AGENDA WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING WATERFORD COMMUNITY CENTER, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 540 “C” STREET, WATERFORD, CA
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING – NOVEMBER 3, 2011 - 6:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Goeken FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Goeken INVOCATION: Glenn Stanford, Casa de Modesto ROLL CALL: Mayor: Goeken Vice Mayor: Aldaco Council Members: Van Winkle, Krause, Day ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Motion waiving reading of all ordinances and resolutions on the agenda except by title, unless reading of an Ordinance or Resolution is requested by the Mayor or a Council Member.
ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR: All Matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine by the Council and will be adopted by one action of the Council unless any Council Member desires to discuss any item or items separately. In that event, the Mayor will remove that item from the Consent Calendar and action will be considered separately. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION: Declaration by City Council members who may have a direct Conflict of Interest on any scheduled agenda item to be considered.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR
1a: Waive Readings. All readings of Ordinances and Resolutions, except by title, are waived. 1b: RESOLUTION 2011-112: Warrant Register 1c: Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on October 20, 2011. 1d: RESOLUTION 2011-113: Approving Professional Services Agreement with MCR Engineering 1e: RESOLUTION 2011-114: Authorizing the City Administrator to Execute Grant Application for a Signatory SJVUAPCD Clean Vehicle Grant
2. PRESENTATIONS
2a: Modesto Pregnancy Center Presentation by Delores Wolterstorff 2b: Capital Improvement Program Presentation by Tony Marshall, City Engineer
3. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda. Comments should be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. For items appearing on the agenda, the public will be invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for Council consideration. At all times please come up to the podium and use the microphone. 4. PUBLIC HEARING
Members of the public may comment when the item is opened for public hearing.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
6a: RESOLUTION 2011-115: Approving the Waterford Agriculture Preserve Map 2050 and Support a Countywide Ballot Measure
6b: RESOLUTION 2011-116: Approving the Property Purchase Sale Agreement for a Portion of 567 S. Reinway Ave
6c: RESOLUTION 2011-117: Approving City Hall Closure Schedule and Canceling January 5, 2012 City Council Meeting
7. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
These items are informational only and do not require any action. 7a: Minutes of the Regular Planning Meeting held on September 27, 2011 7b: Stanislaus Drug Enforcement Agency Status Report for August/September 2011 7c: Police Services Watch Report for September 2011
8. STAFF/COUNCIL COMMENTS
8a: City Staff Comments (Information Only – No Action) 8b: City Council Comments (Information Only – No Action)
9. CLOSED SESSION
9a: “CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, PENDING LITIGATION” (PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9)
Telles vs. City of Waterford, et.seq. City of Waterford vs. Stanislaus County Auditor/Controller
ADJOURNMENT ITEM #: 1a SECTION: Consent
City Council - Staff Report
Meeting Date: November 3, 2011
From: Tim Ogden, City Administrator, [email protected]
Action Title: Waive Readings
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
All readings of Ordinances and Resolutions, except by title, are waived.
RECOMMENDATION / ANALYSIS:
FISCAL IMPACT:
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS: ITEM #: 1b SECTION: Consent
City Council - Staff Report
Meeting Date: November 3, 2011
From: Tim Ogden, City Administrator, [email protected]
Action Title: Warrant Register
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approving Resolution 2011-112: Warrant Register
RECOMMENDATION / ANALYSIS:
FISCAL IMPACT:
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution Check Register Report
ITEM #: 1c SECTION: Consent
City Council - Staff Report
Meeting Date: November 3, 2011
From: Tim Ogden, City Administrator, [email protected]
Action Title: Approving Minutes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approving Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on October 20, 2011.
RECOMMENDATION / ANALYSIS:
FISCAL IMPACT:
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Thursday, October 20, 2011
A regular meeting of the Waterford City Council was called to order by Mayor Goeken at 6:32 PM at the Waterford Community Center, 540 “C” Street, Waterford, CA 95386.
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 06:32:48 PM Mayor Goeken
INVOCATION: 06:33:11 PM Pastor Paul Schooley, 7th Day Adventist Church
ROLL CALL PRESENT: 06:34:14 PM Present: Mayor Goeken Vice Mayor Aldaco Council Member Van Winkle Council Member Krause Council Member Day
Absent: None
Also Present: Tim Ogden, City Administrator Lori Martin, City Clerk Corbett J. Browning, City Attorney Matt Erickson, Public Works Director Darin Gharat, Police Chief
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA: Van Winkle moved, seconded by Day, to adopt the agenda.
06:34:26 PM AYES: Goeken, Aldaco, Van Winkle, Krause and Day NAYES: None ABSENT: None
Motion passed by majority.
ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR: Krause moved, seconded by Aldaco, to adopt the consent calendar.
06:34:43 PM AYES: Goeken, Aldaco, Van Winkle, Krause and Day NAYES: None ABSENT: None
Motion passed by majority.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1a: Waive Readings. All readings of Ordinances and Resolutions, except by title, are waived. 1b: RESOLUTION 2011-106: Warrant Register 1c: Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on October 6, 2011 1d: RESOLUTON 2011-107: Waterford Becoming a Healthy Eating, Active Living (“HEAL”) City 1e: Authorize Advertisement of Bids for (2) EECBG Retrofit Projects 1f: Approving the Parks & Rec Christmas Tree Lighting Event
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION: None.
CC Min 100611 Page 1 of 5 Audio of this meeting is available upon request
2. PRESENTATIONS:
2a: Regional Transportation Impact Fee Presentation: 06:35:01 PM City Administrator Ogden introduced Amy Gedney from the City of Modesto and Matt Machado from the County of Stanislaus. Ogden explained that the City Managers work group has been meeting with representatives from the County of Stanislaus for the last year to try and work out the best solution to the Regional Transportation County Impact Fee. Ms. Gedney presented the Summary Report for the Regional Transportation Impact Fee for the Stanislaus Region.
3. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE: 06:57:16 PM None.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
6a: RESOLUTION 2011-108: Approving the Preparation of Nexus Study for the 2011 Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program, and Authorizing Expenditures in the Amount of $822 from the Impact Fee Traffic Fund: 06:57:31 PM City Administrator Ogden stated that the funds are budgeted and that staff supports the City’s participation in the nexus study.
Krause moved, seconded by Day, to adopt Resolution 2011-108, as recommended.
06:58:12 PM AYES: Goeken, Aldaco, Van Winkle, Krause and Day NAYES: None ABSENT: None
Motion passed by majority.
6b: RESOLUTION 2011-109: Establishing Procedures for the Conduct of Protest Hearings Pursuant to Proposition 218 for New or Increased Property-Related Fees and Charges: City Clerk Martin explained that this Resolution will adopt the procedures that the City will follow in regards to conducting protest hearings pursuant to Proposition 218 for new or increased property related fees and charges.
06:58:20 PM Aldaco moved, seconded by Day, to adopt Resolution 2011-109, as recommended.
07:01:11 PM AYES: Goeken, Aldaco, Van Winkle, Krause and Day NAYES: None ABSENT: None
Motion passed by majority.
CC Min 100611 Page 2 of 5 Audio of this meeting is available upon request 6c: RESOLUTION 2011-111: Declaring Intention to Modify the City’s Wastewater Rates Beginning February 1, 2012 and Approving the Timeline for the Public Hearing and Proposition 218 Process: 07:01:17 PM Public Works Director Erickson introduced Kim Boehler and Dave Ketcham from NBS Government Finance Group who will be presenting the findings of the Wastewater Rate Study. Kim Boehler of NBS presented the findings of the Wastewater Rate Study which NBS prepared and identified three rate adjustment options which Council could choose from to fix the structural deficient, create a 90-day operating reserve and create a Capital Replacement fund for future repairs and replacement of the Wastewater system. Public Works Director Erickson explained in more detail the capital projects identified by staff that needs to be completed in the next five years and explained that scenario 3 included funding for these projects.
Aldaco moved, seconded by Day, to adopt Resolution 2011-111 with scenario 3 as the rate adjustment option.
07:45:28 PM AYES: Goeken, Aldaco, Krause and Day NAYES: Van Winkle ABSENT: None
Motion passed by majority.
6d: RESOLUTION 2011-110: Approving the Parks & Rec Parks/Facilities Naming Recommendations: 07:46:50 PM City Administrator Ogden explained that at the last two Parks & Recreation Commission and at the last Council meeting there were discussions about continuing to formally name all of the city parks and facilities that are still yet to be named. Ogden stated further stated that as outlined in the staff report, the Parks & Recreation Commission did not recommend any name changes to the Waterford Community Center, the small pavilion, the large pavilion or the River Park Pavilion. Ogden explained further that the Parks & Recreation Commission has recommended the following name changes:
• Welch Strip Park 1,2 & 3 to Welch Pathway 1,2 & 3 • Bonnie Brae Strip Park to Bonnie Brae Pathway
Van Winkle moved, seconded by Krause, to adopt Resolution 2011-110, as recommended.
07:48:23 PM AYES: Goeken, Aldaco, Van Winkle, Krause and Day NAYES: None ABSENT: None
Motion passed by majority.
6e: Review of City Co-Sponsored Events and Provide Direction to Staff in Regards to Transfer of Risk: 07:48:27 PM City Clerk Martin and City Administrator Ogden discussed the various events which are either sponsored or co-sponsored by the City and discussed the transfer of risk options. City Administrator Ogden stated that some cities have used a part-time hourly employee to handle these types of events and secure city facilities and mentioned that the city has a job classification which was approved by Council at a recent meeting that would accommodate this. The consensus of Council and staff was to look into the option of utilizing a part-time hourly employee to conduct these types of events under the direction of City management and in addition could help with Community Center rental walk-through’s and ensuring that City facilities were properly locked at the end of the event. Public Works Director Erickson stated that we can recoup some of the costs associated with a part-time on-call hourly person to handle these types of things through the rental rates of renting the facilities. Council provided direction to staff to research the options available in hiring a part-time on-call hourly employee to work under the direction of City staff to facilitate and properly secure facilities at city ran or co-sponsored events.
CC Min 100611 Page 3 of 5 Audio of this meeting is available upon request
.
7. CORRESPONDENCE / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
7a: Minutes of the Regular Parks & Recreation Meeting held on August 9, 2011 7b: Building Report – September 2011 7c: Business License Report – September 2011 7d: FOG Report – September 2011 7e: Wastewater Daily Flow Summary – September 2011 7f: Waterford Historical Society Veteran’s Day Celebration – Saturday, November 12, 2011 at the Museum 7g: Approving Program Supplement Agreement No. 018-N1 to Administering Agency-State Agreement No. 10-5406R Relating to the Downtown Commercial Rehabilitation Project 7h: Grant Application Submittal to State Farm for Technology Improvements to the Community/Senior Center to Enable Greater Accessibility in Waterford
8. STAFF / COUNCIL COMMENTS:
STAFF / COUNCIL COMMENTS:
8a: CITY STAFF COMMENTS:
Public Works Director: 08:10:58 PM Public Works Director Erickson reported that the painting of the Museum is near completion stating that the E. Clampus Vitus donated the sign stating that the sign and the newly painted building looks fantastic and that he has received many compliments from the community and thanked the Public Works staff for their hard work. Erickson stated that our City Engineer, Tony Marshall will present our Capital Improvement Project Presentation at the November 3, 2011 Council meeting. Erickson stated that the Emergency of Operations Services is putting the final touches on our Emergency Operations Plan and is scheduled for a presentation by Fire Chief Gary Hinshaw on the November 17, 2011 Council meeting where Council will consider adoption of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan.
Police Chief: 08:15:01 PM Police Chief Gharat apologized for his absence at the last meeting stating that he had to be at a Retirement Board meeting that night. Chief Gharat commented on the recent homecoming parade stating that it went off without a hitch.
City Attorney: 08:16:28 PM Deputy City Attorney Rick Martini identified the closed session items as posted on the agenda under Items 9a and 9b.
City Clerk: City Clerk Martin thanked the Public Works staff for their hard work painting the Museum and asked to be on the paint color selection team next time.
City Administrator: 08:17:25 PM City Administrator Ogden reminded everyone of the Community Baptist Church community-wide event on Saturday. Ogden also reminded everyone of the Veterans Day event on November 11th at the Museum.
8b: COUNCIL COMMENTS:
VM/Jose Aldaco: 08:18:25 PM VM/Aldaco reminded some of the Council members that he is carrying is 3lb agenda instead of their 20lb agenda’s and encouraged them to go digital.
CM/Ken Krause: 08:17:49 PM CM/Krause thanked everyone for putting on a great Murder Mystery Dinner event last weekend.
CC Min 100611 Page 4 of 5 Audio of this meeting is available upon request CM/Van Winkle: 08:18:10 PM CM/Van Winkle provided comment to City Clerk Martin stating that if she sticks around another 20 years she might get to help pick that paint color.
Murray Day: 08:18:22 PM No comments.
Mayor Goeken: Mayor Goeken informed everyone that the Presidential Tree for the White House in Washington DC will be coming from Pine Crest along with 100 smaller trees for each of the Senators and stated that it will be coming through and stopping in Manteca on Tuesday, November 8th at 5:00 PM for public viewing of the trees.
RECESS: 08:20:01 PM Mayor Goeken recessed the City Council meeting at 8:20PM. To reconvene to closed session directly following the recess. To reconvene to open session to report on any actions taken during closed session and adjourn the City Council meeting directly following closed session.
ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Goeken adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:45PM.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Waterford City Council at a regular meeting held on November 3, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lori Martin, City Clerk Charlie Goeken, Mayor
9. CLOSED SESSION:
9a: “CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, PENDING LITIGATION” (PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9)
Sipple v. City of Waterford (New Cingular). Direction given to City Attorney.
9b: “CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR” (PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.8)
APN: 080-007-067 (Muncill): Action taken to give City Administrator authorization to enter into the Purchase and Sale Agreement for $50,000.00 subject to the City Attorney approving the Purchase and Sale Agreement.
CC Min 100611 Page 5 of 5 Audio of this meeting is available upon request ITEM #: 1d SECTION: Consent
City Council - Staff Report
Meeting Date: November 3, 2011
From: Tim Ogden, City Administrator, [email protected]
Prepared By: Matt Erickson, Public Works Director, [email protected]
Action Title: Approving Professional Services Agreement with MCR Engineering
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A current review of the Professional Services contract that the city has with MCR Engineering found that the document had not been updated in many years and did not meet certain criteria or conform to Caltrans specifications regarding Consultant Contracts by Local Agencies.
RECOMMENDATION / ANALYSIS:
Approve the amended/updated Professional Services Contract with MCR Engineering for City Engineering services.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Ongoing services related to engineering. Current impacts outlined in 2011/2012 budget document.
BACKGROUND:
Recently, Caltrans brought to city staff’s attention that the current professional services contract we were operating under with MCR Engineering did not conform to various specifications or criteria as contained in Chapter 10 “Consultant Selection” of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual. Caltrans further advised that if the issues were not addressed, it could jeopardize future Federal and State funding to the city.
City staff along with legal drafted an amended contract to meet the current guidelines outlined by Caltrans as it relates to Consultant Contract Agreements.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution Updated Professional Services Contract- MCR Engineering WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTON # 2011-113
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH MCR CONSULTING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Waterford, (hereinafter "CITY") and MCR Consulting, (hereinafter, "CONTRACTOR"), are desirous of entering into an agreement for services to be performed by CONTRACTOR; and
WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR and CITY agree to the terms contained in the attached Contract, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council approves the attached Agreement with CONTRACTOR, and authorizes the City Administrator of the City of Waterford to execute same on their behalf.
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Waterford, County of Stanislaus, State of California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of November, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
City of Waterford,
Charlie Goeken, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lori Martin, City Clerk Corbett J. Browning City Attorney CITY OF WATERFORD CITY ENGINEER AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, by and between the CITY OF WATERFORD, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", and TONY MARSHALL, of MCR ENGINEERING, a partnership, ("MCR"), hereinafter referred to as "Engineer", provides for TONY MARSHALL to be appointed city engineer for the City of Waterford in accordance with the authority of Government Code Sections 37103 and 53060 for the City.
The City specifically designates Tony Marshall, of MCR Engineering, License Number C51015, as the City Engineer.
The engineer and other engineers at MCR ENGINEERING are duly licensed under the laws of the State of California and are fully qualified to perform the duties of City Engineer and to provide the services contemplated by this Agreement.
The parties do mutually agree to be bound and obligated to terms and conditions as follows:
1. Term. The term for performance of the services hereunder by the Engineer as City Engineer will commence November 1, 2011. The Agreement shall be automatically renewed yearly unless either party gives written notice to the other of its intent to renegotiate the terms of the Agreement. Such notice must be given not more than four (4) months nor less than three (3) months before the end of the pending term.
2. Termination of the Agreement. This Agreement may be canceled by either party hereto by the giving of thirty (30) days written notice to the other party of their wishes to terminate the Agreement.
3. Scope of Services. The Engineer shall perform the duties of the office of the City Engineer of the City and shall use his best effort to provide engineering services in a competent and professional manner. The Engineer shall provide all engineering services to the City of the kind and nature typically provided by an in-house City Engineer's Office to a municipality unless specifically exempted by this Agreement. Engineer shall attend City Council meetings when requested at no charge to the City.
4. Time and Performance. The services performed hereunder by Engineer shall be undertaken and completed in such sequence as to insure their expeditious completion and to best carry out the purpose of the Agreement.
5. Compensation. City shall pay Engineer on an hourly rate basis as prescribed by the Rate Schedule in Exhibit “B” for performance of engineering services. Engineering services include those services listed on Exhibit "A". Engineer shall attend City Council meetings when requested at
_
______City Engineer Agreement November 1, 2011 1 of 5 no charge to the City. For all other engineering services not listed in Exhibit "A", the City agrees to pay the Engineer at the rates as set forth in Exhibit "B". In addition to paying the engineering fees as set forth in Exhibit "B", City shall reimburse the Engineer for customary and reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Engineer as set forth in Exhibit "B".
6. Billing Procedures and Monthly Statements. The Engineer shall submit to the City, within 30 days after the end of each calendar month, an itemized statement of the professional services provided in the time expended providing those services in the form customarily submitted by the Engineer to clients which are billed on an hourly basis. The Engineer shall include in the monthly statement cost and expense items. The parties acknowledge that the payment of all monthly statements is expected to be made within 30 days of the billing date.
7. Work Performed. No work shall be performed by Engineer except general engineering and related services, unless directed to do so by the City Administrator or the City Council. Engineer agrees that an engineer of MCR Engineering (MCR), if not already versed, will immediately become educated, familiar and become an expert in all facets of grants and the Grant Funding process for public works projects for a General Law City, federal, state and local. Engineer, if not already versed, shall immediately become familiar with the CAL TRANS process regarding acquiring encroachment permits and construction by the City in State Rights of Ways. Such acquisition of expertise shall be at no cost to the City.
8. Additional Services. Additional services beyond those set forth in Exhibit “A” and subject to the engineer rates set forth in Exhibit "B" include, but are not limited to, the following areas: a) Planning; b) Administration; c) Construction Management; d) Surveying.
9. Cost Principles. MCR agrees that the Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31,000 et seq., shall be used to determine the allowability of cost individual items.
MCR also agrees to comply with federal procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
Any costs for which payment has been made to MCR that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31.000 et seq., are subject to repayment by MCR to City.
Subcontracts in excess of $25,000.00 shall contain this provision.
_
______City Engineer Agreement November 1, 2011 2 of 5 10. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual written agreement of the parties hereto.
11. Return of File and Client Property. After Engineer's services are completed, Engineer will, upon City's request in writing, deliver the file(s) to the City, along with any property of the City in Engineer's possession. City's file(s) and property include correspondence, transcripts, engineering documents, exhibits, maps, and other items reasonably necessary to City's business and to its continued and future engineering service needs, whether City has paid for them or not. City's file(s) and property include all work performed by the Engineer on behalf of the City or its continued engineering needs.
12. Retention of Records/Audit. For the purposes of determining compliance with Public Contract Code 10115, et seq. and Title 21, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 21, Section 2500 et seq., when applicable and other matters connected with the performance of the contract pursuant to Government Code 8546.7; MCR, subcontractors, and City shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the contract, including but not limited to, the costs of administering the contract. All parties shall make such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during the contract period and for three years from the date of final payment under the contact. The state, the State Auditor, any books, records, and documents of MCR that are pertinent to the contract for audit, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and copies thereof shall be furnished if requested.
Subcontracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain this provision.
13. Independent Contract. Engineer is an independent contractor. Engineer is engaged on a part-time basis. Engineer is responsible for providing and maintaining its own staff, facilities, resources, and benefits. It is the Engineer's sole responsibility to assure the City that the Engineer's professional and administrative staff are adequately trained and the City shall have no obligation to pay for training of the Engineer or staff or the provisions of professional resources or material. The Engineer shall stand ready, willing and able to perform the duties for the City pursuant to this Agreement as called upon by the City Council or the City's designated representative. It is understood, however, that the Engineer is otherwise free to engage in the private practice of engineering so long as its practice does not put it in conflict with the City. In addition to the proscriptions regarding conflicts of interest imposed on the Engineer, the Engineer represents that no member of the firm shall appear before any council, commission, committee, or agency of the City for a period of six (6) months from the date of termination of the Engineer's employment as City Engineer for the purpose of representing any other client of the Engineer's before such City Council, commission, committee, or other agency.
14. Licensed Engineer. Tony Marshall is a licensed engineer in the State of California, License No. C51015. Any other employees or officers of Engineer providing services for the City of
_
______City Engineer Agreement November 1, 2011 3 of 5 Waterford in connection with this Agreement shall be duly licensed under the laws of the State of California and shall be qualified to perform the duties and provide the services by this Agreement.
15. Assignment and Delegation. This Agreement contemplates the personal professional services of the Engineer and this Agreement, or any portion thereof, shall not be assigned or delegated without the prior written consent of the City.
16. Insurance. The Engineer represents and discloses to the City that he maintains professional, general liability insurance, including errors and omissions coverage, in excess of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $1,000,000 per policy term. The insurance maintenance by the Engineer shall be consistent with the requirements set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. The Engineer is required to provide the City with certificates of insurance certifying the aforementioned insurance coverage.
17. Indemnity. MCR agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs, or liability arising from or connected with the services provided hereunder due to negligent acts, errors, or omissions of MCR. The fees, incurred by City in defendant against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the MCR.
18. Nonexclusive Agreement. The City may contract with other individuals or entities to provide engineering services. This is a nonexclusive agreement.
19. Notices. Notices regarding this Agreement shall be given to the parties at the following addresses:
City: City of Waterford P. O. Box 199 Waterford, CA 95386
Engineer: Tony Marshall MCR ENGINEERING 1242 Dupont Court Manteca, CA 95336
20. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect. If any provision is held invalid or unenforceable with respect to particular circumstances, it shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect in all other circumstances.
21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties regarding their rights and obligations hereunder. Any alleged oral representations or modifications
_
______City Engineer Agreement November 1, 2011 4 of 5 concerning this Agreement and the subjects thereof shall have no force or effect unless reduced to a writing signed by both parties. This Agreement supersedes any previous agreements between the parties for the provision of Interim City Engineer services.
22. Goodwill. The parties hereto agree that it is in their best interests to maintain harmonious relations in the fulfillment of the engineering requirements and that every effort will be made to provide timely, efficient and courteous service to those who require engineering services.
23. Captions. The captions of each paragraph in this Agreement are inserted as a matter of convenience and reference only, and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of the Agreement or its terms, or in any way affect it.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands this day of November 2011.
"CITY" "ENGINEER"
CITY OF WATERFORD MCR ENGINEERING
By: Tim Ogden Tony Marshall City Administrator
ATTEST:
Lori Martin, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Corbett J. Browning, City Attorney
_
______City Engineer Agreement November 1, 2011 5 of 5 EXHIBIT "A"
CITY ENGINEER SERVICES – SCOPE OF WORK
MCR Engineering will provide on-call consulting City Engineer services to the City of Waterford to include (but not limited to) the following:
1. Review correspondence from state and federal permitting agencies that require response or action from City Engineer or Public Works staff.
2. Assist City staff in processing paperwork with StanCOG and Caltrans Local Assistance regarding state and federal grant programs such as CMAQ, RSTP, SR2S, TEA, HSIP, EEMP etc.
3. Provide input to City Staff and City Council regarding the City’s master plans, capital improvement program, and maintenance needs.
4. Prepare Plans, Specifications and Estimates for capital improvement projects.
5. Provide Bid Administration, Construction Management, and Inspection services for capital improvement projects.
6. Provide plan review and approval of all proposed private development projects within the City. This shall include reviewing and proposing conditions of approval for all entitlement projects (tentative maps, site plans, etc) and reviewing and approving all encroachment permits, parcel maps, final maps, improvement plans etc.
7. Attend City Council and/or Planning Commission meetings when requested.
8. Provide all other City Engineer functions as requested by City staff and council.
The services above will be provided on an “as needed” basis, as directed by the City Administrator, and billed monthly at Time & Materials (per MCR Engineering’s Current Rate Schedule, attached). There will be no monthly retainer fees for our services.
City Engineer Agreement November 1, 2011 EXHIBIT "B"
JOB DESCRIPTION HOURLY RATE
Planning: PLANNER $ 100.00
Engineering: PRINCIPAL $ 125.00 CIVIL ENGINEER $ 110.00 PROJECT MANAGER $ 100.00 DESIGNER $ 90.00 SENIOR DRAFTER / CADD $ 80.00 DRAFTER / CADD $ 60.00 EXPERT WITNESS $ 200.00
Administration: CLERICAL $ 45.00 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT $ 55.00 OFFICE MANAGER $ 60.00
Construction Management: CONSTRUCTION MANAGER $ 110.00 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR $ 90.00
Surveying: OFFICE SURVEYOR $ 110.00 ASSISTANT OFFICE SURVEYOR $ 80.00 TWO-MAN SURVEY CREW $ 180.00 PUBLIC WORKS SURVEY CREW $ 220.00
Materials: The following services are billed at our cost plus 10% • Sub-consultant fees • Commercial delivery services (Fed Ex, California Overnight, messenger services etc) • Copies and blue prints of plans beyond those required by city or county for plan review. We encourage client to arrange for blue-printing and copying with an outside blueprinting company, but if our services are used, the client will be charged $1.00 per sheet.
City Engineer Agreement November 1, 2011 EXHIBIT "C"
City Engineer Agreement November 1, 2011
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE
ISSUE DATE: October 27, 2011
Producer THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF Jacob Naven INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON JACOB R NAVEN STATE FARM AGENCY THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES 1509 W Yosemite Ave Ste A2 NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE, Manteca, CA 95337-5165 TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Producer Code #: 553469 Producer Fax #.: (209) 823-6312 INSURER AFFORDING COVERAGE
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Named Insured BLOOMINGTON, IL MCR Engineering, Inc. 1242 Dupont Court Manteca, CA 95336
COVERAGES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICY(IES) DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE COVERAGE, TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE POLICY EXPIRATION DATE PS0000000478507 August 12, 2011 August 12, 2012
TYPE OF INSURANCE LIMIT OF LIABILITY Architects and Engineers Professional Liability Insurance $1,000,000 - Limit of Liability Each Claim Policy $1,000,000 - Total Limit of Liability
CANCELLATION CERTIFICATE HOLDER SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE City of Waterford ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS 312 E Street WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO P.O. Box 199 THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL Waterford, CA 95386 IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
CERT(Rev4) (08/11) ITEM #: 1e SECTION: Consent
City Council - Staff Report
Meeting Date: November 3, 2011
From: Tim Ogden, City Administrator, [email protected]
Prepared By: Matt Erickson, Public Works Director, [email protected]
Action Title: Authorizing the City Administrator to Execute Grant Application for a SJVUAPCD Clean Vehicle Grant
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City of Waterford is seeking a grant for the purchase of a John Deere Gator, which is powered by rechargeable batteries, for use in its parks and River Trail system.
RECOMMENDATION / ANALYSIS:
Approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Administrator to act as the agent for the city to execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, amendments, payment requests, etc. which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No negative fiscal impact to the city. Up to $20,000 can be requested for the purchase of this vehicle through this grant. Our anticipated request will be for approximately $15,000.
BACKGROUND:
The city has contracted the services of California Consulting Inc, to research and prepare grants on the city’s behalf. California Consulting advised city staff of this potential funding source and explained opportunities of submitting proposals on our behalf.
The purpose of this program is to fund the purchase of new electric, hybrid, or alternative fuel vehicles which will provide a direct benefit to Valley residents. This grant is administered on a “first come, first served“ basis. Some of the requirements that the new vehicle must: 1. Be used by cities, counties, special districts and public educational institutions located within the geographic area of the SJVUAPCD. 2. Be a new Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) electric, hybrid, or alternative fuel vehicle. 3. Have a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) less than or equal to 14,000 pounds. 4. Have existing charging/fueling infrastructure or have access to existing infrastructure. 5. Be based and have at least seventy-five percent (75%) or more of the vehicle miles traveled or fuel consumption within the geographic area of the SJVAPCD. 6. Remain under the ownership of the contracted applicant for the full term of the contract.
Staff researched other ideas since we have Compressed Natural Gas infrastructure in place but learned that full sized Alternative Fueled vehicles (such as pickups) are around $40,000 to purchase.
The selected vehicle would be most beneficial to the parks department for trail maintenance and would eliminate the need to drive vehicles on the lawns at the park for sprinkler repair, fence repair, and other maintenance duties. The vehicle comes with a charging station that would be plugged in to our Corporation Yard shop where we would house it.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 2. John Deere Gator features information. WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION # 2011-114
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD NAMING CITY ADMINISTRATOR AS THE SIGNING AUTHORITY FOR A PUBLIC BENEFIT GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION TO THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District administers the Public Benefit Grant Program which provides up to $100,000 in incentive funds for the purchase of low emission vehicles; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Waterford must authorize by resolution an “authorized signer" to apply for and administer the Public Benefit Grant Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Waterford:
1. Appoints the City Administrator, as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project.
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Waterford at a regular meeting thereof held on the 63rd day of November 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
City of Waterford,
Charlie Goeken, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lori Martin, CMC, City Clerk Corbett J. Browning City Attorney
Page 1 of 1
ITEM #: 2a SECTION: Presentations
City Council - Staff Report
Meeting Date: November 3, 2011
From: Tim Ogden, City Administrator, [email protected]
Action Title: Modesto Pregnancy Center Presentation by Delores Wolterstorff
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Presentation of the Modesto Pregnancy Center by Delores Wolterstorff
RECOMMENDATION / ANALYSIS:
FISCAL IMPACT:
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS: ITEM #: 2b SECTION: Presentations
City Council - Staff Report
Meeting Date: November 3, 2011
From: Tim Ogden, City Administrator, [email protected]
Prepared By: Matt Erickson, Public Works Director, [email protected]
Action Title: Capital Improvement Program Presentation by Tony Marshall, City Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Presentation of Capital Improvement Program Projects by City Engineer, Tony Marshall
RECOMMENDATION / ANALYSIS:
FISCAL IMPACT:
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS: ITEM #: 6a SECTION: New Business
City Council - Staff Report
Meeting Date: November 3, 2011
From: Tim Ogden, City Administrator, [email protected]
Action Title: Agriculture Preservation 2050 Map
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Agriculture Preservation 2050 Map was referred to the Waterford Planning Commission for review by the City Council in August 2011. Upon review, and discussion, the Commission felt that the Farmland Protection Map, as proposed for the City of Waterford, was adequate and reflected the City’s need for future growth and expansion. If approved, this map would be Waterford’s boundaries in a countywide ballot measure supporting agriculture preservation.
RECOMMENDATION / ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends approval of the Waterford Agriculture Preservation 2050 map and support for a countywide ballot measure.
In December 2010, the Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) discussed an item reviewing agricultural preservation strategies, including agricultural mitigation, of other LAFCOs across the State. Based on input received at that meeting, LAFCO decided to send a letter to the Mayors Group to attend a future meeting to discuss their efforts to develop a Stanislaus County Growth Management Plan. At the July 27, 2011, LAFCO meeting, a draft map was presented outlining a long term (perhaps 50-year) growth envelope designated as the agricultural preservation area. The map was very preliminary and needed more input from the City Councils and the Board of Supervisors, as well as public review.
The Mayors Group met with City Manager’s and Planners on September 14, 2011, to provide direction in developing a countywide map and agricultural preservation strategy. At this meeting, the Mayors reached consensus on the following: that the proposal be an “Agricultural Preservation Strategy” and that the plan horizon should be to the year 2050. The Mayors have also suggested that a countywide map serve as the centerpiece of a ballot initiative that could be considered by the voters in the general election of 2012. At this point in the process, the details of any ballot initiative have not been drafted. The next meeting with the Mayors group is scheduled for November 9, 2011, to explore options and next steps with moving forward with a ballot initiative and the overall agricultural preservation strategy.
At this point, the Map is a work in progress. Most cities, including the City of Waterford, are using their adopted (General Plan) urban boundaries to define their “growth” limits while others have greatly enlarged their borders.
The Waterford City Council referred the map to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation at their August 4, 2011 meeting. With map boundaries based on our “Urban Expansion” chapter of our 2025 General Plan, and significant public participation and evaluation a few years ago, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended the map back for approval by the City Council. As part of this continued evaluation process, the Memorandum attached is included to reiterate the development of our “growth” policies that led to the Urban Growth Limit map boundaries proposed for the Agriculture Preservation 2050 map. At that time, we had several proposals to expand our “Urban Growth” area and this report summarizes the issues that we addressed at that time.
It should be noted that the Agriculture Preservation 2050 map is intended to set the limits of urban growth in Stanislaus County until the year 2050. Furthermore, it is proposed that this map be placed on the ballot and approved by the voters of Stanislaus County at the next General Election. Modification of this map will be very difficult once it is adopted.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution Urban Growth Limit Sphere Map Planning Commission Staff Report Meeting of Sept. 27, 2011 WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION # 2011-115
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD APPROVING THE WATERFORD AGRICULTURE PRESERVATION 2050 MAP AND SUPPORT FOR A COUNTYWIDE BALLOT MEASURE
WHEREAS, Stanislaus County is inseparably linked both financially and culturally to agricultural production; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Waterford and much of Stanislaus County are located on or near State designated Prime Farmland; and,
WHEREAS, the Mayors of Stanislaus County have proposed that this farmland should be preserved by establishment of an agricultural preservation plan; and,
WHEREAS, the 2050 Agricultural Preservation Plan is intended to be effective until 2050; and,
WHEREAS, the 2050 Agricultural Preservation Plan is an important regional decision with long lasting benefits; and,
WHEREAS, following the regularly scheduled meeting held on September 27, 2011, the Waterford Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council to support the 2050 Agricultural Preservation Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Waterford hereby approves the Waterford 2050 Agriculture Preservation 2050 Map and supports a Countywide Ballet Measure in 2012.
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Waterford at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of November 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
City of Waterford,
Charlie Goeken, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lori Martin, CMC, City Clerk Corbett J. Browning City Attorney
Page 1 of 1
City of Waterford Planning Department Memorandum
Date: January 9, 2005
To: Chuck Deschenes, City Manager Bill Gnass, City Attorney Tony Marshall, City Engineer Matt Erickson, City Public Works Director
CC: Urban Expansion Area Potential Stake-Holders
From: Robert L. Borchard, AICP
Subject: General Plan Land Use Update-Planning Area/Sphere of Influence.
In light of recent discussions and in accordance with Tony’s request, I have prepared the following set of maps. These maps, along with their implications with respect to land area, residential development potential, population and Williamson Act Contract coverage are summarized below.
The total area that we are talking about is approximately 4,333 acres, around 3,373 acres added to our present 960-acre city. The build-out of this area is surprisingly close to our “hip-shot” estimate of 30,000 people.
As noted in Exhibit F and presented to the City Council for information, some property owners south of the Tuolumne River (Hickman area) have requested that their property be included in the City’s Sphere plan for LAFCO. This area includes four properties with a total 124-acres located on either side of Hickman Road between the Tuolumne River and the developed community of Hickman. Staff’s review of this proposal has concluded that this expansion is not advised at this time given the extreme costs of providing infrastructure expansion into this area from the north side of the River.
A word about Table 1 assumptions is warranted. The Compass Land proposal identified an area that included their property and expanded to the west and south to connect with the City’s present proposed “primary sphere” proposal and to the south to provide access to Highway 132. Their proposal left out and “island” along Dry Creek and another “island immediately east of the proposed sphere. I have identified these areas as the “East Expansion” and the “North Expansion” areas on the attached map and Table 1 Summary. We should consider these areas as part of this “Compass Land” proposal for purposes of comprehensive planning consistency.
These numbers are important at three levels; 1) planning, 2) budgeting, and 3) comparison. Planning: We can use these generalized figures to estimate the service population and land area for figuring service demands. Like any figure of this type, however, the methodology assumptions may not reflect future actual development. For purposes of analysis, I assumed that the City will continue to consume land and yield population density as it presently does. The City, in 2000, was developed with residential uses at 46% of its land area. Typical R-1 densities yield a maximum of 4.3 units per acre and we had approximately 3.47 people per unit in 2000.
Table 1 City of Waterford Planning Area Summary
Residential @ Units Pop. Cumulative Cumulative W-Act Percent Study Area Acres 46% Area R-1 3.47 Acres Population Lands Will. Act Existing City 960 442 1,899 6,589 960 6,589 0 0% Proposed Primary Sphere 1,355 623 2,680 9,300 2,315 15,889 651 48% CompassLandProposal 1,567 721 3,100 10,755 3,882 26,645 1,428 91% East Expansion 402 185 795 2,759 4,284 29,404 402 100% North Expansion 49 23 97 336 4,333 29,740 27 55% Total 4,333 1,993 8,571 29,740 N/A N/A 2,508 58%
These numbers will change, some upwards (density of units) some downward (population per unit) as we grow and mature in future years. For purposes of rough calculations, however, I think these numbers will suffice.
Budget: Some of the studies that we are developing will budget on the basis on acres (storm drainage/aerial survey/biology/cultural resources/etc.). For budgeting purposes, we can provide the consultants our forecasted area of study. Additionally, we can use these figures to allocate planning costs to landowners participating in the “pre-annexation” process.
Comparison: It is always interesting to compare your community to other communities over time. This also has a practical side, particularly with respect to management.
Table 2 Historical Growth of Stanislaus County Cities
Year Census Year Inc. City 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1918 Ceres 2,351 4,406 6,029 13,281 26,314 34,609 1972 Hughson 1,816 1,898 2,144 2,943 3,259 3,980 1884 Modesto 17,389 36,585 61,712 106,602 164,730 188,856 1906 Oakdale 4,064 4,980 6,594 8,474 11,961 15,503 1922 Riverbank 2,662 2,786 3,949 5,695 8,547 15,826 1908 Turlock 6,235 9,116 13,992 26,287 42,198 55,810 1969 Waterford 1,777 1,780 2,243 2,683 4,771 6,924
The Census Table (Table 2) provides a comparison of where Waterford is compared to other cities on the eastside of Stanislaus County and where the 30,000 population figure would place us relative to other communities in the region. At present, the City of Waterford ranks 7th in population (ahead of Hughson) in 2000. At 30,000 people, Waterford would be comparable to Ceres in current operation characteristics from a management perspective. The City would operate at a population level that would begin to provide some “economy of scale” with respect to services and would have a population mass that would attract new business to the community.
For the management team working to prepare this General Plan update, the comparison of Waterford to other communities in the region provides us with an order of magnitude with respect to what it means to plan a City of 30,000 people by looking at the Cities that we are planning to join with respect to population. Keep in mind that the City of Modesto was a City of a little over 17,000 people in 1950 and Turlock did not reach the 30,000 population level until the mid-1980s (twenty years ago). It is not unreasonable to expect that the City of Waterford could grow to 30,000 people within the next 20-years. Exhibit A
City of Waterford Vision 2020 General Plan Update Study Area
Study Area Boundary
Modesto Reservoir Growth Area # No. 2
Growth Area No. 1 Boulevard ite m Waterford # Hwy 132/Yose
Growth Area Hickman No. 3 Exishting City Limits/ Sphere of Influence
N 6000 0 6000 12000 Feet Exhibit B
Waterford Planning Area Compass Land Planning Area
O a Urban Planning Area k d a le -W a te r fo rd H w Compass Land Planning Area y .
R -3
#
Hwy. 132 . O P
Primary Sphere
Compass Land Proposal: Area in Acres: 1,567-acres WA Area: 1,428-acres Residential Area (Acres) 721-acres R-1 Density in Units: 3,100 Units R-1 Population Estimate: 10,755 People Exhibit C
Waterford Planning Area North Area Expansion
O North Area Expansion a Urban Planning Area k d a le -W a te r fo rd H w Compass Land Expansion Area y .
R -3
#
Hwy. 132 . O P
Primary Sphere
North Area Expansion: Area in Acres: 49-acres WA Area: 27-acres Residential Area (Acres) 23-acres R-1 Density in Units: 97 Units R-1 Population Estimate: 336-People
Note: This area contains 13 existing parcels, 12 of which are divided into small (1 to 3 acre) residential home sites along Dry Creek. One parcel, presently under Williamson Act is 26.5-acres in size and capable of being developed. Exhibit D
Waterford Planning Area East Area Expansion
O a Urban Planning Area k d a le -W a te r fo rd H w Compass Land Expansion Area y .
R -3
# East Area Expansion Hwy. 132 . O P
Primary Sphere
East Area Expansion: Area in Acres: 402-acres WA Area: 402 Residential Area (Acres) 185 R-1 Density in Units: 795 R-1 Population Estimate: 2,759 Exhibit E
Waterford Planning Area Recommended Compass Land Expansion Area
O a Urban Planning Area k d a le -W a te r fo rd H w Recommended y . Compass Land Expansion Area
R -3
#
Hwy. 132 . O P
Primary Sphere
Recommended Compass Land Area Expansion: Area in Acres: 2,018-acres WA Area: 1,857-acres Residential Area (Acres) 929-acres R-1 Density in Units: 3,992 Units R-1 Population Estimate: 13,850 People Exhibit F
Waterford Planning Area South Area Expansion Request
O a Urban Planning Area k d a le -W a te r fo rd H w y .
R -3
#
Hwy. 132 . O P
Primary Sphere
South Area Expansion Request
South Area Expansion: Area in Acres: 124-acres WA Area: 89-acres Residential Area (Acres) 57-acres R-1 Density in Units: 245-Units R-1 Population Estimate: 851-People
This area is not recommended for inclusion in this update. Staff proposes that this area might be studied as an expansion area for the City in cooperation with the residents of the un-incorporated community of Hickman. ITEM #: 6b SECTION: NEW BUSINESS
City Council - Staff Report
Meeting Date: November 3, 2011
From: Tim Ogden, City Administrator, [email protected]
Action Title: Approving the Property Purchase Agreement for the 1.15 Acre Unimproved Portion of 567 South Reinway Avenue, and Appropriating a $50,000 Budget Line Item for the Transaction
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
If approved, the City will purchase a portion of the property at 567 South Reinway Avenue to be used for trail access and improvements for $50,000 of general fund monies that could be reimbursed by the State.
RECOMMENDATION / ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends approval of the property purchase agreement, and requests appropriating $50,000 for its purchase within the FY 11/12 budget from General Fund reserves.
The City is proposing to develop a trail system, and a portion of the property at 567 South Reinway Ave breaks up what would otherwise be contiguous city owned properties along the Tuolumne River. Without its acquisition, public access and improvements to the proposed two-mile stretch of trail system across existing city owned parcels on the north side of the Tuolumne River would not be possible. An easement request was rejected by the owner, so the acquisition and recording the parcel split by grant deed utilizing state grant funds is needed. The City has previously attempted to purchase the portion of the property, but was notified that the appraisals’ methodology was insufficient, and the City did not then pursue the purchase without the surety of the reimbursement. Based on an appraisal performed on September 8, 2011, valuing the property at an “as is” market value of $50,000, the property owners William E. and Wynelda Muncill and the City of Waterford have agreed to the transaction.
The River Parkways Grant recently submitted for $1.5 million to the Natural Resources Agency requires ownership of all the properties wherein development will occur. They will be confirming in mid-December whether escrow has closed. If not, the grant will be rejected. If it has, the grant will still be considered for funding, although not assured.
The appraisal has since been sent off to the Department of General Services for approval for reimbursement. A response is anticipated in about 6 weeks. With approval, staff would proceed immediately on the escrow, and close by December 15, 2011, overlapping the period of time before it is known if the funds will be reimbursed. FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of the purchase to date has been the appraisal for $2,000, and an additional amount of approximately $5,000 is needed to close escrow, in addition to the $50,000 for the fee simple purchase. Staff are recommending the City purchase the property regardless of the reimbursement approval, although the reimbursement is fully anticipated. The $50,000 funds are not currently budgeted, and would derive from General Fund reserves.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution Property Purchase Sale Agreement WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION # 2011-116
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A PORTION OF 567 S. REINWAY AVE (APN: 080-007-067) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS AND TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY FOR THE PURCHASE
WHEREAS, the City of Waterford entered into a Grant Agreement No. 1062300-00 with the Resources Agency of the State of California under the State’s Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2000 on April 3, 2003; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of Grant Agreement No. 1062300-00 was to acquire public lands along the south edge of the Tuolumne River within the city limits of the City of Waterford for the purposes of preserving open-space, and habitat along the Tuolumne River and for future passive recreational use and public access to the Tuolumne River Parkway; and,
WHEREAS, seller (Muncill) wishes to sell and buyer (City) wishes to purchase a portion of 567 S. Reinway Ave (APN: 080-007-067), approximately 1.15 acres of vacant land located in the river bed of the Tuolumne River in the City of Waterford, California, County of Stanislaus in accordance with the Purchase/Sale Agreement dated October 14, 2011; and,
WHEREAS, buyer desires to purchase the property “as-is” for use as a passive use public park and seller desires to sell the property for such purposes on the terms and conditions set forth in the purchase agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Waterford authorizes the purchase of a portion of APN: 080-007-067 for an amount not to exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Waterford authorizes the City Administrator to execute all documents and to take all such further actions as are necessary and appropriate, to implement the intent of this Resolution.
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Waterford, County of Stanislaus, State of California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of November 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: City of Waterford,
Charlie Goeken, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lori Martin, CMC, City Clerk Corbett J. Browning City Attorney
ITEM #: 6c SECTION: NEW BUSINESS
City Council - Staff Report
Meeting Date: November 3, 2011
From: Tim Ogden, City Administrator, [email protected]
Action Title: Approve City Hall Closure Schedule and Cancel January 5, 2012 City Council Meeting
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
If approved, the City will close during the week between Christmas and New Year’s Day, with employees using personal leave, and cancelling the regularly scheduled January 5, 2012 City Council meeting.
RECOMMENDATION / ANALYSIS:
Staff requests the City Council consider closing City Hall for the four days between December 27 and December 30 for the holiday season. Already having half a day off on December 23 for Christmas Eve, and full days off on December 26 and January 2 for Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, City Hall would actually be closed between Friday, December 23, 2011 through Monday, January 2, 2012. Employees have already expressed a willingness to utilize personal leave time for the proposed additional four days off.
The rationale for closure is that the period is one of the least busy customer stretches of the year, and likely the least productive. In addition, due to key vacations planned, key managers will be away for most of those days and there will be a resulting visible and physical leadership void. During the proposed closure, there will be an employee on-call and accessible each day should there be urgent issues in need of resolution and manager’s only a phone call away. The closure will not affect Police Services.
One of the consequences of the closure would be that we would also recommend cancelling the January 5, 2012 City Council meeting due to the anticipated limited meeting content and agenda preparation time.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There would be some minimal utility cost savings of approximately $100 based on the days the offices would be closed. This estimate is based on a daily average for December 2010 for MID, PG&E and Modesto Water. There would be a cost estimate of $200 for the employee’s that would then be on-call for the four days. The increased morale benefit associated with the closure is priceless.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION # 2011-117
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WATERFORD APPROVING THE OFFICE CLOSURE SCHEDULE FOR 2011 AND CANCELING THE JANUARY 5, 2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WHEREAS, the City Council designates by resolution the days and hours during which City Offices shall be kept open for the transaction of City business; and,
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2000-02 provides that the City Council shall hold its regular meetings on the first and third Thursday of the month at the hour of 6:30PM or at such other time as the City Council may from time to time hereafter fix by resolution; and,
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to cancel the regular meeting scheduled for January 5, 2012; and,
WHEREAS, it is not the intent of this Resolution to change the format and schedule of the regular meetings as set forth in Ordinance 2000-02; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Waterford hereby declares:
1. That the office closure schedule for 2011 includes four days between December 27th and December 30th for the holiday season.
2. That the office closure schedule referenced in paragraph 1 above is hereby approved and the days therein are hereby designated as days during which City Offices shall be closed for the transaction of City business.
3. That City Council declares the January 5, 2012 regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Waterford officially canceled and notice of cancellation shall be published in accordance with applicable law and posted on the City's website.
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Waterford at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of November 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
City of Waterford,
Charlie Goeken, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Page 1 of 2 Lori Martin, CMC, City Clerk Corbett J. Browning City Attorney
Page 2 of 2 ITEM #: 7 SECTION: Informational
City Council - Staff Report
Meeting Date: November 3, 2011
From: Tim Ogden, City Administrator, [email protected]
Action Title: Informational Items
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
All items under this category are considered for informational purposes only.
RECOMMENDATION / ANALYSIS:
FISCAL IMPACT:
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes of the Regular Planning Meeting held on September 27, 2011 Stanislaus Drug Enforcement Agency Status Report for August/September 2011 Police Services September 2011 Watch Report Page 1 of 4 WATERFORD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, September 27, 2011
A regular meeting of the Waterford Planning Commission was called to order by Commissioner Esther at 6:30 PM at the Waterford Community Center, 540 “C” Street, Waterford, CA 95386.
06:33:46 PM Present: Esther Frenette Powell Ayers
Absent: Dugovic
Also Present: Borchard Krause
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Chairman Esther
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA: Chairman Esther asked to add item 6c: Appointment of Vice-Chairman to the agenda. Frenette moved, seconded by Ayers, to Adopt the Agenda, as recommended.
06:34:56 PM AYES: Esther, Frenette, Powell and Ayers NAYES: None ABSENT: Dugovic
Motion passed by majority.
ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR: Frenette moved, seconded by Ayers, to Adopt the Consent Calendar, as recommended.
06:35:08 PM AYES: Esther, Frenette, Powell and Ayers NAYES: None ABSENT: Dugovic
Motion passed by majority.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION: None
1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1a: July 26, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1b: Planning Project Logs 1c: Building Permit Report – July and August 2011 1d: Business License Report – July and August 2011 1e: Administrative Use Permit 2011-03 – H.O.L.F.A Private School Page 2 of 4
2. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE: None
3. PRESENTATIONS: None
4. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS 06:35:40 PM 6a: DISCUSSION: Architectural Site Plan Review 2011-02 – 12000 Yosemite Blvd Mr. Borchard explained to the Commission that the site plan for a new commercial building has been received and is under review. The developer is hoping to have the project under construction by January 2012, but will depend on how long it takes City staff to review the plans. Chairman Esther asked what else was planned for that particular area along Hwy 132, Mr. Borchard replied that the developer has been trying to solicit other businesses, but nothing is in the works yet.
06:41:02 PM 6b: DISCUSSION: Agricultural Preservation Map 2050 Mr. Borchard gave a quick overview, stating the background is about Ag mitigation for preservation and that this map approach is to define what the urban and non-urban areas are, and helps to enforce existing policy. This would limit urban encroachment into non-urban areas. This is an opportunity to revisit the Waterford growth area and to make changes if needed or wanted. Mayor Goeken spoke with the Commission and explained that the sphere before the Commission tonight is larger than the original plan passed a few years ago during the General Plan Update. Mayor Goeken explained that a few years ago the County appropriated $100k to do a study and pay for things and that the money is still there and that the committee hopes to use that money to get this item on the ballot next year. Mayor Goeken is not sure why, but this was supposed to be done years ago. Earlier this year and late last year there was a lot of talk and interest coming to LAFCO from the Farmland Management group, where they wanted LAFCO to impose Ag mitigation fees and harsh restrictions upon any project that came before it. Mayor Goeken went and spoke with Jim Ridenour and Bill O’Brian and explained that is the Cities don’t do something then something will be done for them or to them. Mayor Goeken explained that the City Managers meet once a month and would be a good starting point to get ideas and to ask them to put some boundaries down on a map for this plan. It was not meant to be a hardline, just a starting point to get a discussion going. This idea was taken back to the cities and to the planning departments to get input and to get open public hearings for the public. Mayor Goeken explained that this same procedure is going on in all nine cities in the County. What is envisioned is that cities will go through this process and their adjustments; go through their City Councils, who will need to sign off on it, to then take it the County board of Supervisors and LAFCO. With the $100k, the plan is to place an initiative on the ballot next November to set Countywide Urban Growth Boundaries.
Powell moved, seconded by Ayers, to support the Agricultural Preservation Map 2050 and Recommend to the City Council.
07:00:47 PM AYES: Esther, Frenette, Powell and Ayers NAYES: None ABSENT: Dugovic
Motion passed by majority. Page 3 of 4
07:00:57 PM 6c: Appointment of new Vice-Chairman Ayers moved, seconded by Frenette, to nominate Commissioner Powell as Vice-Chairman.
07:02:41 PM AYES: Esther, Frenette, Powell and Ayers NAYES: None ABSENT: Dugovic
Motion passed by majority.
7. ITEMS FROM STAFF: 07:03:04 PM Mr. Borchard gave some updates to the Commission on some of the Grants that are currently being worked on and submitted by the City, two grants under Prop.84 for Urban Forests and another for planning and improving the trail system along the river. Mr. Borchard stated that the Urban Forest grant is a lot more complex than just planting trees and if handled right it is one of the ways the City can have ‘sustainable communities’. This involves coming up with ways of mitigating development and reducing greenhouse gas output. Part is an inventory system ad part is mitigation standards for development i.e. A new shopping center plants twelve trees; at maturity will reduce the overall greenhouse gas footprint for our community. The Parkland Grant is a study about how the City is going to link up our parkland with our trail system to the river etc., this is still under review and consideration.
8. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS:
07:19:23 PM Commissioner Frenette: None 07:18:03 PM Commissioner Powell: Looks forward to working with the Commission. 07:18:45 PM Commissioner Ayers: Welcomed Commissioner Powell and gave Mr. Borchard congratulations on his recent nuptials 07:19:27 PM Chairman Esther: Welcomed Commissioner Powell and stated he was happy to have a full commission again.
ADJOURNMENT/RECESS: Frenette moved, seconded by Ayers, to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting as recommended.
07:20:00 PM AYES: Esther, Frenette, Powell and Ayers NAYES: None ABSENT: Dugovic
Motion passed by majority.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Waterford Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on October 25, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Page 4 of 4
ATTEST:
Patricia Krause, Deputy City Clerk Chris Esther, Chairman Summary Report from 81112011 to 913012011 Stanislaus Drug Enforcement Agency
Area Case Summary Area Hours j This Period YTD 2011 1 2010 This Period YTD 2011 2010 Ceres 0 9 25 90 13475 990 County 7 23 24 3125 6475 13705 Hughson 1 3 2 235 42 13 Modesto 10 45 116 232495 774095 888175 Newman 0 0 4 0 0 50 Oakdale 1 4 14 21 311 10735 Outside Stan Co 2 6 30 4142 24447 260275 Patterson 1 3 9 9 274 185 Riverbank 1 9 13 225 2975 695 SDEA Office 0 0 0 11625 669425 876465 Turlock 2 7 17 475 60625 5675 Waterford 0 1 4 0 2 38 442765 204076523165 25 Activity Summary Activity Hours This Period YTD 2011 2010 This Period YTD 2011 2010 Admin Detail 1375 13225 19165 Assist Other Agency 1757 6227 304 Court Standby 1 13 52 1 44 2025 Court Testify 2 20 24 10 109 124 EvidenceLab 254 862 972 323 14485 17669 Investigations 2736 106065 1422285 K9 Search Activity 5 5 9 Knock and Talks 0 15 24 Other Detail 197 1983 223515 Parent Agency Detail 32645 133795 13165 ProbParole Search 3 755 425 Public Education 4 22 78 17 775 382 Report 1145 7045 9665 Search Warrants 985 871 65825 Training Given 1 6 16 1 235 655 Training Taken 31 143 120 270 11565 9955 441565 2040265 2523165 Asset Seizure Asset Seizure Value This Period YTD 2011 2010 This Period YTD 2011 2010 Currency 2 8 37 645900 9507843 52763676 Vehicles 0 4 5 2922500 1510000 Real Property 0 0 1 12500000 Other Property 0 4 0 3500000 2 16 43 fi 645900 15930343 66773676 Asset Seizure Jurisdiction This Period YTD 2011 2010 This Period YTD 2011 2010 State 2 7 15 645900 248970035600 52 Federal l 0 9 27 13440643 60567176
Printed October 17 2011 Page 1 of 2 Summary Report from 81112011 to 913012011 Stanislaus Drug Enforcement Agency Labs and Capacities I Lab Dumps
This Period YTD 2011 2010 This Period YTD 2011 2010 Labs 2 8 6 Lab Dumps 0 1 15 A Less than 2 OZ 0 4 2 Toxic Waste Ibs 0 136 7520 B 2 8 OZ 0 0 1 Toxic Waste gai 64219 154219 214 C 9 16 OZ 1 1 1 D 2 Ibs 9 Ibs 1 1 0 E 10 Ibs 20 Ibs 0 1 0 F Over 20 lbs 0 0 2 Investigations Weapons This Period YTD 2011 2010 This Period YTD 2011 2010 L Arrests State 13 29 39 Firearms 6 24 27
1 Arrests Federal 9 24 25 Edged Weapons 0 1 0 Search Warrants 11 47 58 Other Weapons 0 0 2 ParoleProb Searches 1 13 24
DEC 8 16 26 Knock and Talks 0 2 4 Assist Other Agency 6 25 49 CRI Cases 2 11 12 Info Only Cases 4 25 40 Cases CBA 7 14 9 Cases Closed SDEA 5 36 107 Cases Suspended 0 5 4 External Resources
This Period YTD 2011 2010
K 9 Search Cases 2 6 7 Air Operation Cases 0 2 5 CAMP Cases 3 15 9 Primary Drugs Other Drugs This Period YTD 2011 I 2010 This Period Meth Powder ibs 000000 3614574 4638937 Meth Solution 2 Crystal Meth Ibs 1528000 3614574 3633172 Meth Solution 1 Cocaine Ibs 098428 7831766 7005827 misc pills 84 Heroin Ibs 220460 220460 1113567 MJ Processed Ibs 3891940 19829003 1852986 MJ Plants 1200 37592 17337
Printed October 18 2011 Page 2 of 2 Waterford Watch Report Summary September 2011
Response Type Number of Responses Percentage (%) Cumulative (%) 1037 SUSPICIOUS PERSON(S) 20 4.49 4.49 1038 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE(S) 1 0.22 4.72 1048 PERSON DOWN 1 0.22 4.94 1053 LOST/MISSING PERSON 16 & OVER 3 0.67 5.62 1053J LOST/MISSING CHILD UNDER 16 1 0.22 5.84 1057I INJURED ANIMAL 1 0.22 6.07 1057S STRAY ANIMAL 1 0.22 6.29 1064F FELONY WARRANT SERVICE 1 0.22 6.52 1064S SUBPOENA SERVICE 1 0.22 6.74 1064W WARRANT SERVICE 4 0.90 7.64 10851 STOLEN VEHICLE 2 0.45 8.09 10851R STOLEN VEHICLE RECOVERY 1 0.22 8.31 10852 TAMPERING WITH A VEHICLE 1 0.22 8.54 1141 AMBULANCE FOLLOW UP 2 0.45 8.99 1144 DECEASED PERSON 1 0.22 9.21 1179 ACCIDENT-INJURIES 1 0.22 9.44 1182 ACCIDENT-PROPERTY DAMAGE 3 0.67 10.11 12020 POSS OF ILLEGAL WEAPON(S) 1 0.22 10.34 166-4 VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER 1 0.22 10.56 20002 HIT & RUN-PROPERTY DAMAGE 1 0.22 10.79 211A ROBBERY ALARM 1 0.22 11.01 23103 CVC-RECKLESS DRIVING 1 0.22 11.24 23152 CVC-DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 2 0.45 11.69 242 BATTERY 2 0.45 12.13 243E1 DOMESTIC BATTERY 5 1.12 13.26 247 SHOOTING AT UNOCC DWELLING.VEH 1 0.22 13.48 273-5 SPOUSAL ABUSE 1 0.22 13.71 415 FIGHT 5 1.12 14.83 415E NOISE DISTURBANCE 17 3.82 18.65 415F FIGHT-FAMILY 12 2.70 21.35 415J JUVENILE DISTURBANCE/PROBLEM 5 1.12 22.47 415N DISTURBANCE BTWN NEIGHBORS 4 0.90 23.37 415V FIGHT-VERBAL 13 2.92 26.29 459C COMMERCIAL BURGLARY 1 0.22 26.52 459R RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY 5 1.12 27.64 460 BURGLARY 3 0.67 28.31 487 GRAND THEFT 3 0.67 28.99 488 PETTY THEFT 5 1.12 30.11 488IC PETTY THEFT-IN CUSTODY 1 0.22 30.34 5150 MENTALLY DISTURBED PERSON 3 0.67 31.01 594 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 6 1.35 32.36 594F FELONY VANDALISM 1 0.22 32.58 602 TRESPASSING 1 0.22 32.81 602L TRESPASSING INSIDE A BUILDING 1 0.22 33.03 653M ANNOYING PHONE CALLS 3 0.67 33.71 ALARMC FIRE ALARM-COMMERCIAL 1 0.22 33.93 ALARMR FIRE ALARM-RESIDENTIAL 1 0.22 34.16 AREA CHECK 6 1.35 35.51 ASSIST OTHER AGENCY 4 0.90 36.40 BIKE STOP 1 0.22 36.63 BOL BE ON THE LOOKOUT 7 1.57 38.20 C6 FOLLOW UP 25 5.62 43.82 C8AC AUDIBLE BURGLARY ALARM (COMMERCIAL) 17 3.82 47.64 C8AR AUDIBLE BURGLARY ALARM (RESIDENTIAL) 10 2.25 49.89 CIVIL CIVIL COMPLAINT 6 1.35 51.24 COP COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING 1 0.22 51.46 CVC CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE VIOLATION 3 0.67 52.13 E911P E911 HANG UP-PAY PHONE 2 0.45 52.58 E911R E911 HANG UP-RESIDENTIAL PHONE 1 0.22 52.81 EMS MEDICAL AID 30 6.74 59.55 EXTRA PATROL REQUEST 2 0.45 60.00 FOOT PATROL 1 0.22 60.22 FOUND CHILD 1 0.22 60.45 FOUND PROPERTY 1 0.22 60.67 HAZARD SAFETY HAZARD 2 0.45 61.12 HAZMAT HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INCIDENT 1 0.22 61.35 HBC 4 0.90 62.25 HS HEALTH & SAFETY VIOLATION 4 0.90 63.15 INFORMATION 30 6.74 69.89 INVEST FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION 28 6.29 76.18 MC MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATION 19 4.27 80.45 PANIC ALARM 1 0.22 80.67 PC PENAL CODE VIOLATION 1 0.22 80.90 PUBSER PUBLIC SERVICE 5 1.12 82.02 SA SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT 1 0.22 82.25 SECCK SECURITY CHECK 23 5.17 87.42 SHOTS SOUNDS OF SHOTS FIRED 3 0.67 88.09 SSTOP 2 0.45 88.54 SUPCIR SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES 3 0.67 89.21 TSTOP TRAFFIC STOP 45 10.11 99.33 WRNT WARRANT 1 0.22 99.55 WSTRUC WORKING STRUCTURE FIRE 2 0.45 100.00
445 100.00 NOTICE
Copies of the staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the front counter at City Hall located at 312 E Street, Waterford, CA during normal business hours. Any person who has any questions concerning any agenda item may call the City Clerk to make inquiry regarding the nature of the item described on the agenda.
At their request, members of the audience may address the City Council on any item during Council’s consideration of that item. The public also has the opportunity to speak on any matter of public interest within the City Council’s jurisdiction, including items on the City Council’s Agenda, except for those items specially scheduled as public hearings. The public has an opportunity to speak on such items during the public hearing.
It is the policy of the City Council that we will not act on any matter not appearing on the posted agenda. The item may be discussed. The purpose of the discussion is to permit a member of the public to raise an issue or problem with the City Council or to permit the City Council to ask questions for clarification of the issue or problem, provide information to the public, provide direction of the City Staff, or schedule the matter for a future meeting. Please hold all comments to five (5) minutes.
General Information: The Waterford City Council meets on the 1st and 3rd Thursday’s of each month at 6:30PM., unless otherwise noticed.
Council Agenda’s: Copies of City Council Agenda and agenda related writings or documents will be made available for public inspection at the front counter at City Hall located at 312 “E” Street, Waterford, CA. 72 hours prior to the meeting, or at the time of the scheduled meeting.
DATE & TIME OF POSTING
Council Meeting Date: 10/20/11
Post Date: 10/17/11 Time: at or before 5:00PM
Verified by: Lori Martin Title: City Clerk