Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-12-07 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTO CITY COU NCI L MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU - FR EOU ENCY 90.1 ON FM DIAL -r= Regular. Meeting December 7, 1987 ITEM Oral Communications PAGE 59-37 Approval of Minutes of November 9, 1987 59-37 1. Three-Year Contract with Austen's Uniform 59-37 Rental and Laundry for Fire Department Laundry Services 2. Contract with Grossman Construction Com- 59-38 pany for Facility for Maintenance of Heavy Equipment at Refuse Disposal Center, 3. Ordinance 3783 Adding Section 18.04.030 59-38 (147) (Definition - Youth Club) to Title 18 (Zoning Code) and Adding Youth Club as a Conditional Use in PF Districts 4. Financial Data Base Project Implementa 59-38 tion Consultant Agreement with Touche Ross and Company 5. Mayor Gail Woolley re Cancellation of 59-38 December 14, 1987, City t'ouncil Meeting Agenda Granges, Additions, and Deletions 59-38 5A. NItional League of Cities Resolution No. 59-38 10 Referred to the League's Finance, Administration, and Intergovernmental Relations Policy- Committee Entitled 'Statehood for Washington, D.C." Adjournment at 8:05 p.m. to a Committee of the Whole re User Fee and Cost Recovery Study, and Five -Year Financial Projection. Final Adjournment at 9:10 p.m. _5940 59-36 12/07/87. Regular Meeting Monday, December 7, 1987 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Woolley announced that upon conclusion of the regular meeting, the Council would adjourn to a Committee of the Whole meeting re User Fee and Cost Recovery Study and 'Five- Year Financial Projection in the Council Conference Room. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, asked Council Member Bechtel what she meant by "greater public access to the San Francisco Bay" and what her reasons were for destroying the Palo Alto Yacht: Harbor. He said Council Member Renzel :poke nonsense on the subject, and Council Member Klein maintained his stonewall of silence. He asked about the purchase of unnecessary fill material and why the Council barred the public from the use of •the Sea Scouts{ facilities. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9_,_1212 Council Member Patitucci submitted the following correc- tion: Page 58-400, third paragraph, last word, "description" should be "discretion." MOTION: Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Minutes of November 9, 1987, as cor- rected. MOTION PASSE unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Meter Klein roved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Consent Calendar. 1. THREE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH AUSTEN'S UNIFORM RENTAL AND LAUNDRY FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT LAUNDRY SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,164.30 (CMR:536:7) (1200) t,. 2. CONTRACT WITH GROSSMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR FACILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT AT _ REFUSE DISPOSAL CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF 126,979 (CMR:545:7) (1074) 3. ORDINANCE 3783.ENTITLED "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING SECTION 18.04.030 (147) (DEFI- NITION - YOUTH CLUB) TO TITLE 18 (ZONING CODE) AND ADDING YOUTH CLUB AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN PF DISTRICTS" (1st Reading 11/16/87, PASSED 9-0) (701-03) 4. FINANCIAL DATA BASE PROJECT - IMPLEMENTATION CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH TOUCHE ROSS AND COMPANY FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $80,000 (CMR:547:7) (270-U1) 5. MAYOR GAIL WOOLLEY RE CANCELLATION OF DECEMBER 14, 1987, CITY COUNCIL MEETING (701) MOTION PASSED unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Levy, to add National League of Cities Resolution No. 10 of the League's Finance, Administration, and Intergovernmental Relations Policy Committee to become Item SA. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Sutorius voting "no. o 5A. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES RESOLUTION NO. 10 REFERRED TO THE LEAGUE'S FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION/ AND INTERGOVERN- MENTAL RELATIONS POLICY COMMITTEE ENTITLED "STATEHOOD FOR WASHINGTON, D.C." (1540-08) Council Member Patitucci said the the Council Legislative Committee agreed it would be best to have a Council position on the National League of Cities Resolution No. 10 regarding Statehood for Washington, D.C., rather than having the dele- gate vote her position. MOTION: Council Meter Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, that the City Council take a position to support the National League of Cities Resolution No. 10. Council Member Fletcher said even though the resolution did not affect the City directly, she felt it important to sup- port other cities when such issues were brought to a vote of either the National League or the California League of Cities. It was not constructive that the majority of cities took no position. The issue had been raised many times