HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - January 28, 1992 (5)CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF LODI
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1992
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
PRESENTATIONS
ITEM ADDED TO AGENDA
Present: Council Members - Hinchman, Pennino,
Sieglock, Snider, and Pinkerton (Mayor)
Absent: Council Members - None
Also Present: City Manager Peterson, Assistant City
Manager Glenn, Community Development
Director Schroeder, Public Works Director
Ronsko, City Attorney McNatt, and City Clerk
Reimche
The invocation was given by Pastor Judy Edwards, United
Congregational Christian Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Pinkerton.
There were no awards, presentations, or proclamations.
Pursuant to State Statute, on motion of Council Member
Hinchman, Sieglock second, it was determined by unanimous
vote of the City Council that an urgency item needed to be
added to the agenda. The matter was not known at the time
of the preparation and distribution of the agenda.
On motion of Council Member Hinchman, Sieglock second, the
City Council added the following item to the agenda:
a) "Purchase of property at 13 North Church
Street, Lodi."
CONSENT CALENDAR In accordance with report and recommendation of the City
Manager, Council, on motion of Council Member Sieglock,
Hinchman second, approved the following items hereinafter
set forth.
Agenda item #E-3 entitled, "Consider initiating the
annexation/reorganization proceedings for the Bennett &
Compton Reorganization located south of WID Canal, west of
Lilac Street, north of the City limits line and east of
Woodhaven Drive" was removed from the Consent Calendar and
discussed and acted upon at another point on the agenda.
Further, agenda item #E-13 entitled, "Purchase of property
at 13 North Church Street, Lodi" was added to the Consent
Calendar.
1
jd Continued March 4, 1992
CLAIMS CC -21(a) Claims were approved in the amount of $3,850,709.57.
MINUTES The Minutes of January 28, 1992 (Joint Meeting with the
Lodi Arts Commission), February 5, 1992 (Regular Meeting),
and February 11, 1992 (Joint Meeting with the Lodi District
Chamber of Commerce) were approved as written.
ANNEXATION/REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS
FOR BENNETT AND COMPTON ADDITION
INITIATED
RESOLUTION NO. 92-36
CC -8(a) The City Council was advised that at its meeting of
CC -300 November 20, 1991, the City Council introduced Ordinance
No. 1539 which prezoned the proposed Bennett and Compton
Addition to R -GA, Garden Apartment Residential which is
consistent with the General Plan. The prezoning is
required by the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation
Commission as the first step in the
annexation/reorganization process.
The proposed Bennett and Compton Addition encompasses 3
parcels in one ownership and contains 9.4 acres.
Council Member Hinchman requested that schools be included
in the Justification of Proposal as it relates to
governmental services required by this proposal.
Following discussion, on motion of Council Member Hinchman,
Pennino second, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
92-36 entitled, "A Resolution of the Lodi City Council for
Application to the San Joaquin County Local Agency
Formation Commission in the Matter of the Proposed 'Bennett
and Compton Addition', Including the Detachment of Certain
Territory Within the Area Proposed for Annexation to the
City of Lodi." This item was removed from the Consent
Calendar and discussed and acted upon at a later point on
the agenda.
PURCHASE OF BATTERY CAPACITY TEST
SYSTEM FOR THE ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 92-37
CC -12(d) The City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-37 awarding the
CC -300 bid for the purchase of Battery Capacity Test System to the
sole bidder Alber Engineering, Inc., Florida, in the amount
of $12,909.53.
On January 15, 1992 the City Council approved
specifications and authorized advertisement for bids. Bids
2
Continued March 4, 1992
were opened on February 18, 1992 with Alber being the sole
bidder. A "no bid" was received from another vendor.
The Battery Capacity Test System will be used by the
Electrical Systems Group in the maintenance program of the
various battery banks utilized for operation and control of
power circuit breakers and for uninterruptible power
supplies on computer and SCADA systems. The Test System
will determine the condition as well as the ability of
these various battery banks to supply the necessary power
during an emergency situation or an all-out power failure.
The recommendation to award to the sole bidder is based on
the facts that this type of equipment is for very
specialized applications and is handled by a limited number
of vendors thus making it highly unlikely that a rebid
would provide any benefit to the City.
Funding in the amount of $11,500 was included in the
1991-92 fiscal year budget. In order to fully fund this
purchase, it is further recommended that $1,409.53 be
transferred from excess budgeted funds for a pickup truck
no longer considered for purchase.
PURCHASE OF POLEMOUNT TRANSFORMERS
RESOLUTION NO. 92-38
CC -12(d) The City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-38 awarding the
CC -300 purchase of 9 circuit -protected, and 45 conventional,
polemount transformers to the bidders whose proposals and
equipment met all Electric Utility specifications, and
whose transformers yielded the lowest overall life -cycle
costs:
General Electric Supply Co., Martinez, CA
3 ea.
25KVA
120/240V
Circuit -protected
$ 2,265.98
6 ea.
37.5KVA
120/240V
Circuit -protected
5,365.95
13 ea.
15KVA
120/240V
Conventional
7,059.78
8 ea.
25KVA
120/240V
Conventional
5,016.84
5 ea.
50KVA
277V
Conventional
5,274.36
Subtotal $24,982.91
Cooper Power Systems, Burlingame, CA
6 ea. 37.5KVA 120/240V Conventional $ 4,835.82
13 ea. 50KVA 120/240V Conventional 14,301.66
Subtotal $19,137.48
Total $44,120.39
3
Ir, -,---,Continued March 4, 1992
On January 15, 1992, the City Council approved the
specifications and authorized advertisement for bids. Bids
were opened on February 18, 1992.
These transformers will
PCB -contaminated units,
inventory.
PURCHASE OF PADMOUNT TRANSFORMERS
RESOLUTION NO. 92-39
be installed as replacements for
and to replenish the Department's
CC -12(d) The City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-39 awarding the
CC -300 purchase of 5 padmount transformers to the bidder whose
proposal and equipment met all Electric Utility
specifications, and whose transformers yielded the lowest
overall life -cycle costs, Pauwels Transformers of
Washington, Missouri. Total amount of purchase is
$33,507.03.
On January 15, 1992, the City Council approved the
specifications and authorized advertisement for bids. Bids
were opened on February 18, 1992.
These transformers will be used in the electric
distribution system in various locations expected to be
under construction in late 1992.
CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH FAMILY SERVICES
AGENCY FOR EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
SERVICES APPROVED
CC -6 The City Council approved a one-year extension of an
CC -90 agreement entered into on March 1, 1990 by and between the
City of Lodi and the Family Services Agency, Inc. to
provide Employee Assistance Program Services which
extension includes a 4.0% increase in the costs.
The City Council was advised that the City for a number of
years has provided an employee assistance program designed
to assist employees and their families with assistance in
dealing with potentially disabling emotional and family
problems. This program has been extremely beneficial to
the City and its employees.
We have dealt with Family Services Agency, Inc. over the
years. Their staff has the confidence and trust of
employees and their families and for this reason we do not
want to make changes at this time.
Council is requested to authorize the City Manager to enter
into a one-year extension with the Family Services Agency,
Inc. to provide Employee Assistance Program services at an
annual cost of $12,743.64.
4
Continued March 4, 1992
SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF LODI AND THE SAN JOAQUIN PARTNERSHIP
WHICH PROVIDES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES FOR THE CITY APPROVED
CC -6 The City Council was reminded that at the "Shirtsleeve"
CC -7(u) session of March 3, 1992 the City Council heard a
CC -90 presentation by Mr. Rick Weddle, President of the San
Joaquin Partnership regarding the activities of the
Partnership in the area of economic development. The
Partnership is requesting at this time approval of the
Service Agreement.
The City Council approved
City of Lodi and the San
for economic development
FREEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT NO. X-95,
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 APPROVED
RESOLUTION NO. 92-40
the Service Agreement between the
Joaquin Partnership which provides
services for the City.
CC -7(f) The City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-40 approving
CC -90 Freeway Maintenance Agreement X-95 (S1) between the State
CC -300 of California and the City for maintenance of State
highways in the City of Lodi and authorized the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute the agreement.
The City Council was advised that this agreement clarifies
the division of maintenance responsibility as to separation
structures and City streets and landscaped areas within the
freeway limits. The original agreement was signed by the
City and State on January 2, 1964. This modifies the old
agreement to reflect what is currently being maintained by
the City in the area of Turner Road due to annexations
since the original agreement was signed. The new agreement
also changes some of the language and adds several sections
not included in the old section. These changes do not
change City responsibility or maintenance requirements.
PUBLIC HEARING SET TO CONSIDER ADOPTION
OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT MITIGATION FEE ORDINANCE PERTAINING
TO COMMERCIAL FEES
CC -6 The City Council set a public hearing for March 18, 1992 to
CC -46 consider introduction of an ordinance amending the
CC -56 Development Impact Mitigation Fee Ordinance as it pertains
to commercial fees.
The Development Impact Mitigation Fee Ordinance (LMC
Chapter 15.64) provides for a fee schedule for various land
use types based on their service impacts all as compared to
one acre of low density residential use. This is done in
/ Y�
11 Continued March 4, 1992
the Residential Acre Equivalent (RAE) schedule contained in
Section 15.64.070. The categories are based on those shown
in the General Plan.
In working with the new ordinance over the past few months,
all of the developments subject to the fees have been
commercial projects. We have found a problem in -working
with shopping center projects which are allowed under the
"Neighborhood Commercial" category, but have traffic
impacts comparable to the "General Commercial" category. A
similar situation, although not as severe, exists for
police and fire fees.
The General Plan land use map identifies most of the
undeveloped commercial areas as "Neighborhood Commercial".
These areas are located and sized such that they will be
some type of shopping center. Essentially all the "General
Commercial" land is located along Cherokee Lane and little
is vacant. Because the zoning code allows such a large
overlap in permitted uses in these categories, it is
confusing to the development community as to which fee
might apply. It becomes even more of a problem when a
commercial use is located in an industrial zone, which is
also allowed by the zoning code.
To solve these problems, staff recommends that the three
retail commercial categories (neighborhood, general and
downtown) be considered as one "Retail Commercial"
category. The "Office Commercial" category would remain as
is.
This change would only affect the streets, police and fire
fees. The water, sewer, storm drainage, parks and
recreation and general City facilities RAE factors, hence
the fees, are already equal in these categories. Staff has
recalculated a weighted average RAE factor for this
combined "Retail Commercial" category and has reviewed our
methodology with the fee study consultant who found it
acceptable. The results were shown on an exhibit presented
for Council review. The new retail commercial fee is
slightly higher than the old neighborhood commercial fee
and significantly lower than the old general commercial
fee, as summarized below.
Land Use Category
Existing
Proposed
Neighborhood & Downtown General Retail
Fee Category Commercial Commercial
Commercial
Streets - RAE 1.90 3.82 2.08
Fee per acre $10,390 $20,900 $11,380
Continued March 4, 1992
Police -
RAE
4.28
2.59
Fee
per acre
$ 4,750
$ 2,870
Fire -
RAE
2.77
1.93
Fee
per acre-
$ 1,440
$ 10000
All Others -
RAE
varies
Fee
per acre
$24,700
$24,700
Total fee per
acre:
$41,280
$49,470
PUBLIC HEARING SET TO CONSIDER FEES FOR
PUBLIC WORKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
DISTRIBUTION
1105-
4.12
$ 4,570
2.69
$ 1,400
$24,700
$42,050
CC -6 The City Council set a public hearing for March 18, 1992 to
CC -12.1(c) consider setting fees for Public Works plans and
CC -56 specifications distribution.
At the present time, the City distributes specifications
for City projects at no cost to any interested party. The
cost to reproduce and mail the plans and specifications, as
well as the number of requests for them, has required the
Public Works Department to consider charging a
non-refundable fee for the reproduction and distribution of
these plans and specifications.
PUBLIC HEARING SET TO ACCEPT COST OF
CONSTRUCTION REPORT AND HEAR OBJECTIONS
FROM PROPERTY OWNERS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED
FOR INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS AT
1907 AND 1911 SOUTH CHURCH STREET
CC -45(e) The City Council set a public hearing for March 18, 1992 to
receive the Cost of Construction Report and to hear
objections or protests from property owners liable to be
assessed for the cost of such construction.
At the time the Church Street, Kettleman Lane to Century
Boulevard, project was bid, four property owners were
notified to construct sidewalk where none existed. Two of
the property owners made arrangements for the sidewalk
installation and two did not.
After the time prescribed in the Streets and Highways Code,
the City notified its contractor to do that work. The work
has been completed and the Code requires that the
legislative body set a time and place to hear the report
and any objections which may be raised by the property
owners who are liable for the construction.
7
V Continued March 4, 1992
PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT 13 NORTH CHURCH STREET
The City Council concurred in the purchase by the City of
Lodi of the property at 13 North Church Street.
The City Council was advised that for many years the City
has expressed interest in the purchase of the property at
13 North Church Street (Viola's), owned by Mrs. Viola
Reiswig. The property is surrounded on three sides by City
property as is the sole remaining parcel to be acquired to
complete the Civic Center complex. The property will be
utilized for additional parking. About a year ago, the
City engaged the services of an appraiser to prepare a
formai appraisal of the property. The appraised value was
set at $100,000. In a meeting late in the afternoon of
February 27, 1992 (Thursday), Mrs. Reiswig accepted the
City's offer at the appraised value.
Mrs. Reiswig is anxious to close escrow on the property at
the earliest possible date. It is for this reason that
this matter is brought to the City Council for concurrence
now rather than waiting until the next regular meeting of
March 18, 1992. Funding is provided in the 1991-92 Capital
Improvement Budget previously approved by the City Council.
COMMENTS BY CITY
COUNCIL MEMBERS The following comments were received under the "Comments by
City Council Members" segment of the agenda:
BIRTHDAY WISHES EXTENDED TO VEVA CARTER
Mayor Pinkerton wished Veva (Ditto) Carter a very happy
100th birthday.
APPOINTMENTS MADE TO PERMIT PROCESS
REVIEW COMMITTEE
CC -2(o) Mayor Pinkerton announced the appointment of the following
people to the Permit Process Review Committee:
1) Wayne Craig;
2) Larry Wenell;
3) Steve Pechin; and
4) Jeff Kirst.
COMMENTS BY THE
PUBLIC ON NON
AGENDA ITEMS The following comments were received under the "Comments by
the public on non -agenda items" segment of the agenda:
Continued March 4, 1992
LODI DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
MEMBERSHIP BREAKFAST
Evelyn M. Olson, President of the Lodi District Chamber of
Commerce announced that the Chamber is hosting a Membership
Breakfast on Friday, March 6, 1992 at 7:00 a.m. at the
Woodbridge Golf and Country Club and extended an invitation
to citizens of this community to attend.
CITIZEN VOICES COMPLAINT AGAINST
LODI POLICE DEPARTMENT
CC -16 Laurie Folweiler, 26 North Washington Street, Lodi reported
that she had recently been stopped by a member of the Lodi
Police Department and stated that she felt that the officer
was "malicious and rude" to her.
PUBLIC HEARINGS Notice thereof having been published according to law, an
affidavit of which publication is on file in the office of
the City Clerk, Mayor Pinkerton called for the Public
Hearing to consider amending the Lodi Municipal Code to
authorize the City to collect late fees for delinquent
utility bills.
LODI MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDED TO COLLECT
LATE FEES FOR DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS
ORDINANCE NO. 1543
RESOLUTION NO. 92-41
CC -6 Following introduction of the matter by the City Manager,
CC -21(a) Finance Director Dixon Flynn gave the following report.
