Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-14 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUMCIL MINUTEs Regular Meeting October .14, 1986 CITY OF PAIC� ALTO ITEM PAGE Minutes of Septembei 15, 1986 7 7 5 0 1. Appointment of Mid -Peninsula Access Corporation 7 7 5 0 (M-EAC) Board Member Consent Calendar 7 7 5 1 2. Award of Contract for Uniform Fire Incident 7 7 5 2 Reporting - System Software Conversion Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 7 7 5 2 4. Finance and Public Works Committee Recommenda- 7 7 5 2 tion re Closing the 1985-86 Budget 5. Fiancee and Public Works Committee Recommenda- 7 7 5 3 tion re Gas Rate Change in Policy 6.. League of California Cities Annual Conference 7 7 5 6 Resolutions 7. Revised Rate Schedules for Palo Alto Landfill 7 7 6 1 8. Time Limits on Posting Political Signs on 7 7 6 9 Private Property 8A. (Old Item 3) Award of Construction Contract for Secondary Containment Facilities. Project and Increase of Change Order Authority Recess 7 7 6 9 7 7 7 U 9. Request of Mayor Cobb; and Councilmember 7 7 7 1 Patitucci re Arastradero Preserve Operations 10. Request of Mayor Cobb re Procedure for Evalu- ation and Compensation Review of Council Appointed Officers Adjournment t ► t 10:35 p.m. 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 8 7.7 4. 9 10/14/86 Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 14, 1986 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 (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Cobb announced a Closed Session re Litigation to discuss Cit of Palo Alto v. Pacific Indemnity pursuant to Government Code Section 54956(c) would be held at some point during or after the meeting. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 75; 1986 Councilmember Klein submitted the following correction: Beginning on page 7691, wherever the reference "That the City shall not be subject to out--o£-pocket costs with respect to the maintenance of John Marthens Lane," should read: "That the City shall not be subject to out -of --pocket costs with respect to the improvements of John Marthens Lane." VWTIOE s Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Woolley, approval of the Minutes of September 15, 1996, corrected. Councilmember Fletcher asked to be recorded as abstaining because she ways not present at the meeting. NOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-0-1, Fletcher 'abstaining,* Patltvcci absent. 1. APPOINTMENT OF MID -PENINSULA ACCESS :CORPORATION ( PAC BOARD !ice 4I-02) Mayor Cobb said Council held interviews the previous week. The applicants weres FEIN, Louis GREENWALD, Susan KEEGAN, Jeffrey M. KIESTER, Salty Valente LEWIS, William C. LOMOTEY, Kofi (Dr.) MACKENZIE, David S. G. MCKEE, Sandra 7 7 5 0 10/14/86 i OLCZAK, George OTIENO, Maren Murray SALDICH, Anne (Dr.) SCHWARTZ, Lee E. sTEELE, Jonathan WUNSCH, Kathryn S. Vice Mayor Woolley intended to vote for Anne Saldich, who was out of the country at the time of the interviews. Dr. Saldich had outstanding ; professional knowledge and experience in the field of public access and local origination. She authored a book, Electronic Democrac , had written many articles, and gave a lot of thoug t to the ree *ic :ship between government. and public access. On the local level, she was part of the earlier 1970s committee and had since followed it as a local issue. .She helieved Dr. Saldich had the organizational skills needed by M --PACs She acted as a mediator for Rental Housing Mediation Task Force, had been on the ground floor of organizing the Resource Center tor Women and most recently organized her own business. Dr. Saldich also had experience fund raising and knew how to contact people. She urged support for Anne Saldich. Mayor Cobb said he would vote for Mr. MacKenzie on the first bal- lot because he brought something new to the existing group of people on M-,pACe He was, impressed with Mr. MacKenzie's attitude and background. Should Mr. MacKenzie not be successful in the early► balloting, he would vote for Anne Saldich. FIRST ROUND OF VOTT N9 City Clerk Gloria Young announced the results' of the first round of voting: VOTING FOR MACKENZIE: Levy, Sutotie.s, Cobb, Klein, Patitucci VOTING FOR SALDICH: Fletcher, Bechtel, Woolley VOTING FOR WUNSCH: Renze1 Me, ;Young announced Mr. MacKenzie received five votes and was appointed. Mayor Cobb congratulated Mr.. MacKenzie and complimented the other fine applicants. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmersber tenzel removed Item 3, ►Award of Construction Contract for Secondary Containment Facilities Project and Increase. of Change Order Authority. 7 7 5 1 10/14/86 MOTION: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded .by Sutorius, approval of the Consent Calendar. 2. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR UNIFORM FIRE INCIDENT REPORTING -,SYSTEM SOFTWARE CONVERSION (270-02) (CMR:510:6) Staff recommends that the Council: Award the contract for conversion of the U. F.I.R. system softwet,e for the City .of Palo Alto to Diether Roth Associates and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract in the amount of $30,000; and o Authorize staff to execute change orders for unanticipated work or changes in the work effort to this contract up to the amount of $3,000. AWARD OF CONTRACT Diether Roth Associates MOTION PASSED unanimously. AGENDA CHANGFS, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager Bill. Zaner said Item 3, Award of Construction Contract for Secondary Containment Facilities Project and Increase of Change Order Authority, would become Item 8- - 4. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE CLOSING THE 1985-86 BUDGET (208.01) Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee Chairman Sutorius said the item was an annual, mandatory action. The Fiscal Year 1985-86 Budget was unaudited at present. The F&PW Committee examined each of the attachments associated with the ordinance. MOTION: Councilmea r Sutorius for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved that City COoncil adopt .the ordinance authorizing the Closing of the 1985.86 Budget, establishing reserves, and re- appropriating $3,369,648 into the 3986-87 Budget. ORDINANCE 3714 entitled *ORDINANCE or THE COUNCIL. or THIS CIrr or PA1 ALTO ADTHORI UI WG CLOSING OF THE BUDGET POR FISCAL YEAR 198S-86° MOTION PASSED unanimously. 7 7 5 2 10/14/86 5. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE GAS RATE CHANGE IN POLICY (1111) Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee Chairman Sutorius said earlier in the summer a change in the gas rate was implemented in accordance with existing Council policy to track PG&E gas rate schedules. At that time, through the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) regulatory processes, there was a retail gas decrease implemented authorized by the CPUC for PG&E to implement. Unfortunately, the implementing order lost sight of wholesale gas rates and the result was residential gas rates, which the City pursuant to its policy then tracked, became lower than the actual wholesale rate paid PG&E for the gas. Staff, and in particular Randy Saldschun, challenged the CPUC proceedings, and subsequently CPUC rectified the anomaly on a retroactive basis. The anomaly suggested to staff, and F&Pi' Committee concurred, that a modest change in the tracking policy was in order. They anticipated it would be an interim policy change because a thorough comprehensive review was going on at CPUC on the whole gas rate subject, the outcome of which was anticipated about January, 1987. . When tracking resulted in a retail rate below the City's wholesale rate, Lhe City could raise the applicable retail - rate to a level of five cents per therm above the City's wholesale rate. MOTION; Councilmember Sutorius for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved LiiQ City Council approve the resolution providing authority to the City Manager to track PG&E gas rates except when such tracking would result in a retail rate below the City's wholesaZe rate. RESOLUTION 6568 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF TSB CITY OF PALO ALTO PROVIDING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER TO EFFECT CERTAIN CHANGES IN GAS UTILITY RATES (SCHEDULES G-1 AND G° -5O) AMENDING RESOLUTION 6453' Cbuncilmember Renzel asked how the City knew which customers had the alternative fuel capacities, and was it easy for customers to be in a position of having alternative capacities. She was .con- cerned .whether the City could: be in a squeeze with customers saying they would switch if the City did not give them a lower price. She asked how flexible ;the situation was and whether -the City was reasonably protected. Director of Utilities Richard Young said alternative fuel capac- ities were the source of the problem for a major supplier such as PG&E, but the City had five or six large customers with. that potential and it was not a major situation. Alternative capac- ities involved physical changes of burner tips, etc., and- was a matter of- the mechanics of having the staff on board and the fuel oil in stock. Councilmember Renzel understood Mr. Young was not concerned that the City would be inviting itself to give a lower rate by announcing the policy. Mr. Young believed customers were reasonable. If the' policy became operating principle with the CPUC which allowed -that kind of price structure to continue, and the City had to make defini- tive policy changes on gas price structure, then the City could be faced with the problem, but not in the immediate future. Councilmember Renzel asked if the City would be in a different rate category from PG&E for wholesale purchase;, ii the major cus- tomers switched. Mr. Young said not as far as he was aware. Councilmember Renzel understood the gas utility was not a major money-maker for Palo Alto on the whole. Mr. Young said on the contrary, the gas utility was a significant source of funds for the City. Councilmember Renzel had the th ^' L .�u�.s..:voavi� see V i 6r iKatl paying 28 cents a therm and were tracking to price at that. Manager of Rates and Regulations Randy Baldschun said there were four years when the gas utility experienced deficits. .Since 1980 the City received rate relief and mese recently the August ,.deci- sion gave $2.8 million rate relief on an annual basis. Currently the gas utility was stronger than it had ever been. .However, on January 1 CPUC would restructure gas rates.. including wholesale rates. Staff did not know how they would view the end -use profile of Palo Alto in terms of the fact the City had fuel oil customers at a very low rate, and whether it was appropriate for the whole- sale rate to be higher. Staff believed Lite City would come out in fair condition. Councilmember Levy queried what the five cents a therm surcharge would amount. to if the wholesale rate dropped below PG&E's, and the City was going to charge the wholesale rate plus five cents .a therm. Mr. Baldschun said the five cents a therm was the contribution to the utilities fixed costs or margin. The five cents covered as a minimum the variable costs which were the wholesale rate. plus the gas losses unaccounted for in the system which were aboutone cent a therm. On an annual basis, the surcharge would amount to approximately $200,000, or a little less than $20,000 per month. 7 7 5 4 10/14/86 Councilmember Levy asked if there was presently a danger based on current CPUC policy, or if the CPUC would have to change its policy before there was a danger that the City would be in the bind described. Mr. Zaner said the CPUC would have to change its policies before the City ran into difficulties. Councilmember Levy clarified they were talking about a theory. Mr. Zaner said staff wanted to guard against the possibility that should the CPUC make a change, the City might, have to make a change also. If nothing happened, the gas utility was in good shape. Councilmember Levy asked how much_ the gas utility contributed to the General Fund the previous year. Mr. Zaner . said the transfer into the General Fund the previous year was on the order of $700,000-$800,000. Councilmember Levy opposed the new policy. He believed the old policy was appropriate, which was tracking PG&E retail rates and essentially not going above those rates. It would be unfair to the consumers Lo go above the wholesale rate. If the wholesale rate was above the PG&E rate that was one thing, but to go above the wholesale rate and then add the five cents a therm arbitrary figure was an improper disservice to the residents. Duritg those times --which apparently were rare and would take a change of CPUC policy ---when there was an adverse pricing situation, the City should not automatically adjust the rates but should consider the rates at that time. Recognizing the annual profit to the City from the gas utility was $700,000, the City could afford to absorb a difference of approximately $20,000 a month until Council caught up and dealt with the specific situation. They wer. 1: 1kina about a theoretical possibility which was very unlikely to occur unless CPUC changed its policy. Council should not have a policy adverse to the consumers when it was not required by any standing policy of the CPUC. The only part of the recommended policy he objected to was the five cents per therm' above the City's wholesale rate. A$UDNE*S: Couscilaeaber Levy moved, seconded by Renxel, that in the event of * rise in the Palo Vito gas utility funding which caused the utility to be above the automatic tracking mechanism, the policy be to raise prices to the level of the City°s wholesale rate rather than to a level of five cents ;our therm above the City's wholesale rate. Councilaeabcr Levy believed a policy of charging the wholesale rate would . be _ easier to explain to residents who presently expected to pay PG&E rates or lower. 7 7 5 5 10/14/86 Mr. Zaner said the amended motion would give staff no margin of operation in the gas utility. If rates rose to the wholesale rate and the City charged that amount, there were no funds available to run the utility itself. The City was in the exact situation some years ago Olen the rates paid and costs rose to the point where the General Fund was subsidizing the gas utility. It was an unsound way tc operate a business. They operated the business rather efficiently but needed a margin. The five cent pee therm addition was reasonable. Councilmember Sutorius reminded his colleagues that when the CPUC rendered a decision, it allowed PG&E to place the decision into effect within five days. It was the policy of the Council and accorded to the City Manager to take the necessary action to track. Beyond that, he associated himself with the comments of Mr. Zaner. Councilmember Renzel said when the wholesale and retail rates were the same, the City would also be obliged to offer competitive rates to the people who could convert to fuel oil. Several large users would get a competitive rate while residents' rates were higher. It would be unusual for the circumstance to occur for any length of time, and the difference should be absorbed. Councilmember Klein was amazed by the amendment which was contrary to sound business policy. As trustees of the community, they were charged with operating the utilities at a profit. From time to time that might not happen, as was true of any business organiza- tion, but Council should not deliberately set a policy which caused the City to lose money in a particular situation. He would vote against the amendment. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Renzel, Levy voting e.° MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Levy voting "'no." 6. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS (A2-06-02) 2--06-02) (CMR:514:6 ) Mayor Cobb said members of Council would attend the League of California Cities Annual Conference in Los Angeles the following week. A number of resolutions would be passed, and the City typically took a position on lasses presented to the conference by various cities around the State. A large number of resolutions was involved in the recommendation before Council. He suggested the item be dealt with on a consent basis, i.e., Councilmembers should remove for discussion any item they wished to exclude from the motion. / 15 6 10/14/86 e 1 Councilmember Bechtel agreed with all the recommendations'; how- ever, she asked to be recorded as disagreeing with the opposition to Proposition 65, Resolution 54. Councilmember Menzel concurred with the position of Councilmember Bechtel and wished to be recorded as voting "ono" on the position with respect to Resolution 54 which opposed Proposition 65. NOTI011r Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt staff recommendation endorsing the preliminary -recommenda-- tions of the League Policy Committee concerning Annual Conference Resolutions, with the following exceptions; 1. Approve Resolutions 13, 14, 28, 41, and 64; 2. Amend and approve Resolutions 4, 10, 39, and 60; 3. Disapprove Resolutions 17, 34, 44, 45, 54, and 65; 4. Take no action or position on 16, 30, 31, 32, and 33; and 5. Instruct the Council's voting delegate accordingly. Councilmember Fletcher removed Resolutions 17 and 34 for discus- sion and asked to be recorded as voting "no" on the recommendation regarding Resolution 54. Councilmember Levy removed Resolution 60 for discussion. Councilmember Klein removed Resolutions 4 and 13 for, discussion. Councilmember Sutorius added Resolution 26 for discussion. Resolution 13c The AIDS initiative Councilmember Klein was concerned that Resolutions 13 and 14 put the League on record as opposing Proposition 64, a position he str)ngly supported. but he found differences in wording between Resolutions 13 and 14 and guessed the League of California Cities would only support One. He found Resolution 14 far preferable, especially considering language in Resolution 13 asking the Attorney General to prepare a ballot title and summary, etc., when the ballot title -and summary were already prepared. ANESIDNINTI Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by levy, to direct the voting delegate to take no action on Resolution 13. AIIBDDIENT PASSED unanimously. 7 7 5 7 10/14/86 Resolution 41_ Liability Exposure for Park and Recreational Facilities. Councilmember Klein said while he would like to see the City limit its liability, he believed Resolution 4 was a remarkably sweeping statement. He understood the Resolution to say that if the City. posted the park or recreational facility indicating the City was not responsible for any injury, people used the facilities strictly at their own risk. He asked the City Attorney if that .. meant the City would post every facility. City Attorney Diane Northway said if the resolution were to .pass the legislature, obviously most cities would take advantage of such a proposal because they would substantially limit their lia- bility exposure and the amount of damages paid. There Was .a time recently that unimproved public property had the kind of immunity, but a recent- court decision took that away. She believed the resolution went beyond that particular case. Councilmember Klein was concerned that the resolution fell into the category•.of going too far and producing a backlash. AMENDMENT; .. Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Sutor.ius to direct the voting delegate to disapprove Resolution 4 and instruct the delegate to work with the League of California Cities to produce reasonable limitations on the potential liability of cities, counties, and school districts for the use of their parks and recreational facilities. . AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Resolution 60, Maintenance of Railroad Crossings Councilmember Levy queried staff's opposition to the second "Resolved,* which read that the League support legislation allowing use of assessment districts and public workers .for the purpose of maintenance, repair, and reconstruction of railroad grade crossings. Ms. Northway said the focus of staff's revisions to the resolution dealt with limiting liability exposure. While the City could sup- port funds to do the job, if a public agency provided those funds, staff would like to see the funds .turned over to the railroad with an agreement the railroad perform the work. If the City's workers performed the work, the City was subject to exposure for liability on a subsequent claim that the work was not properly done. Councilmember Levy asked if that included the concept of assessm- ent districts. 7 7 5 8 10,El4/86 Ms. Northway replied an assessment district had to be for a governmental improvement, unless there was an assessment law that could be passed to allow the railroad to do that itself without following it through a public agency, Councilmember Levy had no further problems with the resolution. Resolution 17, Communitx Services General Plan Element Councilmember Fletcher said Resolution 17 encouraged cities to adopt community service elements in their General Plans, and staff -opposed the resolution on the basis it might become mandatory. Palo :Alto dealt with the matter in its General Plan and .the reso- lution was only advisory. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Rensel, to direct voting delegate to support Resolution 17. &REMANENT PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Patitucci, Woolley, Cobb, Sutorius voting "no." Resolution 34, School. Financing Councilmember Fletcher said Resolution 34 encouraged legislation to increase funding for school :fistric ts, which evidently would go into construction not operatisns. She did not feel strongly Council should oppose the Resolution because:there were growing school districts which had a hard time supplying facilities for the students. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Bechtel, to direct voting delegate to fiupport Resolution 34. Councilmember Klein supported srsaff's position ,that Council dis- approve Resolution 34. School financing was a treacherous area, which Councilshould get into gingerly, if at all. It was ..inap- propriate for Council to disagree with Palo Alto's Superintendent of .Schools without delving into the meaning of the cloudy words in the proposed resolution. He did not believe Council had the depth of experience or expertise at the present time and should dis- approve or take no action on the. resolution. AMENDMENT • FAILED by a vote of 3-°4, Rsnssl, Bechtel, Fletcher voting 'are. Resolution 26, Waste -to -Energy Facility Councilmember Sutorius believed Resolution 26 was an example of a special interest resolution that the League of California Cities. would be irresponsible in approving. An existing waste energy 7 7 5 9 10/14/86 facility was in financ .al_ difficulty, and the resolution was an attempt for endorsement from the League of California Cities to the State legislature that the facility would make a good demon- stration project to fund. He opposed the resolution and encouraged his colleagues to vote against it. AREADM NT: Councilees er Sutorius moved, seconded by 'Klein, direct the voting delegate to disapprove. Resolution 26. Councilmember Fletcher was present at the Environmental Quality Committee meeting when the issue arose and Councilmember S-utorius' opinion was expressed. However, there was a growing trend towards building such facilities, and without exception there was local opposition because of emission and other problems related to burn facilities. The Environmental Quality Committee was persuaded by the argument that the project would truly research: operating methods to produce the least negative impact on the communities. A11 communities had the waste problem to deal with, and a good demonstration result could alleviate the reasons for opposition to such other facilities. She was heavily persuaded to support the resolution because they might be faced with the situation, in Redwood City. If thestudy found a way to deal with the negative impacts, they would all benefit. Councilmember Klein supported the amendment. An article in the Wall Street Journal detailed the number of waste energy facil- ities. He did not believe a demonstration project was needed given the number of units already in existence and _ the heavy involvement of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. Councilmember Renzel commented that each burn facility varied due to differing conditions, such as weather and refuse. A demon- stration project in California rather than elsewhere had a lot of merit because of a more like set of circumstances to the Bay Area. Councilmember Patitucci did not believe the argument wasp relevant because the climate of the Sierras was different from the climate of the Bay Area. AM& iD13f$T PASSED by a vote of 7-2, - Menseol, Fletcher voting "nee. MOTIO AS ARMED RESTATED TOs 1. Approve Resolutioes 14, 17, 2S, 41, and 64; 2. Approve sad awed Rear s o1 u t ioas 10, 3,, and 40; 7 7 6 0 10/14/86 i MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED TO; 3. =,Disapprove Resolutions 4, 26, 34, 44, 45, 50, 54, and 65 with Council embers Bechtel, Fletcher, and Rensel voting 'no' on the direction to the voting delegate regarding 54# 4. Take no action or position on Resolutions 13, 16, 30, 31, 32, and 33; and 5. Giving direction to the voting delegate accordingly. NOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Fletcher asked how staff envisioned the logistics of working at the Committee levels. Assistant to the City Manager Vicci Rudin intended to contact the League the next day with the suggestion. Council endorsed and follow up on arrival at the conference. Councilmember Fletcher asked for a written document for reference purposes. Councilmember Patitucci thanked staff for making the package com- prehensible.and easy for Council to make reasonable decisions. 7. REVISED RATE SCHEDULES FOR PALO ALTO LANDFILL (1072-01) (CMR:511:6) _. Director of Public Works David Adams said Council asked for pro- posed rate schedules for use of the Landfill prior to nonresident restrictions going into effect on November 1.. The proposed rates were based on what seemed reasonable considering wates in the area and -with an- -assumption that approximately 50 percent of the non resident and commercial revenues would disappear. If that assump- tion was good, the proposed rates would compensate for losses in revenue. The utility bill was used for several other idnntifica-a tion methods and was one :way a check could be put on who was using the. landfill. Staff would deal_ with individual cases as problems arose. Councilmember Renzel asked if the utility bill would have to be photocopied if people wanted to keep a copy and the original went to the gardener. Mr. Adams said that was one way, or the gardener could retu `n the utility bill after use. 7 7 6 1 10/14/86 1 Councilmember Patitucci believed the rate structure and intent were appropriate but asked for clarification on the mechanics. He asked if possession of the utility bill allowed the gardener to dump once or continuously. Superintendent, Public Works, Mike Miller said as the .gardener dumped at the landfill, the utility bill would be validated. Councilmember Patitucci asked how it wo:!.ld be known that the gar- dener was not dumping for several different jobs, possibly from outside the City, only one of which relinquished a Palo Alto util- ity bill. Mr. Millet., said there were loopholes with any system. Repeat business during the same day from the sane person would be sus- pect. Staff would take some of the utility bills with verifica- tion letters, check the residents, and see if recent work was done. Councilmember Patitucci asked if the names of the gardeners would be taken to develop a list of Palo Alto -qualified gardeners. Mr. Miller said the utility bill would be relied on and no list developed. Further checks would be made if abuse was found.` Councilmember Patitucci was also concerned with the language prob- lem as many gardeners did not speak English. Councilmember Bechtel had not '`expected such an elaborate system and asked if a composting area separate from the landfill was feasible. Mr. Miller said everything that came to the landfill must go through the toll booth. The cars had to be counted and the cash collected. To establish a separate area and differentiate between the loade doubled the work load. An area was set aside strictly for composting; after the fee was paid the vehicle was directed to the compost area. Councilmember Bechtel said a gardener theoretically could work 30 different properties a week, and asked if the gardener needed 30 utility bills. Mr. Miller said yes. Councilmember Bechtel believed the idea was good but could be a problem logistically. Mr. Miller said staff looked at alternative methods but few docu- ments could be relied on. 7 7 6 10/14/86 1 Councilmember Fletcher was also uncomfortable with the method. The language factor and recognizing most home owners were employed elsewhere' and not present when the gardener came could lead to a lot of confusion. She anticipated irate home owners calling on the issue. Many home owners wanted to keep their utility bills and copying them was an imposition. Mayor Cobb asked if it was really easier to use original utility bills as opposed to a permit vhich residents could provide to their gardeners. Mr. Miller said staff looked for a mechanism that was already available without establishing a new administrative procedure and new type of identification. Councilmember Renzel asked if it was expensive to use something like NCR paper for a utility bill so the home owner could provide something identifiable as an original to a gardener. Mr. Adams believed it would be expensive. He believed a Xerox copy would be accepted, and staff would get suspicious of dupli- cates of the same address. Councilmember Levy asked if compost materials were considered a benefit and other materials a negative. Mr. Miller said yes, the compost material was used to make a final planting cover for the landfill. Councilmember Levy assumed virtually all material a gardener brought in was of a compost type. Mr. Millet. clarified the plant debris that did not include acidics and succulents was acceptable, but other materials such as plastic Containers, cans, etc, were not. Staff was told to make an allow- ance for compost material. Councilmember Levy did not see an allowance for compost materials in the plan and asked if consideration was given to looking in the vehicle to see if the material was of a compost type or not. Mr. Miller said each load was inspected, and the determination was made a t the booth. Tom Gerber, 1224 waverley Street, did hauling work and said an average load was about five: cubic yards. At the current rate the load was $25, but at the new rate there would be a $10 differen- tial. Some haulers from Mountain View and southern cities could dump at lesser rates, and $10 made a difference in bidding on jobs.: The revenues to the . landfill would also be lost because of 7 7 6 3 10/14/86 competition. He asked that the rates remain at $5 per cubic yard. There was. a potential for problems with nonresident gardeners who would not want to dump at the landfill because. they could pay a lesser fee; therefore, he asked resident gardeners be differenti- ated from nonresident gardeners in the fee paid so resident gardeners paid $4 a load for compost materials: Brian Mauck, 2381 Middlefield Read, believed maintenance gardeners would put grass clippings in bags, deposit the bags in front of a Palo Alto residence, wich would end up in the landfill. Mr. Miller had, clarified his group would continue to fall under the resident's classification and go from $5 to $7 on landfill loads .and $3 to $4 on compost materials. He asked for clarification of the discussion in the staff report (CMR:511:6), which` said, "Resident and non-resident gardeners generating compostable mate- rial from work at Palo Alto residences would be included in the 'Commercial' category.'" Hal Roche, 1760 Channing Avenue, did tree work and generated more than the gardeners. His work was all in Palo Alto and •he gener- ated about 14 cubic yards a week. He was concerned about the residential commercial rate. If the rates rose to a point where it was not practical to dump in. Palo Alto, he would have to drive to where the rates were $1.75 a cubic yard for his type :of load. Mayor Cobb asked staff to respond to the questions raised by Mr. Mauck. Mr. Miller said Palo Alto had three classifications of gardeners: Nonresident gardeners who worked for residents; resident gardeners who had no business adr4ress, no identification on the vehicle, and everything registered to their private address; and commercial gardeners who had signs on the exterior of the vehicle, registered to a business address, and the license, etc., identified the vehicle as commercial. The City charged the residential gardeners $3 for compost materials. It was hard to track and impossible to identify if they were involved in commercial endeavors. They went to the landfill infrequently. The City could publish a clarifica- tion between the two differentiations for commercial versus a resident address. Councilmember Bechtel said the rationale for increasing the rate and making the usage more restrictive was that the landfill would run out of space after 1999. The plan would extend the life of the landfill a couple of years but not forever. An increase in fees was not unreasonable nor was Council being unreasonable by restricting usaQ,e to residents or to those who did residential gardening for residents. The method was_cumbersome, and she hoped staff would return to Council to refine or improve the method if there were problems after a few months. 0 NOTIO$si Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Woolley, to approve the staff recommendation to adopt the proposed rate schedules and revised customer classifications for the purposes of rate assessment at the landfill, effective November 1, 1986. Councilmember Klein queried a procedure whereby a nonresident com- mercial gardener applied for a licen..,e to dump in Palo Alto which required him to list who he worked for. Mr. Adams said such a procedure could be done but would take con- siderable staff time to set up. Staff believed the subject procedure could be done without any big new process, even though it sounded clumsy. Councilmember Klein was skeptical. He believed a lot of people hardly saw their gardeners, making it difficult for the gardeners to obtain .the utility bill. He asked how many nonresident gar- deners were in the category. Mr. Miller said from July 1 to September 30, 1986, the City received 324 cubic yards from nonresident gardeners. Assistant City Manager June Fleming said staff realized the pro- posal was rather cumbersome, but it was tha only proposal they could have ready to implement by the November 1, 1986, deadline. One alternative action would be to put the proposal in place, monitor it for two months to see how it worked, and report back to Council. In the meantime, if staff found another solution such as licensing whic?; would not piggyback on a system already in place, they could ask for a revision at that time. Councilmember Patitucci was sufficiently skeptical of the process to believe staff should start developing an alternative process. The proposal should be an interim step, and they should attempt to come up with a more permanent, cost-effective, and less cumbersome process in three months. He saw the problem with residents and the awkwardness of remembering the utility bill every month. Councilmember Levy was reluctant to implement the process on a two- or three-month basis because that would be disorienting. Mention was made that .324 cubic yards were collected from July 1 to September 30, 1986 from nonresident gardeners. He asked what the size was of a normal pickup truck. Mr. Miller said a normal mini pickup truck's capacity was about two cubic yards. For comparison, resident compost in the same period was 4,500 cubit.: yards. Councilmember Levy clarified 324 .bubic yards was between 100 to 150 trips into the landfill. He asked what percentage of the full year July to September represented.. 7 ? 6 5 1.0/14/66 Mr. Miller said about 25 percent. Councilmember Levy asked whether Palo Alto's fees would be higher than most of the surrounding landfills. Mr. Miller said yes for the nonresident rate structure. The resi- dent rate structure would be consistent with some landfills and higher than some. Councilmember Levy believed the problem was minor in terms of non- resident gardeners gardening out of town and using Palo Alto's landfill particularly with the new proposed rate structure. Council should adopt the new rates, but not attempt to distinguish out-of-town, nonresident gardeners who gardened in Palo Alto. There were so many loopholes in the process, Council should not get involved, particularly when it amounted to such a small vol- ume. Councilmember Fletcher agreed with Councilmember Levy. She asked whether the time frame was too short to educate the residents and gardeners. Councilmember Bechtel believed Council should move forward and not redesign the process. Staff could return if the process did not work. &MEI1DliSNT * Counc i laeaer Patitucci moved, seconded by Levy, to delete the Utility Procedure regarding verification of utility bills. Councilmember Patitucci believed two procedures were confusing. The people at the gate could probably recognize commercial opera- tors and no much would be lost. He did not want a procedure which had to be replaced. He wanted staff to come up with a bet- ter procedure. Councilmember Bechtel said under present policy, nonresidents could not use the landfill regardless of whether they 'worked for Palo Altans. If a person's gardener did not live in Palo Alto, he could not take a resident's clippings to the Palo Alto landfill. She believed the policy would present real problems, and the staff proposal was intended to meet the need of being able to serve the nonresident gardener working for a Palo Alto resident. She encouraged her colleagues to vote against the amendment. Vice Mayor Woolley agreed with Councilmember Bechtel. Staff had to carry out the procedure and she , rid not believe staff world deliberately set up a process which was hard for them to deal with. She suspected gardeners did not go to the landfill after they serviced each customer and they would not really need utility bills from each customer. It might not be nearly as difficult as Council feared. She was reluctant for staff to come up with . an alternative when the proposal was not evaluated. 7 7 6 6 10/14/86 1 Councilmember Sutorius said the staff report (CMR:511:6) indicated nonresident gardeners disposing of compost materials accounted for $5,400 of the $222,000 total revenue for fiscal year 1985-86. He asked if the $7 rate was in effect for the entire fiscal year. Mr. Miller said it started on September 2, 1985. Councilmember Sutorius said at $7 a cubic yard, it meant 771 cubic yards in an entire fiscal year. He asked if there was suddenly an increase in the amount of nonresidential gardener compost mate- rial. Mr. Miller said that was correct. Councilmember Sutorius was concerned about the dramatic increase. Mr. Miller said the landfill would go up to 1,296 cubic yards in 1966-87 with the figure annualized. Councilmember Sutorius was surprised to learn it way an increasing problem because it was contrary to what the rate increases should have caused and because many nonresident gardeners went across the Bay to get rid of their rubbish. He opposed the amendment because as he understood the main motion, there would still be a review of the process and procedure. He believed the City might find more grass cuttings and leaves bagged and left for PASCO pick up, which meant the City lost the compost material because itwould end up in the landfill and not in the compost area under present pro- cesses. It might also mean more material left in the street which added to the work of the street swee,sr. He believed it was appropriate to review the concept as experience was gained. SUBSTITUTE iNB1Dl E$Tz Councilmember Klein moved' seconded by Reaseit to allow nonresident gardeners to dump their material upon presenting acceptable proof to staff on a temporary basis until staff can work oat a more formalized licensing procedure, Councilmember Klein said prior Council action forbade those in the nonresident gardener category from using Palo Alto's facility. He wanted some mechanism whereby people in such categories could use the Palo Alto facility. He feared using utility bills, and pending staff's development of a licensing procedure, nonresident gardeners should be allowed to use the landfill by presenting any acceptable proof. Councilmember Levy believed nonresidents should be allowed to bring ; compost material to the dump. It seemed to be a minor prob- lem and by saying it was a growing problem, staff was multiplying the July to September figures by four which was not necessarily the proper method. It might be the use of the landfill during the 7 7 6 7 10/14/86 July to September was higher than the average for the remaining nine months. Nonresidents would probably not use the Palo Alto landfill unless they were serving Palo Altans because if they served others, they would use a landfill closer to those patrons. He would oppose the staff remmendation and if the revised cus- tomer classifications all failed, he would suggest allowing non- residents to use the landfill for ecmpcct aia Lerials. Councilmember Renzel supported the substitute amendment because it would allow a variety of possibilities which might serve the City's needs in the interim. Mayor Cobb supported the substitute amendment. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Woolley voting 'no." SUBSTITUTE NOTIONS Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Woolley, to eliainate the revised c:..,tomer classifications and allow aouresident gardeners to use the landfill for compost mate- rials et resident rates. Councilmember Fletcher said the problem then arose with gardeners who brought non -compost materials from Palo Alto resident gar- dens. Councilmember Renzel believed staff theuykt through many of the problems of the City's rate structure and how to limit usage of the landfill Nile allowing reasonable use to Palo Alto citizens whether directly or through their gardeners. By eliminating con- trols altogether, the City ran the risk of having the market elsewhere become more of a determinant as to whether people used Palo Alto's landfill. Council should be cautious. She opposed the substitute motion. Vice Mayor Woolley said as long as a fee was charged,_ for compost materials and the City wanted it to create topsoil fc r the landfil and it was not part of the landfill area, she did not see whether it mattered whether only residents used the landfill. She assumed other materials could either be taken along with the gardener to. another source or bundled and left with the resident. She pre- ferred to simplify the matter and not : get into licensing. She suspected a licensing program which had to pay for itself would cost gardeners more in the long, run because they would have to buy a yearly license and also pay the landfill fees. SUBSTITUTE MOTION:. FAILED by a vote of 3 i, Woolley, Fletcher, Levy voting 'aye.' MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED Isamu measly. 7 7 6 8 10/14/86 8. TIME LIMITS ON POSTING POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY (1064:01) Councilmember Levy asked about the legality of allowing political signs only for the period of time when the signs related to a can- didate or . issue ,which officially qualified for the ballot. City Attorney Diane Northway said if it passed federal muster, she was not sure it would pass in the state courts who were even more liberal in interpreting the First Amendment. There were no cases directly on point. Sh.e recognized other cities had such ordi- nances, but there were other cities which had fortune-telling ordinances which were now prohibited under the First Amendment. Peter Taskovich, 751 Gailen Avenue, believed political signs were a minor nuisance and staff's time was being wasted. Councilmember Fletcher clarified the City had an ordinance related to when political signs had to be removed after an cleetion. Ms. Northway said Section 16.21.60 required removal of signs in the special purpose category within six days after an election. HO ACTION TAXER 8-A.- (OLD ITEM 3) AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR SECONDARY CONTAINMENT FACILITIES PROJECT AND INCREASE OF CHANGE ORDER AUTHORITY CMR:513:6) (801-06) Councilmember Renzel asked if the Secondary Containment Facilities Project, CIP 86-04, and Contract 4504 were the same project. Senior, Engineer Jim Harrington said CIP 86-04 was \:a two-year project, and one contract related to a consultant contract wherein the design was prepared in yeah one which included the tanks; and, year two involved further design and construction, administration and ultimate conclusion. The other item referred to the award of a contract to do physical work. The contracts were generally funded by the same CIP although the CIP was funded over a two-year period. Councilmembez Renzel referred to the City's paying $12,000 for the coils investigation en the Winter Lodge property, and asked why it was not paid for by Mr. Peery. City Manager Bill Zaner said when the negotiations were underway, each party looked at the other's property to determine whether there were difficulties in the soil. Steff felt it was necessary to do a soils analysis on the property the City was about to acquire, which was a fairly standard practice. Mr. Peery did the same thing on the City's property. 7 7 6 9 10/14/86 Councilmember Renzel said since the project went outside the scope of work for the contract the City, had, she asked whether it was appropriate as an amendment to that t contract rather than being a separate budget amendment. Mr. Zaner said staff believed it was. It was the nature of the work done .by EMCOM Associates to do soils analysis and staff made use of the firm already under contract with the City for similar services. Councilmember Renzel was concerned that normally overrun authority was used for things within the scope of work of a contract and in the subject case, it was used for something new. Now staff was asking for something akin to a budget amendment for all the things that should have been included in the contingency portion of the contract. MOTION: Councilmember P.nzel moved to only increase the contin- gency for the change order authority for contract No. 4505 by the amount of $19,008 c. that anything beyond will return to Council. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Sutorirus, to adopt the staff recoamandation as follows: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the construction contract with Pleasanton Engineering Contractors in the amount of $230,000, 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract of up to $35,000; and 3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to Consultant Contract Mo. 4504 with the fir of BECON Associates of up to $31,oeo. AWARD OF CONTRACT Pleasanton Engineering Contractors I.HCEUSE Of CHANGE ORDER AUTHORITY TO CONSULTANT CONTRACT Me. 4504 Eaton Associates• MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Renzel voting *no.' COUNCIL RECESSED T0 A CLOSED SESSION RE LITI ION FROM 9 s 25 TO 9: peg., 7 7 7'0 10/14/86 1 9. REQUEST OF MAYOR COBB AND COUNCIi.MEMBER PATITUCCI RE ARASTRADERO PRESERVE OPERATIONS (1321-31) Mayor Cobb referred to a possible reconsideration of the larger issue of the youth hostel. He understood Councilmember Patitucci would, bring the matter to Council as a normally scheduled agenda item and any discussion would be preserved until then. Councilmember Patitucci said the City Council referred to the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee and staff the obligation to examine proposals by those people who favored the stables for operating the stables in a manner that would not cost the City any money,_ and in the pr. ;ess, some of the cost would be to pay for the necessary improvements to John Marthens Lane. From a previous staff report, it was clear the appropriatecost sharing between the stable users and the hostel siould be different had Council considered them both at the saute time. It waspreviously decided the hostel would operate and the stable would close; therefore, the improvements to the road amounted to $28,000 because only the hostel would operate. The incremental cost of $57,000 was the amount, necessary for the stable users to come up with. Had the decision been the other way around, it might have been that the stable users would have had $28,000 and the people "in the door last" .would have paid the $57,000. If the stable and hostel were to operate, once the stable people came forward with a feasible plan, the City also needed the P&P Committee and staff to examine the appropriate cost -sharing ratio for improvements to the road. MOTION TO R.EFERs Coua iieember Patitucci moved, seconded by Cobb, to refer the question of the cost -sharing tor the improvements to John Marthens lane to the P&P Committee and staff to be considered along with the proposals from stable operators for operating the stable as a break -e en .basis. Mayor Cobb said the City had a request from Mr. Willis, on behalf of . the Stable Committee, for a continuance. He asked if the motion was inconsistent with the request for a continuance. Mr. Zaner did not believe the motion was inconsistent --it moved the discussion to another venue at some later date. Vice Mayor Woolley understood the group of participants was coming up with another solution, and if Council passed the motion to refer, she .asked if consideration with staff would be limited to John Marthens Lane or whether it would be possible to consider another access road. Mr. Zaner we )d want more definitive direction from Council if another access was to be considered. 7 7 7 1 10/14/86 Sam Daram, 167 Rinconada, urged Council support of the hostel. Barbara Wein, Executive Director, American Youth Yeuth Hostels (AYH), said AYH worked on the proposal for three` -years and raised money to make the hostel possible. AYH put much effort into raising local support and dollars from individuals, corporations, and bicycle clubs. After the most recent meeting where Council decided on'the cost allocations for the road, AYH went to its Board, which approved an AYH allocation up to' $13,500 for: the improvements of the road based on Council's actions. AYH operated in good faith with the idea it had a commitment from the City upon which to raise dollars for the particular hostel site. AYH dili- gently pursued lease negotiations with staff. AYH was supposed to have an option to lease negotiated by June 1, 1986, which was now extended to .November 1.- AYH needed to negotiate the lease regard- less of what happened with the road, new accessway or with the current -John Marthens Lane. The present residents were vacating November 1, and AYH did not want the building left vulnerable to vandalism and wanted to put a caretaker in the building until the issues were resolved. AYH was trying to work with the horsemen to come up with a new possibility that would be amenable to the neighbors on the road and for. which both entities could come up with the money. AYH supported the request for continuance. Irving Besser, 1031 Hamilton, supported the youth hostel and believed it was unfair to require them_to. pay for the road improvements. He supported the continuance. hrtemas Ginzton, 28014 Natoma Place, Los Altos Hills, supported the continuance. She believed if access to -the house and the stables could be found which satisfied the neighbors-, it would provide a wonderful facility for everyone. Counci1iember Fletcher clarified discussions between the hostel and stable supporters were underway concerning the cost sharing regardless of the motion. Ads. Ginzton said yes. Agatha McDonald, 4231 Park Boulevard, supported the continuance. Larry Faber, 3127 David Avenue, said the letter from Mr. Willis was on behalf of a committee of the horse group, hostel group, and neighbors all trying to put together a plan that the City could euy into. Progress was being made, and he supported the continu- ance to December 15, 1986. 7 i 7 2 10/1.4/86 Susan Ivy, 1983 San Luis, 06, Mountain View, liked Councilmember Patitucci's motion, and believed the cost allocation between the parties should be based on a valid traffic count of the traffic generated and the use of the road. Presently, the barn traffic count was considerably less than the hostel estimates, but it was unknown whether the hostel traffic would be as extensive as pro- jected. It was clearly an issue which should be re-evaluated on the basis of traffic. She believed a reconsideration of the cost allocation was warranted. Mayor Cobb said he received a call. from Jacquie Brown of the Peninsula Conservation Center who also supported a deferral to December 15, 1986. Mayor Cobb asked how the December 15, 1986, date worked with the requirements of having a lease executed by a certain time. Ms. Northway said issues surrounding the December 15 date would be a part of the lease and until those things were finalized, the lease agreement could not be finalized. Mr. Zaner said Council • originally required the lease be completed by June, 1986, which. 'liras extended to November. The time for the lease to be completed would now need to be extended to December. Councilmember Pa titucci clarified Council opened the doors for the horsemen to make a proposal to operate the stable. The item was referred to the P&P Committee and staff, and staff was going to review proposals and return to Council around December 15. The motion said independent of any Committee proposal for cost -sharing or any advocate's proposal for cost -sharing, staff and the P&P Committee would take an independent look at what the formula should be. It was not an item worthy of continuance. It needed to parallel the staff's review of the horse and stable operator's proposals. Council had no proposal for any cost sharing formula. Mayor. Cobb clarified there were two potential actions --one was ` -to continue the decision in response to the request of Mr. Willis with respect to finalizing the formula so their negotiations could continue; and if Council so desired, to act upon the motion before Council. Councilmember Bechtel said the Council minutes reflected the pro- ponents wculd submit to staff within 90 days a report and after that, staff would have 90 days to review the proposals and forward them to the P&P Commi tte. It seemed the motion could be easily deferred until December 15, 1986. She would support any motion -to continue the issue and would. oppose Councilmember Patitucci's motions 7 7 7 3 10/14/86 Councilmember Fletcher asked whether it was feasible to ask the present tenants in the building to stay until the December date or whether there was some way to monitor the building and prevent vandalism. Ms. Northway said asking the tenants to remain in the building would violate the City's park dedication ordinance. Mr. Zaner sOd staft previously committed that if a lease was not signed by November, staff Would return for a security plan for the building. Councilmember Fletcher saw, no need for the motion. She preferred to see the . whole plan go to the P&P Committee after staff evalu- ated the proposal. In terms of the financial arrangements to pay for the roadway, it was part of the committee discussion. Councilmember Klein would not support the motion. He believed it was unfortunate Council did not stay within the boundaries of the agenda. He suggested Council leave the issue alone for the next few months. Vice Mayor Woa1 1 ee .anreed with the three previous speakers. The Committee was informal and could go about solving the problems without specific direction from Council as staff would require. She was pleased the three groups were working together. and Council should not interfere. To direct staff to do something when it did not know what the usage of the road would be would be a waste of staff's time. She supported the continuance. Councilmember Bechtel said staffimplied the lease with the hostel could not be signed until the road issue was decided. She queried whether they were related. Ms. Northway said part of what the people would agree to under the lease and the option was what amounts they would be paying. Councilmember Bechtel asked whether it could be an amendment to the lease. Ms. Northway said no because in order to have a valid agreement there needed to be a "meeting of the minds." Once a meeting of the minds was reached, it took another meeting of the minds to agree to chance it which meantboth parties hard to agree. One could not agree in advance to agree to something in the future. Ceuncilme er Sutorius opposed the motion. 