HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-1994 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Tuesday, October 25, 1994 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Hall Administration Meeting Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.
TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting/Joint Meeting with Finance Advisory
Committee; Joint Meeting with Park Development Priority and
Financing Subcommittee
1. Roll Call
Councilmembers Jacobs, Moran, Tucker, Wolfe, and Mayor Burger were
present at 7:30 p.m. Staff members present were City Manager Peacock,
City Attorney Riback, Public Works Director Perlin, Finance Director
Shriver, and Community Development Director Curtis.
2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was
properly posted on October 21.= The notice of adjournment from the
October 19 Council meeting was properly posted on October 20.
The Mayor proceeded to Item 6 on the agenda.
6. Award of construction contract on Project 924 (Improvements to
Saratoga-Sunn~vale Road. Medians) (continued from 10/19/94
Meeting)
The Public Works Director presented his report on the award of contract
to B&B Concrete Co. Inc.
MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO DECLARE B&B THE LOW BIDDER. Passed 5-0.
MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO AWARD B&B THE CONTRACT FOR THE WORK IN THEAMOUNT
OF $390,210. Passed 5-0.
MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHA~GE ORDERS UP TO
$15,000. Passed 5-0.
3. Joint Meeting with Finance Advisory committee
Finance Committee Members Hilton, Koen, Low, Ousley, and Raiswell were
present.
B. OVerView of Year,s Work
Jim Ousley gave an overview of the work of the Committee for the past
year, including a privatization study, compensation study, reserve
policy revisions, investment policy, revenue base, review of the CAFR,
and review of the Housing Assistance Program for Directors.
A. Charter of Committee
1. Is there a role for the Committee in periodic financial status
review--monthly, quarterly, annually?
2. Long Term Financial Issues - try to identify trends, impacts
which will affect the City's financial future.
3. Propose to develop an easy reporting mechanism and more user-
friendly budget for the general public.
4. Continue to deal with special projects as assigned.
If role is broadened, what should the nature of the relationship be?
There was consensus that a good beginning has been achieved for many
items and that another meeting needs to be set. It was agreed to meet
again with the Committee on November 29, 1994. The meeting will start
at 6:00 p.m., and staff is to provide sandwiches.
4. Joint Meeting with Park Development Priority and Financing
SubCOmmittee
City Council Minutes 2 October 25, 1994
A. Review of Priority and Funding Recommendations for Park
Planning
Community .Development Director Curtis provided a staff report on the
work of the ad hoc committee and a list of recommended policies.
One citizen suggested that the policy to develop parks versus acquiring
new land is a bad one. Several more comments were made regarding the
process for planning for future park development.
Proposed policies were not acted on at this time but continued for
joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission on December 13,
1994.
5. Memorandum of Understanding with Community Foundation regarding
Nelson Property
Discussion revolved around the map as attached to the proposed M0U
submitted by the Foundation. Council feels that the map should not be
included as part of the MOU.
Public Comments:
Mary Guth of Reid Lane asked the Council to wait andacquire the Nelson
property, since there are still five years left in Williamson Act. She
asked the City Council to reconsider its decision.
Karen Anderson, Seagull Way, asked for delay in decision; she
questioned the intent of notes on the map.
Gary Nemetz submitted a letter (copy attached) and asked City to delay
the decision and take the two acres.
Mike Clair, Saratoga Hills Road Association, said he doesn't understand
why there is an MOU. The City Attorney explained the reason for the
MOU.
Jean Williams, Trinity Avenue, said .our heritage is worth saving.
Paul Griffith, Paul Avenue, suggested that the Council refer the issue
to the Parks and Recreation Commission rather than making a decision.
Stan Bogosian, Lomita Avenue, said the CounCil should have accepted the
other option to take the land.
Betty Peck requested that the Council delay the decision and wait to
listen to schools about the need for such a place. She handed in a
history ofthe property.
virginia Fanelli, representing the Community Foundation, said the
Foundation is required to sell the property. She agreed to deal with
the City and developed options as the City indicated they could not
afford to acquire the entire property. She felt the arrangement will
benefit both parties. There doesn't need to be amap, but there must
be some indication as to the final product because that is what the
money is based on.
Don Macrae asked for a delay. He said more public input was needed.
The document leaves a bad impression.
Ann Waltonsmith asked that the Council delay a decision. She has
started talking to Foundation Board members. They were told to get
their own Board together. She asked that the Council reconsider the
decision.
Dick Siegfried stated that paragraph 10, which includes a reference to
notes, is pretty implicit regarding .expectations.
Larry Jenks stated that the concerns expressed should signal to the
Council that delay and reconsideration are in order.
Bea Weldon, Pontiac Avenue, said the entire thing should be junked.
City Council Minutes 3 October 25, 1994
Teresa Polson, Paul Avenue, favored keeping the property.
Laurie Nemetz asked what the City gets for only two lots.
Paul Griffith stated that volunteers are ready to help out.
Gary Nemetz asked what the City is getting out of the deal; it should
consider that before going forward.
Council Discussion:
Councilmember Moran asked whether others would reconsider and asked
what's going on with the newspapers.
Councilmember Tucker said she was hearing two things, a community
garden and "acquire the property." She referred to a letter from Don
Peterson.
Councilmember Jacobs was prepared to proceed but without the map and
notes. He noted this was merely an understanding which would serve as
the basis for a development application to be negotiated in the future.
Councilmember Wolfe said we can't keep acquiring parks just for the
sake of having more parks. Volunteerism can't be guaranteed forever.
Moran stated that paragraph 10 should be removed if map is removed.
Councilmember Tucker would like to have a reconsideration but needs
Council support.
TUCKER/MORANMOVED TORECONSIDER THE COUNCIL ACTION OF OCTOBER 5, 1994,
RELATING TO THE NELSON PROPERTY. Motion failed 2-3 (Burger, Wolfe,
Jacobs opposed).
The Council proceeded to try to rewrite paragraph 10 of the MOU with
Fanelli.
JACOBS/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE WITH REVISED PARAGRAPH 10AND NO MAP; ALL
OTHER PARAGRAPHS APsE ACCEPTABLE; COUNCIL ACCEPTS NOTION OF 85% OF
MAXIMUM ALLOWED AS MINIMUM; TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF NOVEMBER 2,
1994, UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR SECTION A. Passed 4-1 (Moran opposed).
7. Adjournment
'The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry R.
City Clerk