HomeMy WebLinkAbout5_27_2003 - Council MinutesAPPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 10,2003
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
OF A REGULAR MEETING May 27,2003
The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on May 27, 2003 at 4:30 p.m. in a
Regular Meeting in the Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.
4:30 P.M. SESSION
1. OPENING
1.1 INVOCATION
Given by Reverend Ginny Erwin, Trinity Episcopal Church
1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Councilmember Alvarez
1.3 ROLL CALL
PRESENT - Ambriz, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche ABSENT -
None (Councilmember Alvarez left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.)1.4
PRESENTATlONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS The Council
wished Mayor pro tern Cavecche a Happy Birthday.The following
employees received Employee Recognition Awards Kelly Melugin -
Finance; Barbara Messick - City Manager; Tom Thomas - Police (not present); Gary Nelson - Police (not
present); Dale Eggleston - Fire; Jack Thomas -Fire (not present); Bill Mertz - Water (not present)
Mayor's Achievement Award was presentedto Victoria Campbell,
Library Assistant at the Taft Branch Library, as recipient of a scholarship
from the San Jose State University's graduate School of Library and Information Science
for 2002-03.Proclamation honoring "A Better Hearing and Speech Month"
for the month of May was presented to Mary Jo Hooper, Executive Director of
the Providence Speech and Hearing Center.Mayor Murphy announced the City had received
correspondence
from the Director of Kinesiology and Athletics at Witworth College acknowledging the
improvements to the playing fields at Hart Park.2. PUBLIC COMMENTS -
None.PAGE 1 1-'
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and are enacted by one motion
approving the recommended action listed on the Agenda. Any member of the City
Council, staff or the public may request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar
for discussion or separate action. Unless otherwise specified in the request to remove an
item from the Consent Calendar, all items removed shall be considered immediately
following action on the remaining items on the Consent Calendar.
3.1 Declaration of City Clerk, Cassandra J. Cathcart, declaring posting of City Council
agenda of a regular meeting of May 27, 2003 at Orange Civic Center, Main Library
at 101 N. Center Street, Police facility at 1107 North Batavia, Shaffer Park,
summarized on Time-Warner Communications and available on the City's
Website www.cityoforange.org, all of said locations being in the City of Orange and
freely accessible to members of the public at least 72 hours before commencement of
said regular
meeting.ACTION: Accepted Declaration of Agenda Posting and authorized its retention as
a public record in the Office of the City
Clerk.3.2 Request Council Confirmation of warrant registers dated May 1, 8,
2003.ACTION:
Approved.3.3 Request approval of City Council Minutes, Regular Meeting of May 13,
2003.ACTION:Continued to June 10,
2003.3.4 Consideration to waive reading in full of all ordinances on the
Agenda.ACTION:
Approved.3.5 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report for the period ending April 30,
2003.ACTION:Received and
Filed.
AGREEMENTS 3.6 Settlement Agreement between City of Orange and Level 3 Communications,
LLC.SUMMARY: In October 2000, an Agreement was entered between the City of
Orange and Level 3 Communications, LLC. The Agreement called for Level 3 to install a
fiber optic conduit for the City along Tustin Street. The City agreed to pay for the cost of
the material in the amount of $61,510. Due to various financial situations, Level 3 failed
to complete the agreed work, and failed to convey the conduit and fiber to the City. As
a result, Level 3 now agrees to dedicate the incomplete work to the City at no cost.
A Settlement Agreement is presented herewith for the approval of the City
Council.PAGE
2
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
ACTION: Approved the Settlement Agreement and authorized the Mayor and the City
Clerk to execute on behalf of the City.
FISCAL IMP ACT: A cost saving to the City in the amount of $21 ,935 can be realized.
3.7 Award of Environmental Consultant Services Agreement to SCS Engineers for the
former Union Pacific Railroad Property Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II)
and remediation plans and specifications.
SUMMARY: It is recommended that the City approve an agreement with SCS Engineers
in an amount not to exceed $63,500. This agreement authorizes the Consultant to
perform field sampling and testing to prepare an Environmental Site Assessment (Phase
II) and remediation plans and specifications. This project is funded by a grant from the
Environmental Protection Agency via the Brownfield's Economic Redevelopment
Initiative.
ACTION: Approved an agreement with SCS Engineers in an amount not to exceed
63,500.00 and authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute on behalf of the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program and
available in the following account:
510-7021-485100-0147 $127,794.91 Railroad
Property Geotechnical Study 3.8 Approval of plans and specifications for the ultimate widening of
Glassell Bridge at the Santa Ana River in connection with the City of Orange
bridge barrier rail
replacement project (SP-3240).SUMMARY: Use of Orange County Flood Control District'
s Santa Ana River Environmental Enhancement Fund (SAREEF) requires local agency
approval of the plans and specifications prior to award
of the construction contract.ACTION: Approved the plans and specifications for the
construction of Glassell Street Bridge Widening over
the Santa Ana River.FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. Funds have been
previously
appropriated for the project.3.9 Agreement between the County of Orange and the City of
Orange for Provision of Gang
Prevention and Suppression Services.SUMMARY: Since 1991, the City of Orange and the County of
Orange have entered into yearly agreements that have provided the City with the services
of a full-time Probation Officer specializing in gang prevention and suppression.
The Probation Officer works in conjunction with the Police Department's Gang
Unit to
provide
supervision
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
enforcement of court orders for minors and adults on probation under the existing policy
of the Orange County Probation Department and Superior Court. The proposed
Agreement is for the period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004.
NOTE: Councilmember Ambriz abstained on this item due to an employment conflict.
ACTION: Approved the Agreement between the County of Orange and the City of
Orange for Provision of Gang Prevention and Suppression Services in the amount of
97,293; and authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement on
behalf of the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: There are sufficient funds budgeted for Fiscal Year 2003-2004
in account number 100-4032-426700 (Gangs-
Other Professional & Consulting Services).3.10 Second Amendment to Consultant Services
Agreement with Bender Engineering,Inc. for Maintstar software support for City'
s Maintenance Management System.SUMMARY: The City purchased Maintstar, a computer software program
for the City's Maintenance Management System (MMS) to plan,
organize, analyze and improve maintenance operations in the Public Works and
Community Services Departments. The initial purchase included various software components,
data conversion, training and software support through September, 2002. The proposed
amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement provides for annual support from October
2002 through June 2003 for software
upgrades and technical support.ACTION: Approved the Second Amendment to the
Consultant Services Agreement with Bender Engineering, Inc. in the amount of$18,052.75 and authorized
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute on
behalf of the City.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of$18,052.75 are
available in account numbers 100-5001-426700 ($12,752.75) and
100-
5011-426700 ($5,300) - Professional Services.APPROPRIATIONS 3.11 Appropriation of funds
received from Metro Cities Fire Authority (Member Specific Account) (
Continued from May 13, 2003 Council meeting.)SUMMARY: Request an appropriation of
funds received by
Metro Cities from the Member Specific account.ACTION: Approved request
for appropriation of funds as follows: 100-3021-427800-
2400 (Metro Net Communications) corrected to $64.334.37 FISCAL IMPACT: None. The City of
Orange received a check for $83,881.27 from Metro Cities on January
28,2003
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
3.12 CLAIMS
SUMMARY: The following claim(s) have been received and investigated by the City
Attorney's Office and/or the Risk Manager. After a thorough investigation with the
involved departments, it is the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office that the
claim(s) be denied.
a. Liana Cronin
b. Thomas Edward Finn
c. Carolyn Flippen for Danielle Dymond
d. Phil Glasgow
ACTION: Denied Claim(s) for damages and referred to City Attorney and Adjuster
CONTRACTS
3.13 Amendment No.2 to two flood control system improvements Contracts between the
City of Orange and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) under the
Cooperative Projects Program.
SUMMARY: Amendment No.2 extends the term of the original contracts in order to
allow the City to satisfy all terms and conditions of the original contracts.
ACTION: Approved Amendment No.2 to the contracts between the City of Orange and
the Orange County Sanitation District and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute the Amendments on behalf of the City.
FISCAL IMP ACT: None.
3.14 Award of Contract - Bid No. 023-29; Project No. D-138; Orange County
Sanitation District (OCSD) Cooperative Project - Hartman Street/Fletcher Avenue Storm
Drain Improvements from Hartman Street to Channel No.5 at Fletcher Avenue.
SUMMARY: The bids were opened on April 10, 2003. Fifteen (15) bidders responded to
the invitation for bids. The apparent low bidder is Mladen Grbavac Construction of
Arcadia for $495,290.00. The Engineer's Estimate is $577,273.00, which is 16.55%
higher than the low bid.
ACTION: 1) Awarded the contract in the amount of $495,290.00 to Mladen Grbavac
Construction and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of the City.
2) Appropriated $90,000.00 to Account No. 550-5011-483300-5339
and amended the revenue budget Account No. 550-5011-264500-
5339 to reflect Orange County Flood Control
District contribution towards project construction costs.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted and will
be available upon appropriation in
the following
Capital
Improvement
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
Hartman StreetIFletcher Avenue Storm Drain Improvements (D-
138):
530-
5011-
483300-5339
530-5011-
483400-5339 550-
5011-483300-
5339 Drainage
Districts Drainage
Districts OCSD &
OCFCD Reimbursable
Total Funds 80,000 202,000 389.000 671,000 3.15 Award of Contract -
Bid No. 023-36; Project Lundquist Lead Based Paint Removal SUMMARY: City Council
approval is required to complete the final phase of the Lundquist rehabilitation
project to remove exterior lead based paint and paint the residence at 133 S.
Shaffer Street. Upon completion and inspection of the lead based work by the contractor the job will
be turned over to the owner to complete final painting of the residence. The City agreed to
pay for this work
as part of a settlement agreement entered into in 2000.ACTION: 1) Awarded a
contract in the amount of $36,784 to Total Environmental Industries
Incorporated, 11040 Rose Avenue, Fontana, CA 92337, and authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute
on behalf of the City; and 2) Approved an additional not to exceed amount of $
15,000 to
resolve all City obligations under the settlement agreement with
Lundquist.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available
in the following account:740-1412-433100 $51,784 (Liability Claims Paid)3.16 Award
of Public Projects Contract - Bid No.
023-34, The Asphalt Replacement at various locations for fiscal year 2003-04 SUMMARY:
The bids were opened on April 24, 2003. Five (5) bidders responded to the invitation
for bids. The apparent low bidder is
Hardy & Harper, Inc. of Santa Ana,for the total of $216,700.00.ACTION: Awarded
the contract in the amount of $216,700.00 to Hardy & Harper, Inc.of Santa Ana, CA
92705 and
authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are anticipated to be available in fiscal year 03-
04 Water Operating Fund Account 600-8041-474501. The total bid amount is
based upon an estimate of 12 months of expenditures. Funding
is recommended from fiscal year 03-04 budget.
Expenditures averaging $
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
RESOLUTIONS
3.17 RESOLUTION NO. 9730
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange consenting to the designation of
certain portions of Glassell Street and Bridge within the City of Orange as a County
highway for the purpose of construction improvements.
Location: Glassell Street and Bridge (Bridge No. 55C0069) from Riverdale Avenue
northerly, approximately 857 feet, to City/County boundary limits.
ACTION: Approved.
3.18 RESOLUTION NO. 9736
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange expressing appreciation to
Corporal Brance Skipper of the Orange Police Department and commending him for 35
years of loyal and dedicated service.
ACTION: Approved.
3.19 RESOLUTION NO. 9743
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange expressing appreciation to Laura
Hooks of the Orange Police Department and commending her for thirty-four years
of loyal and dedicated
service.ACTION:
Approved.SPECIAL
EVENTS 3.20 Request for temporary suspension of permit parking restrictions within
Permit Parking Area D and G for a special
event.Request to temporarily authorize on-street parking on the west side
of McPherson Rd. between Spring St. and Pearl St. (adjacent to Grijalva Park at
Santiago Creek)for a
special event.SUMMARY: The Community Services Department will host the annual July
3'd Celebration at El Modena High School's Kelly Field. Due to anticipated
attendance it may be necessary to park in the surrounding residential neighborhood adjacent
to the stadium, which restricts on-street parking
except by Permit.ACTION: Approved the request of the Community Services Department
and suspend the permit parking restrictions within Permit Parking Area D and
G, and temporarily authorized on-street parking on the west side of McPherson Rd.
between Spring St. and Pearl St. on Thursday - July
3'd, 2003.
FISCAL IMPACT:
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
MOTION - Alvarez SECOND -
Cavecche AYES - Ambriz,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Item 3.3
was continuedto June 10, 2003. Councilmember Ambriz abstained on Item 3.9.Item 3.11
was approvedas corrected. All other items on the Consent Calendar were approved as re
commended.END OF CONSENT
CALENDAR 4. REPORTS FROM
MAYOR MURPHY - None.5.REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
TAPE 480 5.1 Mayor pro
tern Cavecche - Update on Assembly Bill 1221 Mayor pro tern Cavecche provided
an update on Assembly Bill 1221, sponsored by Assemblymen Steinberg and Campbell, and
the impact it will have on cities in Orange County,especially in Orange. AB 1221
calls for cities and counties to swap a portion of the local sales tax for an equal amount
of property tax. It would cut the sales tax the city gets from 1 % to Y, %and would backfill an equal
amount using Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAP)which was taken from the
cities in the early 1990's for the school districts.Orange's property tax rate,
plus the ERAP backfill would become Orange's base for calculating further property taxes. The fiscal
impact of this depends entirely on how the property tax base and sales tax base grows
for the future. This is supposed to prevent cities from competing with large retail developers and provide
incentives to build more housing. Historically, statewide sales tax is more volatile
and statewide property tax grows faster. However, this is not the case in the City of Orange,
or in most cities in Orange County.The City's Finance Department
has done an analysis on this, and there is about a 2% increase in property taxes versus 4% in
sales tax. The Finance Department has calculated out the impact in five years if this would
pass, keeping the numbers equal. There is a potential general fund loss of about $4.4 million
in five years. Using 1991-92 as a base year, calculated forward to 2003-04,there would have
been a $27 million hit to the general fund balance if this had been put in place back then.This
bill could
have incredible problems for the City of Orange and for most cities in Orange County. One issue
that could cloud this is the Redevelopment Agency. Redevelopment Agencies limit the
growth of property tax above what that base level is. The money goes to the Agency rather than
the General Fund. There are development agreements with several developers such as
The Block and The Village at Orange, and it could hurt that business. This legislation also has
not taken into consideration the Poole litigation currently underway in Orange County regarding
property taxes.PAGE 8
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
AB 1221 does nothing to solve the big picture problem - which is how well communities are financed
and the potential for the state government to take away more revenue from the cities.The
bill is moving ahead in a fast pace in Sacramento. It was voted out of Local Government and
voted out of the Revenue and Tax Committee and will be voted in the Appropriations Committee
on May 28th. Orange has commitments from two Assembly members representing Orange
who sit on the Appropriations Committee, Assemblywoman Dauscher and Assemblyman Pacheco,
who have both guaranteed a No vote in that Committee.This
legislation has received endorsements from both the Orange County Register and the Los Angeles
Times. Although there is a need to assist the State budget to implement fiscal reform, a piecemeal
approach could cause more harm than good.Mayor
pro tern Cavecche further reported Mayor Murphy has written letters to all of Orange's representatives
in strong opposition to this bill and the City's Finance Director has done a great deal
of research on this and is continuing to follow this. The League of Cities is also following this;
and Mayor pro tern Cavecche wanted the community to know that the Council is very proactive
in following this legislation as it could have major implications to the City. This bill may
come out of the Assembly, but it is hoped it will be killed in the Senate.Councilmember
Alvarez asked if a financial impact study has been done in terms of what this means
to the City and asked what the League of Cities is doing on this bill.Helen
Bell, Finance Director, reported the city's property and sales tax consultant prepared a program
in which each city can put in their own assumptions, which is what they used to arrive at
the numbers discussed. Some cities will benefit from this, but some cities will not.Mayor
pro tern Cavecche reported this bill has become the number one bill that the League of Cities
is looking at. Statewide, if averaged out, property taxes are moving faster than sales tax.But
this is not the case in Orange County, except for just a few cities. The City has been talking with
the League of Cities on how this will hurt the cities in Orange County. The League is asking
for a constitutional guarantee. But even a constitutional guarantee from the Assembly is subject
to an overthrow down the road.Councilmember
Coontz clarified the author of the bill is Assemblyman John Campbell; and asked
if the state has zeroed in on a specific date to determine the transfer amount, which can affect
the amount because of the current economy.Ms.
Bell reported the date developed as the base year is very important, because there can be different
results based on each year. The assumption that the consultant used was the 2002-03
fiscal year, but nothing has been cast in concrete at this time. This also does not give cities time
to prepare, because currently many cities are investing large amounts of money to attract large
sales tax producers.
PAGE 9
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
Councilmember Coontz clarified an article about Redevelopment, which implies that cities went
into Redevelopment to capture sales tax, which is really not the case. Apparently, this is another
effort to affect sales tax.
Mayor Murphy stated it seems unfortunate that the state is trying to upset the balance of what has
been working for years to try and penalize a few cities. Trying to legislate rather than providing
incentives is not the correct way to go; and he wished the state legislature would allow local
authorities to handle local issues.
Councilmember Ambriz noted the property tax distribution is inequitable throughout the State.
Mayor pro tern Cavecche reiterated that the City is following this, noting this will change the
way cities look at land use and how money is budgeted.
TAPE 870
5.2 Councilmember Alvarez -Update on Palmyra Avenue Traffic Mitigation
Councilmember Alvarez reported the residents on Palmyra between Prospect and Yorba have
been working with the City to alleviate traffic problems. There have been several Traffic
Commission hearings, meetings with Staff and two community meetings. One of the residents is
a Traffic Engineer who conducted an analysis of what the neighborhood looked at.
Councilmember Alvarez submitted the analysis and asked staff to review this analysis and retum
to Council with a final report on what can be done on Palmyra.
6. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS
6.1 Accept resignation of Mark J. Burkhardt from the City Traffic Commission,
effective May 19, 2003 and instruct the City Clerk to begin Maddy Act regulations.
MOTION - Murphy SECOND -
Alvarez AYES - Alvarez,
Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche ABSTAINED - Ambriz Moved
to accept the
resignation of Mark J. Burkhardt from the City Traffic Commission,effective May 19, 2003,
and instructed the City Clerk to begin Maddy Act regulations.7.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS TAPE
950 7.1 First Amendment
to Consulting Services Agreement with Jones & Stokes Associates to provide consulting services
associated with preparing an Environmental Impact Report for developments proposed for
Santiago Hills II and East Orange.PAGE 10
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS (Continued)
SUMMARY: The City Council previously approved a Consulting Services Agreement with
Jones & Stokes. At that time, it was understood that the cost proposal that was submitted by
Jones & Stokes would need to be refined as project details and environmental and legal factors
were evaluated in greater detail. Extensive meetings have been held with relevant participants in
the process and a revised scope of work has been prepared to reflect the anticipated work that
will need to be performed.
Discussion
Stan Soo Hoo, Planning Manager, reported the original contract was approved by the Council
with the understanding that the scope and cost were preliminary only, and subject to more work
being done, looking at various issues with more specificity and subject to receiving the
development application from The Irvine Company. A great deal of work has been done and the
application has now been submitted, resulting in a revised scope of work and cost proposal.
Staff is recommending a base contract of $630,874, plus $69,126 in contingencies to address
unforeseen issues, for a total of $700,000. He noted The Irvine Company has been advised of
this additional scope of work and will be paying for all expenses of this agreement.
Mr. Soo Hoo introduced Margaret Sohagi, special legal counsel, who has been working on this
project and a very well respected attorney in the area of environmental law.
Councilmember Coontz commented she understands the increased scope of this contract. The
City has developed more questions about EIRs, some as a result of legal action; and once the EIR
is out, there will probably be other questions that will need to be addressed within the scope of
the contract. She asked ifthere is a possibility of additions to the contract.
Mr. Soo Hoo stated there may be additions to the contract, which is why Staff is asking for the
contingency amount.
Councilmember Coontz stated this is how people get into the project, through the EIR process;
and it is very protective of everyone involved so there can be preparation for what may happen.
she supports this and appreciated the detail in the report.
Councilmember Alvarez stated, for the record, he was the lone No vote on this original contract.
He said that in reviewing the bids that were looked at, had the Council waited until this point, the
bidding process would have been much more on a level playing field. This is like building a
house, like asking a contractor to build a house, but not showing them what is going to be built,
and then allowing added costs at a later date. This is a large addition to the bid; however, staff
has done a good job on the report in breaking out the different costs that have been generated and
the reasons for adding more money. He stated this probably will not be the end of these changes.
Councilmember Alvarez stated the Council has had no input on what has been proposed by The
Irvine Company. When the City looked at the original East Orange Plan, there were a lot of
community groups and a lot of input as to what was going to take place out there. Essentially,
PAGE 11
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27,2003
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS (Continued)
that plan has been thrown away, because now it is three different phases, as opposed to what was
done in the past. The Council needs to take a real hard look at implementing a series of study
sessions that would allow this Council to look at the plan as it begins to move, so there can be
input. It is important that the Council have input into this process, on what they would like to
see that part of Orange look like ultimately. Input from the Council is important; and before
more change orders come along, the process needs to be fully understood.
Councilmember Alvarez asked about the policy in approving change orders, especially since
Orange is not paying for them. The City has a fiduciary responsibility to make sure the money is
spent in a timely manner and in a manner that will bring a conclusion to the project. He would
have liked to see something in the report about the give and take between how thee City is
monitoring the money and the change orders. There is going to be a lot of input as the EIR goes
out and people start to respond, and there may be a lot of changes that will create more expenses
for The Irvine Company. The City has a responsibility while spending The Irvine Company
money.
Councilmember Alvarez asked what will happen to the EIR as the Council begins to look at it.
One of the problems is traffic, as there is no eastern outlet for the traffic. If the Council asks for
this to be looked at, this will create more changes to the EIR and another change order.
Councilmember Alvarez asked for a chart outlining all the people involved and the flow of
information, so the Council can see who all the different players are and who reports to who. He
also asked if the EIR will be much bigger than it is today if the City adds to the scope of work.
Alice Angus, Community Development Director, reported staff will be putting together a list of
everyone involved, including staff, The Irvine Company representatives and consultants. Study
sessions have also been initiated. There was a kick-off meeting held at Chapman University
and another one scheduled for June 17th There will also probably be other change orders and
the magnitude will depend on how the project
evolves.Ms. Angus further reported, with regard to Jeffrey Road, The Irvine Company is not looking
to delete Jeffrey, so the EIR will analyze Jeffrey with no change to the master plan. Although it
is part of their proposal, they are not planning to build that extension, assuming the traffic
study shows it is not warranted. There will be alternatives considered as part of the
environmental,with a preferred project and then alternatives. Staff looks at that in terms of both
existing conditions, existing plans, what is being proposed and alternatives to it. Staff is going
through that analysis with The Irvine Company and Jones & Stokes in terms of fine tuning those
issues.TAPE
1565 Councilmember Coontz stated the City needs to move ahead with the EIR. This is part of
a process. The EIR is done first, then public comment on the EIR and then as the Council
begins to look at the plan, more questions and perhaps add-ons to the consulting contract.
The Council also has to make a commitment to study it so when there are presentations, the Council
has a complete understanding. It takes a lot of work to go through a project like this. She
agreed there
PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS (Continued)
needs to be study sessions, but they need to be helpful to the Council, with a commitment by the
Council to read the material ahead of time. There does not need to be a lot of pictures, but rather
an understanding of the guts of the EIR and what affect it has. The Council needs to understand
the process a little more and she agreed a timeline would be helpful. The scope is so large
because today, people can use an EIR to prevent development. Every effort is made to add to the
EIR, noting that some additions have never been included in EIRs before, but are added just to
protect the situation.
Councilmember Alvarez stated there needs to be checks and balances on how much the City can
ask in the contract, even though The Irvine Company is paying for it; there needs to be a balance
on what the City wants versus the needs of the applicant.
Ms. Angus reported the City is in constant communications with The Irvine Company on the
type and degree of studies. The contract does have an upper limit and staff scrutinizes
everything before signing off anything.
The City Attorney noted the contract is between the City and the consultant, which provides
checks and balances.
Mr. Soo Hoo pointed out the City controls the EIR process. Staff communicates with The Irvine
Company about the direction of the process, but the applicant does not have any say on the
environmental review. The City is the only one directly dealing with the consultant and although
The Irvine Company is paying for the consultant, Staff does monitor the contract and the money
very closely.
Mayor pro tern Cavecche stated it is more important that the process be done correctly, no matter
how much it costs the applicant; and asked if The Irvine Company has given the City a
maximum limit on the dollar amount that can be spent.
Mr. Soo Hoo stated The Irvine Company has not given the city a maximum dollar amount that
can be spent.
Mayor pro tern Cavecche stated she was originally critical about the proposal, but agreed to it
based on information gathered from other sources; and she knew there would be changes to this.
Jones & Stokes was chosen for their ability, not necessarily because of the cost. She brought up
the traffic study on Jeffrey and wanted to make sure the EIR did incorporate a traffic study done
with a corridor out of that area running into Irvine. She stated the Council needs to look at the
EIR analysis versus the issues, which can sometimes be different subjects. They can overlap
sometimes, but they need to be kept separate if possible. She also agreed that briefings are
necessary and suggested a separate briefing with Jones & Stokes in order to get a handle on what
Jones & Stokes is doing in the EIR process so the Council is more comfortable with the process.
PAGE 13
T---
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
7.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS (Continued)TAPE 1950
Councilmember Coontz stated there have been some large EIRs in the past and there did not
seem to be enough time to review them. The Council needs background and understanding and
an opportunity to study the issues. The Council needs to be prepared and take the responsibility
to read the material ahead of time.
Councilmember Coontz spoke on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, which she brought up at
the Eastern Transportation Corridor. Even though it is a sideline, it definitely affects not only the
City of Orange, but Tustin and Irvine. The Council needs to know exactly what the situation is
for the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and how it fits in on a timeline basis with The Irvine
Company development.
Councilmember Ambriz stated Staff has done an excellent job in communicating the process and
the reason for the changes. He also acknowledged The Irvine Company for their efforts in
educating the public. He expressed concern about micromanaging the EIR process and the
Council needs to rely on going ahead with this, give the City Manger some discretion, get the
EIR completed and then have the comments processed and get into more specific details.
Councilmember Alvarez complimented staff on a great job; and again expressed the need for
study sessions where the Council, as a group, can discuss the project, provide input and get a
handle on the information.
Public Comments
Bob Bennyhoff, Orange Park Acres, requested the residents of Orange Park Acres and East
Orange be kept informed, as they are the ones most affected.
Mayor Murphy asked staff if the 40% adjustment was a surprise or just the nature of the process;
and if staff has a good handle on what is still not known. He asked about the contingency, if
there will be more changes and if the City can move forward or is this still somewhat of a
moving target. He wanted to ensure that the analysis is complete and issues are identified.
Mr. Soo Hoo stated a combination of factors created the increase in the contract, and after
looking at everything, staff was not surprised by the additional amount. The $700,000 should
address any foreseeable and even some unforeseeable events, but there is no guarantee on this.
MOTION ~ Alvarez
SECOND - Ambriz AYES -
Ambriz, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche PAGE 14
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS (Continued)
ACTION: Approved First Amendment to Consulting Services Agreement with Jones & Stokes
Associates. The original agreement was for an amount not to exceed $497,066. This First
Amendment to that Agreement will increase that by $202,934 to an amount not to exceed
700,000 ($630,874 base contract, plus $69,126 for contingencies with expenditure subject to
approval of the City Manager); and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said
Agreement
FISCAL IMP ACT: Since this work is related to a land use development proposal, the applicant,
The Irvine Company, will fully pay for the services rendered under this Agreement. There will
be no fiscal impact to the City.
7.2 Report from the Economic Development Director regarding 206 N. Manchester.
SUMMARY: In January 2003, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors
approved a Cooperation Agreement that provided for the sale of City-owned property located
at 206 N. Manchester to the Redevelopment Agency for $770,000. Since the approval of
the Cooperation Agreement, an updated appraisal was conducted that opinioned the fair
market value of the site to be $900,000. The amended Cooperation Agreement reflects the increase
in the purchase price for the conveyance of the
property.See ORA Minutes Item No. 7.
1)Mr. Rick Otto, Sr. Housing Manager, provided a report. The amendment is being requested
to reflect the updated price of the
property.Councilmember Coontz noted Set Aside Funds are being used for housing and wanted to
ensure the Council will be kept informed about possible projects for this
property.RESOLUTION NO.
9734 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving an amended
Cooperation Agreement between the City of Orange and the Orange Redevelopment Agency relating to
the sale of certain real property located at 206 N. Manchester Street to the Orange
Redevelopment Agency; and making certain
findings.MOTION ~
Alvarez SECOND - Murphy
AYES - Ambriz, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved
to adopt Resolution No. 9734; and transferred $130,000 in Set-aside Funds to Account
No. 941-9800-485802-9880 (Housing Set-aside - Manchester
Housing Project) [AGENCY]FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available for this project in the
Housing Set-aside Fund for the additional $130,000 appropriation. In January 2003, in conjunction
with the approval of the cooperation Agreement, $770,000 was appropriated from the
Housing Set-aside
Fund and
Housing
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27,2003
8. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - None.9.
LEGAL AFFAIRS TAPE 2580 9.
1 ORDINANCE NO. 5-03 (SECOND READING)
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Chapter 5.18 of Title 5 of the
Orange Municipal Code pertaining to requirements for park dedication and the payment of fees
in lieu thereof; and renumbering said Chapter 5.18 as Chapter 16.60 of Title 16 of the Orange
Municipal Code.
MOTION - Coontz SECOND -
Cavecche A YES -
Ambriz, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved that Ordinance
No. 5-03 be read by title only and same was approved and adopted by the preceding vote.
9.2
ORDINANCE NO. 8-03 (SECOND READING)An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Chapter 17.14 of the Orange Municipal
Code in order to comply with a new state law regarding the development of accessory second
housing units.MOTION -
Cavecche SECOND - Ambriz
AYES - Ambriz, Mayor
Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche NOES - Alvarez Moved that
Ordinance No. 8-
03 be read by title only and same was approved and adopted by the preceding vote.Councilmember Alvarez
voted No
to stay consistent with his previous vote on the First Reading on the Ordinance.9.
3 ORDINANCE NO.
10-03 (SECOND READING)An Ordinance of
the City Council of the City of Orange adding Chapter 3.40 of Title3 to the Orange Municipal Code
pertaining to requirements for the payment of park facilities fees as a condition of approval
for certain residential development proj ects.MOTION - Coontz SECOND -
Alvarez AYES - Ambriz,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy,
Coontz, Cavecche Moved that Ordinance No. 10-03
be read by title only and same was approved and adopted by the preceding vote.PAGE 16
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
9. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued)
9.4 ORDINANCE NO. 11-03 (SECOND
READING)An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange adding Chapter 3.50 of Title 3 to
the Orange Municipal Code pertaining to requirements for the payment of Library Facilities Fees
as a condition of approval for residential development
projects.MOTION - Coontz
SECOND - Ambriz AYES -
Ambriz, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved that
Ordinance No. 11-03 be read by title only and same was approved and adopted by the
preceding vote.9.
5ORDINANCE NO. 13-03 (SECOND READING)
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending Chapter 16.40 of the Orange
Municipal Code Relating to Grading Requirements.
MOTION - Cavecche SECOND -
Alvarez AYES - Ambriz,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Moved that Ordinance
No. 13-03 be read by title only and same was approved and adopted by the preceding
vote.10. RECESS
TO THE MEETING OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 11. RECESS
TO CLOSED SESSION The City
Council recessed at 6:00 p.m. to a Closed Session for the following purposes:a. Conference
with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6:City Negotiator:
Personnel Director Steven Pham Employee Organization:
Fire Association b. To
consider and take possible action upon such other matters as are orally announced by the City Attorney,
City Manager, or City Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess indicates any
of the matters will not be considered in Closed Session.7:00
P.M. SESSION 12.PUBLIC
COMMENTS TAPE 2725 Dorothy Stewart,
address on file, on behalf of Keep Orange Clean, spoke in support of enforcing all code
violations throughout the City.PAGE 17
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
13.PUBLIC HEARINGS TAPE 2840
13.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2442-03, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
269-03,MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1714-
03 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - CITADEL PROPERTIES
ORANGE, LLC:Time set for public hearing to consider a proposal to construct two medical
office buildings totaling 217,000 square feet, a 1,089 space parking structure on property that is
presently vacant and to allow the shared use of parking between two properties; and a Development
Agreement to allow phasing of project construction to occur beyond the time period allowed in the
City's Zoning Ordinance. The project is located at 1000 W. La
Veta Avenue.Note: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1714-03 has been prepared for
this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
per
State CEQA Guidelines.Alice Angus, Community Development Director, provided a report on the
project, noting the proposed Development Agreement is for a 15 year period. In exchange for
approval of the Development Agreement, the applicant is proposing to list the City of Orange as
the point of sales for all purchases related to construction and tenant improvements, which will
create a sales tax benefit for the City. The applicant will also pay the City the portion of
secured property tax that would go to the City for three years upon completion of Phase 1, since
the property may become exempt from property tax because St. Joseph Hospital is a
non profit
corporation.Council Ouestions Councilmember Alvarez asked if the parking would meet code requirements if only
Phase 1 were built; and asked when the parking structure would be built. He also asked
about the owner giving up the property taxes for the
three year period.Ms. Angus reported Phase I includes construction of the first medical office
building, a 233 space surface parking lot and shared use of parking with the Pavilion Medical
building. Phase II includes a second office building and a 9 level parking garage. If only Phase I
were built, there would still be a need for shared parking with the Pavilion. The parking structure is
part of Phase II which could be built anytime in the 15 year period. With regard to the
property tax issue,even if the property owner is a for-profit organization, it depends on who
they would lease to,and the value of that portion of the building leased to non-profit
groups would normally
come off the property rolls.Councilmember Coontz asked about parking and ingress/egress. She
noted there was a reference to a Traffic Management Plan, but did not see anything specific. She
is very interested in traffic management, especially since the applicant plans to use shared
parking with the Pavilion for temporary parking while construction is going on. The parking at
the Pavilion can be confusing and inadequate, and is concerned about the friendliness and
accommodation of the people who will be using those facilities. This is very important and should
not be
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
also reference about a valet service and asked for more details on that; and if the Council is able
to tie the development to any proposed ideas. Signage is important, especially during
construction; and asked what the parameters are for the entrance and exit off La Veta for
construction purposes.