in Washington, D.C., which was the one community in the country where, instead of passing local ordinances, every item had 59--38 12/07/87 to be passed as an Act of Congress. The government was inefficient and had no representation in Congress where laws affecting it were made. In turn, the citizens of Washington, D.C., had no vote on any national concern. They could not vote for the President and had no representation. The system was outmoded, and she urged her colleagues to allow a vote in favor of the resolution. Vice Mayor Sutorius voted against the motion to schedule the item oecause he 'believed that a voting delegate at a California or National League of Cities should only vote on matters where the Council had the opportunity to receive and digest the information, hear the recommendations of the Legislative Committee, and not handle things on an emer- gency basis. He would not want to cast his vote in favor of the motion with the limited amount of information and dis- cussion available. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Sutorius awed, seconded by Patitucci, to direct Palo Alto's delegate to the National League of Cities meeting to vote Palo Alto's position only on those issues where Palo Alto had previously taken a posi- tion. Mayor Woolley clarified the delegate would not vote on any other resolutions. Vice Mayor Sutorius said that was correct; abstention was entirely appropriate. Staff might have a comment or input and might endorse a particular position, but if the item had not come before the Council, the Council had not acted. The substitute motion spoke only to those items where the Council received substantially the same subject and had taken positive action on it, in favor or opposed. Council Member Klein was not quite in sympathy with either the substitute or main notion. The substitute motion Mothered him because it tied the hands of ;he delegates too tightly. The delegate should `, be bound by the general prin- ciples adopted by the Council but needed some discretion. In his .experience as a delegate, things changed on the floor, and people introduced amendments on which it was impossible for the Council to have taken a position. Vice Mayor Sutorius's points were correct, and the procedure followed that evening was. not appropriate. He had been troubled by the issue for a long time. The residents of the District of Columbia should .: be entitled to vote for some representative in Congress, but she District of.Columbia was different from any other - city in America, and they did not want a situation where the City Council of the new state did things in contravention of what the federal government had to do to conduct its affairs, particularly with relation to. foreign governments. Before he could vote tor Statehood for the District of Columbia or something similar, he would have to see specific wording as ta how it worked with regard to its relationship between that -entity and the federal govern- ment, and he did_ not see that in the subject resolution. He would vote "no," on the substitute and main motions. Council Member Levy said Council Member Klein reflected his feelings completely. The Legislative Committee felt that a change in procedures was probably called for, but that- it was inappropriate to raise the matter that evening. In fact, it was impossible without, giving prior notice and cone sideration as to how they,should change their policies and directions to the delegate, and they would do that in the future. However, the Legislative Committee, by a vote of 2-1, felt the direction given to the voting delegate should not be to vote in favor, and for that reason they wanted to. bring the one item where there was a difference to the Council. Council Member Patitucci said the City of Palo Alto had con-- isistent positions on about 12 or 13 of the 52. resolutions, so he had assumed the delegate would not be voting on them. A discussion was had of the policy questions involved, but the Legislative Committee did not feel the issue could be brought before the Council at the present 'time. 'The Legislative Committee did riot systematically review all the resolutions and Council Member Levy brought up the one in question where there was inconsistency among the three mem- bers of the Committee. The process was not perfect, but he would favor of the substitute motion and "no" on the main motion. Council MemberFletcher urged her colleagues to vote "no" on the substitute motion because the Legislative Committee would be dealing with the issue. She preferred to be given direct instructions on how to vote. She explained the pro- cess at the conferences was to vote on all the resolutions in unison, and to "pull off" the controversial ones.. In order to abstain, the Palo Alto City Council Member would need to pull off the majority of the resolutions for discus- sion, which would be cumbersome. She objected to the thrust of the substitute motion. Council Member Cobb asked if the, maker of the motion would be willing to give more discretion in the broad context of the policies the Council had taken. 59-40- 12/07/87 Vice Mayor- Sutorius saw a multiplicity of resolutions advanced by the same individual or association, and he found it difficult to accept a situation where the City of Palo Alto lent its credibility to each issue without having had the opportunity to read it. He had no difficulty with rewording the substitute motion if the majority of the Council was satisfied with the wording so the delegate would know and understand the Council's previous position on the generic subject and woul.i , support or oppose the issue accordingly; otherwise, he did not see a problem with an abstention and urged those at the conference to explore an easy way for an abstention to`be recorded. Council Member Renzel believed an unstudied change in the established practice at that late date would make it diffi- cult tor their delegates to assess whether to take positions, and Council Member Fletcher presented a good. reason why the Council should notbe attempting to tie her hands at that time. She opposed the substitute motion. Council Member Bechtel opposed the substitute motion. Over the year:, the Mayor selected a delegate for either the National League of Cities meetings, or the League of California Cities meetings, and the delegate used their best judgment to represent the Council. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO REWORD THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT THE DELEGATE WOULD ONLY VOTE IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY COUNCIL'S POSITION. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Sutorius, Cobb, Patitucci voting °aye. • SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, to instruct Palo Alto's delegate to the National League of Cities to express the concern of the Palo Alto City Council for the enfranchisement; of the residents of Washington, D.C., but that they were not prepared to vote on the Statehood issue at the present time. Mayor Woolley asked if it was possible for the delegate to do that. City Attorney Diane Northway.)elieved it was possible. If. the resolution stayed as it was, she did not necessarii.y believe their delegate could vote for it, If the resolution changed, or if an amendment was made along the lines of . the one expressed, the delegate would be able to vote for it. Mayor Woolley asked if there might be a possibility at the Committee level. Ms. Northway believed all the committees had probably met. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MAIN NOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Renzel, Bechtel, Fletcher voting 'aye.' MOTION: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Klein, to direct the delegate to abstain on Resolution No. 10. Council Member Fletcher asked if there was a change in the way the resolution came out of the committee process, if the delegate was still bound to vote no. Mayor Woolley clarified the delegate might not vote in favor. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Woolley, Cobb voting *no.# ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned to a Committee of the Whole in the Council Conference Room at 8:05 p.m. 1. THE USER FEE AND COST RECOVERY STUDY (CMR:546:7 ) .2. FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTION (CMR:543:7) Council Membgrs were asked to respond to the methodology proposed by staff for calculating cost recovery levels and goals, The methodology was designed to set.cost recovery levels appropriate to the type of service provided and the service reci ients. Cost recovery levels would be developed for .total City expenditures including direct costs, depart-- ment- overhead costs, indirect, and capital costs. The proposed cost recovery goals were viewed as preliminary long-term targets which might need revision as cost - accounting technique& improved and the departments analyzed the - ibpact of increasing fees to meet the targets. Council Members commended staff for the quality -and depth of the study and voiced general support.. for the proposed methodology. Council Members favored the concept, of approving cost recovery ranges, _ but also felt it -important that- Council continued to . approve the actual fees to be set each year' when the Municipal Fee Schedule was adopted. At_the conclusion of the discussion, staff' indicated they would, continue to -develop th details of the user fee structure, heeding Council .comments and concerns-. City Manager Zaner then presented the Five Year Financial Projection for fiscal years 1988-89 to 1992-93 and reviewed the assumptions used in developing the projections. He reminded Council that staff made the presentation annually. A new features in the year's projections was that the Utility Users Tax was included in the General Fund Revenues, and the General Fund Expenditures included the expenses related to the lease of school' -sites and increased infra- structure (streets and sidewalks) maintenance. FINAL ADJOURNMENT Final adjournment at 9:20 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: