittees to see what would work for the community. Cm. Sbranti stated that this would be a good way to keep residents informed. Cm. Zika indicated that is was a good idea. Both he and Vice Mayor McCormick would be termed out in a couple of years. We need informed people with background knowledge of how a city works to be quality candidates. He volunteered to be on the subcommittee. He gave the objective a High rating. Cm. Oravetz rated the objective as High. Cm. Sbranti rated the objective as High. Beyond just training potential candidates, the more educated community members, the better and the more likely they would be to volunteer. The collective City Council ranked this additional objective as HIGH. PLANNING OBJECTIVE #1: "Evaluate Juvenile Hall/Courthouse proposal." Vm. McCormick stated she gave it a low ranking as a personal statement. Cm. Sbranti indicated that he gave the objective a high priority to allow Staff to follow through with the direction given to them by Council. The collective City Council ranking remained HIGH PLANNING OBJECTIVE #2: "Complete General Plan, Specific Plan and Planned Development District for IKEA Site." Cm. Oravetz indicated that he gave the objective a Low. He still has not seen the traffic report and was waiting for more information. Mayor Lockhart clarified that the objective was to evaluate the studies that the City had already requested and paid for. CSTY C©UNC~L ~INUTES VOLUME 22 PAGE !!_63 The collective City Council ranking remained HIGH. PLANNING OBJECTIVE # 11: Complete Pak and Save General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezoning." Cm. Zika noted that he had given it a medium priority, indicating that it was fiscally irresponsible to convert good retail property into housing. Vm. McCormick pointed out it would be mixed use. Mr. Ambrose advised that the City had not yet received an application from Bancor, the property owners. Vm. McCormick clarified that the high priority would be on the books until somebody came back with an application. Cm. Sbranti indicated that he would be interested to see what Bancor proposed, but he gave the high priority ~o the Pak 'n Save site itself. The collective City C{)uncil ranking remained HIGH. PLANNING OJBECTIVE #14: "Complete Recreational Vehicle (Private Property) Ordinance Amendment: Vm. McCormick advised that she would like to change her Medium ranking to High. The collective City Council ranking remained High. PLANNING OBJECTIVE #15: "Develop Streetscape Guidelines." Mayor Lockhart indicated that she and Vice Mayor McCormick ranked it as High because landscaping and public art seem to go together and would be less expensive to plan it at the same time. She asked for clarification between landscaping and streetscaping. It was her understanding that streetscape was more public furniture and utility boxes, etc. C~T¥ CG~UNC'~L 'V:,)L"~ME 22 ADJOURNED REGULAR FAC E ~ ¥¥ Planning Manager Jeri Ram advised that streetscape was mostly landscaping, but included the coordination between the utility boxes and where public art and signage is placed. The policies would be coordinated through Public Works and Parks & Community Services. Once the Public Arts Master Plan is done, there will be coordination between it and the Streetscape Guidelines so conflicts in art, utilities and landscaping do not arise. Mr. Ambrose clarified that the proposed guidelines would be used primarily for new development, assisting the developer from the beginning to facilitate a well-planned streetscape. Mayor Lockhart advised that she would keep her ranking at High because Dublin has a lot of new development. Cm. Sbranti indicated that he had interpreted this objective as a public art issue. With the clarification, he stated that he would like to change his ranking to a High. The collective City Council ranking was changed from Medium to HIGH. PLANNING OBJECTIVE #16: "Complete Parks Reserve Forces Training Area General Plan Amendment." Cm. Oravetz clarified that this priority would just allow Parks RFTA to get in line with its General Plan Amendment Study application. Mayor Lockhart confirmed that Parks RFTA would be included for processing, not allowed to get in front of the line. Last year, the Council instructed them to come back with their application in one year. Her main concern, at that time, was that there were too many questions to answer regarding the Transit Center. The Transit Center is well on its way, and now would be the appropriate time to have Parks RFTA get in line. Cm Oravetz advised that, with the additional clarification, he would change is ranking to a High. Cm. Sbranti agreed that this would not move the issue to the top of the list, but signal the City's intent to at least begin the dialogue. ADJ*3URNED REGULAR MEET~.{NG Mr. Ambrose noted that Col. Fougner had submitted a letter (Attachment 5) requesting that the Council rank this issue as a high priority. The Army would still need to come back with a formal request to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study. Patrick Kernan, Hoge Fenton Jones & Appel Attorneys at Law, representing the Staubach Company who, in turn, represent the Army on this project, indicated that the Army would be kinder and gentler this time around and he was here just as an observer tonight. Referring to the leadership academy concept, he indicated it was a great idea and had been heavily involved in the starting Livermore's program and works with Pleasanton, San Ramon and Danville. Generally, the cost is $1,000-2,000 per participant with the company normally funding it. Plus, the Chambers do fundraisers to offer scholarships for people that cannot afford it. His company is a member of the Chamber, and he would be happy to serve on our subcommittee. Larry Bell, Staubach Company, indicated he was not here last year when the Council voted on the issue. The U.S. Army hired local consultants this time; Stabauch is the real estate component. He stressed that the Army is not changing the site boundaries from the previous submission, and they are here to reaffirm the Army's interest to "get in line" for the process. The Army is requesting that Dublin allocate resources for them to move forward. The objective for Parks RFTA is to create some value so they can enhance and expand their current training capabilities on site. The Army felt it would benefit the City in that it would add land mass to the City for annexation, and also create east-west traffic capabilities throughout the site. They would like to work with the City to come up with a good mixed-use development to make it a good place to work, live and play. The Army is willing to work with the City's available time and resources. Mr. Kernan confirmed Mr. Bell's last statement. The Army does not want to create any tension between the Staff, and they will be looking to the Staff for leadership. The Army appreciates the time and consideration. The collective Council ranking was changed from Medium to HIGH. PLANNING OBJECTIVE #17: "Implement State law requirements on 2"a unit, density bonus and emergency shelters by completing Zoning Ordinance Amendments." -V©L UN~ E 22 ADJOU~R.?