HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-05-2001 Minutes
MINUTES
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JOINT REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 5, 2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community
Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor
Valles at 8:09 a.m., Monday, March 5, 2001, in the Council Chambers of City Hall,
300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California.
ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present:
Mayor Valles; Council Members Lien, Schnetz, Suarez, Anderson, McCammack; City
Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, City Administrator Wilson. Absent: Council
Members Estrada, McGinnis.
City Attorney Penman announced that the following additional case would be
discussed in closed session:
Christopher Palazuelos, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Maria
Palazuelos v. City of San Bernardino et al. - San Bernardino Superior Court
Case No. SCVSS 67428.
RECESS MEETING - CLOSED SESSION (Discussed later in the
meeting - page 37) (1)
At 8:09 a.m., the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development
Commission recessed to closed session for the following:
Pursuant to Government Code Sections:
A. Conference with legal counsel - eXlstmg litigation - pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(a):
Cumming, et al. v. City of San Bernardino, et aI. - San Bernardino
Superior Court Case No. SCVSS 66744;
Highland Hills Homeowner Association v. City of San Bernardino, et al.
- San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 241464;
1
3/512001
Soliman v. City of San Bernardino - United States District Court Case
No. EDCV 00-00301 V AP;
City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department v. United States
Department of the Army - United States District Court Case No. CV 96-
8867 consolidated with CV 96-5205;
Clark v. City of San Bernardino, et al. - San Bernardino Superior Court
Case No. SCV 40674;
Juanita Gates v. San Bernardino Police Department, et aI. - Superior
Court Case No. SCVSS 71168;
Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino v. John Borba -
San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. SCVSS 67468.
B. Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation - significant
exposure to litigation - pursuant to subdivision (b) (1), (2), (3) (A-F) of
Government Code Section 54956.9.
Evacuees - 2057 North Mt. Vernon Avenue
Cypress Inn Mobile Home Park
C. Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation - InItIatIOn of
litigation - pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section
54956.9.
D. Closed session - personnel - pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.
1. Public employee release
E. Closed session with Chief of Police on matters posing a threat to the
security of public buildings or threat to the public's right of access to
public services or public facilities - pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957.
F. Conference with labor negotiator - pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957.6.
G. Conference with real property negotiator - pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8.
2
3/5/2001
1.
Property Address:
Tippecanoe at Laurelwood
Negotiating Parties:
Pearlman/Hopkins; and Gary Van
Osdel on behalf of the Economic
Development Agency
Under Negotiation:
Purchase Terms & Conditions
2.
Property Address:
532 North "D" Street
Negotiating Parties:
Eloise Reyes; and Ann
behalf of the
Development Agency
Harris on
Economic
Under Negotiation:
Purchase Terms & Conditions
3.
Property Address:
736 North Berkeley Avenue
(0140-271-09); 669 North "G"
Street (0134-021-38); 630
North "F" Street (0134-021-17);
734 North Berkeley Avenue (0140-
271-10)
Negotiating Parties:
San Bernardino City Unified School
District; and Maggie Pacheco on
behalf of the Economic
Development Agency
Under Negotiation:
Purchase Terms & Conditions
CLOSED SESSION
At 8:09 a.m., Mayor Valles called the closed session to order in the conference
room of the Council Chambers of City Hall.
ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present:
Mayor Valles; Council Members Lien, Schuetz, Suarez, Anderson, McCammack; City
Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, City Administrator Wilson. Absent: Council
Members Estrada, McGinnis.
Also present: Senior Assistant City Attorney Carlyle, Deputy City Attorneys
Bryant and Easland, Administrative Operations Supervisor Anderson, City Attorney's
Office.
3
3/5/2001
READING OF RESOLUTIONS & ORDINANCES
Deputy City Clerk Hartzel read the titles of all the resolutions and ordinances on
the regular, supplemental, and addendum to the supplemental agendas of the Mayor and
Common Council and Community Development Commission while the Mayor and
Common Council and Community Development Commission were in closed session.
COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA ARRIVED
At 8:21 a.m., Council Member Estrada arrived at the closed session.
ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION
At 8:39 a.m., the closed session adjourned to 9 a.m. in the Council Chambers
of City Hall.
RECONVENE MEETING
At 9:05 a.m., Mayor Valles reconvened the joint regular meeting of the Mayor
and Common Council and Community Development Commission of the City of San
Bernardino.
ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Medina with the following being
present: Mayor Valles; Council Members Estrada, Lien, Schuetz, Suarez, Anderson,
McCarnmack; City Attorney Penman, Deputy City Clerk Medina, City Administrator
Wilson. Absent: Council Member McGinnis.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor Pamela Moore of the First Christian
Church.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was led by Kenny Dulock, a student at Ramona
Alessandro Elementary School.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK MEDINA EXCUSED
At 9:05 a.m., Deputy City Clerk Medina left the Council meeting and was
replaced by City Clerk Clark.
APPOINTMENT - EVELYN ALEXANDER - BOARD OF POLICE
COMMISSIONERS - MAYOR V ALLES (2)
Council Member Schuetz made a motion, seconded by Council Member
Estrada, and unanimously carried, that the appointment of Evelyn Alexander to the
Board of Police Commissioners, as requested by Mayor Valles, be approved.
Ms. Alexander accepted her certificate of appointment from Mayor Valles.
4
3/5/2001
PROCLAMATION - AMERICAN RED CROSS MONTH - MARCH
2001 W
Teri Rubi, Executive Assistant to the Mayor, read a proclamation declaring the
month of March 2001 as American Red Cross Month in the City of San Bernardino.
Bob Wussler, Executive Director of the American Red Cross, and Steve
Johuson, Chairman-elect, accepted the proclamation from Mayor Valles and presented
pins from the local chapter to the Mayor and Council.
PROCLAMATION - AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY - DAFFODIL
DAYS - MARCH 19 & 20, 2001 (3)
Teri Rubi, Executive Director to the Mayor, read a proclamation declaring
March 19 & 20, 2001, as Daffodil Days in the City of San Bernardino.
The proclamation was accepted by Mary Hunt and Linda Kuehu, volunteers
with the American Cancer Society. City Clerk Clark also acknowledged Sue Murphy,
Senior Secretary in the City's Fire Department, for spearheading the City's Daffodil
Days campaign.
NEIGHBORHOOD PRIDE AWARD - MR. & MRS. JOE WHITTLE-
COUNCIL MEMBER ANDERSON (3)
Mr. and Mrs. Joe Whittle, whose residence on Medical Center Drive is in the
Sixth Ward, were presented with the Mayor's Neighborhood Pride Award, in
recognition of their continued efforts in maintaining and caring for their home.
PRESENTATION - CITY'S TEAM - L.A. MARATHON (3)
The following employees of the City of San Bernardino were acknowledged for
their efforts in completing the Los Angeles Marathon on Sunday, March 4; and those in
attendance were presented balloons in recognition of their efforts: Lee Gagnon, Eileen
Gomez, Councilwoman Susan Lien, Tom Marek, Veronica Martinez, Katrina
McDowell, Beth Mulleavey, Connie Ramirez, Wendy Riner, Bob Simmons, and Rita
West.
PRESENTATION BY CAST MEMBERS - LEGEND OF THE
ARROWHEAD (3)
Colin Strange, Project Manager, Economic Development Agency, announced
the upcoming musical production of Legend of the Arrowhead, a farcical look at the
history of San Bernardino, to be held at the California Theater on Friday, March 16, at
5
3/5/2001
10:30 a.m. and on Saturday, March 17, at 8 p.m. Mr. Strange introduced Heather
McClusky, the author of the musical, and the two leading characters, Ann Johuson
Brown and Sam Nesbitt, who provided a short performance for the audience.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - LARRY QUIEL
(4)
Larry Quiei, Vice President of Business Support, San Bernardino Area Chamber
of Commerce, congratulated the Mayor and City staff on the fact that the City of San
Bernardino was selected as one of the top 15 companies to work for in the Inland
Empire, stated that he was personally very happy that the Mayor had elected to run for
another term, and announced the following upcoming events: Thursday, March 8,
5:00-9:00 p.m., the Chamber will hold its first annual Casino Night at the International
Airport; Saturday, March 10, at 8:15 p.m., there will be a performance by the San
Bernardino Symphony at the California Theater with Carlo Ponti; Tuesday, March 13,
at 7:30 a.m., the Chamber will hold its Economic Development Meeting; on Tuesday,
March 20, at 7:30 a.m., the Chamber's Business Support Division will be meeting;
Saturday, March 24, the Miss San Bernardino Scholarship Pageant will be held at the
California Theater; and on Saturday, March 31, is the 40th Annual Headdress Ball.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - COUNCIL MEMBER LIEN
(4)
Council Member Lien congratulated her 19-year-old son, who completed his
first marathon.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - COUNCIL MEMBER SCHNETZ (4)
Council Member Schnetz announced that Mountain A venue between 39th and
40th Streets opened last week; and advised that a Cleanup Day would be held on March
10 at Del Vallejo School, sponsored by Dr. Nag.
ANNOUNCEMENTS-COUNCIL MEMBER SUAREZ ~)
Council Member Suarez extended his congratulations to CaI State University,
San Bernardino and Coach Larry Reynolds for making Cal State and San Bernardino
the basketball team that won its second consecutive California Collegiate Athletic
Association Title.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - COUNCIL MEMBER ANDERSON (4)
Council Member Anderson spoke regarding the 40 days of Lent which she
observes, stating that one of the things she was going to try and do during this 40-day
period is to be civil at all times and not make any disparaging remarks or comments to
anyone. She challenged her fellow Council members to start today and join her during
the remainder of Lent in being civil to each other by not saying one unkind word.
6
3/5/2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS - COUNCIL MEMBER McCAMMACK (4)
Council Member McCarnmack announced that on Thursday, March 15, at 7
p.m., the North End Neighborhood Association (NENA) would be meeting at the
Mormon Church on Waterman Avenue; and on March 31, the Assistance League of
San Bernardino will hold its Annual Headdress Ball at the National Orange Show.
Mrs. McCarnmack noted that the Assistance League provides dental screening and
dental care for children of unassisted families, provides school clothing for
approximately 300 children per year, and that tickets for the Ball can be obtained by
calling the League.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA (4)
Council Member Estrada congratulated Mayor Valles on her decision to seek re-
election, stating that there are a lot of important projects that the Mayor has started that
are going to benefit San Bernardino in the months and years to come; therefore, she is
happy that she has decided to run and looks forward to the Mayor completing some of
these projects in the very near future.
Mayor Valles thanked Ms. Estrada for her comments and also thanked all of the
well-wishers who have called her office.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - MAYOR V ALLES
(4)
Mayor Valles announced that Council Member McGinnis was not attending the
Council meeting due to an emergency on his job which required his presence; noted
that on Saturday, March 10, the San Bernardino Symphony will present a "Great
Masterpieces" concert conducted by Maestro Carlo Ponti, Jr., at the California
Theater; and also at the California Theater the musical production of Legend of the
Arrowhead will take place on March 17. The Mayor encouraged residents to pick up a
copy of the most recent issue of "News of the City," currently available at the
newsstands, which includes the year-end report to all citizens of the City's
accomplishments for the past year; and provided the following update on the City's
Public Works projects:
. Street repairs on Hospitality, between Waterman and Carnegie, will begin in the
next two weeks, depending on the weather. Some traffic delays may be
experienced since the contractor will be removing and replacing sections of
damaged asphalt.
. In the Fifth Ward, the contractor is currently removing and replacing deteriorated
asphalt areas in the Phase 10 Slurry Seal Project.
7
3/5/2001
. In the Sixth Ward, the Mt. Vernon Master Planned Storm Drain, between Baseline
and 16th Street, should be completed this week. Also, construction has begun on
Phase 1 of the State Street Project between Baseline and the new high school.
. Citywide projects include the guardrail repair project that will begin this week and
the LED bulb replacement project for traffic signals, which will begin the second
week of this month, contingent upon Council approval.
. Two projects just begun are the second phase of the Downtown Infrastructure
Improvement Program, including sidewalk repairs and access ramp improvements,
and the Otto Gericke/Art Townsend Drive Street Improvement Project.
. The associated work in the Arden-Guthrie area has been completed and the
hazardous material and debris removal project at the Santa Fe Depot is
approximately 90 percent complete.
. The ADA improvements to the Nunez pool and Seccombe Lake park facilities are
scheduled to commence the second week of April, subject to Council approval.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN (4)
City Attorney Penman stated that recently Council Member Lien had written a
letter to the Superintendent of City Schools, which also ended up as a colunm in the
March 1 edition of the local newspaper. He stated that this action by Ms. Lien was
taken following a letter that he (Mr. Penman) had written to a Mr. Duran in response to
Mr. Duran's statement that, "In Mexico they treat us better than here."
Mr. Penman read Ms. Lien's letter in its entirety into the record. He noted that
in her letter she stated that as a member of the San Bernardino City Council she was not
writing this letter in an official capacity; yet despite saying that and despite criticizing
him (Mr. Penman) for writing on official stationery, she attached her official City
Council business card to the letter to make it clear who it was coming from.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - CITY ADMINISTRATOR WILSON (4)
City Administrator Wilson also noted that the City of San Bernardino had been
chosen as one of the top 15 businesses to work for in the area. He stated that he
wanted to acknowledge the efforts of June Durr of the Mayor's Office and Lori Sassoon
of the City Administrator's Office for preparing the application, and also the staff of the
Human Resources Department for all their efforts in putting together a lot of good
reasons as to why people want to work here. He advised the Council that City staff is
working on the implementation items for the goals that were adopted at the Council
meeting of January 26, and they hope to have them ready for their review at the next
Council meeting.
8
3/5/2001
Mayor Valles noted that the City of San Bernardino was the only municipality to
receive this award, even though other municipalities had been nominated.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - CITY CLERK CLARK
(4)
City Clerk Clark noted that at the last meeting a proclamation had been issued
declaring March as Women's History Month; and in keeping with this, the Annual
Women of Achievement Luncheon would be held on March 29, honoring 22 of the
City's employees. She noted that Marilyn Karnig, wife of CaI State University
President Albert Karnig, would be the guest speaker. Tickets are $16 per person and
reservations can be made by calling the City Clerk's Office at 384-5002, or through the
Finance Department at 384-5242.
WAIVE FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS & ORDINANCES
(5)
Council Member Schuetz made a motion, seconded by Council Member Suarez,
and unanimously carried, that full reading of the resolutions and ordinances on the
regular, supplemental and addendum to the supplemental agendas of the Mayor and
Common Council/Community Development Commission be waived.
CLAIMS & PAYROLL
(7)
Council Member Schuetz made a motion, seconded by Council Member Suarez,
and unanimously carried, that the claims and payroll and the authorization to issue
warrants as listed on the memorandum dated February 28, 2001, from Barbara Pachon,
Director of Finance, be approved
PERSONNEL ACTIONS
(8)
Council Member Schnetz made a motion, seconded by Council Member Suarez,
and unanimously carried, that the personnel actions as submitted by the Chief Examiner
dated February 26, 2001, in accordance with Civil Service rules and Personnel policies
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino, be
approved and ratified.
RECEIVE & FILE - 1999-2000 AUDIT REPORT - WATER
DEPARTMENT - WATER & SEWER UTILITIES (11)
Submitted into the record was an inter-office memorandum dated January 26,
2001, from Stacey Aldstadt, Deputy General Manager, Water Department, to Rachel
Clark, City Clerk, regarding the 1999-2000 Audit Report for Water Department Water
9
3/5/2001
and Sewer Utilities, in which she requested that said report be received and filed by the
Mayor and Common Council.
Council Member Schuetz made a motion, seconded by Council Member Suarez,
and unanimously carried, that the Mayor and Common Council receive and file the
1999-2000 Audit Report for Water Department Water and Sewer Utilities.
APPROVE MINUTES (Discussed later in the meeting - pages 32 &
~ 00
City Attorney Penman stated that when this item came to their office it was
reviewed by one of the Senior Assistant City Attorneys, and on page 29 of the minutes
from the Council meeting of January 8, 2001, at the bottom of the page immediately
following the paragraph where Council Member Lien introduced a resolution to censure
the City Attorney, that the Mayor then made the statement, "Now this is personal."
Mr. Penman stated that he called this to the attention of the City Clerk and
asked that it be added to the minutes; however, the City Clerk indicated that after she
and her staff listened to the tape, they did not hear this comment. Mr. Penman
ascertained that he listened to the tape as well, and perhaps the easiest way to solve this
would be to ask the Mayor whether she did or did not make that statement.
Mayor Valles stated that she did not recall making such a statement.
Mr. Penman stated that it was very clear to him and to a number of witnesses in
the audience that Mayor Valles did make the statement. He stated that he was a little
perplexed that the City Clerk couldn't find the comment in the tape, but if the Council
would continue this matter, he would be glad to go over the tape with her. He added
that if the Council did not wish to do that, that was up to them.
City Clerk Clark advised that when Mr. Penman's office called her office and
told her that there were a few words missing from the tape, she assured him that she
would listen to the tape. She stated that she and two staff members listened to the tape
at least three times--not only the tape done by the Council Office, but the tape done by
the City Clerk's Office as well--and they could find no reference to the statement
allegedly made by the Mayor.
Council Member Estrada stated that she believed that there were several things
that were being addressed through Mr. Penman's statements--certainly the accuracy of
the minutes that were taken, and in this case, the City Clerk's Office--and asked Mr.
Penman where he obtained his tape.
10
3/512001
Mr. Penman stated that as he always does, he starts the tape in the morning
before he leaves the house and it is on a timer and then goes off, so no one from the
City would have an opportunity to remove anything from that particular tape.
Council Member Estrada asked for further clarification as to where the tape or
recorder was.
Mr. Penman stated that this was at his residence, and Ms. Estrada asked
whether he was talking about his TV. He replied in the affirmative, stating it was from
the television, the Channel 3 live televised coverage of the San Bernardino City Council
meetings.
Ms. Estrada stated that she believed that this reflected on the credibility of the
City Clerk's Office, and inquired whether there was the possibility that the Council
could see the tape; that she would like to see if it was an error by the City Clerk's
Office.
City Attorney Penman stated that he did not know why they could not see the
tape, and suggested that if the Council would continue the matter, he would be glad to
bring that and be glad to play it for the City Clerk.
Council Member Lien asked the City Clerk if the tape she listened to was the
audio tape of what is broadcast on television?
City Clerk Clark stated that the tape that is broadcast on Channel 3 is broadcast
from the station itself; however, there were two tapes she and her staff listened to--one
that is set up with the City Clerk's own recorder that the Deputy uses in the back room
and the other is the one used by the City Council Office for reproduction purposes.
She added that she and her staff made every effort to find the statement attributed to the
Mayor, and that her office does make corrections whenever Mr. Penman brings them to
her attention, such as omissions, or perhaps when something is not clear.
Ms. Clark stated that she had mentioned to Mr. Penman that she and her staff
could not find any reference to the alleged statement by the Mayor; however, if he
would provide that proof, she and her staff would listen to it. She had not heard
anything more about it until this morning.
Council Member Lien verified with Mrs. Clark that it would then make sense
for the City Clerk to get an audio copy and review it.
City Clerk Clark questioned whether Ms. Lien meant an audio copy or a video
copy.
11
3/5/2001
Council Member Lien stated she meant the tape, the whole tape (video tape),
and City Clerk Clark stated she would. She stated that if the Council desired they
could continue the approval of these minutes to the next meeting.
Council Member Lien made a motion to continue the approval of the minutes of
the Mayor and Common Council/Community Development Commission meeting of
January 8, 2001, to the meeting of March 19, 2001.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Council Member Estrada inquired whether it would be possible to continue the
matter to the afternoon, and that way maybe during the lunch break somebody from the
Council, the City Attorney, and the City Clerk could get together and review Mr.
Penman's video of the meeting. She stated that she would be glad to volunteer to sit in
on that.
City Clerk Clark asked Ms. Estrada whether she understood her to say she
wanted to review Mr. Penman's video or the video done by Channel 3; and Ms.
Estrada answered that she meant Mr. Penman's video.
City Attorney Penman stated he was not planning to go home today, but he
suspected that if it was on his video, it would be on the video that the cable TV would
play.
It was the consensus of all involved that the videotape of the meeting from
Channel 3 would be reviewed during the lunch break and the matter would be brought
back for further consideration in the afternoon.
ORD. MC-I093 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO MODIFYING CHAPTER 19.02 (DEFINITIONS) AND
CHAPTER 19.06 (COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS) OF THE SAN
BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE) TO
MODIFY TEXT RELATED TO DEFINITIONS, REQUIREMENTS
AND STANDARDS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD GROCERY STORES.
Final (9)
Council Member McCarnmack advised that she would disqualify herself from
voting on this item, as it directly relates to a neighborhood grocery store directly across
the street from her business.
Council Member Lien made a motion, seconded by Council Member Suarez,
that said ordinance be adopted.
12
3/5/200 1
Ordinance No. MC-1093 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council
Members Estrada, Lien, Schuetz, Suarez, Anderson. Nays: None. Abstentions:
Council Member McCarnmack. Absent: Council Member McGinnis.
DIRECT STAFF - MEET & CONFER WITH
BARGAINING UNIT - PARK LAWN MOWING
SERVICE
AFFECTED
CONTRACT
(10)
Annie Ramos, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services,
submitted a staff report dated February 26, 2001, regarding an increase to park lawn
mowing contract services.
Council Member Anderson noted that this proposal is for parks located in the
Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Wards. She stated that in the Sixth Ward they have a difficult
time with the maintenance work at the Anne Shirrell Park, and she questioned whose
responsibility it would be to repair the sprinkler heads broken by the lawnmowers. She
advised that this is the reason now used by the maintenance personnel for not mowing
when they are scheduled to do so--they blame it on broken sprinkler heads, etc. She
wondered whether going to this type of contract would just create more problems
relative to a shoddy maintenance job.
Annie Ramos, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, advised
that the contractor would be responsible for any sprinkler heads that are broken, and
her department would be monitoring the contracts very closely. She stated that past
experience has been that there have been very few problems with forcing the
contractors to repair any type of damage they may have done to the sprinkler heads, or
to any other things at the park.
Council Member Anderson questioned what parks currently have private
mowers. Ms. Ramos stated that there is no mowing--just maintenance--that this will be
the first contract for mowing services.
Council Member Anderson made a motion, seconded by Council Member
Schuetz, and unanimously carried, that staff be directed to meet and confer with the
affected bargaining units to discuss an increase to park lawn mowing contract services.
REAPPORTIONMENT OF COMMON COUNCIL WARDS - TASK
FORCE APPOINTMENTS (12)
Fred Wilson, City Administrator, submitted a staff report dated February 15,
2001, regarding the reapportionment of Common Council Wards and the appointment
of a redistricting task force.
13
3/512001
Mr. Wilson advised that Section Three of the City Charter provides that the
Mayor and Council, by ordinance, shall divide the city into seven wards of
approximately equal value; and thereafter periodically review the boundaries to make
sure they have maintained the same equal value. He stated that normally, after each
census, the City looks at the ward boundaries based on the new census data; therefore,
staff is recommending that the Council put together a redistricting task force. This task
force would consist of a number of departments to begin the process of looking at the
data from the census; then, depending on how the data comes together, to develop a
game plan, if necessary, to restructure the ward boundaries. Mr. Wilson added that the
Council would have an opportunity to review the data as it is developing, thereby
participating in the process as well.
Council Member McCarnmack stated that she understood that the motion was to
appoint a task force as described in the attached staff report, as well as others appointed
by the Mayor and Council. She inquired whether there were more specifics, relative to
the number of representatives, where they would come from, and whether each Council
member was going to get a representative, etc.
Mr. Wilson advised that typically there is one representative from every
department. He noted that previously a Council staff person, in this case Jorge Carlos,
was the liaison for the Council Office, so each department had a single representative.
Council Member McCammack inquired whether there was any reason that there
couldn't be one representative from each of the Council members.
Mr. Wilson noted that a large part of the process is fairly techuical and involves
GIS (Geographic Information Systems) obtaining and loading data, plugging data into
census tracts and looking at it in terms of how it fits into the ward boundaries. He
pointed out that the staff report indicated that there would be an opportunity to have
community input as well as input from Council members as the process evolves and
staff is looking for direction to move the process forward.
Council Member Estrada stated that she participated in the 1990 redistricting of
the City, and she recalled that as the process moves along, information is brought to the
Council relative to the demographics and how staff is proposing to adjust the boundary
lines of the districts. She stated that the reason for this, as Mr. Wilson stated, is that
the process is quite technical, and legally the City must meet criteria set by the federal
government in terms of percentages of ethnic groups, etc. According to Ms. Estrada,
the City must show the federal government that it has tried its best to adjust the wards
to make them as representative of the community as possible. She stated that in 1990
the Council worked very closely with staff, and the Council will have the opportunity to
discuss with them whether boundary lines should be moved, etc.
14
3/512001
Discussion ensued regarding the scope of the redistricting process and the
responsibilities of the task force. City Administrator Wilson noted that basically the
process is to obtain and install the census geography, to determine the ward district
population, including basic ethnic breakdown--essentially taking the data from the
census and looking at all the issues described by Council Member Estrada in terms of
equal representation and ethnic breakdown, etc.
Mayor Valles noted that by virtue of the responsibility, staff had identified the
members of the task force; and Mr. Wilson stated this was true in terms of the technical
task force.
City Attorney Penman stated that several years ago, sometime between 1994-
1996, he was in Washington, D.C. and had the opportunity to hear the arguments at the
United States Supreme Court relative to two cases involving redistricting based on race.
He advised that the Supreme CoUrt held, at that time, that racial considerations cannot
be taken into consideration when drawing district boundaries. He noted that this was a
complete reversal of what the law has long been and was in 1990. He stated that the
court struck down two districts and made it clear that the process that we had used here
in the City of San Bernardino in setting our ward boundaries, where we have taken race
into consideration, shall no longer be done.
Mr. Penman stated he wanted to raise this issue to the Mayor and Council, and
that the next time this item is on the agenda, his office would have copies of those cases
available for them.
Council Member McCarnmack stated that in the staff report it suggests that the
task force include representatives from various departments "and any other appointed
by the Mayor and Council." She stated that it still seemed rather vague since they were
being asked to approve the appointing of the task force, yet the Council does not know
who these people are--there are just general guidelines.
Mayor Valles stated she understood the confusion and explained it as follows:
First of all, the task force is comprised of the people who will do all of the techuical
data gathering, and this is based on information staff will be receiving and placing on
the GIS map. She believed the question Mrs. McCarnmack was asking, is once that is
completed, then as members of the Council, it will come to us; and at that point, should
members of the Council appoint different people from their areas to participate in this
process?
City Administrator Wilson stated that initially the plan is to have just City
departments involved in the process, and they have the people from these departments
already identified. He stated he could provide a list of these names to the Council right
after lunch.
15
3/5/2001
Mayor Valles noted that once all the techuical data is compiled, then it is
presented to the Council; and she asked Mrs. McCammack if she wanted to appoint a
person from the Seventh Ward, at that time.
Mrs. McCammack stated, "yes, if that was the direction the Legislative Review
Committee originally had." She stated that the last part of the sentence left it very
unclear to her, and she was having difficulty casting a vote on something that was not
clear to her.
Mayor Valles stated that Council Member McCarnmack could amend the
recommended motion if she desired, to make it clearer.
Council Member Estrada stated that she thought the issue was becoming more
confusing. She stated that it was her understanding that Mr. Wilson had already
discussed this with someone and had come up with the list of people who would be
assigned to this task force. She inquired whether it was the intent of Mr. Wilson to
have the Council volunteer individuals to this task force, and he indicated it was not.
She also stated that she understood it was not his intention to have the Council serve on
this task force, and he indicated that was not discussed in Legislative Review
Committee.
Ms. Estrada stated that she saw this as something the task force has to work at,
and they will bring it to the Council for input. She stated she did not know if she had
anyone in her ward who had the kind of experience necessary to sit in on that kind of a
body. Additionally, as the Council person for her district, she felt she was probably
more aware of where she would want the lines drawn for her ward better than anyone
else, and that is the information the task force will get from the Council Members. She
stated she was just trying to clarify that she did not believe that it was Mr. Wilson's
intent to get the residents of the different wards involved as much as it was to appoint
the staff's task force and then bring the information back to the Mayor and Council.
City Administrator Wilson indicated that this was correct; however, they had
left it open since it is a policy issue, and that is why the words, "and others appointed
by the Mayor and Council," were included.
Mr. Wilson indicated he had the list of names and read them into the record as
follows: City Clerk Rachel Clark; Valerie Ross, Planning Division; a member from
the City Attorny's Office as designated by the City Attorney; Terry Baker from the
City Administrator's Office; Jorge Carlos from the Council Office; and Ruth Parish,
the City's GIS Coordinator.
Council Member Lien verified that today the Council would be appointing these
six people; and it was her understanding when it came before the LRC that if the
Council was going to appoint others, it would have to come before the Council just as
16
3/5/2001
this is now. She stated that right now, since it is technical work and there is no
discretion in gathering the data, that the Council should go with these six
representatives from these departments and in the future discuss adding other people, if
there was a need or a concern. She stated that right now she did not think there was
anybody better than staff to do the work and that is what they are paid for.
Council Member Lien made a motion, seconded by Council Member Anderson,
that the Mayor and Common Council appoint a Redistricting Task Force, as described
in the attached staff report, to begin the process of redistricting the ward boundaries.
Council Member McCammack suggested that the Council include in the motion,
"and any others that the Council deems to appoint at a later date."
Council Member Lien amended her motion, seconded by Council Member
Anderson, and unanimously carried, that the Mayor and Common Council appoint a
Redistricting Task Force, as described in the attached staff report, and any others
appointed by the Mayor and Common Council at a future meeting, to begin the process
of redistricting the ward boundaries.
MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW - FISCAL YEAR 200012001 (13)
Barbara Pachon, Director of Finance, submitted a staff report dated February
26,2001, regarding the mid-year budget review for fiscal year 200012001.
City Administrator Wilson advised that this report is intended to keep the
Council apprised of the current financial condition of the City and also to provide a
forecast of next year's budget outlook. He noted that this document was discussed in
detail at the Ways and Means Committee last week.
Council Member Lien complimented Ms. Pachon for producing a document that
she found very easy to understand.
Council Member Anderson expressed concern regarding the overage in the
Treasurer's Office and the Police Department. She acknowledged that crime has gone
down in San Bernardino; however, 70 percent of the City's budget now goes to safety
personnel, and it concerned her that $500,000 of overtime was paid for 270 employees.
She noted that when this happens it takes money from the general employees, because
there is not enough left to give them the salaries they deserve.
Barbara Pachon, Director of Finance, pointed out that the only things in the
budget of the City Treasurer are his salary and benefits, and the overage can be
attributed to a miscalculation due to a change in his benefits--it is basically a benefits
adjustment.
17
3/5/2001
As to the Police Department, they are spending more in overtime this year
because they have no vacancy savings to offset their overtime expenses. Part of this is
due to the fact that one of the department's grants had expired, and they had to move
those officers into the vacant positions.
Discussion ensued regarding the Police Department budget, various special
events that have affected the department's overtime budget, and the manner in which
these special events are budgeted and paid for. City Administrator Wilson noted that
most of the expenses associated with special events are offset by increased revenues.
Mr. Wilson advised that staff is in the process of finalizing the Classification
and Compensation Study, and the goal is to take it to the Personnel Committee's next
meeting. He stated that everyone understands the need to address the issue of general
employee salaries. He noted that the contracts with the General and Mid-Management
employees expire on June 30, 2001, so negotiations will be reopening with them.
Council Member Estrada noted that Development Services has saved $285,000
and questioned whether there was a possibility of using this money for hiring more
planners in order to move projects through the department at a faster rate.
City Administrator Wilson pointed out that this Council has approved a number
of outside planning contracts for that purpose, and what will be seen in the near future
is a similar arrangement for the engineering/plan check area, which will be coming out
of salary savings.
Council Member Suarez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Estrada,
and unanimously carried, that the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Mid-Year Budget Report be
received and filed; and that the Director of Finance be authorized to amend the Fiscal
Year 2000-2001 adopted Fleet Fund, Refuse Fund, and Utility Fund budgets as outlined
in the staff report.
CONTINUE TO JUNE 4, 2001 - RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL
MAP - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14112 - NORTHEASTERLY OF
FOOTHILL DRIVE & STERLING A VENUE INTERSECTION
(Continued from December 4, 2000) (14)
James Funk, Director of Development Services, submitted a staff report dated
February 20, 2001, regarding a request to continue the resolution approving the Final
Map for Tentative Tract No. 14112.
Council Member Anderson made a motion, seconded by Council Member
Suarez, and unanimously carried, that the Final Map for Tentative Tract No. 14112 be
continued to the Council meeting of June 4,2001.
18
3/5/2001
POSSIBLE BROWN ACT VIOLATION - COUNCIL MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 20, 2001 (15)
City Attorney Penman submitted a staff report dated February 28, 2001,
regarding a possible Brown Act violation at the Council meeting of February 20, 2001.
City Attorney Penman advised that the third paragraph of the staff report cites
Government Code Section 54952.1(b); however, it should be Section 54952.2(b).
Also, in the fifth paragraph it cites Section 16800 and this should be Section 18600.
Mr. Penman reviewed highlights of the staff report with the Mayor and Council.
Of particular concern was the fact that during the discussion relative to whether the
City Clerk should disqualify herself as the elections official regarding the referendum
against Council Ordinance No. MC-I091, a document was distributed to some, but not
all, of the Council members.
Mr. Penman stated that in determining whether or not there was a Brown Act
violation, his office looked at the document to ascertain whether or not it did, in fact,
pertain to the issue being discussed at the time by the Mayor and Council. He advised
that it was his opinion that this document would certainly have had an impact as to the
issue of whether or not there was bias in the City Clerk's Office, and called the
Council's attention to the third and fourth paragraphs of the e-mail document dated
February 15,2001, and proceeded to read said paragraphs into the record.
Mr. Penman stated that it has long been the policy of this Mayor and Council
that any documents distributed to a majority, go to everyone on the dais--all seven
Council members, the Mayor, the City Attorney, the City Clerk, and a copy to the
press.
He stated that at some point all of this needs to stop, and when you get to the
point of a possible Brown Act violation, you've gone beyond that point; and everybody,
including himself, needs to sit down and take a breath. He noted that such actions are
not conducive to getting the public's work done.
Mayor Valles stated that there was never any intention to hide anything.
Council Member Schnetz made a motion, seconded by Council Member
Anderson, that the staff report be received and filed. (Note: The vote was taken after
further discussion and comments.)
Gil Navarro, Chairman, Mexican-American Political Association (MAPA),
P.O. Box 1396, San Bernardino, CA, stated that if this was really a serious Brown Act
violation, a person has 30 days to take legal action. However, it apparently was not
that serious, otherwise Mr. Penman would have gone to that degree.
19
3/5/2001
Pamela Zander, a resident of San Bernardino, spoke regarding her dealings with
the City Clerk's Office relative to the referendum and initiative processes.
It was pointed out to Mrs. Zander that the item being discussed was the Brown
Act, and her comments were not relevant to that issue.
At this time, the motion made by Council Member Schnetz, seconded by
Council Member Anderson, that the staff report be received and filed, unanimously
carried.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN
AMENDING SECTION 5.04.500 OF THE SAN
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SWAP MEETS.
BERNARDINO
BERNARDINO
First (16)
Lee Gagnon, Business Registration Supervisor, stated that the amendment to the
swap meet ordinance would require each vendor operating at a swap meet to
individually obtain a business registration, including the operator. In essence, this
would put them on a level playing field with every other business that operates in the
City of San Bernardino.
Council Member McCammack stated that she thought this was a great way to
start the City's attempt to collect revenue from individual vendors, and inquired about
current enforcement procedures currently followed by the City Cerk's Office relative to
actual revenue received.
Mr. Gagnon advised that there are five swap meet-type establishments operating
within enclosed structures, and the inspectors go out and survey those particular venues
to see that each individual vendor is licensed. He advised that staff has the cooperation
of the operators of those swap meet-type operations to license those individuals, and the
City currently has all of those in operation licensed.
Council Member McCammack noted that the business registration is based on
gross revenues, and inquired as to what kind of enforcement or checks and balances are
in place so the City knows that gross revenues are being truly and accurately reported.
Mr. Gagnon advised that staff has the ability to conduct audits, and they do that
from time to time--it is a way to make sure they are reporting correctly, and staff has
done this for a considerable amount of time.
Council Member McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member
Lien, and unanimously carried, that said ordinance be laid over for final adoption.
20
3/512001
RECEIVE & FILE CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY
REFERENDUM PETITION RELATIVE TO ORDINANCE NO. MC-
1091 (17)
City Clerk Rachel Clark submitted a staff report dated February 27, 2001,
recommending that the Certificate of Sufficiency certifying the results of the
referendum petition relative to Ordinance No. MC-I091 be received and filed.
City Clerk Clark reviewed the staff report with the Council. She advised that
the Council now had two options as provided in Charter Section 121. The first option
would be to reconsider the ordinance and repeal it in its entirety; the second option
would be to submit the ordinance to a vote of the electors either at the next general
municipal election or at a special municipal election to be called for that purpose.
Ms. Clark reviewed the cost of a special stand-alone election ($140,000 to
$165,000) versus what it would cost if the special election were to be consolidated with
the November 6, 2001, Primary Municipal Election. In the latter case, the total
estimated election cost would be $35,000 to $50,000; however only $5,000 would be
for the referendum issue.
She stated that her recommendation would be for the Council to receive and file
the Certificate of Sufficiency.
Council Member McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member
Anderson, and unanimously carried, that the Mayor and Common Council receive and
file the Certificate of Sufficiency certifying the Referendum Petition filed on February
14, 2001, by proponents Evlyn Wilcox and Wendy McCammack in protest of
Ordinance No. MC-I091.
City Clerk Clark advised that special counsel Fredric Woocher from the law
firm of Strumwasser & Woocher was present in the audience to answer any legal
questions the Council might have.
Mayor Valles inquired whether the Council needed to decide today whether to
call a special election or whether to wait until the next general election to present the
matter to the voters.
Mr. Woocher stated that the Council did not need to make that decision today;
in fact, to the extent that the Council wished to save money by calling a special election
that could be consolidated with an upcoming election, it would not be able to call that
election today. He explained that the default on the calling for an election, is that if the
Council did not repeal Ordinance MC-1091, it would be placed by law on the next
general election, which for this City is the one that would occur after the primary
election. He noted that under the Charter language the primary election is not a generalt
21
3/512001
election, and it specifically refers to the February/March election as the general
election. Therefore, if the Council took no further action whatsoever, by law the
referendum would automatically be placed on the March 2002 election and the
ordinance would, of course, be stayed.
Mr. Woocher added that if the Council wished to hold a special election on the
referendum, they were free to do so, but that special election must be called pursuant to
the rules of the Municipal Code, which states that it must be called 90 to 135 days
before the election itself. If, therefore, the Council were to take action today to call for
a special election, it would have to be a stand alone election sometime in June or July.
If the Council wished to consolidate it with the November election, it would have to
come back before the Council to actually call for that election, sometime in July or
August. He noted that the City Clerk had the specific dates. Therefore, no action
needed to be taken today except to receive and file the certificate, and if the Council did
want to hold a special election at some time other than March 2002, that would have to
come back before the Council.
Council Member McCammack stated that the way she read the Charter, it was
her belief that the Council was required to take action today to reconsider it (Ordinance
MC-1091)--that once the Certificate of Sufficiency was received and filed the Council
must immediately reconsider.
Mr. Woocher stated that was not correct. The Council did not need to
immediately reconsider it--it could be repealed at any point in time prior to the actual
holding of the election. The only thing they were required to do at this point is to
receive the City Clerk's certificate. He noted that there is nothing in the Charter that
states that at the next meeting the Council has to take one of the two actions.
Ms. McCammack stated that the Charter does state that the Council must
immediately reconsider.
Mr. Woocher stated he did not see the word "immediately" and asked if Ms.
McCammack could point this information out to him. He then read the pertinent part
of the Charter into the record, noting that this language was similar to that which exists
in the state law for municipal referendum, and that has, in fact, been interpreted to not
require the Council to take action to immediately repeal the matter. He advised that if
they don't take that action, it simply means that it goes automatically for a vote at the
next general election.
Council Member Estrada clarified that given the vote the Council just took, they
are now in a stayed position.
22
3/5/2001
Mr. Woocher advised that this was correct--the ordinance that the Council
adopted (Ordinance MC-I091), repealing the previous ordinance (Municipal Code
Section 2.20), has not gone into effect.
Ms. Estrada clarified the options, stating that the Council could have a special
election (stand alone), which would cost them money, or they could consolidate with
the November election, or if they did nothing else, it would go to the March election,
in that order. Mr. Woocher answered in the affirmative.
Council Member Estrada stated that she was not sure, if the Council is in a stay,
whether Agenda Item No. 18 would be repealing their options also.
Mr. Woocher stated that it would; that repealing would prevent the election
from going forward. He explained that Agenda Item No. 18 was to reconsider the
ordinance as the Charter requires, and to determine that in fact the Council wishes to
repeal the action that they took without waiting for the results of an election on it.
Council Member Estrada stated that she had some questions relative to both, but
wondered if she should hold her questions until the Council considered Agenda Item
No. 18.
City Clerk Clark stated that she wanted to clarify one thing, and that was with
regard to the issue of a special election. She stated that San Bernardino Municipal
Code Section 2.56.170 states that if a special election is called, it would be called 90-
135 days from the date of call. She noted that if the Council decides not to repeal, then
that would be one of the options; and she would have the calculations of those dates, if
needed.
Mr. Roger Henderson, 2516 Valencia, San Bernardino, CA, stated that the
signatures have been gathered, the people have spoken, and now it's time to listen to
the people. He asked the Council to rescind their vote on Municipal Code Section
2.20, stating, "Do not have this put on the ballot; all it will do is cost this City money."
He noted that the people of this City want a City Attorney and they want a balance of
power; and it's time for the Mayor and Council to listen.
Gil Navarro, Chairman, Mexican-American Political Association (MAPA),
P.O. Box 1396, San Bernardino, CA, stated that MAPA supports receiving and filing
this action. He also noted that there was no urgency to go forward on this, that the
Council did not have to decide today, that there were several months before a decision
needed to be made if it was their desire to consolidate with the election in November.
23
3/512001
Jim Sivelle, 5350 Park Lane, San Bernardino, CA, spoke regarding the
referendum signature gathering process. He stated that he did not think any of the
Council members held meetings with their constituents regarding this matter, except for
Council Members Anderson and McCammack, and in those meetings their constituents
said, "No, absolutely no" relative to hiring outside attorneys.
Pamela Zander, a resident of San Bernardino, spoke regarding the signatures
she had gathered, and the fact that the people do not want outside attorneys to be hired.
She inquired about the financial impact in billable dollars associated with the hiring of
outside attorneys.
Mayor Valles noted that the City hires outside attorneys all the time, and the
financial impact runs into the millions.
City Administrator Wilson stated that it varies from year to year depending on
the nature of the cases.
Mrs. Zander inquired whether the amount spent in the past could be a good
indication of what it would cost in the future.
Council Member Estrada explained that Mr. Penman, in his department, has
money to be able to hire outside counsel on different issues, and the Council authorizes
that time and time again, because there are certain attorneys that have certain expertise
that we may not have on our staff.
Mrs. Zander inquired as to what the financial impact would be for those
occasions when the Council doesn't want an answer from Mr. Penman and instead
wants to hire outside counsel.
Council Member Estrada explained that prior to Municipal Code Section 2.20
there was the Charter, and for all those years from the day of incorporation of the City
and the adoption of the Charter, Municipal Code Section 2.20 was not there. The
Charter gives the authority to the Mayor and Council to hire outside counsel. It's been
there all those years, until 1984, when 2.20 was enacted. She noted that prior to 1984
she didn't know what the cost was; however, she served on the Council for a short time
in the '70s and could not recall any abuse by the Mayor and Council relative to the
hiring of outside counsel.
Mrs. Zander stated that she was not talking about abuse, she was talking about
billable hours, and she asked Mr. Penman if he could please respond to her question.
24
3/512001
City Attorney Penman answered that it depended on whether the Council was
discussing Agenda Item No. 17 or 18--that he had conflicted off on giving advice to the
City Clerk, but had not conflicted off on the proposed ordinance repealing Ordinance
No. MC-I091. He noted that the television screen indicated they were discussing Item
No. 17, and he had conflicted off.
Mayor Valles noted that Item No. 17 had to do with receiving and filing the
Certificate of Sufficiency; and that was the motion that had been approved by the
Council, and what Mrs. Zander was asking was really not relevant to Item No. 17.
Mrs. Zander stated that on Item No. 17 she just wanted to say that she was a
petitioner and they carried out their responsibility in a forthright effort, and everyone
they approached wanted to know what the cost of this would be.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. MC-I091 WHICH ATTEMPTED TO
PREVENT THE NEED TO OBTAIN CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL
PRIOR TO THE RETENTION OF OUTSIDE SPECIAL COUNSEL
SERVICES. First (18)
Council Member Anderson stated that she would like to bury this issue, she
would like to bury the divisiveness within the Council, and she would like the Council
to start supporting those major projects of the Mayor, the City of San Bernardino, and
the projects that the Council members personally have to benefit the City.
Gil Navarro, Chairman of the local Mexican-American Political Association
(MAPA), stated that his organization was asking that the Council not approve Agenda
Item No. 18 today, stating that there was no hurry or rush--there was still plenty of
time to decide what route they want to take.
Council Member McCammack stated that the constituents of the Seventh Ward
have made it very clear to her that they want this issue behind them quickly--that is why
they signed the petition in the first place. She expressed her concern that certain
members of the Council have interpreted information in the Charter in a way that she
would like to clarify from her perspective.
Ms. McCammack stated that the action taken by the Council to repeal Municipal
Code Section 2.20 on January 16, basically removed an ordinance that was an "i"-
dotting and a "t" -crossing to a portion of the Charter regarding hiring outside lawyers.
She stated it was enacted in 1984 for a very important reason--it was because the
Charter, to those that were interpreting it, wasn't clear. She ascertained that case law
has since clarified that portion of the Charter regarding whether or not this Council may
hire outside lawyers without the recommendation of the City Attorney. However, since
25
3/512001
some of the Council Members in office at that time decided to interpret it their way,
instead of per case law, ordinance M.C. 2.20 was enacted.
Mrs. McCammack agreed that 2.20 wasn't written in exactly the same way as
the Charter was written, but it was enacted, in her opinion, at the wisdom of the
majority of the Council at that time. She agreed also, that by repealing Municipal Code
Section 2.20, the Council did not change the Charter; however, they have left it open
for interpretation by Council members that may not feel that the City Attorney's office
is willing or capable of handling a case. Therefore. their interpretation, without that
ordinance being in place, could actually mean that they may hire an outside lawyer
without the recommendation of the City Attorney's office. So Municipal Code Section
2.20 was put into place in the first place because of a feeling of the majority of the
Council of a possible abuse.
Council Member McCammack stated that no one ever accused anyone of
abusing that privilege, but the voters and the citizens of this city don't like the action
this Council took in repealing that ordinance.
Council Member Anderson noted that remarks made at the podium during
Council meetings are often half-truths and innuendoes that are not true. She took
exception to the comment that the Council has been intimidated to do anything they did
not want to do or did not believe in. She stated that when the Council looks at this
issue they need to decide whether this is something they want to carry on until March
2002; or whether they want this issue to be a cloud and interfere with the upcoming
election for those individuals running for Mayor and Council seats in November 2001.
She advised that the Council needs to be about the business of this city, and for people
to come to the podium and express reasons why they should still stand as a divisive
body is just not right.
Council Member Estrada stated that since 1985, when she came back on the
Council after Municipal Code Section 2.20 was enacted in 1984, she has always had the
question, and has raised the question a number of times, as to whether the Council
could enact something that takes authority away from the Mayor and Council, when
that authority has been given to the Mayor and Council through the Charter of the City,
which in essence is what Municipal Code Section 2.20 does. She stated she has asked
about that --she has even said that the matter should be taken to court and have the issue
settled once and for all. She asked Mr. Woocher if the Charter is the constitution of
the City of San Bernardino, and it gives certain authorities to the Mayor and the
Council and the City Attorney, can the Mayor and Council enact an ordinance that
takes authority away from that body that the Charter originally gave the authority to?
26
3/5/2001
Mr. Woocher stated that as a general matter, no, they could not; that Mrs.
Estrada was correct that the Charter supercedes as the constitution for a Charter City
like San Bernardino. Therefore, every ordinance that would be enacted, whether by an
initiative or by Council action, needs to be consistent with, and cannot take away, any
authority that is otherwise granted to a body by the City Charter itself.
Mr. Woocher stated that there was a case from San Francisco in the late 1980s
which involved a situation where the City Charter allowed the Board of Supervisors
there to sell land or to divest the City of property or to acquire property as long as there
was "without any restrictions" in the Charter language. It said this was one of the
things the Board could do.
There was an initiative that was proposed that would have required that anytime
the Council gave away any property of the City, they receive like value in exchange;
and the court held that that was an illegally proposed ordinance because there was no
restriction on the Council's authority; but this ordinance intended to impose an
additional condition on the exercise of that authority and, therefore, it would have been
illegal whether it was enacted by the Board of Supervisors or by an initiative measure.
Therefore, as a general matter, it is correct, that if the Charter gives an
obligation and an authority to the Council that is not conditioned, it cannot be
conditioned even voluntarily by that Council. They could, of course, subject
themselves to any voluntary restrictions that they want, but they can't put it in an
ordinance that would bind future Councils from exercising the full authority that they
have under the Charter.
Council Member Estrada stated that as far as she was concerned, this had
nothing to do with Jim Penman--it had to do with the authority of the Charter to the
Mayor and the Council. She stated this has been her concern for the almost 12 years
that she has served on the Council--she has never had that answer or that issue resolved
from 1985 to the present; and she thinks it is important, because if that is in fact the
situation, then Municipal Code Section 2.20 was illegal. Therefore, MC-1091 wasn't
necessary, because those are issues related to 2.20, which cannot override the Charter,
which says that the Mayor and the Council have that authority to hire outside counsel.
She stated that it has been in the Charter for over 100 years, until 1984 when a Council
adopted this ordinance. Again, in her opinion, it was wrong and illegal because the
Charter must prevail, and the Charter gives that authority to the Mayor and the
Council.
She continued by stating that this issue should be resolved by a court of law and
asking the Mayor and Council to commit to taking this issue to the courtroom where it
needs to go so that a judge can look at this issue and resolve it once and for all.
According to Ms. Estrada, if that were done the voters of the City would be satisfied,
27
3/5/2001
and this Council and future Councils and Mayors would be satisfied as well. She stated
she thought it had to happen--that everything else that has come from that is erroneous,
at least from what she just heard--and she has heard it before, but never in front of the
Council where the attorney is standing there and you can ask questions.
She continued, stating that this is not tied to Measure M--when this issue of
repealing 2.20 came up, she was the one who brought it up. It was not because of Jim
(Penman), not because of anything other than that it was an issue that needed to be dealt
with, because she has always had that question for 12 years--is it legal or is it illegal,
because the Charter is supposed to prevail, and it has not been prevailing in this
instance.
Ms. Estrada implored the other members of the Council to seriously consider
what had just been said, and what Mr. Woocher had just said, because she thought the
Council needed to do something.
Mayor Valles asked that she be able to paraphrase what she understood as being
said, stating, "Mr. Woocher, you have in fact, I guess, stated that the ordinance as it
currently is, is really not constitutional. "
Mr. Woocher asked that he be able to explain. He stated he did not say that;
that he stated a general principle which applies. He stated he had only taken a first
look at this, and he had not been asked that question up until now. He stated that he
thought there were legitimate questions raised about whether the ordinance was
constitutional, but obviously, only a court could decide that issue.
Mayor Valles clarified the matter before the Council, stating that relative to
Agenda Item No. 18, the points raised by Ms. Estrada were valid and germane to the
issue; however, what was before them was to vote on repealing the ordinance.
Council Member Estrada stated that she was trying to figure out for herself how
she was going to vote on this, but questioned how she could vote on something that in
essence may not even be legal; and that is what she is saying--she can't vote to support
something that perhaps needs to be resolved in a court of law.
Council Member Lien stated she wanted to talk about what was before the
Council today, which is repealing the ordinance, because the necessary number of
signatures have been received to put it on the ballot at some point. She stated that she
has learned a lot since the fall, and since endeavoring to look at Charter reform. She
stated that she has learned that it's possible not to debate issues, but that in fact we talk
a lot in terms of arguments and propaganda. She stated she has been real disappointed
with the way Measure M was characterized, but it is over, and what it has pointed out
to her is that their proposal was rejected by the voters, they are not ready for charter
reform right now, and the timing is off.
28
3/51200 1
Ms. Lien stated that when the Council tried to repeal Municipal Code Section
2.20, she didn't anticipate that it would be tied by Mr. Penman and by the people who
are upset by it, as not hearing Measure M. She stated she couldn't disagree more, she
heard the voters on Measure M, there's no part of "No" she doesn't understand, and
she did think repealing 2.20 was a step in the right direction. She advised that the
Council didn't overturn a part of the people's "No" vote on Measure M; they were
addressing an issue which, she agreed with Ms. Estrada, needed to be addressed. She
stated she was not sure that this should happen at the ballot box, because at the ballot
box we get into the politics of it.