CC -51(a)
CC -149 At a Shirtsleeve Session held on December 10, 1991, the
CC -300 City Council reviewed several proposals made by staff to
encourage the timely payment of the City's utility bills.
One proposal made was to impose and collect a fee for late
or delinquent payment of utility bills.
Mr. Flynn then presented the following proposed Utility
Fees and Deposits Policy for Council consideration.
RATES, FEES, AND DEPOSITS
The City of Lodi will provide reliable and cost effective
utility services to its customers. In accomplishing this
goal, utility operations will be efficiently managed and
based on sound economic principles, which in part means,
following prudent business practices and setting equitable
service rates, fees and deposits. As such, rates, fees,
and deposits will be based on the cost of service,
encourage conservation, promote timely customer payments,
and will be sensitive to customer needs, capacity to pay,
and the economic health of the community.
/'XX
Continued March 4, 1992
INITIATION OF SERVICE AND DELINQUENCY DEPOSITS
All applicants for utility services will establish credit
by depositing in advance the amount of a monthly service
charge. Such deposits will be either credited to the
customer's regular bill or closing bill, following one year
of satisfactory payment history or by agreeing to attend a
utility conservation class (electrical, gas, water, sewer,
garbage) approved by the City. After establishing good
credit with the City, deposits for new or additional
accounts will not be required. The Finance Director may
waive the initial deposit for industrial and commercial
customers to promote economic stability and commercial
growth; however, a deposit will be required from those
customers whose account is closed for failure to pay prior
to reconnecting services.
NEW SERVICE DEPOSIT
Class
Residential
Mobile Home Park
Group 1
Group 2 through 5
Inside City
$ 50
1,200
120
2,200
RESTORATION -RECONNECTION CHARGE
Outside City
$ 80
1,800
180
3,300
A restoration -reconnection charge will be paid by customers
prior to restoring and reconnecting City utilities for
non-payment as provided below:
During normal working hours: $33
Weekends, holidays, and
after normal work hours:* $48
*Also the charge to be levied for new service connections
after normal work hours, on holidays and weekends.
DELINQUENT CHARGES (not to be implemented until approved by
Council)
A delinquent charge of $10 after 60 days (third bill) and
$25 after 90 days (closing or final bill) shall be applied
to all past due accounts until sealed for non-payment or
until no prior monthly charges are outstanding.
The Finance Director may waive delinquent charges in whole
or part to promote goodwill with City customers when
requested by a customer for reasons of hardship or timely
payment could not have been reasonably expected based on
personal considerations.
10
Continued March 4, 1992
CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE
At the time utilities are disconnected for non-payment and
reinstatement of services is requested by a customer, the
Finance Director may negotiate a one-time repayment
schedule for up to six months for those customers who can
demonstrate their ability to pay. Normally a repayment
schedule will be established when a City customer can
demonstrate financial hardship due to the recent loss of
employment or other unusual hardship conditions.
In all other cases the City will refer customers to
appropriate assistance agencies such as "Reach Program"
offered by the Salvation Army and "Energy Crises
Intervention Program" offered by San Joaquin County
Department of Aging.
There being no persons wishing to speak on the matter, the
public portion of the hearing was closed.
On motion of Council Member Snider, Pennino second, the
City Council introduced Ordinance No. 1543 entitled, "An
Ordinance of the Lodi City Council Amending Lodi Municipal
Code Chapter 13.04 -- Service Generally" and adopted
Resolution No. 92-41 entitled, "A Resolution of the Lodi
City Council Setting a Late Fee for Delinquent Utility
Bills" which resolution will be effective concurrent with
the effective date of Ordinance No. 1543.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDER TO
ABATE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 303 EAST ELM
STREET
CC -24(c) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an
affidavit of which publication is on file in the office of
the City Clerk, Mayor Pinkerton called for the Public
Hearing to consider Notice of Public Nuisance and Order to
Abate dated February 7, 1992 addressed to Mr. Bradley B.
and B. B. Burrell, 1724 Lakeshore Drive, Lodi, California
regarding property located at 303 East Elm Street, Lodi
(Assessor Parcel No. 043-088-0021) issued by Steven W.
Raddigan, Fire Marshal, City of Lodi.
The matter was introduced by Fire Chief Larry Hughes who
advised the City Council that on February 3, 1992, the Fire
Marshal inspected the building at 303 East Elm Street. As
a result of this inspection, a determination was made by
the Fire Marshal that the building was vacant and unsecured
in violation of the Uniform Fire Code and the Uniform Code
for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings.
On February 5, 1992, the Fire Marshal contacted Mr. Bradley
Burrell and Mr. Patrick Manly by telephone. Mr. Burrell
stated that the property was being foreclosed on by Mr.
11
Continued March 4, 1992
Manly and that he was not going to spend any more money on
the property. Mr. Manly stated that until title is
returned to him, he was not responsible for the property.
During the conversation, it became apparent that no
foreclosure proceedings had been initiated.
On February 7, 1992, the Fire Marshal issued a Notice of
Public Nuisance and Order to Abate to Mr. Burrell, the
owner of the property, and to Mr. Manly, who has an
interest in the property.
The building is currently unsecured and an attractive
nuisance. Individuals have began marking the building
using gang graffiti, "XIV". Some of these markings have
been applied to the windows of the second story by
individuals who had gained access to the interior of the
building.
The building is located in one of the high crime areas and
is directly across from Hale Park.
The Fire Marshal feels that this building and adjoining
properties are at risk as a result of current condition of
the building.
Due to the fact that the legal owner has refused to secure
the building, and the danger that the current conditions
present, the Fire Marshal is requesting authorization from
the City Council to have the building secured and the cost
of approximately $1,800.00 placed a lien against the
property.
Addressing the City Council supporting the City's position
in this matter were the following people:
a) Virginia Lahr, 311 East Elm Street, Lodi;
b) Laurie Folweiler, 26 North Washington
Street, Lodi; and
c) Arthur Price, 1053 Port Chelsea Circle, Lodi.
There being no other persons wishing to address the City
Council regarding the matter, the public portion of the
hearing was closed.
On motion of Council Member Sieglock, Hinchman second, the
City Council ordered the Fire Marshal to immediately secure
the building, and directed staff to take whatever action is
necessary to secure and abate the subject building.
12
Continued March 4, 1992
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE LODI GENERAL PLAN
AMENDED BY REDESIGNATING A 5.71 ACRE PORTION
OF THE PARCEL LOCATED ON WOODHAVEN LANE,
NORTH OF TURNER ROAD, WEST OF EILERS LANE
AND SOUTH OF THE WID CANAL
PREZONING APPROVED
ORDINANCE NOS. 1544 AND 1545
CC -53(a) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an
CC -149 affidavit of which publication is on file in the office of
the City Clerk, Mayor Pinkerton called for the Public
Hearing to consider the following matters:
a) to certify the filing of a Negative
Declaration by the Community Development
Director as adequate environmental
documentation on the hereinafter listed
projects;
b) to amend the Land Use Element of the Lodi
General Plan by redesignating a 6.71 acre
parcel located on Woodhaven Lane north of
Turner Road, west of Eilers Lane and south
of the WID Canal (APN 015-230-29) from P -R,
Planned Residential to MDR, Medium Density
Residential (GPA -LU -92-1); and
c) to prezone a 6.71 acre parcel located on
Woodhaven Lane, north of Turner Road, west
of EilersLane, and south of the WID Canal
(APN 015-230-29) to Planned Development
District No. 28 (P -D 28).
Community Development Director Schroeder advised the City
Council that the proponent of the project Dana Smith and
his associates want to construct 50 single-family units on
less than standard size lots. Their proposal is similar to
three projects on Century Boulevard between Chickadee Drive
and Cherokee Lane and appears to meet the "less than market
rate requirement" in the growth manage program.
The project is north of Wine and Roses County Inn and west
of existing and proposed multiple -family on Woodhaven Lane.
Speaking in favor of the project were:
a) Steve Pechin, Baumbach and Piazza, Inc.
Civil Engineers, 303 West Elm Street;
b) Dana Smith, 211 South Avena, Street, Lodi;
and
c) Jim Sturman, 2842 East Center Street, Acampo.
13
Continued March 4, 1992
Speaking in opposition was:
a) Tom Gau, 2336 Eilers Lane, Lodi.
There -being no other persons wishing to speak regarding the
matter, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
A lengthy discussion followed with questions regarding the
matter being directed to staff and to those who had given
testimony.
On motion of Council Member Snider, Pennino second, the
City Council certified the filing of a Negative Declaration
by the Community Development Director as adequate
environmental documentation on the hereinafter listed
projects.
On motion of Council Member Sieglock, Pinkerton second, the
City Council introduced Ordinance No. 1544 amending the
Land Use Element of the Lodi General Plan by redesignating
a 6.71 acre parcel located on Woodhaven Lane north of
4 Turner Road, west of Eilers Lane and south of the WID Canal
(APN 015-230-29) from P -R, Planned Residential to MDR,
Medium Density Residential (GPA -LU -92-1).
On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Pennino, Snider second, the
City Council introduced Ordinance No. 1545 prezoning a 6.71
acre parcel located on Woodhaven Lane, north of Turner
Road, west of Eilers Lane, and south of the WID Canal (APN
015-230-29) to Planned Development District No. 28 (P -D 28).
PLANNING COMMISSION No reports had been received since the last City Council
meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
(CITY CLERK)
CLAIMS CC -4(c) On recommendation of the City Attorney and Insurance
Consulting Associates, Inc., on motion of Council Member
Hinchman, Sieglock second, the City Council denied the
following claim and referred it back to the City's Contract
Administrator:
ABC LICENSE
APPLICATIONS
a) Barbara Price, date of loss 12/17/91.
City Clerk Reimche presented an application for Alcoholic
Beverage Control License which had been received for the
following:
14
Continued March 4, 1992
a) Kitty Auyeung and Sidney Yu Tak, Jade
Fountain, 2401 Turner Road, Lodi,
California, On Sale Beer and Wine Eating
Place, Person to Person and Premise to
Premise Transfer.
MOKELUMNE RIVER ACCESS
CC -6 City Clerk Reimche presented the following letter that had
CC -184 been received from Capt. R. E. Thull, 1661 Timberlake
Circle, Lodi regarding river access.
It appears that the influence of the wealthy has once again
triumphed at the expense of the public.
The recommendation of the committee on 2/18/92 to deny
further access to the public is shocking, to say the least.
Instead of recommending more public access to the river, as
required by law, the committee actually favors the
establishment of yet another private park for the "River
People".
I strongly resent any of my tax dollars going to finance a
private park at the Scenic Overlook, and will do everything
in my power to stop it.
Capt. R. E. Thull
REGULAR CALENDAR
SILENT ALARM SERVICE MONITORED BY
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CC -6 City Manager Peterson introduced the matter advising the
CC -16 City Council that last summer the City Council was advised
via a memorandum that it was the City's intention to
terminate the silent alarm service monitored by the Police
Department. That memo advised that "unless I (City
Manager) hear from Council Members to the contrary, we will
move ahead with this effort...." A second memo was sent to
the City Council last November referencing the earlier memo
and stating that "we are now ready to do so (terminate) and
will proceed as planned."
The Police Department, in a letter dated January 3, 1992,
advised the 28 subscribers to this service that the
department would no longer maintain the silent alarm
board. The letter gave a disconnect deadline of February
6, 1992, with a provision for a 30 -day extension from that
date if the time frame created a hardship. This deadline
was subsequently extended an additional 30 days to April 6,
1992. Two months have elapsed since the notification
letter was mailed and as of this writing the Police
15
Continued March 4, 1992
Department has received just two calls of complaint. One
complainant was unhappy initially, but understood the
reasons for the action. He was granted a 30 -day extension
and advised the Police Department that he was moving ahead
with addressing his silent alarm needs. The only other
complaint was received from Mr. David Rice, owner of
Bitterman's Jewelry, 10 North School Street, who appeared
before the City Council at its regular meeting of
Wednesday, January 15, 1992, to present his protest in
person.
There are a small number of City and. County work stations
and equipment rooms connected to the system and the
dispatchers will continue to monitor those until the system
completely "crashes." Over half of these are located in
the Public Safety Building (Police Department) itself.
These alarms are almost never activated and thus pose
little, if any, additional load on the dispatchers. Upon
the complete failure of the existing alarm system, the City
will evaluate alarm system technologies at that time and
recommend action as deemed appropriate.
The reasons for the decision to terminate this service were
enumerated in the original memo distributed to the City
Council. They bear repeating;
It has been determined that this silent
alarm board operation is obsolete.
The system has become periodically
unreliable, and we are experiencing problems
and an increasing difficulty in locating
parts.
We have created a false sense of security
for those businesses currently tied into the
system.
There exists the potential of City liability
and as a result, the majority of California
cities no longer provide this service.
There are a number of local alarm companies
available to provide this service.
As a direct result of Mr. Rice's requests for additional
information, proposals to install a replacement system were
solicited from four private alarm companies. Two were Lodi
firms; one in Stockton; and one in the Bay Area (San
Mateo). The bids ranged widely from a low of $14,800 to a
high of $44,649. The range would lead one to logically
conclude that the various equipment proposed also varied
widely in capabilities.
16
Continued March 4, 1992
The issue here is not whether a silent alarm system can be
installed at a cost of $14,000 or $44,000. The issue is:
should the City of Lodi remain in the silent alarm
business? It is the recommendation of staff that the City
should not. The Dispatch Center is already crowded with
calls for service, many of which are of an emergency
nature, and some of which bear directly on the life safety
of the officers involved. In the midst of this activity,
the City's dispatchers should not be saddled with the
additional burden of having to prioritize responses to
silent alarms. The department has always, and will
continue to respond to silent alarms. But the screening of
these alarms should be the responsibility of private alarm
companies who are in the business of providing this kind of
service. The fact that approximately 90%-95% of the silent
alarm calls the Police Department receives are "false
alarms" lends further support to the City's termination of
this service. It is important to note that there remains
in San Joaquin County not a single other law enforcement
agency still in the silent alarm business.
Finally, there are significant numbers of previous
subscribers to the service who have already made
arrangements to convert their alarm systems to private
alarm companies. They have done so at no small expense.
It has cost them money. For example, all of the banks and
savings and loan institutions are no longer connected to
the City's silent alarm board. With the exception of Mr.
Rice, the City has not heard from any of the remaining
handful of businesses and residents who had previously
subscribed to this service. Having received no inquiries
from these individuals in the two months since the original
contact regarding the termination of service was made, we
can only assume that they have either made other
arrangements or have concluded they have no continued need
for alarm services.
To now renege on the City's prior announcement that it
would be terminating this service would be most unfair to
those businesses and residents who have taken the City at
its word.
Speaking in favor of the City's retaining the silent alarm
board were:
a) Steve Bosserman, 109 Hemlock Drive, Lodi;
b) David Rice, 10 North School, Lodi;
c) Barbara McWilliams, Poser's TV and Radio,
208 South School, Lodi; and
d) Cliff Poser, 920 South Cherokee Lane, Lodi
17
1�6 Continued March 4, 1992
Also addressing the City Council. regarding the matter was
Evelyn Olson, 1306 Burgundy Court, Lodi.
A lengthy discussion followed with questions regarding the
matter being directed to staff and to those who had
addressed the City Council regarding the matter.
