1997 ADJ MIN JUN 30 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

position requested and to have both matters (position and reductions) come back to Council. Motion carried with CM Cook voting "No." Absent were CM Hutton, CM Sandoval and Mayor Gaytan. Water Motion and second by CM Sanders and CM Chastain to approve the Water budget carried upon unanimous vote, with CM Hutton, CM Sandoval and Mayor Gaytan absent. Wastewater CM Bennett stated that at a recent Utilities Commission meeting, some questions and concerns were raised by that commission regarding the use of AB 1600 funds to repair a line on Mt. Vernon Avenue. She understood that there was a water main break on Mt. Vernon Avenue and that Staff used AB 1600 funds to repair the line. The line size was not increased. The same size of line was put back into the ground; a new line was placed into the position. In reading through information provided, she believed a very broad interpretation was applied and until she had more time to review the matter with a legal expert, CM Bennett said she could not approve the wastewater budget. Utility Director Clarke stated that Staff relied on Government Code Section 66000, on the use of developer fees and how those fees could be used within the City. Through investigation and research, there was an Attorney General's Opinion that said developer fees could be used for new, replacement and rehabilitation of infrastructure. This was a very large expense. He said it did create additional capacity in that area of the City since the old line had many breaks, had many clogs and a lot of infiltration. It was recommended that sewer development fees be used to replace that line rather than current revenues. City Attorney Biggs said she was not consulted and asked what funds were being used. Director Clarke replied that sewer development funds had been used. She said that AB 1600 required that there be a nexus between the specific expenditure funds and the development that paid into that fund. She asked if he could track the funds to development that have benefited specifically from the improvement and was it an improvement or just a maintenance. She said it could not be done just for maintenance. Director Clarke said it was not considered a maintenance since it was a large capital expenditure and it did improve capacity to areas beyond that of the original infrastructure. She asked if he would have had to replace it regardless of new development. He said he did not know. It depended on how much longer the line would have lasted. He concluded that the only reason it collapsed was because of a developer dig -in. City Attorney Biggs said this matter required legal review to ensure the City used the restricted funds correctly. City Attorney Biggs expressed concern that if there had been an error in the expenditure of those funds, then it is error that will have to be corrected but did not believe that it was an error that should be compounded by not completing the budget process this evening. Director Clarke said the matter being discussed affected the current year's budget. The break was paid for out of this year's expenditures. Finance Director Vega said the City was utilizing $299,000, currently in wastewater reserves; therefore, once the issue was reviewed and possibly City Council Minutes - June 30,1997 page g JUN 3 n 1gg7