{ED ~,~EGUL. A}St ~EET~NG Cm. Zika advised that it is mandated starting July 2003. Ms. Ram indicated that Staff is in the processing of completing the amendments. The collective City Council ranking remained MEDIUM. PLANNING OBJECTIVE #18: "Update City's General Plan." Cm. Zika indicated his low ranking was due to staffing issues. A General Plan update is a big project, and most of Dublin's projects are developed by Specific Plan. It needs to be done, but not during a staff crunch. Mayor Lockhart stated that the Council should be talking about it this year, and maybe looking at adding it to the list in the next year or so. Cm. Sbranti indicated that he felt this was not the year to update the plan. There are still some questions in terms of the Fallon Road alignment, where the Sports Park will be, whether we approve IKEA, issues with Parks, etc. The General Plan was first adopted in 1985, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted in 1994. It is almost time to assess where we have gone mad where we are going. He will probably bring this issue back as a High priority next year. The community should be involved in the process. Mayor Lockhart noted that most General Plan updates involve the community, and indicated that there was a misconception that Dublin was just planning little pieces at a time, which is not true. If they looked at our General Plan and Specific Plan, especially the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin has been pretty true to its word since day one. Vm. McCormick asked if the Council should rank it a low to get it off this year's radar? Mr. Ambrose advised that, as passed practice indicated, unless it is a high priority it will not be included in the budget. A General Plan update is very time intensive and involves a lot of Staff. Dublin has approximately 10 General Plan Amendments in the works, which involve very large areas that are implementing the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. There are many studies which still need to be completed before the City can determine what the land uses will look like. C~TY COUNCIL M~NUTES AD$O~}'RNE D REG'~iLAR Mi~i ~T~NG PAGE 167 The collective City Council ranking remained MEDIUM. PLANNING OBJECTIVE #19: "Develop a Fee for General Plan Revisions." Mayor Lockhart noted that Staff, the Planning Commission and the Council rated this as a low priority and asked if this objective needed to be kept on the table for next year? Mr. Ambrose advised that currently there was not a fee. This objective would involve establishing a fee on all building permits, which would go into a fund to pay for the General Plan Update. Cm. Zika asked who initiated this objective? Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff initiated this brand new goal as a revenue collection device to pay for updating general plans. Cm. Oravetz noted that if Dublin was updating the General Plan, we would want to give it a lot of consideration. Mr. Ambrose advised that Council would want to give it a lot of consideration before updating the General Plan, so the City could collect revenue so it would not have to pay for it directly. The collective City Council ranking remained LOW. PLANNING OBJECTIVE #20: "Develop City Telecommunications Policy beyond Zoning Ordinance for Wireless Communications." Cm. Sbranti indicated that Planning Commissioner Bob Fasulkey spoke on this issue at March 1, 2003, Joint Council/Commission Workshop. It seems that, as our City develops, it might be a good idea to haVe standard guidelines. Perhaps, if not this year, it could be a smaller component of our General Plan update. Bob Fasulkey, Dublin resident, indicated that this item was unique in that it was probably the only item on the entire list that had the opportunity to create revenue for the City. When this was first added to the agenda in 1996, a shadow conduit ordinance was created, which required developers to put blank conduit in as they did their development work. To give some sense to the valuation of the conduit today, BART did the same thing in the same timeframe and are now recognizing hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars releasing this space. He is suggesting that Dublin can do the same thing. He was not asking that Dublin do anything other than understanding the context in which Dublin has it. He urged the Council to rank it high and allow the Staff to do a little investigative work so Dublin can get beyond the "to be determined" annotated in the time required column of the Goals & Objectives chart and find out if there is some revenue Dublin is ignoring. Cm. Sbranti indicated it would provide the potential to break up some of the monopolies and seek out alternative cable providers. It is a complex issue, but worth looking into. Mayor Lockhart, Vm. McCormick and Cm. Oravetz indicated that they would raise their ranking to Medium. The collective City Council ranking was changed from Low to MEDIUM. PLANNING OBJECTIVE #22: "Develop Ordinance to limit amount of square footage increase on remodel of existing houses." Vm. McCormick advised that she did not want this objective deleted. As our housing stock gets older and neighborhoods age, more of the older homes are being remodeled or torn down to rebuild on the lots. Dublin is already dealing with situations where older homes are replaced by monoliths, which are out of keeping with their neighborhood. At some point, Dublin needs to address this issue. It needs to stay on the radar screen. Cm. Zika concurred. Mayor Lockhart indicated that she would change her Delete to a Medium. Cm. Zika and Cm. Sbranti indicated that they would change there Low to a Medium. Cm. Oravetz advised that his Delete would remain. The collective City Council changed the ranking from Low to MEDIUM. PLANNING OBJECTIVE #23: "Develop View and Solar Access Ordinance." Vm. McCormick indicated that she wanted to keep this on the list. As neighborhoods get older and trees get taller this issue will become a problem. People are paying extra for view lots and that needs to be protected. It is also important to keep solar panels from being blocked by trees and other structures. Cm. Oravetz concurred that there would be a future problem, and indicated that he would change his ranking from Delete to Low. The collective City Council ranking changed from Delete to LOW. PLANNING ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVE #24: "Open Space Implementation." Mayor Lockhart noted that this issue had been initiated by the Planning Commission and had already been covered. Mr. Ambrose asked to clarify some confusion regarding this issue, indicating that the Planning Commission did not have the benefit of the Parks & Community Services Goal & Objective to which Staff referred, and that was to investigate and plan for a regional park in the western hills. This presupposes that the open space necessary was available. From Staff's perspective, the Parks & Community Services objective covered the intent of this objective, because this Open Space Implementation Plan was really focused on the western hills. Everything that was presented to Council was focused on the western hills. It was his understanding that the Planning Commission felt Staff was being a little too ambitious in terms of feeling that the plan would be together before the end of the fiscal year, and there was a desire to keep it on the Council's radar screen. Staff felt it was kept on the radar screen on the Parks & Community Services side. Unless the Council has some other objectives it wants to look at as part of this, then Staff would suggest it be deleted and folded into the other objective. Staff suggested deletion from here and rolled over into the Parks & Community Services issue. C~TY C©~/NC_~L Mi~N~_JTES V©L~IME 22 ADJ©URNED REGULAR M3~E'E!NG Vm. McCormick indicated that she looked at it in a more global way, since the Planning Commission has to look out for the entire City, not just the western portion. She looked for open space for the entire City, as well as annexed areas. Mr. Ambrose advised that the Planning Commission was focused primarily on the western hills. Ms. Ram concurred that the Planning Commission was concerned that the project in the western hills being worked on during this fiscal year would not be completed, and wanted to make sure it did not drop off the radar screen. The Planning Commission was not aware of the Parks & Community Services Commission objective. Cm. Sbranti indicated the reason he did not rank this objective was because the City was already moving forward on the western hills open space. However, in considering citywide open space, especially in the east, he would consider giving the broader goal a high priority. Mr. Ambrose advised that the Resource Management Plan in the Eastern Dublin Property Owners Annexation Area was a study that would attempt to identify open space. Looking beyond the western hills, there needs to be recognition that there is not a lot the City can do until some other those other studies are completed. Mayor Lockhart concurred that the plan was premature. Cm. Sbranti indicated that he would change his unmarked ranking to a Medium to keep it as a broad, citywide goal. Mr. Ambrose suggested that, to eliminate confusion, this objective be changed to indicate open space in the east. Staff liked goals that are measurable and not too broad. Mayor Lockhart indicated that it would still be a Low and will work as a tickler indicator. Mayor Lockhart indicated she would change her unmarked rating to a Low. Vm. McCormick indicated she would reduce her ranking from High to Low. CAT'%: COLrNC~L ?~51~NUTES ¥©LUME 22 Cm. Oravetz indicated that he would drop his High to Medium. The collective City Council added this objective as a Low priority. PLANNING ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVE #25: "Investigate Options for Shamrock Village." Cm. Zika asked if this issue was listed somewhere else in the Goals & Objectives? Mr. Ambrose advised there was an item under Economic Development, added by Cm. Sbranti, to work with Shamrock Village to facilitate improvement to the center. Cm. Sbranti indicated that he rated this objective as a delete because he did not see it as a Planning objective with a Specific Plan, but as an Economic Development issue. Cm. Zika indicated that he rated it as a delete, as well for the same reason. Mr. Ambrose advised that there was a distinction between the two objectives. The question would be does the City Council want to initiate, at City expensive, a Specific Plan that would look at whether those uses should continue to be retail. The other level of review would be for the Economic Development Director to work with the property owner to try to find new tenants and help facilitate getting new uses onto the property. Jeri Ram advised that the Planning Commission was interested in the economic revitalization of the center. The collective City Council ranking remained MEDIUM. PLANNING ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVE #26: "Complete General Plan Amendment on DiManto Property." Mayor Lockhart indicated that this additional objective was initiated by Cm. Sbranti. She advised that the City had already approved the General Plan Amendment Study for August or later, so she would rate it a Medium to keep it on the board. She was unwilling to rate it higher. Y'©LUME 22 ADJOURNED REGULAR ME ETING M~rd~ 3~ 2002~ PAGS i[72 Vm. McCormick, Cm. Zika and Cm. Oravetz indicated that they would rank it a Medium. The collective City Council added this objective as a Medium priority. ENGINEERING GOAL #3: Explore feasibility of lighting and landscaping the Iron Horse Trail." Vm. McCormick indicated that the Iron Horse Trail is so unique, the City should do everything it could to improve it. Landscaping and lighting would make it useful in the evening. Cm. Oravetz agreed, although it may not be in budget this year. It is starting to look better, and lighting would be the next natural step so people can use it in the evening. Mayor Lockhart advised that she did not give it a high priority because she heard from the public that they did not want it touched. The public indicated to her that they wanted to leave it as natural as possible. The animals would leave if their open space habitat was taken away. The residents indicated that they wanted the City and others to leave at least a certain portion alone. Cm. Zika agreed, and advised that the Council might want to revisit the issue when the Parks Master Plan was finished, and after the scary idea of trains running down the Iron Horse Trail had gone. Vm. McCormick reiterated that some portions needed to be lit. The collective City Council ranking remained a MEDIUM. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVE #4: "Work with Shamrock Village to facilitate improvement to the Center." Mayor Lockhart advised that this was the objective initiated by Cm. Sbranti and was similar to Planning Additional Objective #2 5. Cm. Sbranti questioned whether this issue was ranked High or Medium? He rated it as High, and thought two other Councilmembers had, as well. VOLUME 22 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING PA~SE ?.,73 Mr. Ambrose advised that he did not receive rankings from any other Councilmembers in regards to this objective. Cm. Zika indicated that he would rate this as High, stating that it was more important for the Economic Development Director to work with the property owners to revitalize the Center, rather than re-planning and coming up with a new Specific Plan. Mr. Ambrose clarified the Council's direction on Planning Additional Objective #25 was notto include a Specific Plan level review in the other objective. It was his understanding that this obviated the need to have this objective based on the Council's other ranking. The other objective indicated "identify other options for improvement of the Center." Mayor Lockhart indicated that she would like to keep the option open of doing a Specific Plan for that area. At some point, the City may find out from this Economic objective, that there is a better or higher use for the property, which doesn't include retail. We don't know, but we should keep our options open. Cm. Sbranti clarified that this objective would be in two locations of the Goals & Objectives: in the Planning section as a Medium priority to keep it on the books, and under Economic Development to look at economic opportunities. Mayor Lockhart, Vm. McCormick, Cm. Zika and Cm. Oravetz indicated that they would rank this as High. The collective City Council added this objective as a HIGH priority. PARKS & COMMUNITY SERVICES OBJECTIVE #8: "Update Facility Use Agreement with Dublin Unified School District." Cm. Sbranti indicated that he ranked it High from the standpoint of improving school access to City facilities, especially Stager Gym. School access after 3 p.m. is very low. Mayor Lockhart asked about City access to the Dublin High Gym? Cm. Sbranti indicated that he would agree, but stated that both entities needed to revisit the agreement to make changes to make it a better policy for both sides. Although it has served its purpose, it is time to update the agreement. VOLUME 22 ADJ©URNED iREGULAR ~d~EET~NG ¢~arc~. 3~ 2003 ~AGE The collective City Council ranking remained MEDIUM. PARKS & COMMUNITY SERVCIES OBJECTIVE #9: "Replace existing marquee at Shannon Community Center with an electronic marquee." Mayor Lockhart indicated that she gave it a High ranking because the current sign is not doing the job; we need something readable on both sides. Cm. Oravetz stated that there should be two signs, one at Shannon Center and at Emerald Glen Park. The signs should also be bigger and better than the one at Dublin High. Vm. McCormick asked why Staff gave it a Medium? Mr. Ambrose advised that time and money were behind the Medium priority. General Fund dollars are somewhat constrained for capital projects this year, between the Senior Center, the new Library and the two new Fire Stations. The collective City Council ranking remained a MEDIUM. PARKS & COMMUNITY SERVICES OBJECTIVE # 10: "Explore opportunity to use Dougherty Hills Open Space on Amador Valley Boulevard at Stagecoach Road for Dog Park and Community Garden." Mayor Lockhart indicated that she thought the community garden had been deleted from this objective. Mr. Ambrose advised that the Council needed to clarify that issue. The Planning Commission had ranked it a High with the deletion of the community garden. Mayor Lockhart clarified it was the Council's intent to delete the community garden from this objective, as a community garden was addressed elsewhere in the Goals & Objectives. Vm. McCormick indicated that she would change her Medium to a High with the deletion of the garden. The collective City Council ranking remained HIGH. C~T¥ C©UNC~L M~NUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MiEET~NG ~>AG~ ~ 75 PARKS & COMMUNITY SERVICES ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVE # 17: "Explore feasibility of tutoring program, partnering with School District." Mayor Lockhart advised that she and Cm. Sbranti had rated this as High, as a paid tutoring program. One of the issues she has heard from parents is that they would be willing to pay to have their child tutored, but are not home in the afternoons and no other appropriate locations were available. The issue had been discussed with the School District at the Liaison Committee level, and they were very interested. The Council discussed the cost aspects of this objective and agreed that it should be a self-sustaining program and a complete partnership with the School District. Vm. McCormick, Cm. Oravetz and Cm. Zika indicated that they would rank this as High. The collective City Council added this objective as a HIGH priority. PARKS & COMMUNITY SERVICES ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVE # 18: "Explore opportunities for a community garden." Mayor Lockhart indicated Vice Mayor McCormick had ranked this as Low and Cm. Sbranti had ranked it as Medium. She would rank it as Low. Cm. Oravetz and Cm. Zika indicated that they would rank this as Low. The collective City Council added this objective as a LOW priority. PARKS & COMMUNITY SERVICES ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVE # 18: "Explore Historic Park on Donlon Way." Mayor Lockhart indicated that she had ranked this as High. Vm. McCormick, Cm. Oravetz, Cm. Sbranti and Cm. Zika indicated that they would rank this as High. The collective City Council added this objective as a HIGH priority. ADj©tiRNED REGULAR B:,~EET~;~JG PARKS & COMMUNITY SERVICES ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVE #20: ~Explore with DHPA land/cemetery extension facility study." Mayor Lockhart noted that this objective was not intended to create a new cemetery, but to have dialogue with DHPA on the parcel of land they own across the creek and explore possibilities of expanding the existing cemetery. She indicated that she had ranked this as a High priority. Vm. McCormick, Cm. Oravetz, Cm. Sbranti and Cm. Zika indicated that they would rank this as High. The collective City Council added this as a HIGH priority. HERITAGE & CULTURAL ARTS OBJECTIVE # 12: ~'Investigate the feasibility of a Performing Arts Center." Cm. Sbranti rated this objective as a delete, but added Heritage & Cultural Arts Additional Objective # 16, which would explore a regional approach to performing arts in the Tri-Valley and gave it a High. He felt the two objectives were related and could change this priority to a Medium. Mayor Lockhart indicated that she saw these objectives as very different. Dublin's Center would be very specific to our community. Cm. Sbranti indicated that he would change his ranking from a Low to a Medium. The collective City Council ranking remained a MEDIUM. HERITAGE & CULTURAL ARTS ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVE # 14: ~Expand Activity Guide to include historical sites." Mayor Lockhart congratulated Cm. Sbranti for an excellent idea and indicated she would rank this as High. Vm. McCormick, Cm. Zika and Cm. Oravetz indicated that they would rank it as High. The collective City Council added this objective as a HIGH Priority. AD3©[/RN~D REG[JLAR N!~EET~NG HERITAGE & CULTURAL ARTS ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVE # 15: "Explore feasibility of a regional cemetery." Each Councilmember ranked this as High. The collective City Council added this objective as a HIGH priority. HERITAGE & CULTURAL ARTS ADDITONAL OBJECTIVE # 16: "Explore regional approach to performing arts in the Tri-Valley." Cm. Sbranti indicated that he was optimistic and ranked this as High. Mr. Ambrose clarified that this objective was not to be confused H&CA's Objective # 12. This objective would be a regional approach to performing arts in general, not just a center. Cm. Sbranti stated that the objective is not about who builds the center, but what would serve the regional area the best. The committee would explore what each city's role would be, and come to some consensus. He does realize, however, that a couple of cities may move forward with distinct visions to build massive centers. Even so, each center could have a different focus. Mayor Lockhart asked if the objective would include an inventory of what already exists in the Tri~Valley in terms of performing arts? Cm. Sbranti indicated that yes, it would be discussed and looked at. He sees it as a broader focus on performing arts in the Valley. Mayor Lockhart, Vm. McCormick, Cm. Oravetz and Cm. Zika indicated that they would rank it as High. The collective City Council added this objective as a HIGH priority. HERITAGE & CULTURAL ARTS ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVE # 17: "Explore Cultural Arts Master Plan (performing arts, music, etc.)." Cm. Sbranti indicated that he had rated this as Medium, not realizing that the City had a long~range Heritage & Cultural Arts Plan. VOL[~'ME 22 ADJO~J-RNEE} REGULA~¢~ MEET~NG- MarcB. 3~ 2e©3 Heritage & Cultural Arts Supervisor Theresa Yvonne advised that the City is entering its third year in the H&CA Long Range Plan. She would not recommend that the Council look at it currently, but in two years as we get to the end of this Plan. The collective City Council ranked this additional objective as a DELETE. WASTE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE #2: "Revise and resubmit Year 2000 base year modification." Mayor Lockhart indicated that she realized with the old figures the City had reached 50%. However, she wanted to make sure that 1) we have an accurate figure, 2) if our truly accurate figure puts us higher, that just helps us with the next goal which is 75%. Monies are also available for those doing really well. She does not want us to limit opportunities to receive funding if we did, indeed have better numbers. Cm. Zika asked if the City was at 54%? Mayor Lockhart indicated yes, but not with the new base year. If we were actually measuring, we would probably be higher. Jason Behrmann advised that Staff is not exactly sure where the numbers stand, as the study has not yet been completed. Waste Management has committed to continuing to fund the study, so there would not be a lot of Staff time and City money involved. Even ranked as a Medium, Staff would probably continue to move forward because there was not much to budget. Cm. Oravetz indicated that he would change his LOw to a Medium. Cm. Zika indicated that he would change his Medium to High. Cm. Sbranti indicated that he would change his Medium to High. The collective City Council changed from Medium to HIGH. TRANSPORTATION ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVE #6: "Gain control of all traffic signals north of I~ 580." Cm. Zika indicated that he initiated this additional objective and ranked it as High, explaining that Pleasanton controls several traffic signals that are on the north side of I- V©L~iM E 22 ADJ©URNED REGULAR Mi~,ET[NG PAGe; ~79 580 that control access and exit from the freeway because the freeway is within the City of Fleasanton. He expressed concern that Pleasanton's Traffic Engineer was doing some interesting things. He didn't care what the Traffic Engineer did in Pleasanton; however, he also has control of some signals on this side of the freeway. He felt we should begin to get control of the rest of the signals besides the new signal at San Ramon Road. Cm. Oravetz asked how Dublin would wrest that control from Pleasanton? Cm. Zika was not quite sure yet. Vm. McCormick asked which signals Cm. Zika was talking about? Mr. Ambrose advised that the signals currently within Dublin's city limits, which are maintained by Pleasanton, are I~ 580/Dougherty Road, I-580/Hacienda Drive, I- 580/Tassajara Road signal, which is on our side of the freeway but is actually within their city limits. The proposed San Ramon Road/I-580 signal which is proposed as part of the improvement project is actually within the City of Pleasanton's city limits, but as part of that project, Dublin would maintain that signal. Caltrans maintains the I- 680/Amador Plaza Road signal. The Alcosta/I~680 signal is in San Ramon city limits and maintained by Caltrans. It was his understanding that, from the traffic engineering point of view, because the signals on ramps coming off both sides of the freeway are so close in proximity to one another whoever maintained the signals should be the same entity for the sake of coordination. We do, however, have a real mixed bag as to who maintains what. Mayor Lockhart indicated that it was her understanding that the cities were working together on Smart Corridor Project? Mr. Thompson indicated yes, Dublin can view the signal timing from its facilities. If Pleasanton allowed us to, Dublin could probably go through their system to coordinate some of its signals. However, Pleasanton probably would not allow that, as long as they were in control of the signals. Mayor Lockhart asked if some major event had happened other than Cm. Zika's discomfort with Pleasanton's Traffic Engineer? Cm. Zika indicated not yet, but that was his concern. So far, Pleasanton has been very reluctant to start part of the Smart Corridor project, which was turning on the lights on I-580 going east. Mayor Lockhart stated that the Heasanton Council made that determination; the Traffic Director recommended the lights be turned on. She suggested that rather than have this as goal to take something away, the City should just open a dialogue to enable better coordination. Mayor Lockhart asked if Dublin was having a major problem at any signal that Pleasanton was not addressing? Mr. Thompson indicated not at this time. Dublin did request changes during the building of the Tassajara Road, to which Pleasanton complied. Vm. McCormick suggested a change to the wording, if Cm. Zika agreed. Perhaps change it to "collaborate with Pleasanton." Cm. Sbranti suggested the verbiage be changed to read "Evaluate traffic signals north of I-580 that are currently outside of Dublin's control." Mayor Lockhart, Vm. McCormick, Cm. Oravetz and Cm. Sbranti ranked this objective as Low. Cm. Zika's ranldng remained High. The collective City Council added this objective as a LOW priority, using the verbiage as suggested by Cm. Sbranti. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Vm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the City Council approved the Preliminary Adopted Goals & Objectives for Fiscal Year 2003- 2004. CETY C©{INCiL M~NUT~S Y©LUME 22 M~.rc~ 3~, 2003 CITY OF DUBHN PRELIMINARY ADOPTED GOALS & OBJECTIVES 2003-2004 GENERAL GOVERNMENT ~ ADMINISTRATION COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 10f)0 Develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) including the integration of existing City information systems. High 2. 2003 Explore cost and feasibility of expanding new telephone system to Heritage Center and the Swim Center. High 3. 2003 Renegotiate new Electric & Gas Franchise Agreement with PG&E. Low 4. 2002 Participate in City Council Team Building Retreat. FINANCE COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 2001 Complete implementation of GASB 34 rules, with focus on the valuation of the City's infrastructure. High 2. 2002 Investigate feasibility of implementing an e~commerce policy for citizen use of City services. High 3. 2002 Update study for Indirect charges for development services (ex: evaluate city's overhead rate charged on development projects) and on impact fees. Medium 4. 2002 Complete feasibility analysis for the DBX Bond re-financing. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 2002 Work with Alameda County Open Space Committee to establish open space acquisition priorities. High 2. 2003 Participate in Tri~Valley Vision Project. Medium 3. 2003 Work with cities in the Tri~Valley to establish a clearinghouse to develop & maintain affordable housing opportunities & publicize & coordinate the region's housing. C~TY C©~iiNC[L ?HN~UTES PAGE PUBLIC RELATIONS COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 2003 Produce Annual City Newsletter. High 2. 2003 Plan and implement City Hall at Day on the Glen Community Event. High 3. 2003 Develop Leadership Academy in conjunction with Chamber of Commerce & others to train and identify potential leaders in the community and to encourage participation in leadership roles in the City. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY Perform contract evaluations on the following services: High 1. 2003 MCE Maintenance Contract High 2. 2003 Crossing Guards High 3. 2003 Building & Safety High 4. 2003 Auditor Contract COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~ PLANNING COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 2002 Evaluate Juvenile Hall/Courthouse proposal. High 2. 2002 Complete General Plan, Specific Plan and Planned Development District for IKEA site. High 3. 2002 Finalize Housing Element. High 4. 2002 Complete General Plan, Specific Plan and Planned Development District for Dublin Ranch Area F (Gleason Road). High 5. 2002 Investigate options and/or develop Specific Plan for San Ramon Village Shopping Center (southeast corner of San Ramon Road and Alcosta Blvd.). High 6. 2003 Evaluate Dublin Ranch Affordable Housing Project/Proposal. High 7. 2002 Develop plans for Historical District designation of Donlon Way making certain Alamilla Springs and Green Store are included. C~T'¥ CO'UNC~.L M~NUTES VOL~.JME 22 ADJOL! ~:.NED REGULAR ~[~EET~NG PAGE High 8. 2002 Complete Resource Management Plan (RMP) for Eastern Dublin Property Owners Annexation and General Plan, Specific Plan Amendments. High 0. 2001 Complete review of Dublin Ranch West Annexation (Wallis) General Plan & Specific Plan Amendments. High 10. 2002 Develop a policy and/or ordinance to accommodate more community facilities in the City. High 11. 2002 Complete Pak and Save General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezoning. High 12. 2002 Complete Scarlett Court Specific Plan Amendment. Medium 1 $. 2005 Complete General Plan Amendment Study on the Transportation Corridor Right~of~Way. High 14. 2002 Complete Recreational Vehicle (Private Property) Ordinance Amendment. High 15. 2002 Develop Streetscape Guidelines. High 1 f;. 2001 Complete Parks Reserve Forces Training Area General Plan Amendment. Medium 17. 200:3 Implement State law requirements on 2nd unit, density bonus and emergency shelters by completing Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Medium 18. 100f; Update City's General Plan. Low 10. 2005 Develop a fee for General Plan revisions. Medium 20. 1 Of)f; Develop City Telecommunications Policy beyond Zoning Ordinance for Wireless Communications. Low 21. 2001 Investigate parking and access alternatives for Village Parkway Specific Plan Area. Medium 22. 2001 Develop Ordinance to limit amount of square footage increase on remodel of existing houses. Low 25. 2000 Develop View and Solar Access Ordinance. Low 24. 2003 Open Space Implementation. Medium 25. 2003 Investigate Options for Shamrock Village. Medium 2¢. 200:3 Complete General Plan Amendment on DiManto Property. HOUSING COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 200:3 Complete Senior Housing Project. High 2. 2003 Undertake Housing Needs Assessment. High 3. 2003 Implement First Time Home Buyer Program Development. VOLUME 22 ADJOURNED REG [iLAR M~are~'~ 3~,~ 2003 PAG~ BUILDING & SAFETY COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 2003 Process $100 million in new building valuation. High 2. 2003 Prepare a Green Building Ordinance. Low 3. 2001 Implement Curb Address Painting Program. ENGINEERING COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 2003 Work with the Developer of Dublin Ranch and the Regional Water Quality Control Board/Corp of Engineers to finalize water quality issues/design solutions to allow the Corps. Permit to be issued. High 2. 2003 Implement provisions of the Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES Permit. Medium 3. 2003 ' Explore feasibility of lighting and landscaping the Iron Horse Trail. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 2001 Negotiate Lease Agreement and resolve financing strategy for the West Dublin BART Project. High 2. 2003 Work with Dolan Lumber owners to facilitate development opportunities. High 3. 2003 Work with Dublin Place Shopping Center to facilitate new improvements to the Center. High 4. 2003 Work with Shamrock Village to facilitate improvement to the Center. CULTURE & LEISURE - PARKS & COMNIUNITY SERVICES COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 2001 Complete Design and Construction Documents for Senior Center. VOLUME 22 ADJOURNEP} REGULAR MEETING PAGE 285 High 2. 2002 Work actively to develop a regional park in the west hills open to the public. High 3. 2001 Develop a master plan and phasing plan for the Sports Park on Gleason Drive and Fallon Road including evaluation of BMX Track. High 4. 2003 Expand use of the City's program registration and point of sale software packages to the Swim Center. High 5. 2003 Incorporate specialized enrichment activities into summer camp programs. (i.e. naturalist, drama, music, etc.) High 6. 2003 Expand Day on the Glen Festival to include a sanctioned City tennis tournament. High 7. 2002 Purchase & install scoreboards at Field "A" of Emerald Glen Park. Medium 8. 2000 Update Facility Use Agreement with Dublin Unified School District. Medium 9. 2003 Replace existing marquee at Shannon Community Center with an electronic marquee. High 10. 2001 Explore opportunity to use Dougherty Hills Open Space on Amador Valley Blvd at Stagecoach for Dog Park. Delete 11. 2001 Open Media Centers/Computer Labs and Libraries in the evening at Dublin Unified School District facilities through City's Parks &Community Services Department. Delete 12. 2001 Increase day care by developing surplus land at schools for childcare facilities. Delete 13. 2001 Conduct cost/benefit analysis of installing artificial turn at future City sports fields. Delete 14. 2001 Investigate an all weather track & artificial football/soccer field at Dublin High. High 15. 2003 Conduct a survey of Dublin teens to determine interest in a teen sports league to accommodate a sport that is not sponsored by the School District, such as Lacrosse or Street Hockey. High 16. 2003 Develop a location and distance map of existing trails in Dublin, including trails/walkways in parks. High 17. 2003 Explore feasibility of tutoring program, partnering with School District. Low 18. 2003 Explore opportunities for a community garden. High 19. 2003 Explore Historic Park on Donlon Way. High 20. 2003 Explore with DHPA land/cemetery extension feasibility study. C!{TY COUNCIL MINUTES V©L~/ME 22 ADJ©URNED~ REGULAi~t. MEETING PAGE HERITAGE & CULTURE COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 2000 Complete Freeway Underpass Art at Dublin Blvd & Amador Valley Boulevard. High 2. 2002 Work with Dublin Fine Arts Foundation to complete Art in the Parks projects for Emerald Glen Park, Bray Commons and Dolan Neighborhood Parks. High 3. 2001 Develop a Public Art Master Plan. High 4. 2002 Commission public art for the Senior Center. High 5. 2000 Complete Public Art/Bus Shelter Project in Downtown Dublin. High 6. 2003 Refurbish exhibit space within the Murray schoolhouse to provide a fresh setting that will optimally highlight Dublin's history. High 7. 2003 Expand cultural arts class opportunities to the community. High 8. 2003 Sponsor programs and exhibits at the Heritage Center that will emphasize Dublin's culture and heritage. High 9. 2003 Sponsor a day in which the community can bring artifacts, antiques or photographs to the Dublin Heritage Center for review by local historians and/or antique experts. High 10. 2003 Pursue replacement of the family history signs in the Dublin Cemetery. High 11. 2002 Complete the process of placing Old St. Raymond's Church and Murray Schoolhouse on the National Register of Historic Places. Medium 12. 2001 Investigate the feasibility of a Performing Arts Center. High 13. 2003 Expand the Activity Guide to include a map with the location description and photos of public art in the City. High 14. 2003 Expand Activity Guide to include historical sites. High 15. 2003 Explore feasibility of regional cemetery. High 16. 2003 Explore regional approach to performing arts in the Tri- Valley. Delete 17. 2003 Explore Cultural Arts Master Plan (performing arts, music, etc.) PUBLIC SAFETY - POLICE COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 2003 Conduct two Community Academies (Parent/Child, Youth, etc). High 2. 2003 Develop Web link on City's Web Site to permit citizens to report traffic problem areas/issues. High 3. 2003 Conduct a minimum of 20 seminars (for merchants and residents) in regard to the growing problem of identity theft. High 4. 2003 Conduct a "Public Safety Day" event (in cooperation with Fire Department) to provide public services such as child safety seat inspection, bicycle safety, child fingerprinting, fire safety education, etc. Delete 5. 2001 Determine need and viability of the installation of automated devices (digital cameras) at major intersections to enhance traffic enforcement of red light violators. FIRE SERVICES COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 2001 Complete construction of Emerald Glen Fire Station. High 2. 2001 Complete construction of Fallon Fire Station. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 2003 Undertake multi~functional disaster training exercise. High 2. 2003 Update Emergency Operations plan and conduct citywide hazard analysis. High 3. 2003 Conduct City Council EOC Training. WASTE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 2003 Evaluate options for new solid waste franchise agreement. High 2. 2003 Revise and resubmit Year 2000 base year modification. C~TS; C~L~NC~L M~N¢~.JTES TRANSPORTATION ~ MAINTENANCE COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 2003 Implement 5 new community volunteer projects. TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL # YEAR PROPOSED OBJECTIVE PRIORITY High 1. 2002 Complete alignment study of Tassajara Road from existing City limit north to the Alameda County limit line. High 2. 2003 Plan and stage major public improvements to allow development in the Eastern Dublin Transit Center to proceed. High 3. 2003 Work with adjacent property owners to plan and construct St. Patrick Way between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street. High 4. 2001 Work with ACTIA for the implementation of the Measure B transportation project along the Scarlett Drive corridor between Dublin Blvd. and Dougherty Road. Dublin is the project sponsor. Medium 5. 2002 Work with Pleasanton and Livermore to develop a cost sharing agreement for the ultimate improvement of the I~ 580/Fallon Road Interchange. Low 6. 2003 Evaluate traffic signals north of 1-580 which are currently outside the City's control. Note: Shaded objectives indicate a change in Council ranking. RECESS At 8:30 p.m., Mayor Lockhart called for a short recess. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. CITY COUNCIL M~NUTE$ VQLUB,;~E 22 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEET~iNG 2003-2004 BUDGET STUDY SESSION 8:38 p.m. 8.2 (330-20) City Manager Richard Ambrose presented the Staff Report. Mr. Ambrose indicated that the City's Annual Budget Study Session provides the City Council with an opportunity to identify those programs, services, and projects the Council would like Staff to analyze as part of the development of the City's Annual Operating Budget and the update of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for the upcoming year. The Budget Study Session also serves as a means of providing the Council with early information regarding those items that may have significant impact (positive or negative) on the City's expenditures and revenues in 2003-2004. The Study Session is also designed to minimize last minutes budget issues for which there would be insufficient time to evaluate. Mr. Ambrose gave the following analysis of anticipated future impacts on the FY 2003- 2004 Budget: REVENUE 1. Effects of the recession - Continued economic uncertainty has resulted in a downturn for the City in building permit revenue, interest income, transient occupancy tax and sales tax in Fiscal Year 2002-2003. It is expected that amounts collected in these revenue categories will continue to suffer in Fiscal Year 2003-2004. The on-going recession could further erode the City's various revenue streams. 2. Property Tax - At this time, Staff anticipates modest growth in the City's property tax as a result of projects that are already in process and will result in additional assessed valuation for the upcoming Fiscal Year. 3. Sales Tax -Although auto sales have continued to provide the City with a strong sales tax income for Fiscal Year 2002-2003, it is anticipated that the rebates and low or no interest rates on auto sales will not be part of the sales tax landscape for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. Total sales tax collections through March 2003 are approximately 2.2% ahead of last year; however, sales tax receipts for fourth quarter 2002 were 5.66% or $206,956 less than fourth quarter 2001. 4. Impact of the projected State Budget Deficit - As covered in the Mid-Year Budget Report, the State is facing a multi-billion dollar deficit for the current year and for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. The largest potential impact to the City continues to be the Vehicle License Fee (VLD. If the State opts not to fund the VLF "backfill," 137.5%, or approximately $1.4 million is at risk. In addition, the Governor is also proposing to suspend the Proposition 42 allocations to cities for road maintenance in Fiscal Year 2005~2004; this would result in a revenue loss of about $84,000. 5. Reductions in New Development -In this Fiscal Year 2002-2003, only one major commercial project was completed. This slowdown could result in the need to defer some impact fee dependant capital improvements (i.e. Parks and Recreation Facilities and Roadways) beyond the time frames identified in the Capital Improvement Program. There are some concerns that the both the residential and rental markets are softening which could further erode the revenues in this category. EXPENDITURES 1. Full Year Funding of Personnel - Several City Departments carried vacancies for part of the current Fiscal Year. It is anticipated that the City will have to fund the full year cost of these positions in Fiscal Year 2003-2004. 2. Additional Police Costs - Staff anticipates that there will be additional Police costs associated with salary and benefit increases for the Alameda County Sheriff's Department personnel. The City will not only need to fund the full year cost of increases that were granted during Fiscal Year 2002-2005 a portion of the way through the year, but also negotiated increases for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. The City has also been advised that the Sheriff will be proposing an increase in the booking fees by 28% effective July 1, 2003. 3. Fire Services - It is possible that the Fire Service costs to the City could exceed Fiscal Year 2002-2003 by more than $2 million. These increases are due to increased salary and benefit costs for contract Fire Staff, the addition of an engine company to the City's Fire staffing effective July 1, 2003, an increase in the City's allocated share of the Alameda County Fire Department's expenses, and the cost of maintaining and operating two new fire stations. 4. Library - Additional costs will be incurred to fund Library services in the City's new Library. In addition, the City will be responsible for maintenance and operation costs associated with the new Library, as well as maintenance costs for the old Library site until construction of the new. Senior Center commences. 5. Maintenance - It is anticipated that the City will experience additional street, sweeping, landscape, tree and signal maintenance costs associated with new infrastructure tl~at in being completed as part of new development in Eastern Dublin. In addition, the City will need to maintain Emerald Glen Park Phase II in January 2004. Carryover Capital Projects from Fiscal Year 2002-2003 - As mentioned in the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Mid-Year Budget Update, it is expected that approximately $1330,000 will need to be carried over into Fiscal Year 2003-2004 for Capital Projects funded by the General Fund that were initiated but not completed in the current fiscal year. Additionally, the City's current 5-Year Capital Improvement Program identifies approximately $2.5 million in projects with funding from the General Fund which are scheduled for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. If the negative impacts from the State budget/economy and other potential revenue shortfalls materialize, Staff projects that there may be insufficient revenues to finance those Capital projects scheduled for the upcoming fiscal year. Mr. Ambrose referred to the first category, Operating Expenditures, of the Budget Issues Worksheet (Attachment 4) and advised that Cm. Oravetz had an operating revenue issue in which he had particular interest which would fit under the issue of Operating Expenditures 1 .A. It would provide an opportunity for Council to look at any added or dropped services or revenues to it would like Staff to consider this year. Council gave Staff the following direction regarding Operating Expenditures, Capital Expenditures, and Contract Services: OPERATING EXPENDITURES 1.A. Should the service levels adopted in the 2002-2003 Budget be used as the starting point (i.e., base level of service)? Yes - by a consensus. Mr. Ambrose asked if the Council was interested in any modifications to the services or revenues that it would like Staff to evaluate? C~TY CO~!NCIL MPqUTE8 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING Cm. Oravetz indicated that two years ago, he asked the Council to waive the field use fees for Little League and Soccer. He pointed out that he proposed this to the City Manager a month before an article appeared in the newspaper. Two years ago the Council waived the fees, which were approximately $18,000. It gained a lot of good will with the two largest non-profits in the City. All he has heard from Sacramento is word of fee increases. One thing the Council could do was help out our local folks by waiving this fee. It wouldn't cost the City that much, approximately $18,000. He was under the impression that the waiver would go year-to-year, but it did not happen last year, and he would like it to happen this year. He encouraged the Council to consider again, this year, to waive the fee for Little League and Soccer. The extra money would help them. Mayor Lockhart asked if it was $18,000 total for the two leagues to play in Dublin? Cm. Oravetz indicated yes. Mr. Ambrose indicated that those were the numbers in FY 2000-2001. Mayor Lockhart noted that it was an hourly fee and the League's have grown and are using more fields and play time. It would be hard to believe the numbers would remain the same from two years ago. Mr. Ambrose indicated that in FY 2000-2001 Little League alone had used 1,740 hours at a cost of $8,700. Dublin waived the fees in FY 2001~2002 and they more than doubled their usage, from 1,740 to 3,785 hours. Part of that was the fact that they just blocked the fields because they were not being charged. Cm. Oravetz indicated that, as a Little League Boardmember, they would pay for just the time they used. But, when Little League received the fields for free, they would block off the entire season. Soccer would do the same. They are Dublin residents; that is what the fields are for. Cm. Zika asked how the City would prevent Little League and Dublin Soccer from blocking off fields when not used? Cm. Oravetz suggested that Staff meet with the presidents of both leagues to make that suggestion. The parks should stay open for non-resident leagues, at a cost. Parks & Community Services Director Diane Lowart advised that she had met w/th the president of Dublin Little League the day the newspaper article came out. It was a general meeting, but fees were broached during that meeting; however, no comparisons to other cities were made at that time. Cm. Oravetz advised that, for record, he had not met with either the presidents of either the Dublin Little League or Soccer. He was doing it from the same idea as two years ago, and viewed it as a family friendly for the residents of Dublin. The Mayor pointed out that the Council had not received a formal waiver request, and also expressed concern as to where to draw the line. Why should only two sports leagues benefit from a fee waiver? Cm. Oravetz noted that the Council waived the fee two years ago, and asked what was the difference now? Mayor Lockhart stated that the fields were being torn up at that time and the Leagues were going to be displaced for an entire year. Cm. Sbranti indicated that he had spoken with the president of Dublin Little League. Although, DLL did not ask outright for a fee waiver, they did express concern about the level of increase in relation to what our residents pay as opposed to what other cities paid. He indicated that Dublin's fees should be competitive and not disproportionally higher than anyone else's; however, an outright waiver shouldn't be given. There are a lot of worthwhile groups. Cm. Zika agreed that the leagues should be charged something, if at least to discourage blocking off fields. Ms. Lowart advised that Pleasanton is the only city in the Tri~Valley not to assess fees. The City Council adopted a new fee schedule in October 2002 and, at that time, a fee survey was completed. The fee increase would not go into effect until July 2003, to allow the leagues time to adjust to the new fees. The issue could be revisited if the Council so desired. Mr. Ambrose indicated that Dublin Little League historically used about 1,740 per year. When the fee was waived, usage jumped to 3,785 hours--almost 2,000 more hours. Based on their historical hours (not the fee waiver year) the actual fee increase amounts to about an additional $4,500 ($2.50/hr based on 1,800 hfs). The perceived increased costs are from the additional 2,000 hours that had been blocked out from the previous year. Mr. Sbranti commended Ms. Lowart for being proactive on Dublin Little ~ague's issues. She has already met with DLL on a variety of issues, and the relationship with DLL was not nearly as adversarial as that article suggested. Mayor Lockhart indicated that she was disappointed in the newspaper article. There were a lot of inaccuracies in it. It did not service anyone's purpose. Council directed Staff to work with Dublin Little League and the Soccer League to on the fee issue, and forward any recommendations from Staff to the Council for consideration. The Council cares about Dublin's kids and families and is very willing to address this issue; however, the Council consensus is that there will be no additional service in the form of a fee waiver included in the 2005~2004 budget analysis. 1.B. To the extent the City Council's 2005~2004 Goals & Objectives require additional resources not included in the current budget, should the 2003-2004 Budget fund only High Priority Objectives? Yes - by a consensus. 1.C. During Fiscal Year 2002~2005, the City funded a number of community groups. For each community group identified, please identify whether the community groups' funding request should be included in the base level or in a higher service level of service in Fiscal Year 2003-2004. The Council determined that the following community groups should be included in the Base Level: Alameda County Green Business Program; Bay Area Buy Recycled Paper Campaign; Childcare Links Childcare Support; Dublin Fine Arts Foundation; Drug Substance Abuse Council (Dry Grad Night and Red Ribbon Week); Dublin Partnerships in Education (DPIE); Emergency Services Network of Alameda County; Service Corp of Retired Executives (SCORE); Tri-Valley Community Television; Tri~Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau; and the Tri~Valley Interfaith Forum. The Council determined that the following community groups should be included in the Higher Service Level: Pacific Chamber Symphony; Tri-Valley Business Council; and the Tri~Valley One~Stop Career Center. Mr. Ambrose clarified that those identified as Base Level would be folded into the base level at this year's funding level. If a base level community group ended up asking for a significant increase ($1 O0 or more) over last years request, the increased increment would be put into the Higher Service Level. The Council concurred. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 2.A. Of those projects currently identified in the Five-Year C.I.F., are there any projects which you would like ~o see funded in Fiscal Year 2002-200:3? No - by a consensus. 2.B. In the Fiscal Year 2002-200:3 Budget (as adjusted), a total of $7,:321,648.:30 was allocated from the General Fund for Capital Projects. If this funding is necessary for Operating Expenditures in 2005~2004, three alternatives: (1) Defer 200:3-2004 Capital Projects to a later year; (2) Utilize unallocated Reserves; or (:3) Utilize Debt Financing (which will increase operating costs) were given to the Council as options for funding Capital Projects in 2005~2004. By consensus, the Council chose to defer 200:3~2004 Capital Projects to a later year as an alternative to funding Capital Projects in 200:3-2004. CONTRACT SERVICES Council was asked if Staff should evaluate any aspect of the service other than the cost of providing the service for Fiscal Year 2002-200:3. Council directed Staff to just examine cost for Building & Safety Services with Linhart Petersen Powers & Associates; BJY Associates; 4 Leaf; Crossing Guard Services with All City Management; Maintenance Services with MCE; and Alameda County Traffic Signal & Street Lighting Contract No - by a consensus. RESERVES Currently funds are not reserved for future costs associated with 1) future major renovation of existing facilities (i.e., Shannon Center, Civic Center, etc.), 2) unfunded future Capital Projects which are not to be fully funded by Development Impact Fees, and 3) catastrophic losses (i.e., City currently does not have property damage protection due to earthquake). 4.A. Should the City consider reserv/ng funds for any of the above items? By consensus, the Council chose not to reserve funds for any of the listed items. 4.B. Should use of Reserves be limited to Capital or other one-time expenditures? Yes- by a consensus. BUDGET CALENDAR The City Council chose Tuesday, June 24th at 6 p.m. for the Annual Budget and Five~ Year Capital Improvement Program public hearing. The Council determined that the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting would still be held on June 24th; however, it would be held in the Regional Meeting Room. OTHER BUSINESS ~ None ADJOURNMENT 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Mayor ATI'EST: City Clerk