On motion of Council Member Snider, Pennino second, the
City Council directed staff in cooperation with the City
Council and Lodi merchants to conduct a survey regarding
the matter as it relates to retail and commercial
businesses.
RECESS Mayor Pinkerton declared a five-minute recess and the City
Council reconvened at approximately 10:30 p.m.
GRAFFITI ABATEMENT
CC -13 Public Works Director Ronsko advised the City Council that
at the present time, the Parks and Recreation Department,
Community Center and the Public Works Department are
dealing with graffiti on their facilities. This would
continue to be done by each department. The options listed
under the removal methods would be used only on private
property where releases are obtained.
Removal Methods
Under the first two alternates listed, it is recommended
that the City implement a 3 -month trial program. Three
months would carry the program through to the beginning of
next fiscal year when major ongoing funding could be made
available. This funding will be discussed later.
AltarnatP 1
Under this alternate, the City would hire a part-time
employee, furnish all equipment, materials and a vehicle.
In the beginning, this employee would also be required to
obtain releases. It is hoped that releases can be obtained
by other methods discussed later in this communication.
The cost of this alternative is approximately $7,500.00
which includes 40 hours of labor per week at $6.00 per hour
and the equipment and materials. The $6.00 per hour
includes the standard employment costs. This person would
work a maximum of 8 hours per day which would allow us time
to evaluate what is really needed for an on-going program.
This cost does not include the cost of public relations or
other promotional materials which will be discussed later.
Alternate 2
This alternate is the same as Alternate 1 except the City
would contract with a temporary service agency for
iv
Continued March 4, 1992
employees to do this work. The cost of this alternate
would be approximately $9,000.00 which includes 40 hours of
labor per week at $8.50 per hour. All other portions of
this alternate are the same as Alternate 1.
The only difference between these two alternatives is the
hourly rate paid to the employee or the temporary agency.
Under Alternate 1, the City would be responsible for
worker's compensation for the part-time employee. Under
Alternate 2, the temporary service agency will cover the
employee worker's compensation, but the hourly cost is
higher. Either type employee would be supervised by the
Street Division.
It should be noted that after the trial program is
underway, and 40 hours per week are not needed,
modifications to the work schedule will be made.
AltPrnatP I
The third alternate is to contract with a graffiti
abatement contractor. The City Council was provided with
information from Arthur Price which included the proposal
from Graffiti Abatement Service which would cost $3,600.00
for 20 hours of labor per month for a 6 -month period (120
total hours). The $30.00 per hour cost would include most
materials. Under this alternate, releases would also have
to be obtained. If the same number of hours (560 hours)
were provided under this alternate as in Alternates 1 and
2, the cost would be $16,800.00. Because of the amount of
this alternate even at 20 hours per month, the City code
requires that several bids be obtained if there are others
who do this type of work. It should be noted that
supervision and monitoring of this alternate would also be
done by the Street Division.
Alternate 4
The fourth alternative is to use volunteers. Based on past
experience and the need to eradicate graffiti quickly and
maintain control over work, it is felt that use of
volunteers for the major graffiti removal is not a
realistic alternative. Once an ongoing program is
implemented, it is felt that volunteers could be used for
an "adopt a wall" or "adopt a fence" programs, 1 -day
paint -outs, etc.
Obtaining Releases
As mentioned at the last Council meeting, obtaining
releases for graffiti removal is one of the most
time-consuming elements of an abatement program. This
release was recently revised to give the City authorization
19
Alli
1. Continued March 4, 1992
to abate until written notice to revoke this authorization
is received.
Listed below are a number of ways that releases could be
obtained and any of these could be used in combination with
one another. If the Public Works Department is to be
responsible for an ongoing pro -active program, it would be
our goal to have a release for all properties subject to
graffiti.
1. Part-time City employee - A part-time
employee could be used, going door-to-door.
The working hours of this employee would
have to be set other than the standard 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. in order to reach those
people who work. It is important that this
employee be bilingual.
2. Volunteers - An effort could be made to get
volunteers to go door-to-door to obtain
releases. As mentioned at the Council
meeting, there are many senior citizens who
might be willing to do this. There are also
service clubs and civic organizations whose
members may want to make this a project. It
would also be helpful if some of these
volunteers were also bilingual.
3. Mass mailing - A mass mailing could be sent
to all property owners in the areas most
affected by graffiti. This mailing should
include information on the graffiti
ordinance as well as a release form. An
addressed envelope could be included to make
it easier for owners to return it to the
City. Our Finance Department could produce
the mailing labels.
4. Neighborhood Watch Program - The releases
could be given to all Neighborhood Watch
captains so they could get signed releases
from their group members as well as their
surrounding neighborhood.
5. Police Explorers - The Police Explorers
could be used similar to part-time City
employees.
Public Relations
It is important that this program be kept in the public
eye. It will be necessary to advertise in the paper
similar to what the City of Modesto has done. We will put
an information board in the lobby at City Hall which
20
Continued March 4, 1992
reminds people to sign the release and also to report
graffiti locations. The City Newsletter should also be
used. Bulletins could be sent to service clubs, as well as
to the Chamber of Commerce, asking that they remind their
members to sign releases and report graffiti. We could
also use the public service announcement spots provided by
Cable TV and local radio stations.
As suggested at the last Council meeting, stores selling
spray paint should be notified of the ordinance and their
responsibilities under the ordinance. The City could make
signs available to these stores for posting. A package
similar to the No Smoking Ordinance package could be
prepared.
Funding
The Community Development Department has confirmed that we
can use Community Development Block Grant funds for an
ongoing graffiti abatement program in the area eligible for
these funds. It is our feeling that over 90% of the
graffiti is presently found in this area. A map showing
this area was presented for Council review. These funds
can only be used for manpower if the worker is a full-time
or contract City employee. We could not hire an employee
from a service agency. These funds can also be used for
materials, equipment and public relations.
The Community Development Block Grant Fund projects for
1992-93 are currently being formalized. These projects
will be presented for approval to the City Council in
April. The money will become available on July 1, 1992.
Any work on the graffiti abatement program between now and
July 1, 1992 must be funded with City dollars.
It is possible that service clubs and other organizations
may be willing to contribute money to be used for newspaper
advertising and informational material once the program is
up and running.
Recommendation
Since Community Development Block Grant funds could be
provided for an ongoing program and if the Council desires
the City to become involved in a pro -active graffiti
program, it is our recommendation that the City Council
approval and fund Alternate 1. At the end of the initial
trial period, we feel we would see a significant decrease
in graffiti City-wide and we would have an employee fully
trained in graffiti removal. It would be in the City's
best interest to then transition this trained part-time
employee into a contract employee whose position would be
funded with Community Development Block Grant funds.
21
Continued March 4, 1992
It is also our recommendation that the Council appropriate
a total of $9,000.00 to cover the cost of Alternate 1 and
money needed for the public relations segment of the
program.
The appropriation to fund this interim program could be
made out of the City's Hotel/Motel Tax Fund, since one of
the eligible expenditure categories for this fund is for
City beautification.
Addressing the City Council regarding the matter were the
following people:
a) Arthur Price, 1053 Port Chelsea Circle, Lodi;
b) Mrs. Virginia Lahr, 311 East Elm Street,
Lodi; and
c) Mr. Dennis Cochran, 935 Coloma, Lodi.
Following a lengthy discussion, on motion of Council Member
Sieglock, Snider second, the City Council approved
implementing and funding of Alternate 1 as set forth
above. Staff was given the latitude to use either
Community Development Block Grant funds or funds from the
City's Hotel/Motel Tax Fund.
AGREEMENT APPROVED WITH HOUSING
AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
FOR MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO. 92-42
CC -5 Mr. David Ward, Executive Director of the Housing Authority
CC -25 of the County of San Joaquin addressed the City Council
CC -90 regarding the implementation of the Mortgage Credit
CC -300 Certificate Program in the City of Lodi.
Mr. Ward detailed the program advising that the Mortgage
Credit Certificate Program will provide substantial tax
benefits to qualified first-time home buyers at no cost to
the City. Mr. Ward then responded to questions regarding
the matter as were posed by members of the City Council.
On motion of Council Member Hinchman, Pennino second, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-42 approving the
agreement between the City of Lodi and the Housing
Authority of the County of San Joaquin to provide for the
implementation of the Mortgage Credit Certificate program
in the City of Lodi.
22
Continued March 4, 1992
ORDINANCE INTRODUCED REGARDING GREASE
INTERCEPTOR WASTE RESCINDED
CC -6 The City Council was advised that at the February 5, 1992
CC -149 public hearing, Council directed staff to come back with
additional information prior to its adoption of the sewer
ordinance amendment.
After further survey by staff it has been learned that of
five local firms which remove grease from interceptors a
year ago, one no longer hauls grease, two haul to ITRE (a
recently completed $1.5 million dollar state of the art
grease and oil recycling facility in Stockton). ITRE
charges around $0.14 or $0.15 per gallon depending on
negotiations with each hauler. A fourth hauler recycles
their grease into animal feed. A fifth hauler has asked
the City of Lodi to consider receiving their collected
grease. For whatever reason, this fifth hauler is
reluctant to take their grease to ITRE. There are
presently three firms which are hauling grease and
servicing Lodi businesses.
As was pointed out earlier, the City of Lodi`s wastewater
treatment facility has not been designed to process grease
waste and thus the City would be required to contract with
a local grease recycler (ITRE) to handle any grease
accepted.
If the City is to provide this service a $0.25/gallon
minimum fee would have to be adopted. This $0.25/gallon
fee is based on normal usage by all area grease haulers.
It is doubtful the two existing haulers would abandon their
negotiated contracts with ITRE at approximately
$0.15/gallon for our $0.25/gallon fee. Therefore the
$0.25/gallon fee would probably have to be increased.
Now that reliable grease recycling is available to area
haulers at costs significantly less than what the City
would be required to charge, it is recommended the City not
get into the grease disposal business.
Following discussion, on motion of Council Member Sieglock,
Snider second, the City Council rescinded Ordinance No.
1543 entitled, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Lodi Amending Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 13.12 -
Sewer Service, Section 13.12.115, Relating to Grease
Interceptor Waste and Fees" which was introduced by the
City Council on February 5, 1992.
ORDINANCES There were no ordinances presented for adoption.
23
Y Continued March 4, 1992
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the
City Council, Mayor Pinkerton adjourned the meeting at
approximately 11:25 p.m.
ATTEST:
Alice M. Re mche
City Clerk
24