Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-1996 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Saturday, April 20, 1996 10:00 a.m. PLACE: Senior Center Large Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting/Town Hall Meeting Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 10:00 AM. 1. ROll Call Councilmembers Present-Mayor Jacobs, Vice Mayor Moran, Councilmembers Burger, Tucker and Wolfe Staff Present-City Manager Peacock, Community Development Director Curtis, Finance Director Fil 2. Report of city Clerk on Posting of Agenda Mr. Peacock reports that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 12. The notice of adjournment from the April 17 Council meeting was properly posted on April 18. 3. Welcome and Introductions Mayor Jacobs welcomed those attending and asked those who' are present representing various organizations to introduce themselves. 4. Purpose of Meeting Mayor Jacobs indicates that the purpose of the Town Hall meeting is to discuss, with the community, specific topics, as placed on the agenda, and to have any other topic raised as well within the two hours set aside for this morning's meeting. He asks Mr. Peacock to provide a brief outline of the first topic of discussion, which is the implementation of Measure G. 5. Implementation of Measure G City Manager Peacock indicates that he will be using the easels to put down thoughts brought up by the participants as an informal record of the topics discussed so that everyone can see what these thoughts are and so they can be referred to subsequently by the City Council as they deliberate on the issues covered. Mr. Peacock gives a brief outline of the thinking, so far, by the staff on the implementation of Measure G. The main points are that a two level test should be applied relating to land use designation and whether a request would require a change in the maximum density or intensity of the existing land use designation. He notes that there are exceptions applied to second units, housing element compliance and regulatory taking. Mr. Peacock indicates that the current review process can be used to review applications and the appeal process provided by Article 15-90 of the Municipal Code appears to be appropriate for applicants whose projects have been determined by staff to be subject to Measure G, to have those decisions considered by the Planning Commission and in turn the City Council. Mr. Peacock indicates that there are options in terms of project review which the City Council needs to consider and then decide upon. Staff believes that four options are available to the applicant once a determination has been made that a project would be subject to Measure G. The applicant can request that the project receive a full review and decision from the City prior to going to an election. The applicant can request that project review cease until an election is held to determine public support for the project. The applicant can withdraw the project from further consideration. The applicant can seek a change to the general plan directly, through the initiative process. Staff believes the City Council has the ability to allow the first and second options to remain in the hands of the applicant or to determine that it will not hear a project until after the voters City Council Minutes 2 April 20, 1996 have decided the land use issue. Staff is of the opinion that, even if the City Council were to deny a project, the applicant would have the right to request, and have an election held, provided that the applicant is willing to pay for the cost of the election. Staff believes that the City Council does have the right to pass the cost of election on to the applicant in all cases except where the applicant has decided to seek a land use change through the initiative process. Comments from those attending the meeting were as follows: There was a question as to the staff's assertion that the applicant has a right to get on the ballot whether or not his project has been approved by the City. As much as possible, keep the current process in place. Allow the applicant to have the application heard before making a decision pro or con. Measure G is not intended to cover home remodel or addition applications. Package all general plan and zoning changes for a once a year determination, and make all the changes at once. An extensive discussion ensues as to the issue of whether the City Council should require a project to go through the entire planning process and then go to an election or whether to have the election early/and then if the electorate approves the land use change have the project go through the planning process. There appears to be general agreement that it is important for the voters to be well informed as to the nature of the project itself, not just the issue of the change in land use. However, no conclusions were reached as to what role the City Council will' determine the City will play in that information process, visa vis, the planning process. 6. Budgets for 1996/7 and 1997/8 Finance Director Fil presents an outline of the budgets for Fiscal 1997 and Fiscal 1998. He indicates that service levels will remain as set in the Fiscal 1996 budget except that an additional deputy sheriff unit is being added to the afternoon hours, and that the street maintenance program funding will vary each year based upon the programmed repair and maintenance work which is scheduled through the pavement management program. He indicates that the City's General Fund reserve has stabilized around the $2,000,000 figure and that the budgets for the next two years are balanced provided the City's tax base remains unaffected by Propostion 62 and the Guardino decision, which could have an effect on the Utility Users Tax and associated revenue sources. A comment on the budget item was whether the City had the money it needed to provide needed and wanted services. If it did not, then the City should determine those needs and ask the public to support a tax increase. Mr. Jacobs indicates that this question and comment is a good segue into the next topic which is placing thefUtility Users Tax on the November 1996 ballot. 7. Plans for Placement of Utility Users Tax on November 1996 Ballot City Manager Peacock reviews the issue regarding Proposition 62 and the Guardino decision. He notes that the Utility User Tax was first passed in 1985, a year before Proposition 62 was enacted. In the intervening periods, the sunset provision of the Tax has been extended twice. Also during that time several court' rulings had determined portions of Propostion 62 to be unconstitutional. With City Council Minutes 3 April 20, 1996 the Guardino decision last fall, these prior decisions have now been overturned. However, several questions were left unaddressed by the court or were not part of the decision. Among those are the effective date of Proposition 62 now that it has been declared applicable to majority vote tax measures, and whether the continuation of a sunset provision is subject to Proposition 62. In February the City received a letter from the Pacific Legal Foundation threatening to file suit against the City unless it placed the continuation of the Utility User Tax on the ballot and immediately ceased collecting the tax. The City has replied that it will place a measure on the ballot in November provided that, the City is not sued in the meantime, that neither the legislature or the courts act within that time to clarify the question and that in the interim the City would continue to collect the tax. Mr. Peacock indicates that loss of the Tax would further reduce the tax base of the General Fund by some $1.4 million beyond the $1.2 million it has already suffered from the raid on the City treasury by the State since 1993. Of'this amount some $800,000 is from the Utility User Tax itself, more than $525,000 is from the loss of property tax money under the Tax Equity Allocation formula for lo~ and no property tax cities, and the remainder from lost investment income. This additional $1.4 million represents a loss of 30% of the City's general tax and fee revenue and an 18.5% decrease in its overall General Fund revenue. He notes that if the Utility User Tax is not continued property owners would not see their property taxes reduced; rather, the lost property tax money would return to the county general fund for use for general county purposes. The City had previously asked for and received an Attorney General opinion on this question so there would be no doubt as to what would happen if the Utility User Tax were not continued. Mr. Peacock also notes that other sources of funds are tied to expenditure levels of the budget. These include some $169,000 in gas tax money which is tied to street maintenance expenditures, and about $45,000 in sales tax revenues which are tied to expenditures for public safety. Comments from the participants were that: The City needs to educate the people about the tax. The City needs to fix the pothole at Fruitvale and Saratoga Avenue if it expects people to vote to continue the tax which is supposed to be used for street repair. Questions were asked about how the budget would be cut if the Tax was not approved to continue. Should steet maintenance be cut, for example? In response the City Council indicates that it has asked that a budget without these revenues be prepared by staff and that the budget would balance. However, the choices as to what areas would be cut from city services will have to be made by the City Council. It is hoped that the public will then be able to compare services with the current tax base and services with a much reduced tax base. This would also help to educate the community about what City services they are currently getting as well. 8. Announce next Town Hall Meeting scheduled for July 13, 1996 The Mayor announced that the next Town Hall meeting has been tentatively set for July 13 but no agenda has yet been established. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 PM.