Day 1999.05.25CC
CITY OF VACAVILLE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
May 25, 1999
A meeting of the City Council of the City of Vacaville was held at the City Council Chambers, 650 Merchant Street, May 25, 1999. Mayor Fleming called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Council members Augustine, Clancy, Slade, Vice Mayor Wood, and Mayor Fleming
Absent: None
Others Present: City Manager John Thompson, City Attorney Charles O. Lamoree and City Clerk Kathy Andronico
2. The Invocation was dispensed with and Mayor Fleming led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – Mayor Fleming asked if there were any additions or deletions necessary for the agenda. Council member Clancy asked that Item 6e be removed for separate discussion and that Item 9b be heard immediately following Business from the Floor (Item 7). Council member Clancy, seconded by Council member Slade, made a motion “ to approve the agenda as amended.” Motion unanimously approved.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Council member Clancy,
seconded by Council member Slade
made a motion “ to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 11, 1999, as written.” Motion
unanimously approved.
5. PRESENTATIONS - None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Fleming asked if anyone on the Council or in the audience wanted to remove an item from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. Council member Augustine asked that Item 6g be removed for separate discussion. Council member Slade, seconded by Vice Mayor Wood, made a motion “ to adopt the ordinances, resolutions and other items listed on the Consent Calendar, except Item 6e and 6g that were removed for separate discussion." Motion approved by the following vote:
AYES: Council members Augustine, Clancy, Slade, Vice Mayor Wood and Mayor Fleming
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
A. Ordinance No. 1617 - ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE VACAVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE BY CHANGE OF ZONING MAP (CALIFORNIA SPRINGS UNIT 2) – Second Reading
B. Ordinance No. 1618 - ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XX (CONSTRUCTION AND FIRE STANDARDS) OF THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE – Second Reading
C. Resolution No. 1999-58 - RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMIT ON CITY STREETS – MARKHAM AVENUE
D. Resolution No. 1999-59 - RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMIT ON CITY STREET – DOBBINS STREET AND GIBSON CANYON ROAD
E. Resolution No. 1999-60 - RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMIT ON CITY STREET – BROWNS VALLEY PARKWAY AND BROWNS VALLEY ROAD-Removed for separate discussion
F. AUTHORIZATION TO EMPLOY ENGINEERING FIRM TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE EASTERLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
G. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT – CENTENNIAL PARK ACCESS ROAD AND PARKING IMPROVEMENTS-Removed for separate discussion
Item 6e - RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
SPEED LIMIT ON CITY STREET –
BROWNS VALLEY PARKWAY AND BROWNS VALLEY ROAD
Mayor Fleming asked for public comment. Steve Williams approached the City Council to discuss the staff report. He talked about two separate issues: the need for an additional traffic signal in the Browns Valley area, which he stated a Planning Commissioner will propose during upcoming CIP budget reviews, and the suggested speed limit from Brown Street to Monte Vista Avenue. Other than turning south from Centennial Park, he did not feel that setting the speed limit at 35 mph supported the natural traffic flow of the area. He felt that maintaining the 40-mph speed limit from Brown Street to just before the curve near Yardbirds, and then reducing the speed, would be more efficient. He acknowledged that during peak-hour traffic, exiting from Centennial Park, turning south from the park (towards Monte Vista Avenue) would be more difficult, however he felt that could be addressed by modifying or changing access to the park. The City Council discussed various speed issues in the area and expressed some concern that by posting a higher limit, it would lead to people driving even faster, and it was also acknowledged that consideration needed to be given to reducing the speed (35 mph) from Allison Extension and Browns Valley Parkway to Monte Vista Avenue. Director of Public Works Dale Pfeiffer was asked to explain the procedure used for setting speeds. He explained that it is based strictly on traffic flow and the study is performed to enable radar enforcement. He then explained that 100 vehicles were observed and 85% were going at or below 35 mph and about 9 or 10 vehicles were traveling about 40-45 mph. If the speed limit is not set at the 85% average, then a ticket could be challenged in court. He emphasized that the traffic study is done strictly to enable radar enforcement. The City Attorney confirmed that State law requires that the speed be set at the 85% average, and by setting the speed at a higher limit, one could claim that the City created a dangerous condition by setting the limit higher than the average. Director Pfeiffer suggested that the Council adopt the speed limits as recommended by staff and allow staff to perform another speed study from Brown Street to Allison Extension to see if the current speeds are 35 or 40 mph. There was no further public comment.
Council member Clancy, seconded by Council member Slade made a motion “ to adopt the resolution
as
recommended by staff and direct the Public Works Department to perform another speed study from
Brown Street to the Allison Extension.” Resolution No. 1999-60, “ Resolution
Establishing Speed
Limit on City Street – Browns Valley Parkway and Browns Valley Road,” was
approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Council members Augustine, Clancy, Slade, Vice Mayor Wood and Mayor Fleming
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Item 6g - AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT – CENTENNIAL PARK ACCESS ROAD AND PARKING IMPROVEMENTS
Council member Augustine asked that this be removed for separate discussion because of Item 6e and to reiterate that there will be construction taking place in the Browns Valley/Allison Extension area over the summer with completion scheduled in November 1999. He urged citizens to drive cautiously regardless of the posted speed limit. Council member Augustine stated he was pleased that the low bid was below the Engineer’ s Estimate and that the access road and parking lot improvements will be very beneficial.
Council member Clancy asked if the improvements were related to the undergrounding of a tunnel near
Browns Valley Parkway and Director Pfeiffer assured her that there was no connection.
Mayor Fleming asked for public comment and none was noted.
Council member Augustine, seconded by Council member Clancy made a motion “ to approve the
plans,
special provisions, and working details; award the construction contract to Carone & Sons, Inc.
of
Crockett, California; and authorize the Director of Public works to execute the contract in the amount
of
$889,596.45. Motion unanimously approved.
7. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR -None
At this time, Item 9a was heard by the City Council (see page 4)
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY – TAXI FOR APPLICANT ZORA SINGH MANGAT
Police Chief Bob Harrison reviewed the staff report for the record. He explained that Commercial Taxi Company, based in Fairfield, is a fully operational company, and seeks to operate five vehicles in the Vacaville area. He advised that background investigations were performed and no information was developed that would preclude Zora Singh Mangat from receiving a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. He stated that if the Certificate were issued, seven drivers would be permitted to drive in Vacaville. Chief Harrison noted that two taxi companies currently service Vacaville: AA Taxi Services and Yellow Cab of Vacaville. He stated that there are no recorded complaints about services provided by AA Taxi or Yellow Cab received by the City. He advised that the existing taxi companies serving Vacaville participate on Vacaville’ s subsidized taxi service program that provides half-fare transportation for elderly and disabled riders. Chief Harrison advised that, based on the absence of complaints about the services being provided by the current two companies, and the size of their fleet, there does not appear to be a public necessity in adding another company. He reiterated that another company operating in this relatively small market could threaten the viability of taxi service to the public. Chief Harrison, therefore, recommended that Mr. Mangat’ s request be denied.
Mayor Fleming opened the public hearing.
Zora Singh Mangat, owner Commercial Taxi, stated that his interest in operating in Vacaville did not
include trying to negatively impact existing companies. He stated he merely wanted to offer his
assistance
when needed. He encouraged the City Council to consider his application favorably. Vice
Mayor Wood
asked if Mr. Mangat had obtained a market study that would show a need in Vacaville. While Mr.
Mangat had not acquired a formal market study, he felt he could be of service to the City.
Sal DeRenzi, owner and operator of Yellow Cab, did not feel there is a current need for additional cabs
in
Vacaville. He stated that both he, and the operator of AA Cab (not present), have additional cars
which
could be put in service when the need is apparent.
Operations Manager for Fairfield Taxi was mainly concerned about being able to pick up Base employees
and deliver them to Vacaville. He stated that if that is not a problem, then Commercial
Taxi would not
be concerned about receiving a certificate. Staff noted that any cab can operate in and out of
other cities,
but must received a certificate in order to be based in a city.
Mayor Fleming closed the public hearing.
Vice Mayor Wood stated that he had conducted his own marketing analysis be calling the various taxi
cab
companies over a several day period, and that at any time he called, he could get a taxi within five
minutes. He did not feel there was a need for another taxi company in Vacaville. Council
member
Augustine also noted that he had not personally received any complaints about Vacaville’ s taxi
service.
Council member Augustine, seconded by Vice Mayor Wood made a motion “ to deny the application.”
Motion unanimously approved.
B. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VACAVILLE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.10 OF THE VACAVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PUBLIC NUISANCES
The City Attorney advised that earlier this year the City Council adopted amendments to the Nuisance Ordinance, however two additional matters were proposed for future discussion. The Council asked that more consideration be given to the requirement to park vehicles on “ impervious surfaces” and to streamline the administrative processes for handling nuisance abatement matters. The City Attorney then discussed subsequent meetings held with Public Works Utilities Division personnel and their opinion that because of the depth of the City’ s water wells and the types of soils between the surface and the water wells, non-impervious surfaces (gravel, lava rocks, etc.) could be suitable for parking surfaces. He stated that there was also concern about potential liability when cars park on bare dirt or lawns and track mud onto sidewalks and streets. While cars would not be allowed to park on bare dirt or lawns there is a similar concern about impacts on adjacent public property when parking on areas made of gravel, rock or other loose mineral surface. The City Attorney stated that the ordinance obligates the property owner to keep such loose parking material off the adjoining sidewalks and other rights-of-way. The City Attorney then explained the rationale for removing the enforcement procedures from the ordinance and placing them into Administrative Policy, as well as how this change would be accomplished. The City will begin a community education process in early June, which was briefly reviewed.
Mayor Fleming opened the public hearing.
Lou Derfuss thanked the City Attorney for taking the time to answer the concerns voiced by speakers
at
previous meetings. He asked about Section 8.10.080, paragraph A(3), which discussed “ Violations” and
stated that “ each day the provisions of the codes are violated, shall be deemed as a separate
offense.” He
felt this was too rigid and asked for additional consideration. The City Attorney explained that
the
administrative policy will have a timetable to address nuisance problems, and that the whole process
would involve about 60 days before the cited Code Section would be enforced. He also noted that
this
language is required as part of the Penal Code of California.
Council asked when staff would start enforcing the ordinance. The City Attorney stated that he
will
present the first draft of the Administrative Policy to the City Council, with a copy to Mr. Derfuss. He
noted that staff will start enforcement in July.
Mayor Fleming closed the public hearing.
Council member Augustine, seconded by Council member Clancy made a motion “ to introduce
the
subject ordinance.” Motion unanimously approved. The title of the ordinance, “
An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of Vacaville Amending Chapter 8.10 of the Vacaville Municipal Code
Relating to Public Nuisances,” was read by the City Clerk and introduced by Council member
Augustine.
C. POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING VACAVILLE AUTO CENTER FREEWAY SIGN – continued to June 22, 1999
9. BUSINESS
A. EXECUTIVE HOUSING
Director of Community Development Ron Rowland stated that the Council identified executive housing development as one of its top priorities, recognizing that it offers many public benefits. He explained that the Council appointed a large citizen committee to help define and guide the project. Director Rowland stated that the committee met several times and the report summarizes the public benefits, suggests some planning principles to be followed in considering appropriate sites and projects, and transmits the recommendations of the committee. Director Rowland stated that two committee members felt more time should have been spent on market analysis and talking to other executives concerning their needs/desires.
The City Council discussed the following issues: the benefits of a survey, the developers’ responsibility to
survey the market and produce an acceptable product, the City’ s role of defining the minimums
and
maximums, and the need to move forward to fill this missing component in the community. All
of the
Council expressed their gratitude to the Committee and staff for the amount of work that went into
developing the provided information.
Mayor Fleming asked for public comment.
Lou Derfuss supported a market study prior to embarking on a project. He talked about the Hidden
Oaks
project, which initially was higher-end type homes, but had many setbacks. Mr. Derfuss suggested
considering the Nut Tree as a possible location for executive housing.
Steve Brothers, Land Development Consultants in San Mateo, stated that he sat in on several of the
committee’ s meetings and he recognized the talents and energy devoted to the process. He
posed a
procedural question with regard to General Plan Amendment applications. Mr. Brothers advised that
some properties may not have to apply for an amendment, therefore he suggested that letters of interest
also be entertained by staff/Council.
Earl Heale supported further surveying to identify the community needs and he reminded the Council that
the market is not all California people. He firmly stated that the City should set the standards,
not the
developers.
Kevin English, resident of Vacaville, served on the Committee. He complimented Council member
Clancy for expanding the number of people each Council member was allowed to appoint to the
committee. He also complimented Director Rowland for his great organizational skills and keeping
such
a large committee focused and on track. He stated that the composition of the Committee was very
broad
based and brought a lot of discussion with different perspectives. He stated he was proud of the
product
that resulted from the Committee’ s efforts.
Executive Committee member Donna Harr addressed the City Council and commented that one cannot
meet the dreams of everyone, but executive housing would add another component to our community and
perhaps meet the needs of the people and businesses we are trying to attract.
Mayor Fleming closed the public comments.
Council member Augustine, seconded by Council member Slade made a motion “ to approve the
definition of executive housing, adopt the planning principles and process for consideration of proposals,
and allow Letters of Interest for those properties that do not require a General Plan amendment.” Motion
unanimously approved.
B. SALARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR – FIELD UTILITIES
Director of Administrative Services Pat Moreno advised that last year, the City and Vacaville Manager’ s Organization (VMO) reached an agreement for a new Memorandum of Understanding. However, two items were continued into a Side Letter of Agreement for further discussion and resolution. One of the items was the salary for the classification of Public Works Supervisor – Field Utilities. Director Moreno stated that pursuant to the City’ s procedures for employer-employee relations, both parties continued to meet and confer on the issue, and reviewed the procedures to be followed by the City Council, however the parties were unable to reach agreement and VMO declared an impasse. According to the adopted employer-employee procedures, the parties contacted an outside mediator to assist in resolution of the issue. However, the mediator met with both parties in an effort to resolve the dispute and after lengthy discussion and presentation by both sides, it was not unsuccessful. Director Moreno advised that following impasse, the governing body must choose one side’ s position or the other, rather than making any compromises. Director Pfeiffer and Assistant Director of Public Works Rod Moresco reviewed the salary ranges and number of positions supervised by each of the Public Work’ s supervisors. They also discussed the restructuring of various Divisions and work groups, within the Department, that have occurred over the past 10 years necessitated by workload and budget constraints, which resulted in combining sewer and water supervisor responsibilities in mid-1990. ADPW Moresco explained that the Department researched other local jurisdictions with regard to supervisor responsibilities and the “ banding” of salaries, which he noted, is common practice in many cities.
Council member Clancy asked about the procedures for supervising CMF crews, questioned if work was
equally distributed when the duties were reorganized, and what type of certifications are required for
the
various supervisors. ADPW Moresco explained supervisor involvement with CMF Correctional Officers
and the crew. Director Pfeiffer stated that in his opinion, the work was distributed equally among
all the
supervisors and also explained the certification requirements for the various supervisors. He
pointed out
that although the current Field Utilities Supervisors has collection system certification, he does not
have
the Grade 3 requirement for water. However, the incumbent Field Utilities Supervisor has been
grandfathered into the position and has not been required to obtain that certification or any other
licenses
as a result of the redistribution of duties. He noted that when the position becomes available,
any new
applicant would be required to have the two certifications. Council member Clancy asked why the
Council was being asked to address this issue since only one person has come forward. The City
Attorney
explained that it is because the philosophy of the Department is to band those positions together and
compensate at the same salary. Council member Clancy asked if the one position could be removed
from
the “ band,” to which the City Attorney stated it could.
The City Manager pointed out that the changes weren’ t done for the sake of change but because
of budget
reductions when the State took some of the City’ s money in the late 1980’ s. Because
of the budget
reductions, the City was challenged with finding ways to economize and still provide adequate service.
He stated that Public Works wasn’ t the only department that experienced reorganization as a means
of
saving money, but that several departments have taken manpower cuts and been forced to stretch
productivity to save money, in order to live within the budget.
Director Moreno introduced Henry Clark, representing VMO. Mr. Clark presented the Union’
s position
on the issue explaining that during negotiations, and subsequently talks with the independent mediator,
found no resolution with regard to the Field Utilities Supervisor compensation. He stated that
the Union
does not dispute that it is management’ s right to assign workloads to its employees. However,
as a result
of restructuring, the Field Utilities Supervisor is required to perform the work of two supervisors. Mr.
Clark stated that the Union researched the job requirements of various cities, and in those cities surveyed,
none required one supervisor to oversee sewer and water maintenance. Each one of the cities surveyed
had a separate supervisor for each function. He talked about the certifications required for the
Field
Utilities Supervisor, noting that the current supervisor has a Grade 1 in Water, but because he was
grandfathered, he was not required to have the ‘ sewer’ certificate; however the former
supervisor had no
certificates. Mr. Clark felt that prior to assigning additional duties to the employee currently
filling the
Field Utilities Supervisor position, there should have been a meet and confer process. He stated
that, by
combining the responsibilities of two supervisors into one, the City was saving about $60,000 and urged
the City Council to correct the inequity and increase the Field Utilities Supervisor salary 15 percent
retroactively.
The City Council had a lengthy discussion and questioned the amount of overtime required of the Field
Utilities Supervisor; certificates, specific qualifications, and extra training required for the job. Staff was
asked if the Field Utilities Supervisor was required to receive additional training to handle hazardous
materials and if the incumbent, at the time of reassignment, had asked for or discussed any additional
compensation. ADPW Moresco stated that Cal-OSHA requires that all sanitary sewer system employees
be trained as hazmat technicians. He explained that in November 1997 and February 1998, the current
Field Utilities Supervisor expressed an interest in pursuing extra compensation. Council asked
about the
pay spread between Maint. Worker III and the Field Utilities Supervisor; staff advised it is currently
33%.
Henry Clark pointed out that the Union suggested a compromise during its last meeting whereby the City
would pay the incumbent an additional 15 percent and grandfather that salary so that when the incumbent
retires, the salary could be reduced to the level of the other Public Work’ s supervisors.
Lou Derfuss commented on the issue, noting that in corporate management, restructuring is often done
in
order to get more value for the dollar. He referred to it as corporate downsizing and realignment. He
stated that the Supervisor is compensated in overtime pay.
Council member Augustine stated that this dispute has been ongoing for the past 18 months. He
noted
that he is a member of the League of California Cities Employee Relations Committee and reported on
an
effort to support SB93 concerning binding arbitration. He stated that there is a lack of confidence
by the
employees that management will be fair. Council member Augustine talked about the fairness of
the issue
and noted that Council is now in a position where they cannot compromise – they must grant
no raise or
the entire raise. He stated the fair thing to do would involve a compromise, however since that
was not an
option, he would support the employee’ s position on this issue.
Council member Clancy talked about her belief in fairness and equity. Because of the differences in
responsibilities, she did not feel all supervisors should draw the same salary. She stated she
would
support VMO’ s position, and that the incumbent should be granted a 15 percent increase retroactive
to
1997. Council member Clancy asked if the incumbent was given the opportunity to turn down the
position.
Director Moreno stated that in May 1997, discussions were held between the President of VMO (Mrs.
Zimmerman) and Director Pfeiffer to talk about the consolidation of park maintenance (formerly in
Community Services) into Public Works. Mrs. Zimmerman asked if there would be other issues involving
supervisors in Public Works and at that time Director Pfeiffer mentioned that it was his desire to institute
salary banding for Public Works Supervisors. Director Moreno advised that a lot of research was
performed, that it was a long process with a lot of changes, but in her opinion, there was no violation
of
the process. She did not believe that the current incumbent was given the opportunity to apply
for a
particular position and that he was a product of change. She stated that staff is trying to utilize
the skills
and abilities of its resources to get the work done in the City most cost effectively.
Mayor Fleming stated that it was unfortunate that the Council was being asked to resolve this issue. He
stated that the Council is elected to represent the City, therefore he would base his decision on that
situation, and in terms of the position itself, not the incumbent. He pointed out that if the
City’ s
management structure cannot change its organization without worrying about shifting people and
increasing/decreasing job responsibilities, then there will be many employees before the City Council
who
feel that his/her job duties have increased without compensation. Mayor Fleming advised that when
the
State took money from the City years back, the City chose not to lay-off and, instead, made cuts at
the
management and supervisor level through attrition, retirement, and consolidations. He stated that
while
he was torn about how to vote, he encouraged his colleagues to consider the problems that will be inherent
in management’ s ability to manage the City if this request is granted. Vice Mayor Wood talked
about the
difficult decision the Council was being asked to make. He stated that he had met with the incumbent
to
try to understand all sides of the issue. He pointed out that supervisors must accept change and
must
sometimes accept direction that may not be desirable. Vice Mayor Wood stated he was also
concerned
about setting a precedent and that with a great deal of compassion and his apologies, he could not support
the request. Council member Slade also noted that this is a difficult issue; however she was concerned
about the impact it would have on the City. She stated that staff needs to be able to make adjustments
as
needed to manage the City. Council member Slade, seconded by Vice Mayor Wood made a motion
“ to
support the position of the City and not make salary adjustments for the classification of Public Works
Supervisor-Field Utilities.” Motion approved (3-2 Augustine/Clancy no).
10. REPORTS OF CITY MANAGER - The City Manager mentioned the special budget study session on June 15. It was noted that one Council member was unable to attend. The majority of the Council agreed to meet prior to the 6/22/99 City Council meeting.
11. REPORTS OF CITY COUNCIL - The City Council
announced past and upcoming events.
Council member Augustine asked staff to review what could be done to enhance and improve the area
near the Davis Street freeway exit.
12. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS – Council member Clancy, seconded by Council member Slade made a motion “ to order the 5/14/99 payroll register, and 5/20/99 dated check register, paid. Motion unanimously approved.
CLOSED SESSION – None
14. ADJOURNMENT – There being no further business before the City Council, the regular meeting was adjourned by Mayor Fleming at 10:55 p.m., May 25, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen M. Andronico, City Clerk