7 7 7 4 1E0/14/86 1 Councilmember Levy opposed the motion. He believed the allocation Council arrived at a few weeks ago should be re-examined, but did not believe there was anything to be gained by re-examining it with a special staff report during the next few weeks. He would be of an open mind on or after December 15 because both the hostel and the stables were useful contributions to the t'ommunity and neither should be given special priority over the other. Council should develop a fair share arrangement and should ask each con- stituent to pay on a fair basis. Councilmember Renzel concurred with her colleagues who opposed the motion. She concurred in Councilmember Klein's admonishment that Council leave the matter alone while the groups worked and not change the rules under which everyone was attempting to make their plans. It was unfortunate it was at the City's end that the agreements. with the Youth Hostel were delayed. There was a prob- lem with having the building empty and needing security people to guard. Council ambivalencecreated some of the problem and she hoped the solutions to come out of the group would be amenable to all parties. Mayor Cobb initially supported the motion because he also ques- tioned whether the allocation was fair. He believed the alloca- tion was unfair to the stable users and wanted to see it reviewed. He was also unhappy with the City's contribution. It was. clear from the .discussion that all parties involved believed they could work •out an equitable settlement without Council involvement. .He retained a personal concern that all parties should pay their own way without any further City contribution. He would not support the motion because it: was clear none of the parties believed it was needed, otherwise h2 would have supported it. MOTION !'AILED by a vote of 1-8, Patitucci voting "lye." Mr. Zaner said no motion to continue was needed. The organization was to submit a report to staff within 90 days and staff had .90 days from then to review and report back to the P&P Committee. Councilmember Renzel said although staff could administratively move the. November 1 deadline for lease negotiations to be com- pleted, she -believed i.t would be helpful if Council was more explicit in the record so there was no doubt. MOnall _ Councilmember 'easel Wowed, seconded by.: Bechtel, to extend the deadline for negotiating a lease until March 15, 1987 Councilmember Patitucci asked about the purpose of having a dead- line. 7 7 7 5 -. 10/14/86 1 Mr. Zaner believed it was an attempt to put all parties on notice that negotiations had to go forward in good faith and be com- pleted. One could leave the date open, but it was sometimes bet- ter- to have a deadline to urge people to move toward it. Councilmember Patitucci asked whether there was also a deadline for raising funds. Mr. Zaner said yes. It was originally in June but extended to November. Councilmember Patitucci asked at what point someone was held accountable for ability to meet the established criteria. He asked whether Council was vitiating a previous action. Ms. Northway said Council was not violating any previous action. until the City was ready to proceed and made its decisions about how to fund the road, the City did not have an agreement with the other party to come up with any funds or start making improvements and there was no need for them to have the coney. Councilmember Patitucci clarified by extending the deadline, Council also extended the period of time to raise funds. Councilmember Sutorius clarified a report would be received by staff no later than December 15, 1986, and staff had no longer than 90 days to return through the P&P Committee process. If the negotiated final lease was tied to the same date, Council would not have had the proposal to see what staff and the hostel should agree to. Councilmember Renzel agreed. She did not know how much time would be needed after resolution of the other issue. &BCONO TO LION WITHDRAWN B; COUWCILNEMBER BECRTEL *OTIO $IBB FoL '.YCt or A MOND NO "ACTION Ta►tou 10. RE TEST OF MAYOR 0013E RE PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION AND COMPEN- SATION R WF COUNCIL APPOINTED OF,FICERS W5-01) NOTIONs ila yor Cobbmoved, sect by Bechtel, to adopt " the following policy for evaluative and . compensation revive of Council appoiated,offloers$ 7776 10/14/86 MaTI0 CONTINUED POLICY_STATEMENT The purpose of this policy is to establish uniform procedures for evaluation and compensation review for the Council Appointed Officers. The City Council may hold a Closed Session at any time to evaluate a Council Appointed Officer. However, for the pur- poses of an annual evaluation and compensation review, the proce- dures will be as follows: PROCEDURE The Council shall meet during the period June 15 to July 31 each year with each Council Appointed Officer for the purposes of an annual evaluation and compensation review: a. Unless specified otherwise, the meeting with the City Manager shall be scheduled in a Special Closed Session meeting on a separate night from the Council meeting during the first or second week in July. b. Unless specified otherwise, the meetings with the City Attorney, City Auditor, and City Clerk shall be scheduled in a Closed Session prior to and/or after the City Council meeting on the second Monday of the month of July. c. The Council shall meet in a Closed Session dnrin4 = the period of January 1 to February 15 each year with the City Manager for the purpose of a aid -year performance evalu- ation. 2. The Mayor shall be responsible for preparation memoranda summarizing: (1) the review evaluation; compensation adjustment for each Council Appointed copy of the written memoranda shall be presented the Council Appointed Officers within one week appraisal meeting. of written and (2) the Officer. A to each of of hfe,'her 3. Unless specified otherwise, conpeasaticn adjustments shall bed effective with the pay period including the beginning of the cerrent fiscal year. 4. The PersOmnel Directu►r shall be responsible for notifying the Mayor of the appropriate evaluation and Aompensation rr view periods per the aforementioeed. 7 7 7 7 10/14/86 Councilmember Renzel said July was after the beginning of the fis- cal year and she queried the timing. Mr. Zaner said Council Appointed Officers were . generally reviewed after the beginning of the fiscal year because it allost�ed Council to complete the budget and to resolve negotiations with the repre- sented employees before dealing with the Council Appointed Officers, which generally went into late June. Vice Mayor Woolley believed the policy.was an excellent idea. Councilmember Bechtel also agreed with the policy guidelines. Councilmember Levy asked if it was legal to have the Council Appointed Officers evaluations done in Closed Session or whether there was any responsibility for any kind of public participa- tion. Ms. Northway said evaluations were traditionally regarded as between the employees and their immediate supervisor. Those were always considered to be confidential unless the employees at their option chose to make them public. Mayor Cobb believed the guidelines would formalize a process,. which needed to be •formalized for the Council and .for the Council Appointed Officers. NOTION PASSED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10:35 p.m. ATTEST; City .'erk . APPROVED: