A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Ramon was called to order on March 25, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 2222 Camino Ramon, Mayor Wilson presiding.

PRESENT: Councilmembers Cambra, Dickey, Hudson, Tatarka and Mayor Wilson.

ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Gail E. Waiters, City Attorney Tom Curry, Police Chief Brian Lindblom, Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director Jim Estep, Parks and Community Services Director Jeff Eorio, Development Services Director Joye Fukuda, Interim Public Services Director Doug Udell, Administrative Analyst Sandra Barlow, Administrative Manager Dorn Driggs, and City Clerk Judy Macfarlane.

* * * *

Boy Scout Pack 201 from Country Club Elementary School led Council, staff and those present in the audience in the pledge of allegiance.

* * * *

Mayor Wilson declared March 25, 2003 "Y" Kids newspaper Day in San Ramon.

Mayor Wilson presented a proclamation recognizing Jim Estep for his years of service to the City of San Ramon.

Mayor Wilson presented certificates of recognition to Eagle Scout recipients Donald A. Harris and Christopher R. Harris.

* * * *

Roxanne Lindsay, representing the Museum of San Ramon Valley, presented to Council walking and driving tours of the Valley and historical sites. She invited the Council to the exhibit "Home Sweet Home" at the Depot. Ms. Lindsay extended an invitation to Congressman Pombo’s Open House on April 22^nd.

Donna Kerger announced San Ramon resident Corporal Chris Sturgil, 1^st Marine Division, 2^nd Tank Battalion, was in Iraqi and requested Council and the community to keep him in their prayers.

Jay Bhalla encouraged a more proactive communication plan surrounding the City Civic Center. He suggested utilizing e-mails and post cards to keep the community informed and suggested having an information booth at the Chamber Symposium in April. He stated this would enable the community to be informed in addition to providing an avenue for feedback.

Jason Neil and Trey Nelson, Canyon Creek Little League, presented a check in the amount of $9,890 for the grass in-field at Memorial Park. They invited the Mayor and Councilmembers to attend one of their games this season and thanked the Council for its support of youth baseball.

* * * *

The minutes of the March 11, 2003 meeting were continued to April 8, 2003.

R. Nathan Green said he had viewed the March 11, 2003 meeting via VOD on CTV-30’s web site and after repeated viewing, he had been unable to determine the exact motion regarding Forest Home Farm. He questioned the subsequent discussion regarding Forest Home Farm and suggested the utilization of "Robert’s Rules of Order".

* * * *

Cm. Dickey’s motion to approve the following Consent Calendar was seconded by Cm. Tatarka and passed 5-0.

Register of Demands dated March 16, 2003 in the amount of $668,893.01.

Ordinance No. 354 Establishing a Review Process and Development Standards for Wireless Telecommunications in the City of San Ramon.

* * * *

Public Hearing – Proposed formation of a New Special Assessment Zone 18, Twin Creeks, as part of the City’s Landscaping and Lighting District No. 1984-1; Tabulation of Ballots; and Consideration of Resolution No. 2003-33 to Establish a "Per Unit Annual Assessment Limit" of $194 for FY 2003/04 to FY 2007/08 and $106 beginning FY 2008/09.

Sandra Barlow, Administrative Analyst, stated the City had received a number of complaints from residents regarding the landscaping and on-going maintenance of the frontage along San Ramon Valley Boulevard. She identified the ownership of the parcels being three Homeowners’ Associations (HOA’s), Twin Creeks South Courtside, Twin Creeks South Estates and Twin Creeks South Poolside. Ms. Barlow said the HOA’s had not been able to agree on how to landscape and maintain the area or how to evenly distribute the costs associated those functions.

Joye Fukuda, Development Services Director, stated the City had received Letters of Intent from all three HOA’s requesting the City initiate the process to create a new special assessment zone under the City’s Landscaping and Lighting District No. 1984-01. She stated staff recommended Council conduct the public hearing, call for the tabulation of ballots, and consider adoption of Resolution No. 2003-33.

Mayor Wilson opened the public hearing.

Bill Vizza asked for clarification for the difference between maintenance, improvement, and landscaping and lighting districts. He questioned the right to put capital improvements into a special assessment maintenance district.

Jim Estep, Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director stated the special zone proposed was actually included in the City-wide Assessment Zone which was an assessment district not a maintenance assessment district. He said capital improvement projects historically had been funded through the same program.

Gail E. Waiters, City Manager requested staff to elaborate on the background of this matter so all interested parties would understand the procedures.

Ms. Barlow gave an historical overview of the issues between the developer and the three HOA’s, stating this was the second time the matter had been brought before the City Council for consideration. She stated it would take the resident’s approval to include the area in the Landscaping and Lighting District. Ms. Barlow confirmed that the assessments would be by individual parcel.

Mayor Wilson called for the ballots to be submitted to the City Clerk, and closed the public hearing.

Mayor Wilson declared a 10-minute recess for the ballots to be tabulated.

All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened.

Mayor Wilson requested the City Clerk provide the ballot results.

Judy Macfarlane, City Clerk, certified the canvass of the ballots for Special Zone 18 Twin Creeks with a majority in protest, and stated the proceedings were now abandoned.

Cm. Dickey inquired what the next step would be to rectify the issue. She said this area could not be left in its current condition and asked who would be the responsible party to maintain the area.

Ms. Barlow stated it remained the responsibility of the three HOA’s to continue providing service to that area. She stated the HOA’s needed to decide on how to landscape and maintain the parcels.

Cm. Dickey expressed her concern that this area was in disrepair and was rather unsightly. She asked what recourse there was or if there were ways to mediate the situation.

Mayor Wilson said this was a main thoroughfare through San Ramon and expressed his disappointment that the homeowner’s in that area could not reach consensus.

Cm. Tatarka asked if there had been any other communication from the homeowners requesting more information or questioning the reason for this process.

Ms. Fukuda said most inquires received by the City had been related to the purpose and the budgeted cost associated with the assessment and how the assessment district works.

Cm. Tatarka verified that the questions surrounded the assessment itself and not the landscaping issue.

Ms. Barlow said the majority of residents she had spoken with expressed concern with the high cost of the project in addition to paying their monthly HOA dues.

Mayor Wilson said is appeared a conclusion would not be reached that evening and expressed hope that staff would continue communications with the residents to find a resolution.

Ms. Fukuda proposed that staff update the HOA’s Boards and addressed the on-going maintenance issue.

Cm. Dickey asked that the three HOA’s reimburse the City if staff had to clean up the area again.

Mayor Wilson said clean up by the City had been provided gratis once before.

Mr. Estep said the area had been cleaned up once before gratis, but all three HOA’s had been notified they would be billed for the service if it were required in the future.

Cm. Tatarka asked how many times had this special assessment been attempted.

Ms. Barlow stated this was the second attempt.

Cm. Hudson said this was done each year, and there has to be a strong "buy-in" for the City to have this assessment district.

Ms. Fukuda said this matter had been addressed previously in 1992. She said there would have to be a strong commitment on the part of the HOA’s because if the item had been approved by a majority vote, the property would be deeded to the City, which would want a firm commitment that there would be adequate funds for the on-going maintenance of the property.

Jeff Eorio, Parks and Community Services Director, stated staff proposed the approval of a nine-month interim contract with the Crow Canyon Institute (CCI) to provide maintenance and programming for the Crow Canyon Gardens from February 2003 through November 30, 2003. He said the interim contract was necessary to prevent a break in service levels at the Gardens since the original contract had expired on June 30, 2002. Mr. Eorio stated the interim contract would also provide staff the opportunity to prepare a new comprehensive Request for Proposal (RFP) to maintain and program the Gardens effective December 1, 2003. He stated the interim contract would be retroactive to February 1, 2003 and the amount would not exceed $50,835.96.

Mayor Wilson opened public comment.

Carol Rowley said she had attended many meetings and several hearings regarding CCI and recommended the City assume the maintenance and programming responsibilities. She said the City is well versed and very respected for successful programs and said this would be another jewel in the City’s circle of parks if staff took it over.

Mayor Wilson stated in the future for speakers to indicate their preferred speaking order on their request card when submitted.

VERBATIM BEGINS HERE

Linda Wilgus: I am hear tonight to speak on behalf of CCI and I am here to give you our proposal. Our proposal is not represented in the staff report. I believe and I am certainly open to correction on this, that as a person representing the position of a party to this contract, who has not had an opportunity yet to make their position known to the Council that this is in the effect of an applicant making a presentation not public comment. There was not opportunity before the meeting to arrange for that but I hope that my remarks would not be limited to five minutes and considered general public comment. Is that acceptable?

Mayor Wilson: No.

Ms. Wilgus: Okay. I have submitted to you what CCI proposes as an interim contract. We began within a day or two after the Council’s decision on October 22^nd to reject the existing bids. We were solicited by City staff members to meet with them and discuss ways in which we might resolve this situation because it had been clear from discussions from part of the Council after they made their vote that there was a great distaste on the Council’s part certainly understandable for having to choose between CCI and Joe Queirolo. So at the City’s request we began a three-months series of meetings with City staff and the last two of those meetings Cm. Cambra was in attendance to help facilitate them, John Skeel as City staff was there and former City Manager Jim Randall was there when he was still City Manager and then he was also there after as the representative of the City Manager’s office after Ms. Waiters was appointed as City Manager and is doing her job in that capacity. At the last of those meetings an agreement was reached by where CCI would enter into an interim contract with the City of San Ramon to continue the services that we currently provide both maintenance and programming through November 30^th. The contract was to begin on February 1^st. The – all of the conversations that we have had with the City regarding working something out between them, among us, had centered around what a price would be. The final price that the City proposed to us – we did not propose it to the City – but we did accept it was $125,000 annually converted to a ten-month period. And after we agreed upon that price, we began to talk about the ways in which it might be done and the general understanding was that $100,000 annually converted to ten-months, would be paid the same way we are paid now, that we would invoice the City on a monthly basis and we would receive the monthly fraction of that amount. And the additional amount above that would be subject to matching funds. If we raised the equivalent of the $20,000 annually during that ten month period then the City would match whatever we raised during that time up to the $125,000. That was acceptable to CCI, it was acceptable to everybody who was at that meeting. We left that meeting with the understanding that we would be contacted by City staff and that the details of the agreement would be worked out. There was no question in the minds of anyone leaving that meeting that we had not reached an agreement. It was not until we attended - until staff members attended our Board meeting of February 27^th that we learned that the City was proposing to pay us what we pay now – what they pay us now and not only that – less because it would be a ten month contract and we would arrive at the point in July 1^st when our contract is normally increased 8% and we would not have the 8% increase because we would be locked in. We did not submit a proposal to the city, the City staff solicited from me....

5 MINUTE BUZZER.

Mayor Wilson: Ms. Wilgus, you can continue because I am asking you a question. One question concerns me, you said there was an agreement with Mr. Randall and CCI on a cost.

Ms. Wilgus: Yes, and on the entire agreement, the scope, the term of the agreement and the cost. We have done two months work in reliance on that contract. We would not have continued – we were at the point where our Board had voted to discontinue working if the City was only going to offer us the current amount. Instead, we have gone forward. I have booked and confirmed over one hundred school tours, we have had volunteers growing plants, we have had people coming to make crafts for our Spring Festival, we are entering into our busiest growing season of the year and we find ourselves in the position that the interim contract was designed to avoid. That we are going to have to drop all of that – we have instructions from our Board of Directors not to continue and that means there will be no tours, there will be no Spring Festival –

Mayor Wilson: Let me clarify something though. Mr. Randall, and no one else, had the permission to make any contract with anyone. The five sitting here are the only ones that can verify a contract. And regardless....

Ms. Wilgus: I am not saying we made the contract Mr. Mayor, I am saying that that is the contract that was proposed to us and that when we...

Mayor Wilson: There are a lot of things that are proposed, but until it comes before the City Council ...

Ms. Wilgus: Right, and that is what I am asking you to do. What is represented in the staff report before you tonight is that we have made a proposal to the City for $170,000 annually. Our proposal in our RFP was only $144,000 - why on earth would we have proposed to you that we would ask you for $170,000 for an interim contract? We were asked by Ms. Waiters in a meeting we attended with her to please let her know what it was we were doing there. And so we provided her with a scope of work that we had developed for our own use, not to give to the City as a proposal, for us to use internally to evaluate what we were doing. But we thought it would aid her in her understanding of what we do out there. Subsequently, the following week I was contacted by John Skeel who said that Ms. Waiters had asked him for information to flush out that information that she wanted to know how many hours were involved in that. And at the time we did that work we had calculated the hours. I was reluctant to give it to him and I told him so. This is the second time that we have given information informally to the City and it has ended up in the staff report as if it were a proposal from us. We were never asked to make a proposal about this contract. We felt we had already reached an agreement that was going to be before you tonight to either reject or accept. That – certainly, that is your privilege. We have no reason to think we were making any kind of proposal and the - after that - Mr. Skeel said well she would also like to know what it would cost. And again I said you know I hate to give those numbers, if she wants to know what our services are worth, she can look at our proposal that we submitted in response to the RFP. That was what ...

Mayor Wilson: But again...

Ms. Wilgus: No, let me answer your question, please...

Mayor Wilson: No, please, again. I am confused. You are working for the City, the City is not working for you, correct?

Ms. Wilgus: No, I work for Crow Canyon Institute.

Mayor Wilson: Crow Canyon Institute – the history – no thank you that’s fine.

Ms. Wilgus: And we were not – we were asked then for our figures and I said to Mr. Skeel, that it would be one hundred and forty-four –

Mayor Wilson: (Undeterminable comments)

Ms. Wilgus: He told me that Ms. Waiters was trying to understand better what we did and what it costs. So I took our current staff figures and I applied what we pay our current staff to those numbers. It was explanatory only – it was never meant to be a proposal to the City that they pay that and as soon as I received the staff report on Friday, I immediately sent Ms. Waiters an e-mail saying that we had not submitted a proposal and that that was a complete misrepresentation of what our position....

Mayor Wilson: Okay, at the present time – what I would like to do is – unless there are further questions I would like to probably call you back later. Mr. Hudson has one and then Mr. Cambra, please.

Cm. Hudson: Just concisely, this is what you believe is the agreement that was January – you handed out?

Ms. Wilgus: Yes...

Cm. Hudson: And – do you have a copy of this in front of you? Because I think the numbers are different.

Ms. Wilgus: Well I apologize for the numbers that are in the last section because –

Cm. Hudson: Number four, the last section, is that what you are talking about?

Ms. Wilgus: ................number four, yes, because I had been thinking the discussions had been in terms of the full $125,000 and I hadn’t been going to raise the issue of the crop sharing but I thought if you were going to approve the agreement tonight you should know that and I didn’t do the numbers right. But the idea is that we would be paid at ten months at the rate of $120,000 a year except that some of that would be paid in matching fund. And it was our understanding when we left the meeting of January 22^nd those details would be worked out before the contract was executed.

Mayor Wilson: What I would like to do at this present time – this is a very important document – what I would like to do is go through public comment the rest and take a five minute break after public comment so the Council can read this and respond and then have you come back up and if there are any questions, that is perfect.

Ms. Wilgus: Thank you.

Barbara Stott: Program Manager for CCI. As I thought about what to say to you this evening I asked myself why are we still here deciding the future of Crow Canyon Gardens. Why is this item on your agenda again? Why is CCI still working on a month-to-month basis since June 2002? I can’t answer those questions for you but I can give you the facts as I understand them and I have perceived as I have been there. Our contract which we held for eleven years expired on June 30, 2002. It was publicly acknowledged at the June 4, 2002 City Council Finance Committee meeting that the only reason City staff did simply not renew ......... contract as they did in the past was it they new the former garden manager wanted to bid on the contract separately. Subsequently an RFP was issued which was bid on by CCI and the former garden manager. The RFP was rejected by the City Council, there was a request that we work things out with him. I personally spent many hours working on how we could accommodate the former garden manager and our current staff both financially and in a day-to-day working situation. I can tell you it was a very sincere offer and we truly hoped that we could work together again. A member of the CCI Board met with the former garden manager and offered him the position of head gardener, being paid at the same rate he was previously employed at. The offer was rejected because the former garden manager did not feel he could work with the current team. We were not willing to fire a currently employee without cause to accommodate an employee we had fired for cause. A judge ruled twice that the former garden manager had indeed been fired for cause. ..........requested by City staff to enter into an interim contract to allow time to pass to prepare for a new RFP. There were various meetings with City staff which culminated in a meeting on January 22^nd with John Skeel, Jerry Cambra, Jim Randall, Dolores .............., Linda Wilgus and myself. At this meeting City staff acknowledged that the figure on the table was $125,000. There was some discussion on whether $20,000 or $25,000 of this amount would only be paid as matching funds .......that CCI would raise. CCI made it clear that they were not interested in continuing at the current pay rate and that an interim contract would have to run from February 1, 2003 to November 30, 2003, so that CCI could carry on its activities for the upcoming season. There was unanimous agreement between City staff and CCI that the interim contract would run for this ten month period. This time frame and the financial figure were very important to CCI because we would be committing ourselves to planning a growing season, organizing school tours and preparing for our annual Spring Festival on May 3^rd. In good faith we have maintained the gardens for almost two months into this interim contract period and purchased supplies. Today I took receipt of 250 pounds of potatoes. We have booked over one hundred school tours, we have enlisted volunteers to plant hundreds of plants for the Spring Festival to make garden crafts for the crafts sale and twenty businesses have donated prizes for the raffle at the Festival. Unwittingly, we have misled people to invest time and money into events that may not take place. Our Board of Directors have voted that if the City decides to continue to pay CCI at the current rate, they will disband the organization because they feel that figure is inadequate for CCI to continue to operate. Most of you have visited Crow Canyon Gardens, many of you have participated in our Spring Festival so I think you know what the residents of San Ramon get for their money. If you would like to ask me more about that I would be happy to continue that but I think you already know. I feel CCI has done everything in its power to try and resolve this situation and I urge you tonight to honor the agreement made with CCI and the City staff to make the decision to pay CCI adequately for the services it provides under this interim contract. Thank you.

Mayor Wilson: Any questions for Ms. Stott?

Betty Nostrand, Chairman, Board of Directors, CCI. I am here to speak on the interim contract. We do want to thank the staff for all of their time and energy and the City Council representatives who have worked with us to find a fair and equitable solution for the interim contract. Although we still have differences on what that solution should be we do appreciate the time that has been spent. Crow Canyon Institute has struggled for nine months since last June attempting to cooperate with the City during the interim contract time. We find ourselves at the very place we didn’t want to be – entering into an exceptionally busy time for us of the year with grave uncertainty regarding our City support. We have over one hundred school tours and all that we have started to do for the Spring Festival. This work was undertaken with a clear expectation that CCI would be given a fair level of support by the City considering the work we do during the interim contract period. Option I on your staff report is not acceptable to Crow Canyon Institute as we conveyed to Ms. Waiters at our meeting with her on March 12. We have continued to maintain the Gardens at a loss month-to-month since last June because we thought each month that the matter would be settled. Our Board voted at its last meeting not to continue at the current rate. In meetings with the then City Manager, City Council representative, City staff and CCI staff and board members during November through January all agreed that they could support an interim contract of $125,000 a year which was proposed by the City. We have agreed that we could live with the proposed $125,000 a year – this is consistent with what CCI has said all along would be needed to maintain the Gardens and provided the programs that the citizens of San Ramon have come to expect and deserve. Although the prevailing wage for the for landscape maintenance labor is $10.00 per hour, we feel that our highly skilled organic gardeners and managers deserve more than that. And I think if the City does cost out what it would take them to maintain the Park as an organic operation and not as a passive park that they will see what an exceptional value we are offering. I do hope that tonight a definite decision will be reached at this Council meeting and of course I do hope that the Council will give an adequately funded interim contract to help CCI. Thank you for your consideration.

Rosalind Rogoff: I don’t know how many people have been out to Crow Canyon Gardens lately and seen the gardens but I was over there in January and February maybe not the best time of the year to be taking pictures of gardens but I did take some pictures and see if I can bring them up here because I want to show you what people see, what I saw when you first get to the entrance point from the gardens ..... How many Councilmembers have been out to the Gardens and looked them?

Mayor Wilson: We all have.

Ms. Rogoff: Basically what I wanted to show what that these are the community plots which are a real mixed bag. They are not – I met with Gene Nagel who is one of the community gardeners and he showed me around and gave me his version of things. Apparently the plots were supposed to be renewed in November and they were not so that there are quite a few of them that are basically abandoned and really in crummy condition. Some of the others even the ones that are being maintained there is no uniformed standards as far as fencing goes so you see all different kinds of fencing on each one of these plots. I met with Barbara Stott when I went out there in January and she told me that they put the fencing up to keep the deer out but at least it should if you are going to have fencing it should be uniform so that everybody has the same fencing and it all looks decent because it just doesn’t. I mean if you saw these pictures it looks pretty ghastly. And when they are talking about tours and bringing children out, bringing 100 tours, children learn a lot by what they see. You can tell children all sorts of things, you can say "here is a beautiful organic garden" and they are looking around seeing something that looks like crap. They are going to think that is what an organic garden is supposed to look like. And ............CCI is giving us a wonderful opportunity here, I was told that the City Manager could cancel a contract if it was not being met acceptably, but CCI doesn’t even have a contract, there is nothing to cancel. I keep asking this question, I’ve asked Jim Estep, I’ve asked Jeff Eorio, I’ve asked Gail Waiters, why can’t the City manage its’ own park? This park, this piece of land was bought in 1991 for $900,000 from Virginia Mudd. There was an agreement with Virginia Mudd to keep it as a demonstration garden for ten years and CCI which was her organization that she founded was contracted to keep these as a demonstration garden for ten years. We have met that agreement. We can – the City can now take this park over and make it look like every other City park which means good. Which is doesn't look now. I couldn't even find where the so-called organic gardens where the so-called demonstration plot was. I wandered around and had to ask somebody because there are no paths, no signs, there are no markings so you go in there and see a weed strewn field filled with plots that have mismatched fencing on them, you have a sign, a wooden sign that’s been put up, not one of those pretty granite rock signs but a wooden sign that somebody’s hit with their Jeep and knocked over and is now kind of cock-eyed looking and that says it’s a City park. I’ll tell you, this is an embarrassment and the best thing we can do is forget about a contract with CCI, let them fold their tents because they have served their purpose and let the City take this over and run it for the resident’s – for me – it’s my park, I don’t want them taking and selling my produce. They don’t own it, it is not theirs and I am sorry that you can’t see my pictures because it really made my case.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Just a point of clarification on a number of the items that you sited in terms of signage – those are capital improvements that the City is responsible for and not the sub-contractor who is charge of the maintenance. Just wanted to let you know.

Ms. Rogoff: Okay, but they are responsible if they are supposed to be in charge of those community gardens for renewing them not – enforcing some sort of guidelines or rules so they are not left just covered with weeds and falling apart.

Vice Mayor Cambra: I am only addressing the signage and the capital improvement that you had spoken off. I just wanted to make certain that you understood that. Thank you.

Pat York: I too am also concerned about the price that we are going to pay to have the Crow Canyon Gardens, especially with the tight budget that we have and we just keep to be spending money and spending money and more money. And I have a few questions for the people from Crow Canyon Gardens. They charge $60 for a plot, and where does that money go? They charge for the tours, where does that money go? I mean, they sell....., where does that money go? I don’t know. I am a volunteer at the Senior Center and we have a garden up there and our budget for our garden is $800. We get $800 and we manage to work and have, we have 81 patches, we don’t have plots, we have patches because we are seniors. And we charge $10 for the patch and they can plant whatever they want, it is all volunteer, everybody helps everybody else, everyone does very well. So, I just really can’t understand $120,000 – we could do a lot, we could have a nice road going up to the Seniors – to our gardens so that they can ......so they can move the things that they need to move. But we have to haul, we have three rototillers, donated, and we ....... Forest Home Farms and the City has fixed a couple of the other ones. But everyone just works together, helps each other, and they plant whatever they want. I just thought that I would mention this.

Vice Mayor Cambra: I would like to have your question answered. Where do – how do the funds from the Community Gardens for their yearly plots – how – where does that money go? Jeff, can you help us with that?

Mr. Eorio: The community gardeners at Crow Canyon Gardens traditionally have paid CCI their rental fee. Their rental fee is for the oversight and administration of the community gardeners by CCI.

Vice Mayor Cambra: You said traditionally...

Mr. Eorio: Up until they stopped doing that – providing that service in November or December of this year. CCI discontinued doing that because they say they didn’t have an interim contract that was their rationale for not continuing to provide that service.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Okay, so those funds are going where now?

Mr. Eorio: Nobody is collecting funds at this point in time. Because the City has not been – the Parks and Community Services Department has not been directed to take over the operation of those - programming of those plots.

Vice Mayor Cambra: And what point in time did this stop? November?

Mr. Eorio: November or December. When CCI said they would no longer send out those notices.

Vice Mayor Cambra: I wasn’t quite finished. The only thing that I wanted to say is that – regardless of what comes out of tonight’s meeting I would hope that someone on staff somewhere would pick up the ball and continue along with the program there for the community gardeners. If somebody is not going to be collecting fees, then the City of San Ramon should be.

Dianne Schinnerer: I have a couple of comments and questions. There seems to be a discrepancy between what Ms. Wilgus says it will cost CCI which is $144,000 and the other amount which is $125,000 so there are amounts all over. But my main concern is that CCI and the City has never had a contract for a provision of programs and I am wondering what kind of liability that this has presented to the City over the years, number one and that is a real concern. I am concerned, I do think that CCI is very well meaning and does a very enthusiastic job and I suspect that I would support the interim contract at the lower amount so that they can finish up the year but I do think it is time for the City to take over the Gardens. I was reading the survey of the Community Gardens and we have never had such a low rating on any park in the City of San Ramon and I think that the City of San Ramon is known for having high, high quality parks 90% or above rankings in – award winning parks. I think it is time they ended this contract for the City to take over and run Crow Canyon Gardens. Thank you.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Again, I just wanted to, the results, the survey results, were not regarding the park but only the community gardening plots.

Mrs. Schinnerer: That’s what I said. I said the Community Gardener survey.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Yeah, but you compared it to all of our other parks and this is only one aspect of this park and I believe that the rating is 83% excellent over very good and 94% satisfactory or above.

Mrs. Schinnerer: I have a very different survey than you have.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Well the one I’ve got is dated February 26, 2003. And the first question is please rate your satisfaction with the community gardening experience at Crow Canyon Gardens. Is that the same one? Or do we have a different one?

Mrs. Schinnerer: No. 32%. I see what you are doing, you are adding.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Right. The same way the City does when we do our survey about the satisfaction level of the residents on the City. Thank you.

Mayor Wilson closed the public hearing.

Mayor Wilson read letters from Charlotte Canning, Lynne Shaw, Pat Reyes, Judy Ticehurst, and Kate Fannin supporting Crow Canyon Institute.

Mayor Wilson called for a 10-minutes recess.

All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened.

Mayor Wilson: At this time I would like the Council to make Council comments, clarification to be able to call back any of the speakers for clarification, would anyone like to start?

Cm. Hudson: It was a question that I was going to ask before, and it is basically just to simplify what CCI is asking for in this....

Mayor Wilson: Would you like someone to respond?

Cm. Hudson: Yes, and I don’t care who – whoever is doing the interim contract and actually, Linda if possible....because she has her initials on it, that’s why I would like her to do it. And the question is ..... pertains to the first sheet you have here, when you look at #3 Contract Price, and by the way, this is so we don’t get caught up in jargon, this is not a contract, it is a proposal for an agreement that will be a contract. But we will call it a contract because that is what is on here.

Ms. Wilgus: Right.

Cm. Hudson: It says contract price in consideration of services provided by CCI, the City will pay CCI in an amount equivalent to $125,000 annually, or $10,000 monthly and it says or $100,000 for the ten months. Now that is $10,000 a month that you are asking for but in the next line under Method of Payment you call for a monthly payment of $10,000 lined out 833 LW. Which one are you asking for?

Ms. Wilgus: Well, it’s hard to say. The – I did that math hastily without the aid of a calculator while we were sitting there cause I realized when I typed it I had typed in the wrong amount. There were two components to – when Mr. Randall, when we were talking about the $120,000 to $125,000 figure that was an annual figure and then we figured we would take what that was per month we would divide it by twelve and then we would multiply it by ten for the whole contract amount. So that is how you get the $100,000 from $120,000.

Cm. Hudson: Okay, let me help you. I am going to stop you because you are going to lose everybody. What you then did was figure it was an annual of $100,000 and then divided it by twelve, and came up with 833.

Ms. Wilgus: No, no, no, no, no. I have not gotten there yet. That was the basic agreement. And then as we were working on the details, I mean this is how detailed the discussion of the amounts got to, you know, why we were so convinced that we had reached an agreement. Then Mr. Randall suggested that rather giving that to us all the way we are paid under the contract now which is that we invoice the City for a monthly amount and the City sends us a check, we would take a certain amount of that out and that part and that was really never firmed up but it was somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000. That part would be set aside and it would be, there would be a matching funds provision so that the actual annual price would be $100,000 annually. And that divided by twelve, I think is around 80-333 ($8,333). And then that should be multiplied by ten, as the contract price and the rest, that’s the part that we would invoice the City for. We would send the City an invoice for that amount and then if we raised $10,000, the City would match those funds, they would pay us an additional up to the limit of 120 – the equivalent of $120,000 per year. It is complicated because it is a ten-month contract based upon an annual figure. But that is because all of the negotiations that led to this and there were many, it was not just those two meetings, we had repeated meetings with City staff where we went back and forth on how we could crunch the numbers. We always were dealing with annual amounts because this originally began as an effort to work something out in the hope that Joe Queirolo would cooperate with us and that we would eliminate the necessity for the RFP. So when we got to the point where found out that Joe Queirolo was not going to cooperate with us, then that was the point at which we started saying well what are we going to do in the interim then before we its going to take this many months to come up with the RFP how are we going to do programming over that time and we were kind of stuck into that mold of having done everything on an annual basis. So that all the numbers had to be converted to ten months. And then we had to when I was doing it today I wanted to try to make you really understand what the full discussions had been and I didn’t want to misrepresent it to you that we were expecting to get that all in cash up front that some of it was going to be paid to us in matching funds. I just didn’t do the math right.

Vice Mayor Cambra: I want to thank you for that. I wanted to also explain to Mr. Hudson that I probably shouldn’t speak for any one else but Mr. Randall’s rationale behind the $20,000 or $25,000 difference in having it in matching funds was he felt CCI with their part of their funding should come from raising funds not strictly from the City coffers and he wanted to encourage or find a way of encouraging that that would be it would make it more advantageous for CCI to pursue fund raising outside of securing City funds. So that was what his rationale was behind that as he explained it.

Cm. Tatarka: Okay, I just have a quick question. You had several meetings culminating to this the last meeting where you talked about coming to – it looks like closely to an interim.

Ms. Wilgus: Right.

Cm. Tatarka: What was the outcome of the next step. What was going to happen since...

Ms. Wilgus: What was out understanding of what the next step......

Cm. Tatarka: Yes, what the next step is because it seems that you were very, very close.

Ms. Wilgus: We were very close and as we left the meeting, our understanding was that we would be contacted by John Skeel who had been present in all of the meetings, not just those but the ones where we met with other City staff members and that I think in spite of the only detail that we really thinking about working out was this matching funds thing and how we would word that and he would present us with a draft and subsequently it at the Finance Committee meeting I think in February I brought it to the attention of Dorn Driggs that we were no longer op – that he had sent me a monthly extension - we have been operating on the City sends us a letter saying they are extending our contract for a month – sometimes they forget to do it and we go ahead and invoice them and they pay us anyway. But he had sent me one for February and I brought it to his attention that we were not sending that back because the interim contract was going to begin effective February 1st so whatever amount was in you know we didn’t know what the amount we would be invoicing was until we got that information from Mr. Skeel. And at that point it wasn’t until representatives from City staff came to our Board meeting on the 27^th of February that we knew that they weren’t planning to honor that agreement. That they were planning to do the agreement and that everything else was going to stay the same. The scope of the work, everything except the amount. And I had also when we went with Ms. Waiters on the 12^th of March to kind of try and go over this entire CCI/Crow Canyon Gardens situation I – she was concerned that we had not been paid for February. And I said well it is because we haven’t invoiced for February because we don’t know how much to invoice and she and I arrived at the conclusion that we would submit an invoice requesting a partial payment from the City applicable to the eventual amount that was going to be the payment under the interim contract. And those are the invoices that I have prepared for the City for February and March, not the full amount, but as a partial payment toward what the eventual monthly amount will be.

Cm. Tatarka: So the only thing, from my understanding correctly here, that you needed to work out was the part about the matching funds.

Ms. Wilgus: That’s right.

Cm. Tatarka: Otherwise, you were pretty well on the way. You were waiting to hear from staff regarding that. Okay, and then did Mr. Randall say anything about at some point where this was going to go that this agreement was going to come to Finance or to the City Council or to anything? Was there anything?

Ms. Wilgus: No he didn’t. My understanding from what I know about the way the City works was that I thought once Mr. Skeel had prepared it, I think the idea we were all working towards and Mr. Randall agreed with it that before it was presented to the City, Mr. Skeel would do a draft, CCI would look at it, we would all agree that memorialized that was what we all had be talking about, then it would be formally presented to the City just the way things have been presented tonight for your, probably to the Finance Committee and then to the Council for your approval of that contract.

Cm. Tatarka: Okay, when was this meeting, what was the date?

Ms. Wilgus: January 22^nd.

Cm. Tatarka: January 22^nd was the date of that meeting. So you were pretty firm up until that point and then your Board meeting was what day?

Ms. Wilgus: February 27^th.

Cm. Tatarka: February 27^th, okay.

Ms. Wilgus: And whenever your Finance Committee meeting was in February was when I reiterated with Mr. Driggs that – it was important that he point out to the City Manager that we were operating without a contract because I was not sure that she was aware that there was a certain urgency in coming up with the interim contract because we were no longer using the month-to-month extensions.

Cm. Tatarka: All right. One quick question about the community gardeners - that situation. When did that cease – you coordinating that or what ..........do with the Community Gardens- when did that cease and when did....

Ms. Wilgus: That happened in November and it was the result of complaints that began about this time last year I guess on the part of a few community gardeners who complained about the increase in the fees. Previously the community gardener fees had been $30 for non-residents and $20 for – no, I take that back, $30 for residents and $40 for non-residents. And as we did with all of our programs including the tours CCI was losing money, we were supporting the Community Gardens, we were losing money on managing the Community Gardens and our Board undertook an effort to make all of our programs at least break even so that we wouldn’t be losing money on them. And, so in order to do that, we raised the Community Garden rates. There were complaints about that, those complaints ultimately resulted in a visit to the park by members of the Finance and Policy Committees of the Commission, we had a walk-around we had a lawn meeting we discussed what would happen. Then it went, then there was, we were asked as a result of that meeting to revise the Community Garden Rules. We revised the Community Garden Rules and we sent a draft out to all of the community gardeners for their comments. We invited them to a meeting to come and share their comments with us. A number of people attended the meeting who were very, very angry about the fact that we were attempting to tighten up on the rule that restricts people to having one plot because we have a waiting list of over thirty people and there are some people that use the ruse of having plots in the names of family members and then they garden them and I guess we were successful because they were not happy with the language we came up with to prevent that from happening. So as an outgrowth of that second kind of brouhaha we returned to the current Commission Finance and Policy committees.

Cm. Tatarka: Of the Parks Commission?

Ms. Wilgus: Who are different people and we had a meeting and it was decided that the City rather than CCI or the community gardeners would do a survey to get input from the community gardeners. And pending that we I think we all kind of hoped that normally the contracts are renewed in January, the Community Garden years is a calendar year so we had hoped that it would be resolved in January and whoever would be managing the Community Garden whether it was a committee of community gardeners or the City or CCI, we would know who that was and that entity would send out the new contracts. And in the interim, we wouldn’t do anything and I discussed this with Mr. Eorio who hoped that I could send out a contract and I pointed out to him that I could not send out a contract cause I did not know who the contracting party was. I didn’t know whether to send the letter to the community gardeners telling them they were making an agreement with us or with a committee of community gardeners or with the City. And in lieu of that I sent them a letter explaining what the delay was that things would continue sort of in the same way CCI has on a month-to-month basis and that once it was resolved, their contracts would be issued by whoever was going to be in charge of the Community Garden and the date of those contracts would be retro-active to January 1^st and they could send in their fees then and it would cover them from January 1^st of this year until December 31^st of the following year. So, since that time we have officially not managed the Community Garden I have to say I probably spend two hours a week talking to community gardeners because they see us as the entity that is involved in the Community Garden. At the last meeting of the Parks and Community Services Commission, the Commission voted that their preference was to have the City manage the Community Gardens but there was no discussion on how that would be done and my understanding was that was a recommendation that they will forward to the Council. But there wasn’t’ any discussion of the details of how it would be done. So we are really in limbo with the Community Gardens but they are functioning I mean people are continuing to garden, they just are gardening on their last year’s contract.

Cm. Tatarka: That’s what I wanted to know. Okay, thank you.

Mayor Wilson: The original contract - CCI, I think the last time that we had a contract – I was looking through my old notes and I think it was 95 when we had when we had our last contract.

Ms. Wilgus: It was – the City signed it in October 96.

Mayor Wilson: Alright, but we had at the meeting – in my minutes, I was there and you were there and I think, probably Theresa......was the head of CCI and that time CCI was going under. We gave you an extra $4,000 just to meet payroll at that time and we negotiated with you and one of the things we specified at that was that it would be fund raising. What has CCI done since 95 as far as funding raising?

Ms. Wilgus: I would defer to Betty Nostrand because I think she has the figures but I believe we raised in excess of $30,000 last year.

Mayor Wilson: Okay, thank you. Also, the plots, that has been going on for quite some time hasn’t it? I remember dealing with that some time in October of last year.

Ms. Wilgus: You mean the ....

Mayor Wilson: The dispute between ....

Ms. Wilgus: Oh yeah. That has been going on over a year.

Mayor Wilson: Because the Parks Commission had to address it when you raised the fees and we decided you could not raise the fees, it had to come before the Council, the Parks Commission.

Ms. Wilgus: If it were more than a 10% increase.

Mayor Wilson: Yes, okay.

Ms. Wilgus: Yeah, they endorsed the current fee increase but they said in the future if we were going to increase the fees and it was an increase that was greater than 10% over the previous years we would need to ask the Commission.

Mayor Wilson: Okay, thank you.

Cm. Dickey: I just have a quick question. Your current contract, and I hate to even say contract amount but you understand....

Ms. Wilgus: I know what you are meaning...

Cm. Dickey: But your current amount that you are supposed to be receiving, am I correct in – in – it’s 56-48 ($5,648) a month?

Ms. Wilgus: Yes.

Cm. Dickey: Does that include an 8% increase or is the 8% ....

Ms. Wilgus: That includes the 8% increase that we received on July 1^st. When we agreed to the first month-to-month extensions were proposed to us I think in a Finance Committee meeting and we agreed to do it the thinking then was it was going to be at least three months and perhaps I mean at least two months and perhaps three. And when they we were discussing them sending us the extension, I said well you know if it is an extension of our current contract one of the terms of our current contract is that it is increased 8% on July 1^st so will we get the 8% increase and it was agreed that that was reasonable and they would do that. If we were to do this interim contract the option one that is proposed then we would be locked out of that because our current rate of 56-48 ($5,648) would be locked in through November. The reason we had that increase is when we negotiated is when we re-negotiated the contract in 96 everybody agreed that the amount that we should be receiving then is what we receive now. So in 1996 pricing and salaries and everything else it was agreed $67,000 a year was a fair amount but the City didn’t feel they could afford that commitment at that point so as a compromise, they gave us whatever if you go back and subtract 8% a year until then, they started us lower and they stepped us up 8% each year so that the amount that we received this past year 2002 was what we all agreed was a fair contract price in 96.

Mayor Wilson: Thank you. And that 8%, I am trying to remember, looking at my notes from then, that was something we negotiated then because of financial ....

Ms. Wilgus: That’s correct, and CCI....

Mayor Wilson: And we decided that....... I think Theresa and Mr. Estep was there and Mr. Eorio was there, and I was there, fighting for CCI ....

Ms. Wilgus: That’s correct.....

Mayor Wilson: Because I valued CCI’s involvement at that particular time and we made sure that that would be the 8% plus was it $4,000 or $6,000 –

Mr. Eorio: $4,000...

Mayor Wilson: $4,000 that we gave you...

Ms. Wilgus: There was a one-time sort of bail out...

Mayor Wilson: To meet payroll...

Ms. Wilgus: Right so we could meet our payroll and then we agreed as a compromise to take less and you know we .....that’s why we do I mean it is always our intention to raise funds independently anyway but we were really, we were doing a lot of things at that time Theresa had a program where she was selling bedding..... and plants....

Mayor Wilson: It don’t think it was a compromise - it was an agreement...

Ms. Wilgus: It was a way to work it out....

Mayor Wilson: It wasn’t a compromise period. It was the fact that we were bailing out CCI it is as simple as that because you were having financial problems and the City wanted to make sure that .....survived.

Ms. Wilgus: Well the $4,000 was...

Mayor Wilson: As well as the 8% because at that particular time we were just cutting back - the City was really strapped.

Ms. Wilgus: Right, right it was, we all agreed that we all wanted we all thought that was a fair price but CCI understood that it was going to be hard for the City to do that so we built in the increase.

Mayor Wilson: Just showing that there is a history that the City has really supported CCI.

Ms. Wilgus: I think we have supported each other I think that is true. We have always tried to work, I mean it has always been our goal to work very you know to work with the City for the betterment of that park for the citizens of San Ramon and the City has been supportive of us in that amount.

Mayor Wilson: When we decided to have CCI – CCI was the just like we had the Arts Council Foundation, just as we have the Senior Foundation and the Library Foundation, it was a means of generating funds for gardens, and going out and getting them grants and bringing .....

Ms. Wilgus: That may be true from the City’s .....I don’t know what the City’s view was. CCI existed before at the same time the garden and our mission is to support the gardens.

Mayor Wilson: Pardon me. We decided to purchase to enhance and maintain this. Sitting at that original meeting that was the understanding, the original meeting, I was on the Parks Commission and we decided that was the original meeting for that.

Ms. Wilgus: I am not certain that I understand you.

Vice Mayor Cambra: I wanted to nail down just a couple of things because I am not feeling comfortable. CCI is an independent contractor to the City of San Ramon for maintenance only.

Ms. Wilgus: Well, the contract has always read that title, operation and maintenance of Crow Canyon Gardens and the only thing that we do under that contract that is not maintenance of what we refer to as the demonstration or production gardens is that we maintain, we mow the other areas on the upper level of the garden and other than that we maintain the dig the gardens that face Mudd’s Restaurant and the production beds and the orchard.

Vice Mayor Cambra: I’ll come back to my second later but as you brought this up at one point in time in a meeting that I was sitting at observing there was a request made for a map of the area because I think literally the folks at CCI and the City staff spent a half-hour trying to figure out what each others language was about what part who was going to take care of. Did that map ever get drawn for you?

Ms. Wilgus: We submitted – we have a map that Central San does for organic facilities and it is a very nice map – colored – Barbara Stott our garden manager, took that map and adapted it and put headings on it and arrow pointing in an attempt to clarify but my recollection from the meeting of October 22^nd, especially the Council meeting was that several Councilmembers requested that a map be drawn up of the facility. We did a walk-around one day with Jeff Gault and Dorn Driggs and I think maybe at the end Mr. Driggs saw the need for a map but it was an uphill battle to convince him and I think there are real issues about what part of the land the City owns and what part Mudd’s Restaurant owns. I think there maybe some areas that we are maintaining that actually we’re maintaining for Mudd’s Restaurant because and visa-versa. So there is no map.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Okay, with all due respect to your efforts, that is really not your responsibility to define the scope of our parks, that is our responsibility which I would have hoped it had been done by now because we had talked about this for 5-6 months. Leaving that aside, what I want to do get at in terms of the independent contract is that you also do programs at the park. That is not a portion of the former contract, I had better say that right. Okay. The other side that I am not comfortable with is that an independent contractor you are making the rules by which the community gardeners live by as well as setting the fees for that or have in the past?

Ms. Wilgus: Well, not exactly. Those rules and the fees have been there for time in memorial. The rules were actually developed by a group of community gardeners working with CCI maybe ten years ago and over time it had – there were a number of them that worked being abided by and many community gardeners had expressed the desire you know that we weren’t if the rules weren’t going to be enforced they shouldn’t be in there. We had a Community Garden meeting that all community gardeners were invited to and I believe in 2001 the year that we didn’t raise the fees, and at that meeting I took input from the community gardeners and I revised the rules. And I sent out the revised rules to all the community gardeners and I asked them all for their comments, corrections, suggestions. I received none and so those became the community garden rules. The Commission directed us to revise the rules this most recent time so we went through the same process. I took the existing rules, I revised them and I sent them out to the community gardeners for their input and we held a meeting at which they could come and give their input on the rules. Basically in 1992 and it is included in your staff report, the City sent us a letter, they needed to send us a letter because they were lowering our contract price at that time because the City was really in dire financial straights, so they sent a letter agreement, that we were going to go down from three thousand something to two thousand something and then there was also one which in that letter relating to the fact that Crow Canyon Gardens would manage the community garden that we would operate the school tours and we would offer classes and maybe would do that completely independently of the City. So they basically gave us permission to operate those programs on City property. And that is how we’ve operated ever since until this most recent series of discussions when we were actually contemplating having that be part of the contract, that the interim contract.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Do you have a specific set of rules from the City as to how you are to generate rules – rule changes, fee, fee and or programs to provide or not?

Ms. Wilgus: No, because the letter made quite clear that that was to be our responsibility that we were to run the community garden completely and independently of the City. In fact, you know it has always seemed weird that it, it’s like weird, it has never made sense to me.

Vice Mayor Cambra: No, and I’ll tell you I am very uncomfortable with it. But thank you for answering the questions.

Mayor Wilson: I think I can spread some light on that, in the 1995 contract we basically said then that the increased funding level would provide a reasonable increase for the cost of labor, management and maintaining the garden. This would allow the Institute, CCI to stabilize the workforce providing continuity in the garden. Basically the increased funding would be seed money that will allow the Institute to increase their fund raising efforts for garden projects and programs. It will also allow the Institute to continue to manage the community garden plots with over 60 participants working their plots on almost a year round basis and would allow for better promotion of the programs and activities available to the public at Crow Canyon Gardens and provides the community tools and materials for the Gardens. CCI has had - is so important to the City that we have given CCI the gardens because we think they are so important – almost free reign, so that they can survive. We have given the quarterly promotion that we hand out every quarter for the activities in City of San Ramon, the brochure, we have a special arrangement with CCI that you get 90% of the fees from programming back again. All of those were to subsidize the money that we gave. They, the City again, felt it was so important that these agreements were made with CCI that did not...........never had made those agreements with anyone else because we wanted CCI to survive. So that is why we were bending over backwards to give funding because San Ramon at that particular time ran the programs, they have been somewhat modified and enhanced, and enhanced by CCI over the years, but San Ramon ran those programs at the very beginning....

Ms. Wilgus: No, that is not correct, Mr. Mayor, they, CCI started the programs and Carey Marshall who was then I think president of the Board of CCI, turned them over to the City, and the City gave them back to CCI.

Mayor Wilson: To help you with your funding and to try to get you stabilized. I only came into this after we purchased the property...

Ms. Wilgus: Right.

Mayor Wilson: I did not know the arrangement of the Gardens prior to this time.

Ms. Wilgus: But let me explain...

Mayor Wilson: But that is why, that is why special arrangements with CCI for funding purposes only so that we can enhance that base.

Ms. Wilgus: But that’s not, that may have been an intention at some part, it wasn’t communicated to us and in fact, as I said earlier, we were losing money, we were subsidizing the community garden. At the time the tours were transferred to us, the tours were not making money. We have developed the tour program to a successful money making program and we appreciate the fact that the City has allowed us to do it but I think I can honestly say mostly because it is such an important part of our mission not because of the money it returns to us. I was at a recent at last weeks Parks Commission meeting when they were going through the budget strands and it was pointed out by the Commissioners that there is absolutely nothing in the City’s budget strand for nature study and that.....what we provide right now I have booked 130 hours of nature study at Crow Canyon Gardens....

Mayor Wilson: And the reason why there is not is because I fought with Theresa so that the City would not offer any programs in nature to compete with Crow Canyon Gardens. So that is why we did not.

Ms. Wilgus: That’s correct. But, what my point is it is that is not just that CCI, that the City, I mean we are appreciative to the City having given us those services but we are providing a valuable service for the citizens of San Ramon. It is not just for us, we are providing opportunities for the children of San Ramon to come and enjoy the Gardens which incidentally tours have nothing to do with community gardens, I just want to make that point before I and we do the Spring Festival. The City, that is entirely our own thing and it is for the benefit of the citizens of San Ramon. We offer children’s concert in the fall, we want to do more of those things because it is a non-profit organization, that is our mission. We are a non-profit organization that works closely with the City of San Ramon but for the garden maintenance, our position has been since we have started these contract discussions that the City gets way more from us than we get back if you just limit it to the maintenance of the garden and I would call to your attention the figures in the staff report that the City spends $133,400 currently on the maintenance of the rest of that park. If we do all the mowing of the upper area and we do all the gardening of the landscaped area, what is the City paying $133,000 for and how much is it going to cost them if they take over those areas instead of us doing it cheap.

Mayor Wilson: We will discuss that. Thank you.

Mr. Estep: I just had one comment and it may have been lost by now because it was a while back but it was in reference to the request for the map and that map was actually produced as part of the RFP that was going to be produced, it was brought to the Finance Committee and was actually presented to the Finance Committee as a part of that package, but then that RFP was returned to re-work. So that is where that status of that map is at, it was produced, but since it was asked to be produced as part of the RFP, my understanding it is still within that process. So it does exist.

Vice Mayor Cambra: One question, is that the map that we have tonight as Attachment D?

Mr. Estep: No, the map is actually a color aerial photo map with a line drawn out showing the different areas that were referred to in the RFP.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Okay, there it is, so it does exist.

Mr. Estep: I don’t know if that is the actual one with the markings or not.

Cm. Tatarka: As a member of the Finance Committee meeting, I remember when we looked at that map, I think it was confusing for all of us because if I am not mistaken I think the comments were made and it is in the minutes, I think it is in the minutes, talks about there was confusion as to what the title was, I think all of us were confused by that aerial map, if I remember our meeting in Finance, I think we discussed that there was not from that map that wasn’t clear enough as to what was and I think staff agreed upon it and was listening to us that we needed something different that was more definitive than just an aerial map. So if my memory serves me correctly I think all of us were having a difficult time in the Finance Committee meeting and I am speaking for myself, and if the minutes serve me correctly that we all had a problem with that map, it wasn’t just staff, or the members of the Finance Committee, it was everyone and staff was in agreement about let’s do something that makes it much clearer and definitive of the areas within the garden. So that is my recollection of this map. And a new one was supposed to have been produced after that. That was my understanding.

Mayor Wilson: Mr. Estep, I have a question. Does the map offer adequate boundaries for the RFP or is that why it was provided so the map isn’t going to change.

Mr. Estep: The map was intended to be a part of the RFP and so yes, it was brought to the Finance Committee as Cm. Tatarka mentioned, in trying to tie that map to the RFP, the Request for Proposal, there was confusion as to which parts of the park we were referring to in the RFP itself. And so yes, that was to go back, the map was going to be re-worked to tie in so as very clear when you are referring to an area for maintenance within the gardens that you can refer to the map and very clearly tell which area we were talking about. So that – the intent was that would go back, this is just my recollection of the Finance Committee meeting, this is not actually my project but having been there, the idea was, the direction I recall was take it back, re-work the RFP, re-work the map so it ties in better with the RFP, and then bring the RFP back to the Finance Committee with the new map.

Cm. Tatarka: That’s right, the new map. I have a concern, it’s 9:30, and we have a couple of other items and I am kind of wanting to get a sense here of what the direction is that we are going to be doing.

Mayor Wilson: Yes, we are going to – every Councilmember will make final comments and we will make a final decision.

Cm. Tatarka: Okay, cause it is 9:30 and I know we have a Special Presentation.

Mayor Wilson: That is fine. That is fine.

Cm. Tatarka: I just want to get an understanding.

Ms. Waiters: It is late and I just wanted to make sure that there was an opportunity for me to clarify a couple of things, so I don’t know at what point you want that.

Mayor Wilson: Please, now.

Ms. Waiters: This project has been, or this issue has been around for a long time. When I came into the Finance Committee meeting in February of this year, it was on the table and there were questions about the RFP and a new RFP that had been developed by staff and if it was going to be let or I think actually it was ready to be let and then it was to be brought back. At that particular Finance Committee meeting, what the Finance Committee decided and asked staff to do at that time was to go back and to develop two things I believe. Two major things. To put together a new RFP that would be complete with a comprehensive scope of work for the Community Gardens that would also include some performance measures on the service that would be provided at the gardens and then to work with the Institute on an interim contract for nine months beginning February 2003 through November 2003. And at that time I was comfortable with that and I said that staff would go ahead and do that. At that time in the meeting, there was no mention that there was some verbal conversation with staff whether it be support staff or the City Manager about anything regarding any amount for a contract for the Institute. If I had been made aware at the meeting that there was a conversation about an increased cost in the contract, I would have asked the Finance Committee at that time to have further discussion on it. Because my initial concern was not only that, it was mainly that my approach is that when we have a contract we have deliverables and we have performance standards to know that we are getting what we are paying for. So I wasn’t aware that there was any discussion or any numbers talked about that was anything other than the current contract. When we got to the point and after that time staff was working with the Institute to try and come up with a interim agreement and that was not moving and so I asked to meet with representatives of the Institute and I had staff, my staff, with me there. I did start out the meeting by saying that I was not going to entertain an increase in the interim contract because I was not aware of any commitments that were made by the City in writing and there was and the person that they had the discussion with was no longer with the City. I said what I could propose would be to have an interim contract for the term that the Committee had proposed but at the current level that their recent contract had expired. So that was going into the meeting with the Institute and they understood that, that is where, that is the recommendation my report would be made based on and it would be up to the City Council to make a – to approve something otherwise. When also at that meeting I specifically tried to get some information so that I could understand what services CCI was providing currently and if and what services were actually being paid for. So in other words, if CCI was saying that they were being paid less than what their services were, I wanted to know what it was that they were providing us and how much it cost. So what I asked them to do was to get me a list of the tasks that they were performing and to put a dollar amount alongside those tasks so that I could see a line item based on what they were actually providing us. And the intent of that is that if in fact we were not able to grant them an increase in the contract that we would know what services they would not be able to provide us, and how much that would cost or be subtracted from the contract. And so what I received were two different e-mails that you have attached to your report, one of the e-mails talks about the salaries for each of the positions with the Institute, the other e-mail talks about the tasks that are being provided at the Gardens and how many hours it takes to produce those tasks. I believe that the staff work and Mr. Eorio can speak to this, I believe staff then calculated because we didn’t get a final number, then calculated based on the hours for the individual tasks and the hourly wages, how much it would cost, and again, that might not be exactly correct. But what it ended up being was that was additional increase of about $14,000 a month and that was different than anything else we had heard and that was, I did not have an issue with that because I asked them to provide me the information to let me know what their service levels would cost and I think that traditionally when the City lets a RFP, what we are doing is we are asking, we are providing a scope of work, and we are asking for proposals to let us know how much you are going to charge to provide the level of service that is in the scope of work. Since this, we had been, since CCI had been providing services in the past, what I was hoping was that they would let us know what were the critical elements that they were providing services for and that – that if there were not a contract based on what they thought their service level was that we would be able to assess that. So, what we got was, the specific tasks, we did not get a delineation of what could not or what would not happen if we did not provide them a higher level of service. My bottom line is that when there is a proposal for an increase in a contract amount that there should be a corresponding increase in service level for the City and I did not see that and that is why I was concerned about bringing forward a recommendation to the Council about an increase in the contract amount. The other thing that I just wanted to mention is that there is a separate agreement with the Institute on programming and that is in place now and so there is a separate agreement for programming that they have been working under. I think that those are the main points that I wanted to present to the Council.

Mayor Wilson: Thank you.

Cm. Tatarka: Quick question since I wasn’t in the meeting. Was CCI aware that they needed to bring a proposal to you that this is what we that this is what they needed to do to do this interim contract?

Ms. Waiters: At the meeting I asked them to identify the specific tasks, we can do away with semantics – it could be a list, it could be a proposal, it could be whatever they wanted. I asked them to provide to me a list of the tasks that they are providing the service for at the Institute and I wanted to be able to put a cost to those services so that I would know, so that we would have an idea if there were certain services that they were providing and they are significant to the production of the Gardens, then we would not want to have an negative impact on that. But there might be other services that we could do away with because of budget constraints and I wanted to be able to see that and make some kind of determination and the information I got was a list of all the tasks.

Cm. Tatarka: So was this, so that we could come to an interim contract?

Ms. Waiters: That is correct. That was what I was trying to do, yes.

Cm. Tatarka: And they were aware of that as well?

Ms. Waiters: We talked about it at the meeting and in fact one of the comments was that I had gotten the tasks already in the binder and then there was another similar document that was given to me at that time and I was told that it was the same thing that I had earlier in the binder and so I already had that information.

Vice Mayor Cambra: I think I want to go in a couple of places. #1. The City Manager has a logical representation for the information that she is asking. Asking for deliverables, but we can’t have deliverables if we don’t have the scope. And the City staff, us, the Council, has never defined that scope. I also find it a little uncomfortable asking the contractor what the scope is and what they will provide asking them to make lists of what we should already be knowing. Critical elements – absolutely, we need to know what those are before we can even put a RFP out as a matter of fact if I remember correctly the last time we didn’t like the RFP was because the scope was ill defined. And nobody could really get their arms around it. The difficulty, and again this is very logical to seek an increase in the contract amount we want to see an increase in services but it is a contract that is five years old. And there are other factors other than just increased services, there’s inflation, there’s all the things that go along with it so not, we do not always get more for our money as the years go on. I think in terms of inflation we know that, so I think that the critical factor here is we, the City, should be knowing what we are requiring out of our contractors, and at our parks.

Ms. Waiters: If I can, Cm. Cambra, I believe you are absolutely correct and one of the reasons why I went the route I did is because CCI was very clear in saying to staff that we didn’t know anything about organic gardening. And I just figured that if that is true, then we don’t have anybody on staff that is as an expert as they are then they would be able to help us to define the scope by which we could put together this interim contract. And then as stated in the Finance Committee meeting, we would be working on a comprehensive twelve-month contract RFP during the time that they would be awarded this interim contract. So staff is very well - very much astute to the intricacies of organic gardening however, that we have been doing some research on it and are, will be able to present some specifics on the scope of work when the final RFP is completed. The, again, what I was hoping was that because we had a partnership with CCI already, that we would be able to identify, they would be able to help us identify what the scope is that they were willing to do for the amount of money that the City was able to provide. Yes, that is awkward, it is not typically done that way but because there has been so much confusion and awkwardness I suggested that they help us define the scope.

Cm. Hudson: Just briefly, and I think everybody has alluded to it, two points. One, tonight in e-mails or faxes we heard about changing this thing into a passive park, it is not on the table, it isn’t even being considered tonight, it is not even part of what we are doing. We keep talking about the RFP, the RFP is the next contract. What we should be focusing on is which direction or which option we are going to take for an interim contract through November and that is what I proposed to focus on. We have also one option recommended by the City Manager, one option recommended by the Parks Commission, one other option and I guess you could call it a fourth one that is coming up from CCI. I would hope that in the next short, brief time we could focus on which direction we are going with those options or this fourth option with CCI.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Mr. Hudson, I think that .... I don’t know who’s got the staff report where but under Option 3, alternative courses of action, the final option would be.....listed in the staff report as a passive park. That is probably where that came from and but it...

Cm Hudson: I agree with you. It is not on the table.

Vice Mayor Cambra: It is not on the table.

Mayor Wilson: That would never be on the table.

Vice Mayor Cambra: I need to ask for some clarification from staff on a few things and this is on page 1 of 5 because to make a decision on this I really need to make sure the figures are correct and that is at the bottom where it says $56,648.44 per month or $50,835.96. I am assuming that February to the November time frame is ten-months, I counted it off, on my hands....and I am wondering why it is not exactly ten times the amount of the monthly.

Ms. Waiters: Yes, Cm. Cambra, what you are looking at the bottom is the $5,648 is for nine months and it is for nine months because we are at March 25^th and we were assuming that there would be a retroactivity of pay because we were so late in the game and so that represents nine months and not ten months.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Okay, but it’s the interim contract from February through the end of November which is ten months.

Ms. Waiters: Except, yes, except that what staff, what would be paid currently would be paid based on the contract net. You would have to do – the Council would have to agree to retroactivity because the work is going on and there is not contract and so, what I was trying to do is make sure that it was clear and it is probably not clear, but make sure that it is clear that there is a need to put into the contract that there should be some retroactivity because they did not get paid for February, and possibly not get paid for March. But this item is in March and so that is why I used the nine-months.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Okay, and the number at the bottom, the final number on the page one of one is, this is the CCI is currently proposing for the interim was $127,758.50, at that point, page 4 of 5 Option 3 top paragraph it says $170,000.

Ms. Waiters: Yes, the, again, the number on page 1 is for nine months and then on page 4 of 5, is an annual basis. So that would be twelve months at $14,195.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Let me just see if there is anything else that I’ve got in here real quick. If anybody else has anything, please...

Cm. Dickey: May I jump in? I’ve been sending notes from the very .....that you asked on page 3 of 5 under Option 2, I just have a quick question. Option 2 would increase maintenance responsibilities for the City in the areas around the Community Gardens and it defines our current expenditures as $133,405 and I wanted to know what the anticipated increase would be on that if we were to take that on. It is, we had an anticipated increase but it does not define.

Mr. Eorio: What we figured is approximately ten hours a month on Public Services employees that would be spread amongst the current service levels so we would be taking – robbing Peter to pay Paul, if you will, be taking employees off of certain programs and have them come over there for the balance of the fiscal year. So we were going to absorb those costs this fiscal year if that was the case.

Cm. Dickey: So we are in actuality not looking at any dollar increase in cost?

Ms. Waiters: I believe that the Public Services Director has gone, good timing, no, my recommendation is not that there would be any increase in cost to the City. What, it is my understanding now that we have up to three staff that currently provide service there and although I don’t have a breakdown of the specifics of what they do, and Mr. Eorio may know that, that it would be absorbed in the $133,000 that the City is already providing and that is already included in the City’s budget.

Cm. Dickey: So we have three staff currently there and we are going to be sliding others in there to do this.

Ms. Waiters: No, I’m sorry. What I said is that we have 3 staff that have been up there-I don’t know what their regularity of there work is there but there have been 3 staff out there doing some things. What I am saying to the Council is that the budget shows that there is $133,000 in addition to what the contract is with CCI that the City is spending on the Gardens and again, I was expecting to have the Director here so that he could be specific about what activities they were but Mr. Eorio may be able to explain.

Mr. Eorio: Basically the – those are fully amortized costs, as you know the way we breakdown the budget in all departments of the City, this includes overhead, administrative overhead, clerical support, so on and so forth, so when you take a look at the total costs that we have applied to Crow Canyon Gardens, as part of the Public Services Budget, you have approximately $201,000 which includes the contract with CCI, administrative overhead, includes the tree maintenance contracts that we have with – for tree trimming we have out there for major trees, the creek cleanup that part because that is part of our property as well, there are seven acres out there of which CCI is responsible for three under the contract that the Public Services Department maintains. So that money is for maintenance employees, and contract employees to do that work outside of the area of scope of responsibilities provided by Crow Canyon Gardens, CCI, excuse me. What is proposed through the end of this fiscal year is that we would absorb those costs within the department by shifting employees and their time from various parks to this park for the remainder of this fiscal year.

Ms. Waiters: If I can Mayor, I’m sorry, yes, Mr. Udell and Mr. Driggs are here and I think that they can better explain what the service levels are that warrant that $133,000.

Doug Udell, Interim Public Services Director: I can address the full-time equivalent employees out there and it works out to be about a half-time position throughout the year. That is only employees we have out there, we don’t have three employees stationed on that park. There may be three employees at one time working one hour per week but it breaks down to about one-half of an employee......cost. I think Mr. Driggs can answer the cost implications.

Dorn Driggs, Administrative Manager, Public Services Department: He was saying that this was a half-time person currently budgeted one full-time half – time person. In our proposal we figured we would have to add a half-time person for programming and them one and a half full time people for doing the maintenance of the garden area including the surrounding areas what is called the fallow land. So it would be essentially two FTE’s at the Gardens for doing both programming and maintenance.

Mr. Eorio: If we were to take over the entire site. That’s the assumption that Dorn was assuming there.

Cm. Tatarka: Can you tell me what the staff does do out there again, what the half-time person does? How often they are there and what they do?

Mr. Udell: We have committed to do some minor maintenance, some maintenance on the sheds, we empty the trash, we move the trash to the curb, we do some weed abatement and general maintenance like a couple of weeks ago we put in some water faucets, I believe, no we have not done that yet? Still on Dorn’s desk.

Cm. Tatarka: Okay, so in other words if there like there is an issue out there at the Gardens this person would come out there and do whatever the work that is directed, is that correct? Is that correct? Is that what this person is for?

Mr. Udell: That is correct. If it is a maintenance issue that is in our responsible area, then we would respond.

Cm. Tatarka: Okay, a maintenance responsibility, that’s in your area that’s clearly defined. So that person goes out there and knows exactly what they are to do.

Mr. Udell: In my mind, it is yes, clearly defined.

Cm. Tatarka: It’s clearly defined. So the $133,000 is for what now.

Mr. Driggs: It is to maintain the whole site and run the programs.

Cm. Tatarka: And so that would include then additional staff, is that correct?

Mr. Driggs: That is the total staffing level doing all ........

Cm. Tatarka: Okay.

Cm. Dickey: Okay, I am going to if we are looking at a half of a staff person or a part-time staff person doing the programming, what is that going to cost – I am talking about taking over, the City taking over and the one and a half person ......split people in half, as a full time maintenance person so we are talking about two people out at the Gardens doing the program and maintenance and what is that cost to the City on a yearly basis?

Mr. Driggs: I don’t have that with me right now, but what we looked at was, we looked at what the in the classification study, what level of employee, what kind of expertise that it would take, where that would fall. And we looked at the salary range for that person as a full-time benefited person and that is the cost we came up with.

Cm. Dickey: Okay, and that is what I am asking. What would that cost?

Mr. Driggs: I didn’t bring that with me.

Cm. Dickey: I would really like to have that information.

Ms. Waiters: And if I could just add, I think one of the things that has to be recognized when we are talking about whether City staff is going to do it as opposed to contract staff, there is no way that you can compare apples to apples because of the benefits that City employees get, provide are provided in this organization, which is higher than anything that I have experienced and so when we are looking at providing services, the cost per individual is going to be higher because the City pays benefits at a higher level. If you took away the benefits of an employee and looked at the classification specifications based on standards from the federal government as it relates to job classifications, you are looking at the equivalent of what prevailing wage is for a certain classifications so it does skew things a lot even though we don’t have those figures here it would be very skewed to assume that there is going to be some comparability between a City staff person doing the work as opposed to a contract person.

Mayor Wilson: Mr. Cambra....

Cm. Dickey: I just wanted make... that was my point. By the time we finish paying out benefits and so forth and so on, it going to cost the City more money.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Under the alternative courses of action, it says the preliminary estimates for the option of the City taking over have been developed. Is that information available? I would have like to have seen it if it available now and if it is not we can get it in the future, but is that information available now?

Mr. Eorio: We can provide that information. I don’t have it here tonight.

Vice Mayor Cambra: The study is complete then?

Mr. Eorio: We have done some preliminary work on it and we would have to finalize that.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Okay, you might want to, in your final look at it, reference the June 19, 2002 Finance Committee meeting where there was a preliminary figure of $139,000 for the maintenance by the City. Of course, that took into account some areas that were over and above what CCI did, then there was an additional study done by Mr. Skeel I believe, regarding a memo on December 3, 2002 to Jim Randall outlining definitive costs for everything. So, and that actually came down that was regarding the CCI portion only and that was $125,295. So that could be useful in your look there. My next question is regarding three, the comparison of Crow Canyon Gardens to Central Park, 48 acres at Central Park at $20,000. I guess I am wondering if that is a fair comparison, are, I would have to say that I don’t necessarily believe that the activities that are going on are comparable to one another, am I correct in assuming that what goes on at Crow Canyon Gardens would cost more to do than say mowing the grass at Central Park?

Mr. Eorio: The only reason that that was selected because it was the highest per capita per acre cost park that we have outside of Crow Canyon Gardens, so we were trying to show the Council that the highest rate that we currently have maintenance at a park is at Central Park and that, if you use the same per acre base, the cost would be "x" at Crow Canyon Gardens. That was the only reason it was utilized.

Vice Mayor Cambra: But not to say that there were comparable services provided.

Mr. Eorio: Not at all.

Vice Mayor Cambra: And currently, in our budget, and I have got to remember back to a Finance Committee meeting, maybe the Mayor could help me, we have allocated in our budget for the maintenance portion of the Gardens $100,000 for this year have we not?

Mr. Eorio: Right. The Public Services Department based on the fact that we thought the RFP would have been let, would have been adopted and figured it would have been more than the current level the Public Services Department allocated for contractual purposes $100,000.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Okay, so that all of these recommendations are well within that scope in terms of what staff has provided here.

Mr. Eorio: Well, the third recommendation would be outside of the scope because it is beyond the $100,000.

Mayor Wilson: And that was a I believe the ultimate cost..........and we were looking at I think...

Mr. Eorio: If you were to look at the end numbers, yes.

Ms. Waiters: Thank you Mr. Estep, he pulled the budget summary so just wanted to let the Council know that for Crow Canyon Gardens this is specifically for current City staff, personnel costs are $35,315, contract services are $110,500 so part of that would be what we pay CCI, part of it would be contracts for water, that kind of thing, materials and supplies are $2,250, to the total program budget minus overhead for Crow Canyon Gardens is $168,065. The prior year was $113,000 there was a 30% increase in the budget over the prior year for 2002-2003. When, so when you look at direct program costs for the Gardens it is $148,065. And then we have some overhead costs of $53,122 for a fully allocated cost of $201,187.

Mayor Wilson: A question that I have, again, so that everyone understands, Crow Canyon Gardens, no matter what, will never be a passive park. We hope that staff would not include that in any reference again. It causes too much confusion. Second one, it by chance this Council decides to take over the maintenance of Crow Canyon Gardens, will the quality diminish at all in your opinion? Do we have adequate staff? We are talking programs, we are talking the organic garden, we are talking organizing plots, we are talking organizing tours, we are talking all of those amenities that the residents are looking for to enjoy.

Mr. Eorio: In my opinion, if the City were to take over, there would be no loss in the level of service to the community or quality of the gardens. We have master gardeners on staff, organic gardeners, certified organic gardeners on Public Service Department staff. One of our employees just got her certification and we have the program people, the volunteers, and we have the resources to do so, if that is the desire of the Council.

Mayor Wilson: The cost also is – we keep going back and there would be a comparable – would that be part-time, full-time, what would be the cost. The cost would be $100......

Mr. Eorio: As Cm. Cambra has pointed out, we have done some preliminary work, we can come back to you – without having that information in front of me I know we did some preliminary work – it is a combination of temporaries and with the maintenance, there would be come full-time employees and with the programming....

Mayor Wilson: Those full-time employees are already staff.

Mr. Eorio: They are currently on staff.

Mayor Wilson: So there wouldn’t be any no additional costs for benefits or ....

Mr. Eorio: Well, there is a cost, the cost is whether you have that employee working at this park or that park, there is that cost and that cost would be the same. But we can come back to the Council with a fully allocated cost showing what the difference is between the contract situation that currently exists and what our proposal was, we just need a little time to go over the Public Service Department the numbers but .... get a preliminary estimate and bring it back, that’s no problem.

Cm. Dickey: Actually, I have to defer to ...... her button was on before my button.

Ms. Waiters: The report before you is to request an interim contract with Crow Canyon Gardens and staff has provided three options for you to choose from. Staff recommended Option 1 but there are two other options that we are proposing and I think it is appropriate I would like to see the Council make a decision on an option so that we can move forward with the interim contract tonight. It is within Council’s right to pull together the variables of this interim contract however you see fit. Staff gave you three proposals, three options to help you along but if you want to pull those together anyway you see fit we would appreciate it we do believe it is important to make a decision this evening on an interim contract.

Mayor Wilson: Thank you. I think Council also feels that way. I think it is imperative that we move on I think everyone’s comfort level at this time ....... any other... sorry?

Cm. Tatarka: Just a question.

Mayor Wilson: Any other comments please make them now so then I would like a motion.

Cm. Tatarka: Okay, I have a quick question. I know on the last meeting of the Parks Commission that they recommended that the City take over the Community Garden thing. And that’s supposed to – Community Gardens – happen and I would like to know when that is going to come before the Council because I think that is a part of this because it is park of Crow Canyon Gardens so that recommendation made by the Parks Commission.

Ms. Waiters: it is before the Council now. We have included it in this report.

Cm. Tatarka: Okay, then I have a question for staff, sorry Abram. This survey, okay, that was conducted, okay, for the Community Gardens, have we every done that before?

Mr. Eorio: We do surveys for many, many programs. We do surveys all the time with participants who participate in given programs and whether it is dance or tae-kwon-do and in this case, the Community Gardens.

Cm. Tatarka: Is this the first time it has ever been done for the Community Gardens.

Mr. Eorio: Yes.

Cm. Tatarka: So this is the very first time, okay.

Mr. Eorio: That I am aware of, unless the CCI has done a survey.

Cm. Tatarka: So this is the first time that ... what prompted that survey?

Mr. Eorio: Probably the survey was the request by the Commission to have a survey done because they wanted to find out if in fact the complaints that they were receiving were from a very small vocal group or were they from a broader group of community gardeners.

Cm. Tatarka: Okay, so then the agenda item on that Parks Commission meeting was for them to make a decision on the Community Gardens based on this survey.

Mr. Eorio: The Commission item was to review the survey results and overall general discussion on the community gardens.

Cm. Tatarka: Was at any point any information given to them on how much it will cost the City to take over this Community Garden?

Mr. Eorio: Other than the revenue that is generated, no, we didn’t, we said it was minimal in terms of because we have the people, the clerical staff that can send out that information, the survey contracts and so and so forth. There was no dollar amount attached to the City overseeing the Community Gardens.

Cm. Tatarka: So there was no idea then on how much it was going to cost the City in basing that decision, they did not have good information.

Mr. Eorio: No they did not.

Cm. Tatarka: To make the decision, they didn’t even know what it was going to cost but they voted 4-3 if my memory serves me correctly to do that. And I don’t remember this – I am trying to remember the meeting because I was actually there where there was discussion on bringing this forth to Council – forward to Council.

Mr. Eorio: Their motion was to recommend to the Council that they Parks and Community Services Department take over the operation of the Community Gardens.

Cm. Tatarka: Okay, based on ....?

Mr. Eorio: The survey.

Cm. Tatarka: The survey only.

Mr. Eorio: And this ongoing citizens coming to the Commission, to the Council with various complaints about the operation of the Gardens. So, taking that cumulatively along with the survey was the basis for the Commission’s...

Cm. Tatarka: But they didn’t have any money to say okay, the City should take it or they didn’t look at that issue.

Mr. Eorio: No, they knew that the operation of the revenue the revenue if we took the revenue that there would be some offset of our cost with the revenue.

Cm. Tatarka: But they didn’t have the specific figures in front of them.

Mr. Eorio: They didn’t have the specific figures in front of them.

Cm. Tatarka: Okay, and just to let everyone know there is an alternative course of action here that was – is on our agenda and that was a final option for Crow Canyons to be a passive park, eliminating the organic production and demonstration gardens when the City gained ownership of the Garden in 1991 it was obligated to maintain the Park as an organic production and demonstration garden for ten years from date of purchase and that year period has elapsed. That is from our staff report so that you understand when we talk about passive park you are probably wondering where did that come in if you don’t have a staff report you don’t know that that is in there but it is under an alternative course of action so that is an alternative course of action that is before this Council if we wanted to go there with all of these other options that we can have that were given so I am just clarifying a couple of things so that the public understands what is being discussed up here.

Mayor Wilson: Thank you. Again, that is not an option. At this time I would like the Council to make a motion...Option 1, 2, 3 or a combination of. I believe hopefully that all sides have be properly aired, there is a comfort level and then addressing this we will ask........ and it is really not fair to Crow Canyon Institute, it is not fair to the residents, it is an emotional roller coaster that needs to stop now. So we should make the decision so that we can move on. Do I hear a motion from any of the Councilmembers at this particular time? A combination of one, two, three, four or a combination of? Clarification please, Mrs. Tatarka?

Cm. Tatarka: What is been budgeted this year? Specifically the dollar amount, again.

Mr. Eorio: $100,000 is in the Program of Services for the Public Services Department for contract services for the Crow Canyon Gardens.

Vice Mayor Cambra: For maintenance only, correct, that is a maintenance contract?

Mr. Eorio: That is correct.

Mayor Wilson: Mrs. Dickey, Mr. Cambra, Mr. Hudson, Mrs. Tatarka, is everybody here?

Cm. Hudson: Would you like to do a process of elimination? Who ever is in favor of one, two...

Mayor Wilson: Whatever. I would like to get this going. We have to make a decision, we have to move on.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Okay, I am going to try to take this in small bites, I think the first thing we need to decide is are we going to do a contract with Crow Canyon Gardens Institute for the maintenance? No cost, no ......, are we going to do that? Or not. So, I move that we do establish a contract with Crow Canyon Gardens Institute at a value to be determined at a later vote tonight.

Ms. Waiters: I’d like Cm. Cambra to be a little bit more specific – is this an interim contract?

Vice Mayor Cambra: Yes, an interim contract. We don’t have the ability to do anything else tonight, I don’t believe.

Cm. Dickey: Well I wanted clarification and there needs to be a second before I can discuss this.

Cm. Tatarka: I’ll second.

Cm. Dickey: May I ask, Cm. Cambra, you are dealing with just the maintenance, not maintenance and programming.

Vice Mayor Cambra: No, this would, I believe that the staff’s proposal tonight was maintenance and programs for the interim contract only.

Cm. Dickey: That is what I wanted to verify. And so your motion is made for maintenance and programming.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Correct.

Mr. Eorio: May I clarify? Does that include the Community Gardens?

Vice Mayor Cambra: We are not there yet. Give me a break, (laughter) I would like to get the small ones in then we can try to work on the other part of it later.

Cm. Dickey: Maybe we should do roll call votes as we are taking these incremental steps so that we are firm on what we are doing.

Mayor Wilson: Yes, that will be, yes so that we can everyone knows where everyone stands.

Cm. Tatarka: Read the motion again so we all have it.

Mayor Wilson: Will you please state the first motion again, the motion on the table.

City Clerk: Cm. Cambra’s motion is to move to establish a new contract with Crow Canyon Gardens would cover maintenance and programs.

Mayor Wilson: And it was seconded by Mrs. Tatarka.

Cm. Tatarka: Do we need to specify the months in this.....yes, we need to, and so it should be the period from February....

Vice Mayor Cambra: February 1 to November 30.

Cm. Tatarka: I am trying to get you to clarify that please, if you would and then I will second that motion with that addition. Thank you.

Mayor Wilson called for a roll call vote.

The motion passed 5-0.

Mayor Wilson: Now, second.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Okay, it would appear that at least there is some bilateral agreement from CCI and the City staff that it would be prudent to have the City take the Community Garden space on at this point in time. And I guess that is my motion.

Mayor Wilson: Second?

Vice Mayor Cambra: Not be included as part of the interim contract.

Mayor Wilson: Is there a second?

Cm. Tatarka: Wait a minute, what did you say Jerry?

Mayor Wilson: Did you hear the motion?

Cm. Tatarka: No, not completely.

Vice Mayor Cambra: That the Community Gardens would not be included as part of the interim contract that we will we are being put together now. I am assuming that from comments made by the folks at CCI and the comments made by City staff and I can’t necessarily get that stretch out of the survey but some people interpret the survey in a negative light, certainly they can if they wish, but I think that maybe serves everyone the best.

Mayor Wilson: It has been an on-going process, I hope that we will consider that, was it second, if not?

Cm. Dickey: I’m going to second because I do want information. That means then we would be taking a source of revenue away from CCI because they get the $60....

Interruption from audience......

Mayor Wilson: That’s - pardon me, thank you. Again, it is understood that there ....... it is in the staff report.

Cm. Dickey: Okay, I second it.

Mayor Wilson: Discussion please.

Cm. Tatarka: I have a problem with it because I have no idea how much it is going to cost the City to do this okay, and what the expense is on this to take this over. You need staff, you need, what’s going to happen, what are the rules and guidelines going to be so that now that they are going to take it over, I don’t see any perimeters for this for this happening, for them to do that.

Cm. Hudson: I would like to point out this is a nine or ten month interim contract of $100,000 or less. The decisions that we have made in the last three to four months make those figures seem not that overwhelming that we couldn’t vote on them.

Vice Mayor Cambra: Just to address Cm. Tatarka’s concern, I don’t believe that CCI has, it had a problem with a potential loss of revenue and it would appear from the comments of Mr. Udell and Mr. Driggs that things can be shuffled around a bit so that the impact on the City staff and the City budget is probably not too great. Certainly not to that level of what we would recover in some of those funds back.

Cm. Tatarka: It would be nice to know what it is. They must have some idea. I would be thinking that there would be some idea as to what it might be, that’s all, that is all I am asking is for some idea.

Mr. Eorio: From our clerical staff we would absorb the contractual basis we have to take back to the Commission revised by-laws and our Community Services Manager would need as we talked about if we were to take them over, would meet every – once a month with community gardeners trying to resolve any issues out there. So we would absorb those costs from our administration and our clerical staff to manage the Community Gardens. Effectively immediately.

Mayor Wilson called for a roll call vote.

The motion passed 5-0.

Mayor Wilson: Okay, we are now at the money.

Cm. Hudson: I’ll move Option 2. It is to maintain current levels of financial support by the City but reduces the scope of maintenance work required of CCI by excluding the area around the Community Gardens from the programming contract. The contractual amount would remain at $5,648.44 per month. Limited maintenance and programming by the City would be required with this option as outlined in the Discussion Section of this report.

Mayor Wilson: Is there a second? Then I will second. Discussion?

Mayor Wilson called for a roll call vote.

The motion failed 2-3 (Cambra, Dickey and Tatarka dissenting).

Mayor Wilson: Moving right along. The next option.

Cm. Tatarka: I think what is left, Option 1 and Option 3, I think we are going to have to create another option because I don’s see one that would accommodate, what I am thinking. And I want to hear from other Councilmembers on it because we are going to have to create one up here and think that is what we are looking at.

Cm. Dickey: Yes, I think we are going to have to create a figure...

Mayor Wilson: Precisely.

Cm. Dickey: And, this is a tough one because of budget and everybody needing money but we are taking some – I feel like in order for them to be doing the programming and the maintenance, perhaps we should bump up the 56-48 ($5,648) up a little bit, I am not sure how much I want to bump it up, but I’m (laughter)...

Ms. Waiters: I’m sorry, I just want to bring to your attention something that Ms. Wilgus said that there is an 8% increase that would come June-July around that time frame. That was in the contract that has expired.

Vice Mayor Cambra: I think that it is-I am going to have to disagree with somebody who made a comment earlier that it is unfair to expect a contractor and the City staff to be comparable. I think we pay for the job, okay, we do not pay based on other factors, the job that needs to be done is the job that needs to be done. The budgeted amount certainly is a constraint that we have, the costs of the contractor are also a portion of that, I’ve got a number of about $95,000. The addition of issues such as prevailing wage are not applicable here because the prevailing wage designation of landscape maintenance laborer is not representative of the work that is taking place at the Park. In terms of State contracts which I have prepared prevailing wage only applies to the direct designation and the direct designation here does not fit for a head gardener or the other top positions so that really has to be stricken out, the $10 an hour right now in t