Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-15-1984 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, February 15, 1984- 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL - Councilmenbers Callon, Clevenger, Fanelli and Mayor Moyles present at 7:02 p.m. Councilmember Mallory present at 7:03 p.m. B. MINUTES- 2/1 CLEVENGER/FANELLI MOVED TO APPROVE MINI/fES WITH CLARIFICATION OF JESSE MACGUIRE'S STATEMENT ON ABAG HOUSING REQUIREMENTS. Passed 4-0. II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Tcm Reddick, 13389 larchmont Avenue, spoke in favor of enforcement of Saratoga' s sign ordinance with respect to political sigus. Mr. Toppel of the City Attorney' s Office explained sc~e of the restrictions on such enforcenent. Consensus to agendize the matter of political signs as a public hearing at the next regular meeting. III. CONSF~\YP CAT,Eh~]AR Ai Final Building Site Approval, SDR 1548, F. Schneider, Pierce PDad B. Resolution Prohibiting Parking on a Portion of Crisp Avenue (RESOLUTION MV-157) C. Approval of Warrant Lis~ CLEVENGER/FANELLI MOVED TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CAT~qDAR. Passed 5-0. IV. SCt~EDUI ~ED M~I'I'~t{S A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 1. Proposed Change in Council Policy on Hillside Develol~nent City Manager explained issues. Consensus to authorize Mayor to express Council' s oppQsition to .roposed change, which would allow develot~nent of hillside lends for residential ~/or research and develot~nent purposes. B. REPORTS FROM COMvLISSIONS AND CO~ITI'~S - None. C. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. Resolution Cii~nending Peggy Corr as Citizen of the Year FANELLI MOVED, AND CLEVENGER AND MOYLES JOINED IN THE SECOND, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2121. Passed 5-0. 2. Resolutions Concerning June Election a. Resolution 2122 Calling Election on June 5, 1984 ,,_l'~Sl..: b. Resolution 21~3_Requesting Consolidation of Election with Statewide c. Resolution 2124 Requesting Services of County Registrar for Election MOYLES/MAIIDRY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS 2122, 2123, and 2154. Passed 5-0. D. BIDS AND CONTRACTS 2-2/15/84 1. Award of Contract to Paint City Hall, Civic Auditorion, Cainunity Center and Corporation Yard Maintenance Director explained bid process, arK] Councilmembers inquired as to staff work requ. ired, labor costs, type of work to be done, end number of bids received. Council- member Callon requested en opportunity to examine the specifications. Councilme~nber Mallory stated he oppos~ed the contract because street maintenance should take priority over the painting project. FANELI,I/CLEVENGER MOVED TO AWARD CONTRAC~ TO JOSEP~'S PAINTING AND DECORATING,'INC. IN THE AMDUNT OF $29,530.00. Passed 4-1 ~allory opposed). MOYLES/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT HESOLL~fION 2073.8 INCREASING APPNDPRIATIONS FOR PROJECT. Passed 4-1 (Mallory opposed). Since the hour of 8:00 p.m. had not yet been reached, Mayor Moyles proceeded to items following public hearings on the agearia. VI. NEW BUS~lqESS A. Discussion of Oral C~lunications, if any - None. B. Written Ccnxnunications frcm Public -. #i frcm Marjorie Foote requ_e~ting resolution concerning AAUW Week - Mayor Moyles stated : he would sponsor such a resolution to be adopted at the next meeting. '#2 frc~ Friends of 'Saratoga ~Libraries with financial statement - noted and filed. #3 frcm W. Notz requesting action on bike-pedestrian path on Quito Road - referred to Cu~l~nity Develo~nent Director. C.' New Business frc~ Councilmenbers .Callon noted that Council consensus to cmit R-1-10,000 and possibly R-1-12,500 frcm con- sideration for second units had no~ been mentioned in the Saratoga News. Fanelli reported on progress of the Fire District Study Cum,~ttee, noting that they hoped to have a report ready by budget time in June. Mallory ccmplimented the Saratoga News on recent coverage of City issues. He then reported on progress of the Public Safety Culml~ssion. · Clevenger brought up the possibility of pas~ing a resolution on Saratoga Education Week. Mallory cul~l,ented that it seemed rather awkward to pass a resolution pertaining only to elementary schools. CLEVENGER/MALLORY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2125 DECLARING SARATOGA EDUCATION WRRK. Passed 5-0. Fanelli reported on the Finance Culuittee and 'its planned tour of Village Parking Dis- trict #3. D. New Business frcm Staff, Administrative Reports not Scheduled City Manager requested assistance frcm Council in obtaining background checks for Com- munity Service Officer candidates frcm Sheriff's Office, stating that resolution authorizing the cheeks had been passed at the 1/!4 Council meeting. (Clerk's note: Resolution was actually passed at 1/18 meeting). Mayor Moyles agreed to contact Sheriff' s Office on the. matter. Councilmember. Mallory oa~'~ented that the statemant should be made that the CSO progran%~f should have been in place several months ago ~, and had been delayed because of the delinquency of the Sheriff's Office. Moyles reported that the Mayor of Campbell,!'Mr. Paul, was ill and requested that he be kept in the thoughts of those present. Jose Stell of theiSen Jose Mercury-News then stated that Mr. Paul had died that day. Fanelli cc~mented on en article on code enforcement written by a citizen for the Sara- toga' News, explaining the hackground 'and other facts concerning the deletion of the Code Enforcement Officer position end prcgress made by the Council in getting the · .. Cam~mity Service Officer program under way as a major priority. Councilmember Mallory ccmmented he believed the Council had neither provided the City Manager with enough support nor placed enough pressure on the Sheriff to get the program started. 3-2/15/84 The Council than recessed frcm 7:44 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in order to avoid starting the public hearing before everyone concerned might be present. V. PUBLIC HEAR~qGS A. Consideration of Request for Fate Increase by Green Valley Disposal Co. Aaministrative Services Director explained background of request and answered Council's questions on various aspects of the requested increase. Bob Stevens, General Manager of Green Valley Disposal, gave a presentation on the rate increase, pointing out that many of the expenditures they had made had been '. rec~m,ended by the Ralph Anderson Report. The public hearing was opened at 9:03. Donald Carr, 19003 Merribrook Ct. , spoke against the increase, saying the rates were already too b_igh for two cans. ' ' Alan Aspey, 12421 Lolly Ct., stated that Saratoga' s total garbage tonnage had increased because the unlimited service option encouraged custc~ers to dispose of more items rather than using alternatives such as recycling. He also felt that curbside pickup resulted in time and labor savings for Green Valley, and that inflation had decreased, so that their expenses would not be as great as projected. John Haufe, 21210 Canyon View Drive, spoke as a past president of Wildwood Heights Hcmeowners Association. He expressed concern about the discontinuation of the seni- annual unlimited pickup; discrimination between the "hard-to-serve" areas and others; and lack of opportunity for those in hard-to-serve areas to obtain unlimited service. Martin Gandel, 14000 Shadow Oaks, stated that if the previous rate agreenent was so unfavorable to Green Valley that they now needed to raise rates again, Grean Valley should not have antered into it.. He questioned various statements made by Green Valley, such as amount of tonnage increase; legitimacy of landfill costs, since landfill was ~wned by same individuals as Green Valley; depreciation of one-time caDital investmant coSts. Mr. Gandel expressed the belief that Councilmembers had a ve~ted interest in franchise fees, and Councilmember Callon explained that franchise fees were paid into the General Fund of the City, and no Councilmember profited by Norman Martin, 12524 Miller Avenue, stated that recycling has decreased because of the availability of unlimited service. He felt that increase in population could account for scme, but not all, of the tonnage increase. He urged Council to keep the rate increase for one-can service as low as possible to encourage conservation. Tom Reddick, 12389 Larchnont Avenue, also stated the tonnage increase was due to availabi, lity of unlimited service. He preferred a per/can rate and a semi-annual unlimited pickup. William Watkins, 20209 Edinburgh Drive, felt Green Valley' s accounting methods should be scrutinized and the statements audited. He also believed their rates should be compared with other ccmpanies' and that the choice of one can or unlimited pickup did not encourage conservation. .Marlee Duffin, 21241 Canyon View Drive, stated she was getting less service and paying more for it in the hard-to-serve area. She also ccrm~nted that a group had recently bought Green Valley and raised the question why they would do so if its financial condition were as poor as it was represented to be. ROy Mc~Eloskey, 12563 Cambridge Drive, felt that Green Valley' s rates were out of control. He questioned the accuracy of their financial statements and noted that a f~anchise agreenent did not provide incantive to economize. Winston Chew, 12501 De Sanka, felt the requested increase was too high and that the franchise was badly run. City Manager clarified role of staff in rate increase process, noting that original request had been substantially reduced by the four-city ccnm~ittee and that non- allowable expanses had been screened out. ~42~/15/84 An unidentified member of the audience who said he lived near Kevin Moran Park stated that he had often cleaned up garbage scattered by Green Valley Disposal personnel. He opposed raising the rates. Ed Nino, 200 Highland Oaks Drive, spoke as an employee of Green Valley Disposal. He stated that the insinuations against the accuracy of Green Valley' s financial state- ments were unwarranted and that his workload had increased 40% because of the 40% increase in tonnage. Bill Masline, 20095 Thelma Avenue, opposed unlimited pickup because he felt other residents were subsidizing those with unlimited pickup. He also felt that the Coun- cil should review Green Valley Disposal's budgets. Councilmembers discussed issues, including changing rate structure to encourage con- Servation; doubts concekning Green Valley' s management competence and accuracy of their financial statements, especially personnel costs, capital impEovement:~expenses, depre- ciation of capital improvement items, and other specific expenses; the fact that the same families own Green Valley and the Guadalupe Landfill, raising questions of pro- priety with respect to rent charges and d~np fees. With respect to expenditures, City Manager pointed out that review of Green Valley' s budget entails consideration of ~qhich are allowable, not whether the amounts are appropriate. Bill Grafton, Green Valley Disposal's Certified Public Accountant, reviewed their budgets since 1978, explaining a number of significant 'items, including change frGm cash basis accounting; Guadalupe Landfill's forgiveness of a $190,000 debt from Green Valley; separate management groups for Green Valley and Guadalupe Landfill; rents and 'fees charged Green Valley by Guadalupe Landfill are 1c~; justification for deprecia- tion of capital improvement itens; time lag between request for rate increase and granting of increase causes significant revenue loss to Green Valley; fuel cost increase is due to increased vehicle usage; Green Valley, as a private cunFany, needs a profit to operate; Green Valley is fully audited every three years under the fran- chise agreement. Mr. Grafton also reviewed the rates Green Valley requested and sug- gested possible alternatives. Dennis Varni of Green Valley Disposal, in response to Council' s question as to whether - they would allow their books to be reviewed, stated that a review would be agreeable, but each month's delay in the rate increase would result in a $40,000 loss. ~ City Manager pointed out that if Saratoga did not make a decision on the rate increase, it might affect the other three cities' actions. In response to Councilmembers, ~.1.. Administrative Services Director stated that the rate review c~m'~ttee had already raised the questions now being raised by Council, as well as other questions; aS a result, the cu~,ittee had reduced Green Valley's budget by about $1,000,000. She also explained the cum,~ttee's credentials and ability to perform a thorough review ".of the relevant matters. She suggested that if Council desired further review, it be performed by a body other than Saratoga' s Finance Advisory Cc~wnittee, since, if the other cities were concerned about the seine questicns, a non-Saratoga group would have more credibility with them. Councilmember Mallory preferred to refer the matter to scmeone other than the Finance Advisory Cut~j ttee, since he felt it was not their function to review financial state- ments frcm Green Valley Disposal. CONSENSUS TO REFER ~ V~T.T,~Y FINANCIAL STATE~4ENTS TO FINANCE ADVISORY ~'l'l'k'F. Councilmenbef Fanelli noted that the Council 's concern was not with the honesty of .those.preparing the statements, but with matters such as :the desirability of certain expenditures and the possibility of alternative rate structures. Administrative Ser- vices Director stated that if the rate structure were changed it would be very diffi- Cult to forecast revenues because of the uncertainty as to how many residents would choose each rate option. CounCilmember Fanelli suggested that figures frem years before the change in rate structure could be used. Mayor Moyles requested that the chair of the Finance Advisory Cul,l, ittee be contacted so that Council~'s concerns could be relayed to him. CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO 3/7. VII. ADJOURNMENT Since items preceding public hearings on the agenda had been dealt with, the meeting was adjourned at 10:39 p.m. '~ Respectfully suhnitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk