Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/09/17 - Minutes - Special September 17, 2013 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES A. CALL TO ORDER I The special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council convened in the Tri-Communities Room at the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor L. Dennis Michael called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. Present were Councilmembers: Bill Alexander, Marc Steinorth, Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tern Sam Spagnolo and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Linda Daniels, Assistant City Manager; Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services; Jeff Bloom, Deputy City Manager/Economic & Community Development; Bill Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director; Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager; Nettie Nielsen, Community Services Director; Ingrid Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager and Debra McNay, Records Manager/Assistant City Clerk. I B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS I No communication was made from the public. C. ITEM FOR DISCUSSION I C1. DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE CITY'S WEST-SIDE LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICTS City Manager John Gillison reported that the purpose of the meeting was to follow up on the discussion held last week regarding the landscaping and street light maintenance districts on the West side of the City. As requested, the schedule has been modified and the budget has been amended. Also, he noted that the staff report has been revised and calculations have been done to provide an example of the costs and rate impacts of additional improvements in the Red Hill/Lions Park area. Deputy City Manager Lori Sassoon that staff had spent time considering the feedback that was provided by the City Council at the last meeting. Staff is now recommending additional time for community engagement and discussion. The revised timeline includes performing the community engagement during the months of September through December, introducing the survey in January and determining the next steps in the end of January and February. There is an additional cost of$10,000 for a longer engagement process and an appropriation of$80,000 to supplement the $30,000 in the budget. In response to Council Member Alexander, Mrs. Sassoon indicated that staff would be working with the same consultant that was used last year. Council Member Alexander noted that a better job could have been done. Discussion was held regarding the past Proposition 218 elections and the consultant used, if any. The Deputy City Manager reported that the impacts of added capital improvement costs were evaluated and noted that this information is in front of the City Council. In response to the City Council, City Manager Gillison confirmed that a similar evaluation could be performed for the other Districts. Special Meeting — City's West-Side Landscaping and Street Lighting Districts 3PM — September 17, 2013— City Council Minutes— Page 1 of 5 Council Member Williams indicated that she would prefer Option 1 (with no additional capital improvement costs) as those property owners with no parkways would be more likely to support this option. City Manager Gillison addressed parkway improvements, noting that these improvements could be put in all at once or over time. Public Works Services Director Bill Wittkopf reported that over half of the people in this area perform their own landscaping. Discussion was held about the maintenance responsibility with Mr. Wittkopf noting that the City maintains landscaping on dedicated easements. In many cases, the property owner has put in landscaping on his/her own property and is maintaining it. City Manager Gillison stated that funds could be set aside to acquire various privately-held easements and improving them. Approval of Option 2 would allow the Council to set aside funding to do these types of things. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Spagnolo, the information that was prepared was for the Red Hill/Lions Park area. Ms. Sassoon indicated that all of the Districts are challenged and that this concept could be considered for all of them. Mayor Pro Tem Spagnolo indicated that this is a very challenging and complex problem and noted that education is the key. In response to Council Member Williams, Mrs. Sassoon reported that staff would initially broadly outline the issues and then obtain feedback from the residents. Based on that information, they would develop and discuss a specific rate. Mayor Michael supported Option 1 as if the City proposed the higher number and lost, he would never forgive himself. The focus should be on maintaining these Districts over time. Council Member Steinorth appreciated the work that has been done to analyze this matter. He agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Spagnolo that the cost should be discussed first, and then the improvements. Council Member Steinorth confirmed with staff that approving Option 1 would establish a baseline for maintenance in the Districts and includes a small cushion intended for revitalization measures. Also, there would be an accelerator to ensure that this type of situation does not happen again. Regarding LMD #2, Council Member Steinorth did not believe that the message last year was very successful. As Council Member Williams has pointed out, in this situation there is not much that can be taken away if an assessment is proposed and does not pass. Council Member Steinorth would take a different approach and talk about the feature (we need to raise the cost) and the benefit (we can improve the community that you live in). We need to tell a better story and talk more about reinvigorating, revitalizing and reinvesting in the community. In response to Mayor Michael, City Manager Gillison addressed the placement of sidewalks in the Red Hill area. While an assessment district would be necessary to install sidewalks on entire streets, the City Manager noted that it would be possible to add in such capital improvement projects the cost of placing a small section of sidewalk next to existing sidewalks. The Council agreed that the message should be crafted very carefully so there is no misunderstanding. Council Member Steinorth inquired about how the benefit to the community could be enhancing and what the message could be. In response, the Deputy City Manager addressed the benefits, including financially stabilizing the Districts, improving the service levels and over time gradually constructing capital improvements such as restroom remodeling projects and parking lot improvements. Council Member Alexander indicated that the timeline seems set and expressed concern with not starting this discussion earlier. In response, Deputy City Manager Sassoon noted that work has been ongoing for two years and recommended that a dialogue be authorized, not a decision to start a Proposition 218 process. City Manager John Gillison noted that the timeline was partially due to some of these Districts hitting a crisis point by the end of the year. The numbers are being provided to the City Council as the survey Special Meeting —City's West-Side Landscaping and Street Lighting Districts 3PM —September 17, 2013—City Council Minutes— Page 2 of 5 needs to have some information to frame the question properly. He indicated that if the survey shows a disinterest in the Proposition 218 process, this will be valuable information for the City Council. In response to Mayor Michael, Mr. Gillison addressed the survey. He confirmed that if the Council chose Option #1, the survey could also ask if the property owner was willing to pay a little extra money in order to support additional improvements. In response to Council Member Steinorth, Deputy City Manager Sassoon believed that about $55,000 of the $110,000 was for the survey and the mailers were about$40,000. Council Member Williams stressed that the language should focus on parks and lighting, not landscaping. In response to Council Member Williams, Mrs. Sassoon indicated that staff would be very specific on what areas are affected and what type of improvements would be made. In response to Council Member Alexander, Mr. Gillison confirmed that property owners can install their own sidewalk rather than pay an assessment for it. However, he indicated that the property owner would assume some liability as well. The Council discussed the flexibility in this process as the proposed assessment (if any)would be crafted as a result of the dialogue with the community. In response to Council Member Williams, discussion was held regarding how the community meetings would be held. It was confirmed that staff would work with the property owners to determine the assessment and the types of improvements desired. In response to Mayor Michael, it was confirmed that the City would maintain improvements installed by the City. Mrs. Sassoon stressed that the City can not campaign for the assessment but can provide information to educate the community. The Council discussed the timing of the matter, noting that it would have been a good idea to bring this to the community 10-15 years ago. In response to Council Member Williams, Mrs. Sassoon confirmed that staff has been identifying people in each District who could help disseminate this message and welcomed suggestions. In response to Council Member Alexander, City Manager Gillison reported that Central Park is not in any District. In response to Council Member Steinorth, Deputy City Manager Sassoon addressed the $110,000 cost and indicated that approximately $55,000 is for the telephone survey and $40,000 is for the mailers. Discussion was held about this cost, what would be provided and why such an extensive survey was needed. Deputy City Manager Sassoon reported that the survey is very large and a large sample is needed to provide assurance that the survey is viable. In response to Council Member Alexander, the cost of a delay could be compared to the current deficit of $1.2 million annually for all of the Districts. Deputy City Manager Sassoon hoped that the actual cost would be less than $110,000 but she noted that this is a conservative estimate of the cost of the community engagement process. The City Manager indicated that the City accepted bids for this work last time and this consultant provided the lowest cost. The scope of the work was negotiated further to meet the needs of the City. Mayor Michael confirmed that information would be placed in the Grapevine. He suggested that when surveys are being done that banners be placed at Archibald and Base Line to encourage participation. In response to Mayor Michael, City Manager Gillison indicated that direction was needed on which option to pursue, approval to proceed with the community engagement process and an appropriation of$80,000. Discussion was held regarding the options available to the City Council. Council Member Steinorth wondered if it would be statistically valid to reference Option #2. He noted that the survey question would be $166.74 to improve the beautification project or $135.80 to maintain exactly what they have. In response, Mrs. Sassoon clarified the need to survey what the ballot question would be. The ballot never would give these two choices. Council Member Steinorth noted that the survey would be lengthy and felt Special Meeting —City's West-Side Landscaping and Street Lighting Districts 3PM — September 17, 2013 —City Council Minutes— Page 3 of 5 that there should be some flexibility to gauge where the property owner's interests lay. It was noted that this would be a 10 to 12 minute telephone survey. If too many questions are used, the validity of the survey is impeded. Mrs. Sassoon recommended that the survey focus on the lower number and then add on a question about the second option. Discussion was held. City Manager Gillison indicated that this question would be posed to the consultant for his recommendation. Council Member Steinorth suggested that an A-B test be conducted, as 500 would still be statistically valid based on 1,000 households. In response, Deputy City Manager indicated that it would be less than that as there would be 8 Districts. Council Member Steinorth inquired if at least one or two of the 8 different zones could have an A-B survey. In response, the City Manager confirmed to Mayor Pro Tem Spagnolo that some of these Districts might not be in favor of a vote. The City Council could then pursue a Proposition 218 election in the more favorable Districts. At the conclusion of the discussion, the City Manager indicated that if direction was given today to proceed, staff could discuss this further with the consultant and bring back an additional cost to the City Council for a larger sample if this option was found to be viable. In response to Mayor Michael, Deputy City Manager Sassoon reported that the feedback from LMD #2 was a resounding no when asked if they were in support of an additional cost. This was surprising as staff had heard a lot of interest in improvements, but property owners were not in favor of paying for it. Council Member Steinorth defined an A-B survey, in which you ask the question based on Option #1 to a group of people. The B survey would ask a question based on Option #2 to a different group of people and the results are compared to determine which option was favored. The City Council would get more data on which option has the least amount of resistance. In response, Mrs. Sassoon pointed out that in the Red Hill District, there only would be 200 people surveyed. If you split that amount in half to do an A-B survey, she didn't know if the results would be statistically valid. In response to Council Member Williams, the Deputy City Manager noted that a subset of people are paying $31.00 a year. Most; however, are paying around $100.00 as they are paying into several Districts. With some exceptions, Mrs. Sassoon indicated that we will already be asking them if they are willing to pay more. The industrial areas and apartments would pay less. Mr. Gillison noted that if the City Council wants to pursue an A-B, this can be accommodated. If the City Council wants to discuss this with the consultant, another meeting can be scheduled. He reported that staff struggled to get statistical validity with the consultant. He recommended that an option be chosen so that we can move ahead with the community engagement process. Mayor Michael inquired on the improvements inherent with Option #2. Mr. Gillison noted that there would be a general statement about maintaining and improving the District. A motion was made by Council Member Steinorth to reschedule another meeting in a week. Mayor Michael noted that time was precious and suggested that staff meet with the consultant to discuss this further. Mrs. Sassoon reported that the information that was prepared was just for one District. She inquired what improvements the City Council would like to see for the other Districts. To clarify, Council Member Steinorth indicated that he would like to see this discussed with the consultant. The City Council could arbitrarily choose a higher percentage rate for another District as the second option. He wasn't proposing that an A-B survey be pursued for each District. Council Member Williams noted that Red Hill/Lions Park District might be in favor of Option #2 but she didn't believe the southern Districts would support such a concept. It really is unique to each District. Special Meeting—City's West-Side Landscaping and Street Lighting Districts 3PM — September 17, 2013 —City Council Minutes— Page 4 of 5 City Manager Gillison noted that we can discuss this further with the consultant, see when he is available and schedule another meeting. The motion died due to lack of a second. • Council Member Alexander noted that he really believes that we need to proceed with this. Council Member Steinorth stated that he would like to hear from the consultant and would like a commitment from staff that we would try to incorporate Option#2 into a statistically valid survey. Mr. Gillison noted that if approval is given to go forward, staff would start the community engagement process. The surveying would not be done until January, which will give staff the opportunity to discuss this further with the consultant. If staff receives different information, another workshop would be scheduled with the Council to get additional direction. The consultant could be present at this workshop to discuss this further. A motion was made by Council Member Williams and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Spagnolo to move forward with the community engagement process, allocate the additional $80,000 and bring back the information from the consultant on conducting an A-B survey. The motion was unanimous. l D. ADJOURNMENT I Mayor L. Dennis Michael adjourned the meeting at 4:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, I '24 ALT— De ra L. McNay, MMC Assistant City Clerk/Records Manager Approved: October 2, 2013 Special Meeting —City's West-Side Landscaping and Street Lighting Districts 3PM — September 17, 2013 —City Council Minutes— Page 5 of 5