Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - January 15, 2020 Public Commentseveral other schools. She further stated that she has already spoken with the Traffic Engineering Division, but she would like Council support for increasing traffic safety measures in the area. Council Member Chandler expressed his concern for the incident and asked for clarification on what signs are currently at the location, to which Ms. Williams replied that lighted signs are located on each side of the street but not in the street, and the crosswalk is not lighted. In response to City Manager Schwabauer, Ms. Williams verified that crossing guards were not previously serving during kindergarten release times, but they are now. She further stated that Police enforcement in the area would also help. Council Member Johnson stated that he appreciates the input and cooperation from Public Works, but he feels that the request for a Police presence should not be ignored. Mr. Schwabauer stated that, thanks to the passage of Measure L, the City now has five to six new officers joining the Police force, and one of the primary goals is to get the traffic unit up and running on a regular basis. Mayor Kuehne inquired as to the status of traffic studies in the area, to which Public Works Director Swimley replied the traffic study has not been initiated due to the recent receipt of the request. He further stated that in -pavement crosswalk lights have been removed as (a) they are very difficult to repair and maintain, and (b) they were found to be less affective, especially at low sun angles. Flashing beacons have been found to be more effective, but Public Works will definitely take a look at the location. Mike Lusk, member of the public, read four items he was submitting to Council (filed): (1) Selection by Lodi City Council of Mayor and request for an agenda item; (2) Annual Impact Mitigation Report; (3) Claim submitted for property in Reynolds Ranch Development and their parcel descriptions; and (4) Agenda Item No. C-10 on November 20, 2019 meeting regarding the Wastewater Capital budget. Following Mr. Lusk's comments, City Manager Schwabauer offered to meet to discuss the items. Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi commented that he is interested in setting up a rotation for service as Mayor and suggested working towards that if two other Council Members are interested. E. Comments by the City Council Members on Non -Agenda Items Mayor Pro Tempore Nakanishi commented that the Groundwater Agency Authority, consisting of 17 members, has been working over the last two years on a groundwater sustainability plan for the county, which they voted on last week and which will now be sent to the California Department of Water Resources. The budget for the group for the next six months is $382,000, with Lodi's share being $10,000. F. Comments by the City Manager on Non -Agenda Items None. G. Public Hearings G-1 Public Hearing to Consider Adopting Resolution to Approve Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consolidated Plan Amendment No, 1 (CD) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the office of the City Clerk, Mayor Kuehne called for the public hearing to consider adopting Z Lodi City Council Lodi City Manager Jan. 15, 2020 Subject: Selection by the Lodi City Council of Mayor and request for an agenda item. Last year on Jan. 16, 2019 1 submitted a letter to the Council to make changes to the process of the selection of the Lodi City Mayor. At the time the request was ignored. I was part of the Committee gathering signatures to put a measure on the next ballot. I was in agreement with the substance of the wording of the measure, but not in complete agreement with the way initial selection process would start the sequential rotation of Council Members. Walking door to door collecting signatures for the measure, I found most were unaware of the issue at hand. Once it was explained in an unbiased nature they were more than happy to sign the petition expressing the fairness of the rotation. Out of the hundreds of Citizens contacted there was only a couple who expressed the desire for an independent position of Mayor. Last year the intent was to have the Citizens vote a ballot measure that would tie the hands of the Council and not give them a choice on this protocol. The reality of this situation is the Council is not restricted from making these changes without going to the ballot box for an expensive measure. The Council can by public hearing, ordinance and vote by Council on the Resolution to make the change to annual District Council Member sequential rotation to Mayor. I hope the Council would, with good conscience, do the right thing for the Citizens of Lodi and make the changes necessary for the Mayor's position to be filled annually by Page 1of6 sequential District Council Member rotation and without political or personal bias! I do not support the current proposition of an independent Lodi City Mayor! I do support as stated last year the annual sequential Lodi City Council Member District rotation to the Mayor's position. Our San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors uses the sequential annual district rotation to the Chairman's position on the Board. Since last year I have had conversations with several of the current Council Members on this issue. Comments ranged from what if we have someone on the Council that is not a good fit for the Council or the City? What if they don't have time to be in the Mayor's position? What if they are just starting out as a new Council Member at the time of their rotation and lack experience on the Council? My comments in response have been the Citizens of Lodi have elected their respective district Council representative. If they were running for the elected position they would have to understand the job description would include their time as Mayor. I agree there is a learning curve to be had when it comes to the functions of City Government and its daily operations. The City Council's weakness is not the individual member but how the Council as a whole works together to accomplish the desired goals of the Citizens of Lodi that elected them. When it comes to the suggestion of creating an individual Mayor's position, be careful what you wish for! You would be moving away from the current District representation to an at large position of a strong Mayor for more than the current one year term. Money talks! Page 2 of 6 You may find that an individual that garners enough support from the wrong spectrum of Citizens and whose agenda is wrong for Lodi City Policy, could end up being your Mayor and the Council, the City and the Citizens are stuck with them for the designated term of Mayor. To avert this situation I again express the request that the Lodi City Council be proactive and make these changes in house by resolution vote! I would accept a variation to the wording of the draft ordinance as outlined below. That being if a Council Member has extenuating circumstances that interferes with this obligation to hold the Mayors position they could voluntarily pass to the next District in line. (In so doing they may have to answer to the Citizens of their respective District). Outlined below is the draft variation of last year's request that is updated to this year's situation. Place a meeting agenda for your review, suggestions and public acceptance, comments, hearings and a Council agenda to vote on the resolution to change. Respectfully Mike Lusk 2518 Colony Dr. Lodi, Calif Page 3 of 6 Current Lodi Code of Ordinances -Title 2 Chapter 2.04.070 Presiding Officer—Mayor—Mayor Pro Tempore 2.04.070 - Presiding officer—Mayor—Mayor pro tempore. The presiding officer of the council shall be the mayor who shall be elected by the council annually at the first regular meeting after the canvass of votes done in conjunction with the statewide general election in even -numbered years. In years where there is no general statewide election, the mayor shall be elected at the first regular meeting in December. At the time of the election of the mayor, one of the members of the council shall be chosen as mayor pro tempore. If the mayor is absent or unable to act, the mayor pro tempore shall serve until the mayor returns or is able to act. The mayor shall preserve strict order and decorum at all regular and special meetings of the council. He shall state every question coming before the council, call for the vote, announce the decision of the council on all subjects and decide all questions of order, subject, however, to an appeal to the council, in which event a majority vote of the council shall govern and conclusively determine such question of order. He shall sign all ordinances adopted by the council during his presence. In the event of the absence of the mayor, the mayor pro tempore shall sign ordinances as then adopted. (Ord. 1594 § 1 (part), 1994) Current CITY COUNCIL PROTOCOL MANUAL Chapter 3. COUNCIL ORGANIZATION 3.2 Reorganization Pursuant to Lodi Municipal Code Section 2.04.070, "Presiding officer— Mayor—Mayor Pro Tempore," the reorganization of the Council shall occur annually at the first regular Council meeting in December by electing a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore. In election years, the reorganization will occur at the regular Council meeting in December at which the San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters' certification of the general municipal election is presented. A community reception honoring the incoming Mayor, outgoing Mayor, and Council Members is traditionally held immediately following the reorganization meeting. 3.3 Selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore The term of office for the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore shall be one year. A majority vote of the Council is necessary to designate a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore. The election of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore will take place as follows: City Clerk will conduct the election for the office of Mayor. Following the election, the City Clerk will turn over the gavel to the newly -elected Mayor, who will then conduct the election for the office of Mayor Pro Tempore. City Council Protocol Manual Page 4 of 29 The vote is taken in the order the nominations are made with the first individual receiving a majority vote being elected to the office of Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore. Page 4 of 6 THE REQUESTED CHANGES TO THE LODI CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES AS FOLLOWS: Therefore, request the City of Lodi to change the wording of Lodi Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2.04.070 Presiding Officers---Mayor---Mayor Pro Tempore to read ---------- The presiding Officer of the Council shall be Mayor who has been elected by District to the Lodi City Council at the first regular meeting in conjunction with the Statewide General Election in even numbered years. In the years where there is no General Statewide Election, the Mayor shall be appointed at the first regular meeting in December. The appointment to Mayor shall be by sequential District elected Council Member for a period of one (1) year. The following year each Council Member in District sequence will be appointed as Mayor from the Mayor Pro Tempore position. Example: Five (5) Council Districts, District 1 first appointed Mayor, District 2 appointed Mayor Pro Tempore; Year two (2) District 2 Council Member Mayor Pro Tempore is appointed to Mayor for one (1) year and District 3 Council Member appointed to Mayor Pro Tempore. Year three (3) District 3 Council Member Mayor Pro Tempore is appointed to Mayor for one (1) year and District 4 Council Member appointed to Mayor Pro Tempore. Year four (4) District 4 Council Member Mayor Pro Tempore is appointed to Mayor for one (1) year and District 5 Council Member appointed to Mayor Pro Tempore. So on and so on------------. At no time will the same District Council Member serve as Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore for more than one (1) year term in any five (5) year period. "If the mayor is absent or unable to act, the mayor pro tempore shall serve until the mayor returns or is able to act. The mayor shall preserve strict order and decorum at all regular and special meetings of the council. He shall state every question coming before the council, call for the vote, announce the decision of the council on all subjects and decide all questions of order, subject, however, to Page 5 of 6 an appeal to the council, in which event a majority vote of the council shall govern and conclusively determine such question of order. He shall sign all ordinances adopted by the council during his presence. In the event of the absence of the mayor, the mayor pro tempore shall sign ordinances as then adopted." (existing paragraph of 2.04.070). The one (1) in five (5) year rule will also apply in the instance of a Council Member moving into a different District and being elected in the new district as a result of a change of residence; or the ten (10) year redrawing of District boundaries. Change to read: City of Lodi Council Protocol Manual—Chapter 3: Council Organization 3.2: Reorganization Pursuant to Lodi Municipal Code Section 2.04.070 "Presiding Officer—Mayor— Mayor Pro Tempore", the reorganization of the Council shall occur annually at the first regular Council meeting in December by appointment as prescribed in Lodi Municipal Code Section 2.04.070. In years of redrawing of District boundaries the five (5) year repeat rule shall apply and progress to the next District Council Member in sequence who falls outside of this five (5) year rule. Thereby precluding gerrymandering or power brokering by District. This allows for fair and equal representation for all Districts. In fairness the first rotation should be determined by a random drawing of the District number. Example: If District 3 is picked the Council Member will be appointed to Mayor and District 4 Council Member will be appointed to Mayor Pro Tempore and rotation yearly will begin, etc. 3.3 deleted entirely. Thank you for your consideration. Mike Lusk, Lodi Page 6 of 6 LODI CITY COUNCIL Jan 15, 2020 LODI CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: ANNUAL IMF REPORT The City of Lodi is in violation of California Government Code 66006 By not presenting the Annual IMF Report within the 180 days after the end of the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. I am requesting that the City add the new category that I presented to the Council last year for Recycled Water Fund in order to pay for new capital improvements and connections, metering and pumping equipment etc. that will be needed to create this new revenue portion of the Water Utility. I also am requesting that another category for low income housing be established. Oakland Example: "Il. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES A. Affordable Housing Impact Fees Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) Chapter 15.72 (Ordinance No. 13365 C.M.S.) establishes affordable housing impact fees in the City of Oakland to assure that market -rate residential development projects pay their fair share to compensate for the increased demand for affordable housing generated by such development projects within the City of Oakland. Any development project, unless exempt from this chapter, resulting in additional housing units in new or existing buildings must pay to the City the Affordable Housing Impact Fees, or the applicant may elect to construct on-site or off-site affordable housing units as permitted under OMC Sections 15.72.100 and 15.72.110. These Impact Fees are further broken down into three Impact Fee Zones for which fees vary. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund established under OMC Chapter 15.62 receives all Affordable Housing Impact Fees collected and all interest and investment earnings thereon, shall be used to increase, improve, and preserve the supply of affordable housing in the City, with priority given to housing for very low income households. (Source Oakland annual report)." This IMF based upon the square footage of each new unit built develops a fund to be used to offset developer costs of low income housing units, rents, remodel Page 1 of 4 older housing units etc. This is in effect in other cities in Calif. Using Oakland, San Jose, Palo Alto, Redwood City, Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova to name a few. They even have a program in the San Jose area where the price of a home as an example would be $275,000 low income original price and the owner is contracted to retain this same level of value in the event they sell in the future and the original cost keeps rolling over in this program. I am not sure where AB101 will fit into this program. The Annual IMF Report needs a little finessing in addition to the correction made on last year's report. Project inclusions for White Slough phase I, II III and the new holding pond need to be shown with original funding cost, interest, COPS conversions, amounts paid upon debt and the percentages each year of amount paid and balance left. Also the Water Treatment Plant at Lodi Lake needs to be shown in the same manner. The Fire House 4 funding needs to be continued as well in addition to any other Capital Improvement funded by the IMF. The review of other Cities and their reports, they are using a first in first out accounting principal when managing the funds and identifying the annual transactions of revenue receipts and disbursements. Identifying the starting year and showing each individual year to date if program is still on going. If there are any questions about any of the above, I have numerous city examples of this type of report and the format used by them. These are all available on line or I would be willing to bring in the examples. Excerpt from Elk Grove Low Income Housing Fund Fiscal Year 2018/19 Affordable Housing Fee Program Overview An Affordable Housing Fee Program was adopted by the City Council in 2002, based on a Housing Nexus Study and Housing Impact Fee Analysis prepared the same year. The 2002 studies identified the need for affordable housing in the City, and provided maximum fee levels. The fee program was revised in 2004 to make some minor implementation -related Page 2 of 4 amendments and the fee level did not change. Modifications from 2004 to 2012 included only the annual inflation adjustment. A comprehensive update to the fee levels, uses, and codification was approved by the City Council on March 27, 2013. As a result of the 2013 Nexus Study, the City consolidated the Affordable Housing Fund and the Very Low Income Housing Trust Fund and established new maximum fees for residential and non-residential development projects under the Affordable Housing Development Impact Fee Program. For accounting and reporting purposes, all activities for both programs, including all loans regardless of origination date, were combined in the Affordable Housing Fund (Fund 231). In FY2018/19, the City began the process of updating the affordable housing fee analysis, in order to ensure a nexus still exists and to evaluate maximum fee levels under current economic conditions. That fee analysis is expected to be complete in FY2019/20. The Affordable Housing Fund has been used primarily to assist the development of affordable rental housing units for low-income households, which include many working families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. The City of Elk Grove's assistance typically comes in the form of "gap" financing, which offers loans with below market interest rates and favorable terms in order to help assure the financial feasibility of such projects. Prior to the update in 2013, the fee was applied only to residential development and included a 3% administrative fee that went into a separate account within the Affordable Housing Fund. (A separate fee on non-residential development went into the Very Low Income Housing Trust Fund.) Currently, the fees are applied to both residential and non-residential development, consistent with the adopted levels for given types of uses, and the 3% administrative fee continues to be charged. Required Findings 1. The purpose of the affordable housing fee program is to fund a portion of the cost of affordable housing for low-income households, the need for which is generated by new residential and non-residential development in the City. 2. The reasonable relationship between the affordable housing fee and the purpose for which it is charged is demonstrated in the Affordable Housing Nexus Study dated February 27, 2013. 3. Since the establishment of the Affordable Housing Fund, about $74 million in loans has been committed to fourteen affordable housing projects. The most recently completed project, the Bow Street Apartments, has 98 units (97 affordable units) and received temporary certificates of occupancy in 2019. It is now fully leased. Of the City's $5 million loan to the Bow Street Apartments project, $2 million was drawn in FY 2018/19 and the remainder is expected to be drawn in FY 2019/20. In FY 2017/18, the City made a loan commitment of $5 million to support the construction of The Gardens at Quail Run, a proposed 96 -unit affordable apartment complex. The project's developer during FY 2018/19 secured other Page 25 of 96 Page 3 of 4 necessary funding sources and staff currently expects the project to begin construction in early 2020. Loan disbursements are tied to construction and leasing milestones and loan proceeds are anticipated to be disbursed in FY 2020/21. 100% Affordable Housing Fee (Fund 231 - page 1 of 2) This citywide development impact fee program funds new development's fair share of housing to serve eligible income groups in the City. Land use July 1, 2018 through Jan.1 2019 through June 30, December 30, 2018 2019 Single -Family $4,276 / unit $4,493 / unit Multi -Family $2,565 / unit $2,695 / unit Commercial $0.70 / sq ft $0.74 / sq ft Hotel $2.08 /sq ft $2.18 / sq ft Manufacturing $0.80/ sq ft $0.84 / sq ft Warehouse $0.85 / sq ft $0.901 sq ft Note: Fees are adjusted every January 1 for inflation. $16,822,239 Beginning Balance, July 1, 2018 $78,073,270 Income $3,979,716 Fees collected CalHome HAP Loan Reimbursement $0 Interest earned and change in market value $646,170 Loan repayment interest $172,132 Other Revenues $154,855 Total $4,952,873 Disbursements Amount % Fee Funded in FY19 Current year loans issued $0 Homebuyer Assistance $2,000,000 100% Program Loans Professional and legal $45,572 100% services Impact Fee Administration $75,488 100% Aff. Housing Staff Salaries $63,978 100% and benefits Total $2,185,038 Ending Balance, June 30, 2019 $78,073,270 Adjustment to Fund Balance, End of Year* $4,767,835 Adjusted Fund Balance, End of Year $82,841,105 Assigned Fund Balance, End of Year $66,018,866 Available Fund Balance as of June 30, 2019 $16,822,239 (End of excerpt) I would like a response upon the subject as outline above and a date that this report will be available. Respectfully Mike Lusk, Lodi Page 4 of 4 LODI CITY COUNCIL LODI CITY MANAGER Jan 15, 2020 SUBJECT: CLAIM SUBMITTED FOR PROPERTY IN REYNOLDS RANCH DEVELOPMENT AND THEIR PARCEL DESCRIPTIONS. I turned in a claim on Nov. 6, 2019 subject Property Reynolds Ranch for the purpose of Firehouse 5, which has been denied on Dec. 4, 2019 Claim No.19-64 without the Cities explanation or reasoning for the merits of denial on the Cities part, just a rubber stamp denial. I would like the City to identify the location of the property by parcel number and geophysical location in the Reynolds Ranch Development. I would like the City to disclose the value of this property and into which fund account until it is either sold or used by the City. If sold where will the revenue be placed in which City account? I still believe that under the State of California Government Code Section 66010 (b) this definition verifies that this property transaction falls under this Chapter and substantiates my original claim. State of California GOVERNMENT CODE Section 66010 66010. As used in this chapter: (a) "Development project" means a development project as defined in Section66000. (b) "Fee" means a monetary exaction or a dedication, other than a tax or special assessment, which is required by a local agency of the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project, but does not include fees for processing applications for governmental regulatory actions or approvals. Respectfully Mike Lusk 2518 Colony Dr. Lodi, Calif. 95242 LODI CITY COUNCIL NOV 6. 2019 LODI CITY MANAGER THIS IS A CLAIM ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZEN RATE PAYERS OF THE LODI WATER UTILITY ENTERPRISE. THIS IS A DEMAND THAT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT REYONLDS RANCH DEVELOPMENT WHICH HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS THE LOCATION FOR FIREHOUSE 5 BE PLACED INTO THE BUILDERS IMPACT MITIGATION FIRE FUND AND ANY CONVERSION BY SALE OF THIS PROPERTY TO A MONETARY FUND BE RETAINED IN THE IMF FIRE FUND IN ITS ENTIRITY. THEN THESE FUNDS SHOULD BE USED TO PAY OF THE BALANCE REMAINING ON THE WATER IMPACT FUND LOAN FOR FIREHOUSE 4 AND CLOSE OUTTHIS LOAN AFTER 17 YEARS. ANY REMAINING BALANCE IN THE FIRE FUND WILL BE RETAINED IN THE IMF FIRE FUND. AT NO TIME SHOULD ANY OF THE VALUE OR MONETARY FUNDS BE TRANSFERRED TO THE GENERAL FUND. BASIS FOR CLAIM IS THE DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT FOR REYNOLDS RANCH, WHERE IN AS PART OF THE CAPITAL INFASTRUCTURE IMPACT, THE DEVELOPER AGREED TO PAY BUILDER IMPACT FEES AND CREATE AN IN LIEU EXCHANGE OF REAL PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CAPITAL INFASTRUCTURE OF FIRE HOUSE 5. THE VALUE OF THIS REAL ESTATE IS OF LIKE KIND IN RELATION TO BUILDER INPACT FEE TO THE FIRE IMF FUND. THEREFORE IT SHOUD BE HANDLED ACCORDINGLY AS PERSCRIBE IN STATE OF CALIF. GOV. CODE SECTIONS 66006 ETC. State of California GOVERNMENT CODE Section 66006 66006. (a) If a local agency requires the payment of a fee specified in subdivision(c) in connection with the approval of a development project, the local agency receiving the fee shall deposit it with the other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund Page 1 of 3 in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected. Any interest income earned by moneys in the capital facilities account or fund shall also be deposited in that account or fund and shall be expended only for the purpose for which the fee was originally collected. (b) (1) For each separate account or fund established pursuant to subdivision (a),the local agency shall, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, make available to the public the following information for the fiscal year: (A) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. (B) The amount of the fee. (C) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. (D) The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned. (E) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees. (F) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement, as identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 66001, and the public improvement remains incomplete. (G) A description of each inter fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an inter fund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan. (H) The amount of refunds made pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 66001 and any allocations pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 66001. (2) The local agency shall review the information made available to the public pursuant to paragraph (1) at the next regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after this information is made available to the public, as required by this subdivision. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including the address where this information may be reviewed, shall be mailed, at least 15 days prior to the meeting, to any interested party who files a written request with the local agency for mailed notice of the meeting. Any written request for mailed notices shall be valid for one year from the date on which it is filed unless a renewal request is filed. Renewal requests for mailed notices shall be filed on or before April 1 of each year. The legislative body may establish a reasonable annual charge for sending notices based on the estimated cost of providing the service. (c) For purposes of this section, "fee" means any fee imposed to provide for an improvement to be constructed to serve a development project, or which is a fee for public improvements within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 66000, and that is imposed by the local agency as a condition of approving the development project. (d) Any person may request an audit of any local agency fee or charge that is subject to Section 66023, including fees or charges of school districts, in accordance with that section. (e) The Legislature finds and declares that untimely or improper allocation of development fees hinders economic growth and is, therefore, a matter of statewide interest and concern. It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature that this section shall supersede all conflicting local laws and shall apply in charter cities. Page 2 of 3 (f) At the time the local agency imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, it shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance. (Amended by Stats. 1996, Ch. 569, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 1997.) State of California GOVERNMENT CODE Section 66008 66008. A local agency shall expend a fee for public improvements, as accounted for pursuant to Section 66006, solely and exclusively for the purpose or purposes, as identified in subdivision (f) of Section 66006, for which the fee was collected. The fee shall not be levied, collected, or imposed for general revenue purposes. (Added by Stats. 1996, Ch. 569, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 1997.) State of California GOVERNMENT CODE Section 66010 66010. As used in this chapter: (a) "Development project" means a development project as defined in Section66000. (b) "Fee" means a monetary exaction or a dedication, other than a tax or special assessment, which is required by a local agency of the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project, but does not include fees for processing applications for governmental regulatory actions or approvals. (c) "Local agency" means a local agency, as defined in Section 66000. (d) "Public facilities" means public facilities, as defined in Section 66000. (e) "Reconstruction" means the reconstruction of the real property, or portion thereof, where the property after reconstruction is substantially equivalent to the property prior to damage or destruction. Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch. 1572, Sec. 18.) Respectfully Mike Lusk 2518 Colony Dr. Lodi, Calif. 95242 Page 3 of 3 Lodi City Council Jan 15, 2020 Lodi City Manager Subject: Agenda Item C-10 on the November 20, 2019 meeting. At the November 20, 2019 meeting I addressed Item C-10 and the amount of $30,000 that was being charged off to the Wastewater Capital budget. I questioned under Prop 218 guidelines that this amount should not be charged to the Wastewater budget. During the meeting it was discussed whether it was appropriate to charge the Wastewater. The City Manager stated it would be necessary to approve the resolution on C-10 and that he and I could discuss it at a later time. Mr. Schwabauer and I discussed this matter after the meeting with Mr. Swimley present and it was agreed that this amount would be removed from the Wastewater Capital fund and be charged to the General Fund saving the Utility Rate Payers this cost. My question here is ---since the authority for funding was authorized by Resolution no.2019-244 and recorded in public record as being charged to the Wastewater budget does this now have to be brought back to Council and a new resolution voted upon to change funding authority to the General Fund as a note of record. I appreciate the effort on the part of the City to save the Utility Rate payers some money. Respectfully Mike Lusk, Lodi RESOLUTION NO. 2019-244 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL RATIFYING EXPENSES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY STORAGE EXPANSION AND SURFACE, AGRICULTURAL, AND GROUNDWATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS; AND FURTHER APPROPRIATING FUNDS WHEREAS, the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvements was awarded to A.M. Stephens Construction Co., Inc., of Lodi, on April 18, 2018, in the amount of $3,713,005; and WHEREAS, contract change orders are generally used to formalize changes in construction and maintenance contracts to add to or subtract from the scope of work; and WHEREAS, Change Order No. 3 includes miscellaneous time -and -materials work associated with installing the 14 -inch final effluent pipe and additional electrical programing work; and WHEREAS, staff recommends ratifying expenses and authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 3 to the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvements, in the amount of $14,729; and WHEREAS, staff recommends the City Council appropriate funds in the amount of $30,000, from the fund balance of Wastewater Capital (53199000.77020) for Fiscal Year 2019/20, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council does hereby ratify expenses and authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 3 to White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvements, in the amount of $14,729; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council does hereby authorize an appropriation in the amount of $30,000, as set forth above. Dated: November 20, 2019 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2019-244 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held November 20, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Johnson, Kuehne, Nakanishi, and Mayor Chandler NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Mounce ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None NNIFER FERRAIOLO ity Clerk 2019-244