Ms. Angus noted Condition No.7, on Page 4 of 9 in the Planning Commission Resolution, states
that prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, Citadel shall submit a parking plan to
the Community Development Director and Traffic Engineer for review and approval. The
condition then summarizes what is to be designated in that Plan. Signage will help to direct
pedestrians and vehicles. With regard to the secondary entrance access point, this is not just for
construction, but also for project traffic, which was included in a traffic study that was done and
reviewed by the City. The Traffic Management Plan has not been submitted, but there is a
condition of approval that the applicant submits it for review and approval. The condition states
the Plan shall address on-site circulation, pedestrian pathways and location and number
of parking spaces. The condition does not specifically address valet service, but that is part of
the
proposal.Mayor pro tern Cavecche expressed concern about the shared parking with the Pavilion as
there is not adequate parking at the Pavilion currently; and asked if the Council can require
additional parking for Phase I if Phase II never gets built. She asked what the parking deficit would be
if Phase II were not built. She also asked about the median on LaVeta and if it is
physically possible for traffic going west on La Veta to turn into the building or if traffic will be making a
u-turn at Pepper
Street.Ms. Angus reported the studies indicated there is adequate parking with the proposed
surface parking lot and using the Pavilion structure. The surface parking lot and shared parking result
in a total of 434 spaces. If only the surface parking lot were used, which is 233 spaces, that
would result in an approximate 45%
deficit.Harry Thomas, Public Works Director, stated there is a left turn green arrow at Pepper and
u-turns are generally not prohibited, unless there is not adequate width. The existing median is
a painted median and is a two-way left turn lane at the present time. It is not proposed to
build a raised median, but it will be striped as a non-traversable painted median
with signage. The design of the driveway includes a channelized island that restricts the ability to
make left turns either
in or out.The City Manager pointed out the parking problem may be a result of
the Pavilion
Building being overparked.Councilmember Alvarez asked about the street improvements on LaVeta and ifit
is sufficient to handle this new project; and asked about the freeway
on-ramps and off-ramps.Mr. Thomas reported there is additional widening on LaVeta from
the freeway to Batavia that needs to be done, but at this particular location, there is no more
room for
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
The 22 Freeway total project is $436 million; $206 million available from Measure M. There
will be a minimum operating segment funded with that $206 million, which extends from the
Main street ramps to Brookhurst. The City is widening part of the on-ramp atLa Veta and
the State will complete that portion; and the City has also proposed the State widen the off
ramp.Councilmember Ambriz stated he has never had a problem parking at the Pavilion, noting
there is currently two parking structures. He also clarified that the widening of the 22 Freeway
will have no impact to this
project.MAYOR MURPHY OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING TAPE
3790 Mr. Paul Kells, representing Applicant, St. Joseph Health System, 1100 W. Stewart, reported
the upper floors in the Pavilion parking structure are usually vacant; and the 202 shared
parking spaces will be designed for employees, freeing up spaces for patients and visitors on the
lower floors. Valet service is important and being considered; but the main intent is to provide
valet service during the interim construction period while the parking garage is being built. They
are also making great efforts to provide signage to connect all parking
areas.In response to questions by Councilmember Coontz, Ms. Angus pointed out Condition No.6
in the Planning Commission Resolution requires a review of a final sign
plan.Councilmember Coontz expressed concern about the lack of specificity on the Parking Plan,
that the condition in the Planning Commission Resolution is somewhat general; but that the
specifics will be reviewed by
Staff.Roy Shebazian, Orange, submitted information about St. Joseph Health System being one of
the largest employers in Orange County; a map of the route between the train station and
this project; and the Orange Municipal Code Section regarding the Transportation
Demand Management Program, which calls for certain facility improvements and operational programs
to be incorporated into projects like this. He asked that these facility improvements and
operational programs be approved by City
staff.Mayor pro tern Cavecche asked the Applicant what kind of programs are in place for
rideshare and mass transit
strategies.Mr. Kells stated St. Joseph Hospital does have existing rideshare programs and they will work
to implement all conditions to meet City
obligations.Mayor pro tern Cavecche asked about the elevators and what kind of mechanical systems will
be used; as one of her concerns is mechanical systems being shielded on top of
buildings.Mr. John Hussey, representing Developer, stated in Phase I the elevator will be hydraulic and
in Phase II there will be a parapet that is eight feet higher than the roof, so the equipment will
not be seen. The HVAC will be units on the roof with high
screens.PAGE
20
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
MAYOR MURPHY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING
The City Attorney noted that if the Council approves this application, there is a provision in the
Orange Municipal Code requiring that for any proposed Development Agreement that is
applicable to a project within a Redevelopment project area, there must be a recommendation
from the Redevelopment Agency; so any approval should be conditioned that this item be placed
on the Redevelopment Agency agenda.
Council Comments
Councilmember Coontz asked about the traffic issues being addressed in the traffic management
plan.
The City Attorney indicated conditions should be outlined as conditions of approval instead of in
the Development Agreement.
Councilmember Alvarez asked if the Council could bring the Development Agreement back for
review ifthere is a need to address parking or traffic issues.
The City Attorney indicated this would have to be negotiated as part of the agreement and
included as a re-opener
clause.MAYOR MURPHY RE-OPENED THE
PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Murphy asked the Applicant if they would be willing to entertain such a clause
in the Agreement to come back for review of parking and traffic issues if Phase II
were
not constructed.Mr. Kells stated they have an interest in providing adequate parking for patients
and employees.They would entertain some mechanism or discussion and their preference would be
as they submit building permits and through the existing processes. Building it into
the Development Agreement would require further study as to what the implications
may be.Mr. Paul Watkins, Counsel for the Applicant, stated there is an existing clause in
the Agreement,Section 10.(a), that allows the Community Development Director to review
the Agreement annually in order to determine whether or not the Developer is in compliance with
any specific term of the Agreement. He asked if this gives the City the flexibility it wants;
as reopening issues may defeat the purpose of
the Agreement.Councilmember Coontz stated a condition also needs to be added regarding the
Traffic Demand Management Program; and placed as Item D under Condition No. 7 in the
Conditions
of Approval.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued
The City Attorney stated Section 10 of the Development Agreement does not give the City the
ability to require the Developer to add parking.
Ms. Angus suggested a condition could be added to the Conditional Use Permit to have the
project return to the City and reevaluated a certain number of years after completion of Phase I to
evaluate the parking and traffic issues.
Mr. Kells stated Phase I construction should take approximately two years, but there is no
certainty regarding the timing for Phase II; and stated they will agree to a condition added to the
Conditional Use Permit.
Mayor Murphy suggested a condition be added that five years after completion of Phase I the
Conditional Use Permit be reviewed for adequate compliance for parking and traffic on site.
The City Attorney noted the Resolution will need to come back for approval and can include the
additional language.
The City Manager pointed out the five year time period does not prohibit the City from bringing
a problem to the attention of the Applicant for them to work on prior to the five year time limit.
MAYOR MURPHY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.TAPE 5120
Council Comments
Councilmember Alvarez appreciated the fact that Staff has worked so well with the Applicant.
The City needs to support St. Joseph, as they add prestige to the City and it is important to allow
major companies like St. Joseph to expand. He complimented the design of the building and
supported the proj ect.
Councilmember Coontz stated the Council is always very much aware of traffic and parking
issues and they always need to be looked at very closely.
Mayor pro tern Cavecche complemented the architect and supported the expansion of the
hospital; and agreed with the added conditions and the Traffic Demand Management Program.
Councilmember Ambriz spoke on the good work the hospital is doing in the community.
Mayor Murphy complimented the design of the building and looked forward to a continued
partnership.
PAGE 22
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Council Action
MOTION - Coontz SECOND -
Ambriz AYES - Ambriz,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Approved Conditional Use
Permit 2442-03, with the added Condition D of submitting the Transportation Demand
Management Program to the Community Development Director for approval; and
with the added Condition E to review the project five years after a certificate of occupancy has
been issued for Phase I; such added conditions to be added to the Resolution.MOTION - Coontz
SECOND - Alvarez AYES -
Ambriz, Alvarez, Mayor
Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Approved Major Site Plan Review
269-03 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1714-03 as outlined in Planning
Commission Resolution No. PC-15-03.MOTION -
Coontz SECOND - Alvarez
AYES - Ambriz, Alvarez,
Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche Approved the Development Agreement
by and between the City of Orange and Citadel Properties Orange LLC as
outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-18-03.Councilmember Ambriz
thanked Roy Shebazian for the information he submitted. He also asked staff to
research the street names of Stewart and Pepper and what it would take to possibly change Stewart
to St. Joseph Way and change Pepper to CHOC Way. He also asked Staff to research a
left turn signal on Main Street at Stewart.NOTE: The
Council recessed at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m.NOTE: Councilmember
Alvarez left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.13.2
SANITATION RATE MODIFICATION TAPE 5600 Time set
for public hearing to consider adoption of adjusted and restructured fees for the provision of
City sanitation services. These services consist of sanitary sewer maintenance,street sweeping,
street tree services, storm water quality management, solid waste management and recycling.
Mr. Harry
Thomas, Public Works Director, explained this is not the County Sanitation Fee. That fee is
a fee that is collected on the property tax bill for sewage treatment. The City Sanitation fee has
been in place for many years with the last adjustment in 1999. The portion of the Sanitation Fee
related to street trees will not change as it generates sufficient revenue to cover PAGE 23
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
the cost of the Street Tree Maintenance Program. However, the balance of the fees need to be
addressed. One issue has been escalating costs for items related to water quality, which are
driven by the permit requirements under the Clean Water Act. Another element is the need to
improve equity of the cost distribution to allow customers to have some control over their cost of
service. Smaller users are not expected to see much of an increase and larger users will take on a
larger amount of the cost. It will also give users the ability to opt out on services that are not
provided such as street sweeping or sewer services. This is a much more fair and equitable
system than the current system. With the proposed rate structure, the residential sector will be
paying about 64% of the cost as opposed to 62.7% currently.
Mr. Thomas stressed the importance of the preservation of water quality. He also stated there is
an annual shortfall in revenue for next year estimated at about $1.2 million. If the proposed rate
structure is approved, the City would raise about $780,000 in next fiscal year with the balance
from reserves because the rates would not be implemented until October 1st. In subsequent
years, the full amount of $1.2 million would be raised.
Council Ouestions
Mayor pro tern Cavecche asked about this being an enterprise fund, noting the $1.2 million
deficit and the fact that this fund is basically going bankrupt. She also noted many of the
programs and mandates are required to be put into place; therefore, the City is required to
provide a higher level of service with a fund that is going bankrupt.
Mr. Thomas stated most of the funding comes from the Sanitation fees collected on the utility
bills, plus the bus shelter revenue and a small amount of revenue raised from permit fees issued
for sewer connections. The deficit is running at about $100,000 per month, and with no change
in the rate structure, there would be a deficit in 2004.
MAYOR MURPHY OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING
THERE BEING NO SPEAKERS, MAYOR MURPHY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING
Council Comments:
Councilmember Coontz complimented the Public Works staff on a great job. This process has
taken many years to balance the goals and mandates in an equitable manner. She indicated a
letter had been received from the Apartment Owners Association complimenting the Public
Works staff, particularly Harry Thomas, Bob Von Schimmelman and Jamie Herbon.
Mayor pro tern Cavecche agreed staff has done a good job with this rate structure, and
appreciated the fact that it is equitable and seems to fix many of the inequities and possible legal
challenges.
Mayor Murphy stated this is really a market change. In enterprise fund situations, for a long
time there were in-lieu fees and other transfer fees where there actually was a transfer to
the general fund of moneys raised through the water rates. The Council decided to change that
back PAGE
24
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
in the early 1990's. This structure is a fair and equitable approach which is based on
consumption; and he feels comfortable that people will pay on the basis of what they use and
have some ultimate control rather than a flat rate system.
Councilmember Coontz asked what the program will be for announcing this to the public.
Mr. Thomas stated a letter will be sent out with the utility bills similar to the one for water rates.
The revised bills will start arriving after October 151 and the first bills will have some proration.
There will not be a full billing cycle until two months after October 151.
Councilmember Coontz asked that the Council be provided a copy of the letter before it is mailed
out.
Council Action:
ORDINANCE NO. 14-03 (FIRST
READING)An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange amending and revising the
Master Schedule of Fees and Charges to adopt new City Sanitation Service
Fees.MOTION - Coontz
SECOND - Ambriz AYES -
Ambriz, Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche ABSENT - Alvarez
Moved that Ordinance
No. 14-03 be read by title only and same was set for second reading by the preceding
vote.MOTION - Coontz
SECOND - Ambriz AYES -
Ambriz, Mayor Murphy,
Coontz, Cavecche ABSENT - Alvarez Amended the Fiscal
Year 2003-04
Sanitation Reserve Budget Account No. 220-5022-274700 in the amount of $
779,000.14. PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENT - None.PAGE 25
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 27, 2003
15. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION - Cavecche SECOND -
Ambriz AYES - Ambriz,
Mayor Murphy, Coontz, Cavecche ABSENT - Alvarez The
City Council adjourned
at 8:45 p.m. The next Regular Council meeting is June 10,2003.I<"~~/~k--#~CASSANDRA J.
THCART, CMC
CITY CLERK 1Ht~:/&*MAYO
PAGE 26