She stated that as much as she disagrees with Municipal Code Section 2.20, she
thinks that the damage that will be done to this Mayor and Council, and that the damage
that will be done in our community to put this matter on the ballot is not worth the price
at this point in time. She also noted that she is up for re-election in eight months and
would like to continue in her ward.
Council Member McCammack stated that she had done research and had studied
why the ordinance was there in the first place, in relationship to that section of the
Charter that discussed hiring of outside lawyers--that she had gone back to City
Attorney Prince's opinion at that time, she also went to Mr. Gresham's opinion, and
then she asked the City Attorney whether there was an opinion written by the City
Attorney's Office (which there was), and she studied all three of those opinions.
Ms. McCammack requested that City Attorney Penman clarify the case law
specifically related to this issue, which has already been tested in court--that if he could
expound on that she would appreciate it because she didn't have the details on that.
City Attorney Penman stated that the issue had come up in the City before he
was City Attorney, and it has also come up after he was City Attorney. He advised that
when this ordinance enacting 2.20 came before the Mayor and Council, Mr. Ralph
Prince was the City Attorney and he did not disqualify himself, just as he was not
disqualifying himself from the ordinance. He added that he had disqualified himself
from the election portion, giving advice to the City Clerk on the election, the counting
of the signatures, and so forth. On this particular issue, Mr. Prince's Office put out an
opinion that explained that going back to the 1890s, there had been cases interpreting
the phrase in our Charter, "as may be necessary and proper for the interest and benefit
of the City and the inhabitants thereof." He stated he would read the brief paragraph
regarding employment of legal counsel, Charter Section 241, "The Mayor and
Common Council shall have power and authority to employ and engage such legal
counsel and services and other assistance as may be necessary and proper for the
interest and benefit of the City and the inhabitants thereof. "
29
3/512001
City Attorney Penman stated that in Mr. Prince's written opinion he cited the
relevant cases, and all these cases state that when the phrase "as may be necessary and
proper" is present, what it means is when the City Attorney is unwilling or unable to
perform his duties. Mr. Penman added that there are cases out of San Francisco, out of
Los Angeles, out of San Diego, all charter cities, all with similar language, and all with
that phrase "as may be necessary and proper." In addition, now Ms. Estrada says that
she has been trying to get an answer, when the truth is, she was on the Council when
Mr. Prince's office issued that opinion.
Mr. Penman stated that when he became City Attorney, the issue arose again,
and he asked Dennis Barlow, the Senior Assistant City Attorney, who is now the City
Attorney for the City of Burbank and prior to coming to the City of San Bernardino
served for eight years as the County Counsel in Yuba County, to write an opinion. Mr.
Barlow wrote the same thing and listed many of the same cases and he found a few
more that said the same thing. Where the phrase, "as may be necessary and proper" is
used, it means when the City Attorney is unwilling or unable.
Mr. Penman pointed out that two different attorneys have said that; however,
we're still questioning it. Ms. Estrada questioned it when you were putting together
Measure M, and the Council hired the law firm of Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden
to write an analysis of the Charter. Separate from that analysis, because Ms. Estrada
and others had asked for an independent legal opinion, he asked Mr. Gresham to write
such an opinion and he did.
A lengthy discussion continued regarding this matter.
James Tate, 1391 Andreas, San Bernardino, a resident of the Fourth Ward,
stated that whether or not this ordinance had anything to do with Measure M, he did not
care--what he does care about is the City moving forward. He stated that in the best
interest of the City, and not Mr. Penman, he agrees with Ms. Anderson that we need to
put this ordinance behind us today. The City Council needs to make a common sense
and intelligent decision to revisit and rescind their decision.
Council Member Estrada stated that her remarks did not go to Mr. Penman as
the City Attorney--her remarks are based on the legality, constitutionality, or whatever
of Municipal Code Section 2.20 and the consequences that have come since the
adoption of that ordinance. She stated that she can't be threatened to do something that
goes against 12 years of involvement--that she has been concerned about this issue for
that long a time, and when she voted for it, she voted for it based on those concerns--
not who sits or doesn't sit in the City Attorney's office.
Ms. Estrada stated that she thinks that this issue, along with some of the other
items associated with the charter, ought to be put on the November ballot and let the
people vote up or down whether they want X, Y, or Z, because those issues have not
30
3/512001
been resolved. Her contention still is that Measure M was so fat that the people
couldn't swallow it, and that's why she worked against it. But there are such important
matters that were included in that measure that need to be resolved, and she thinks the
Council owes it to not only the 6,000 people that signed that petition, but to all the
voters in the City of San Bernardino to put these issues on the November ballot and let
the people speak--all of them have the same opportunity to vote up or vote down those
issues, and it will become very, very clear.
A clarification was requested as to what a "yes" vote or "no" vote would mean.
The Mayor explained that a "yes" vote would mean that they are repealing
Ordinance No. MC-I091; a "no" vote would mean they are not repealing it.
Council Member McCammack stated that to further clarify, that if a majority of
the Council votes "no" , then by law it goes to the voters.
Council Member Estrada stated she would like to add that if the vote is "no",
that this Council vote to put it on the November ballot; that she felt it was important
enough that they should do that.
Council Member McCammack stated that the Council couldn't make the
decision today to put it on the November ballot because it doesn't fall within the
timelines for calling an election. It would have to be brought back in June or July
sometime.
City Clerk Clark clarified that if the Council were to call a special election, if
they did it today, the election would have to be held no earlier than the 90'" day and no
later than the 135'" day, which would mean a stand alone election. If the vote is "no"
today, and the Council does not make a decision to place the matter on the November
ballot, it will automatically go to the March 2002 general election.
Council Member Estrada inquired what the next action would be if the Council
votes "no."
City Clerk Clark stated that it goes to a vote of the people.
Council Member Estrada inquired, "when?"
City Clerk Clark stated that would be the decision of the Council--it could be
one of three options--a stand alone special election, or a special election combined with
the primary election in November, or in March 2002 for the general election.
Ms. Estrada asked what would happen if the Council voted "yes."
31
3/5/2001
City Clerk Clark stated that the action is stayed and everything would revert
back to the way it was prior to January 16.
Council Member Estrada verified that if it goes to the November election, the
cost wouldn't be that much more because there is going to be an election anyway.
City Clerk Clark stated that if it goes on the November election, this item alone
is estimated to cost $5,000. If it goes on the general election it would even be less,
according to the Registrar of Voters.
Council Member Estrada stated that she wanted all of the voters to vote on this
matter; therefore, she would be voting "no."
Council Member Anderson made a motion, seconded by Council Member
McCammack, that said ordinance be laid over for final adoption.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Lien,
Suarez, Anderson, McCammack. Nays: Council Members Estrada, Schnetz. Absent:
Council Member McGinnis.
COUNCIL MINUTES
pages 10 & 45)
(Discussed earlier & later in the meeting -
(6)
City Attorney Penman stated he was surprised by the vote (on previous Item
No. 18)--that it was obviously an action desired by the Council to put this matter behind
them--and he was going to withdraw his request on the minutes of the meeting of
January 8. He stated that the City Clerk had told him that she listened to the official
tape, and that tape does not contain the statement that was mentioned, so he would
withdraw that request as a token of his desire to get along with the rest of them.
CITY CLERK CLARK EXCUSED
At 12:00 p.m., City Clerk Clark left the Council meeting and was replaced by
Deputy City Clerk Hartzel.
AUTHORIZE CITY ATTORNEY TO JOIN - AMICUS CURIAE
BRIEF - SUPPORT COUNTY OF SOLANO - ROBINSON V. COUNTY
OF SOLANO (81)
City Attorney Penman submitted a staff report dated March 1, 2001, regarding
authorization to join the amicus curiae brief in support of the County of Solano in the
case of Robinson v. Solano County.
Mr. Penman explained the pertinent points of the case as outlined in the staff
report .
32
3/5/2001
Council Member Anderson made a motion. seconded by Council Member
McCammack, and unanimously carried, that the Mayor and Common Council authorize
the City Attorney to join in the amicus curiae brief in support of the County of Solano
in the case of Robinson v. County of Solano.
RECESS MEETING
At 12:05 p.m., Mayor Valles recessed the meeting to the luncheon workshop
being held in the Economic Development Agency Boardroom.
RECONVENE MEETING
At 12:28 p.m., Mayor Valles reconvened the joint regular meeting of the Mayor
and Common Council and Community Development Commission in the Economic
Development Agency Boardroom.
ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present:
Mayor Valles; Council Members Lien, Schnetz, Anderson, McCammack; Senior
Assistant City Attorney Carlyle, City Clerk Clark, City Administrator Wilson. Absent:
Council Members Estrada, McGinnis, Suarez.
LUNCHEON WORKSHOP RECEIVE INFORMATION
PROPOSED PROPOSITION 12 - STATE BOND INITIATIVE
SPENDING PLAN - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BOARDROOM (19)
Submitted into the record was a document titled, Mayor & Common Council
Luncheon Workshop, dated March 5,2001, which listed the proposed projects for 2000
Park Bond Funding and also included a brief narrative description for each project.
COUNCIL MEMBER SUAREZ ARRIVED
At 12:33 p.m., Council Member Suarez arrived at the luncheon workshop and
took his place at the boardroom table.
Annie Ramos, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, noted
that this is the first time since 1988 that a park bond act has been passed, so this is the
first time in 13 years that there has been a funding source of this kind. She noted that
our parks have deteriorated considerably because the City has not been able to address
some of the maintenance and park improvements that needed to be done.
Ms. Ramos explained that the bond act is comprised of three different criteria--
the per capita block grants, the specified grants, and the competitive grants. She noted
that the competitive grants (approximately $33.4 million statewide) would not be
appropriated in the state budget until next year and would require a 70/30 match, with
33
3/5/2001
30 being the City's share. She stated that the focus today would be on the per capita
grants--money that is available now and ready to go.
Council Member Anderson asked what process or criteria was used to determine
the recommended spending plan for the park bond funds.
Ms. Ramos advised that basically staff took into account past experience and
what they are confronted with on a day-to-day basis. She added that other
considerations included various safety issues that exist at the parks, the City's
commitment to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) conversion plan, and also
those areas of greatest need. She noted that they even tried to make sure that all the
wards would get something; however, it was difficult because the Seventh Ward doesn't
have as many parks as some of the other wards, so even though they did think about
that, it was important to look at the city as a whole.
Ms. Ramos stated that based on a population of 185,000 people, the Roberti-
Z'berg competitive grant would be $447,700 and would require a match of $135,000
from the City. The City will also receive a Per Capita I grant in the amount of
$1,141,450 and a Per Capita II grant in the amount of $456,950. She noted that this is
about $200,000 less than the first numbers given to the City, so we are now looking at
a ballpark figure of $2 million.
Ms. Ramos stressed that the list they have provided is just a recommendation.
She added that the Parks and Recreation Commission did endorse it; however, the
Council, as the policymakers of the community, have the authority and the right to
provide staff with direction and input relative to final development of the spending plan.
She stated that, initially, she had identified over $4 million worth of park project needs;
however, we only have $2 million. She stated that it is important to develop a spending
plan that's going to give us the most bang for our buck.
At this time Ms. Ramos introduced the following members of her staff--John
Kramer, Recreation Superintendent; Ed Yelton, Parks Superintendent; and Bill
Meyrahn, Administrative Operations Supervisor. She advised that Mr. Kramer would
be making a slide presentation of the various proposed project areas in order to show
the existing conditions which need to be addressed.
Mr. Kramer introduced Mark Westwood, one of the Park and Recreation
Commissioners, prior to beginning his slide presentation.
COUNCIL MEMBER LIEN EXCUSED
At 12:58 p.m., Council Member Lien left the luncheon workshop.
34
3/5/2001
Council Member McCammack stated that her representative on the Parks and
Recreation Commission felt that staff had done a real good job in identifying all of the
needs; however, she was concerned that there might be other ways to stretch the $2.2
million a little bit better. She suggested that perhaps the matter could be studied a little
more, possibly in the form of a small ad hoc committee, rather than just
rubbers tamping the current proposal. She added that one area of concern was the
planting of trees for shade and beautification--something that had not been included in
any of the projects.
Mr. Westwood advised that he had been on the Parks and Recreation
Commission for the past seven months. He noted that this would not be the last money
that the City would receive, and everyone needs to keep this in mind. He stated that we
can all be creative, and we also need the involvement of the community--that tree
planting and that kind of thing is something the community can get their hands on and
help out. He stated that he would like to recommend that we place our trust in our
staff, who are the professionals, and go forward with this as recommended.
Discussion ensued regarding the various needs as perceived by staff, the
Commission, and members of the Council; what would happen if the application were
submitted as presented and the costs ended up being higher or lower than projected; and
the high costs associated with the restrooms.
Ms. Ramos noted that saved money could be reprogrammed; and if a project
comes up short, staff would go back to the state and try to get approval to divert or
defer some of the other projects to get that particular project completed. She stated she
did not recall ever having to do that; in fact, there will be some park construction
monies and, hopefully, some Community Development Block Grant money to draw
from if this should occur.
Insofar as restroom costs are concerned, staff pointed out that certain design
features, which are needed to combat graffiti and vandalism, are more costly, such as
metal roofs, stainless steel fixtures, metal doors, a plastic stall material that can be
sanded to remove graffiti, and block structure versus frame structure. It was noted that
although the front end cost is more, there is a savings because you don't have to do
replacement so often.
Ms. Ramos advised that the application deadline for the first round of money
was May 1; and it was imperative for staff to work with the Council, the Commission,
and the community to try and finalize some of these projects that we want to submit on
the first round. She noted that staff is hoping to group the projects by type, so all
projects of one type can be bid at the same time, possibly resulting in a better bid.
35
3/51200 I
COUNCIL MEMBER McCAMMACK EXCUSED
At 1: 13 p.m., Council Member McCammack left the luncheon workshop.
Mayor Valles noted that there was no longer a quorum present; however, the
discussion could continue for informational purposes.
City Administrator Wilson advised that the matter needed to be brought back to
the full Council for adoption.
Council Member Anderson stated that some of the recommendations that have
been made seem to require too much money for what we are asking to have done. She
stated that she would like an ad hoc committee to be in on this appropriation of funds
and do a little more fine-tuning so the City gets more bang for its buck.
There was no action taken by the Mayor and Common Council during the
luncheon workshop.
RECESS MEETING
At 1:19 p.m., Mayor Valles recessed the luncheon workshop to 2 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall.
RECONVENE MEETING
At 2:06 p.m., Mayor Valles reconvened the joint regular meeting of the Mayor
and Common Council and Community Development Commission.
ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present:
Mayor Valles; Council Members Estrada, Lien, Suarez, Anderson, McCammack;
Senior Assistant City Attorney Carlyle, City Clerk Clark. Absent: Council Members
McGinnis, Schnetz; Economic Development Agency Special Counsel Sabo and
Executive Director Van Osdel.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION/SAN
BERNARDINO JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY/SAN
BERNARDINO PARK ACQUISITION JOINT POWERS FINANCING
AUTHORITY/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED COMMUNITIES
FINANCING AUTHORITY - JOINT REGULAR MEETING
At 2:06 p.m., Chairwoman Valles called to order the joint regular meeting of
the Community Development Commission/San Bernardino Joint Powers Financing
Authority/San Bernardino Park Acquisition Joint Powers Financing Authority/San
Bernardino Associated Communities Financing Authority and Mayor and Common
Council.
36
3/512001
RECESS MEETING - CLOSED SESSION (Discussed earlier in the
meeting - page 1) (1)
At 2:06 p.m., the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development
Commission recessed to closed session for the following:
Pursuant to the Government Code Sections listed as Agenda Item Nos. I.A.
through I.G., pages 1 through 3 of these minutes, including the additional case
announced by City Attorney Penman on page 1.
CLOSED SESSION
At 2:06 p.m., Mayor Valles called the closed session to order in the conference
room of the Council Chambers of City Hall.
ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present:
Mayor Valles; Council Members Estrada, Lien, Suarez, Anderson, McCammack;
Senior Assistant City Attorney Carlyle, Economic Development Agency Special
Counsel Sabo, City Clerk Clark, Economic Development Agency Executive Director
Van Osdel. Absent: Council Members McGinnis, Schnetz.
Also present: Senior Assistant City Attorney Simmons, Deputy City Attorney
Empeiio, and Administrative Operations Supervisor Anderson, City Attorney's Office;
Special Counsel Delmar Williams; Director of Administrative Services Lindseth,
Director of Housing and Community Development Pacheco, Director of Business
Recruitment, Retention & Revitalization Harris, and Project Manager Hoeger,
Economic Development Agency.
SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SIMMONS, DEPUTY CITY
ATTORNEY EMPENO, SPECIAL COUNSEL SABO, SPECIAL
COUNSEL WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT PACHECO, DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS
RECRUITMENT, RETENTION & REVIT ALIZA TION HARRIS, &
PROJECT MANAGER HOEGER EXCUSED
At 3:17 p.m., Senior Assistant City Attorney Simmons, Deputy City Attorney
Empeiio, Special Counsel Sabo, Special Counsel Williams, Director of Housing &
Community Development Pacheco, Director of Business Recruitment, Retention &
Revitalization Harris, and Project Manager Hoeger left the closed session.
SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SIMMONS RETURNED
At 3:25 p.m., Senior Assistant City Attorney Simmons returned to the closed
session.
37
3/5/2001
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
V AN OSDEL & DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
LINDSETH EXCUSED
At 3:25 p.m., Economic Development Agency Executive Director Van Osdel
and Director of Administrative Services Lindseth left the closed session.
ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION
At 3:35 p.m., the closed session adjourned to the Council Chambers of City
Hall.
RECONVENE MEETING
At 3:42 p.m., Chairwoman Valles reconvened the joint regular meeting of the
Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission of the City of
San Bernardino.
ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present:
Chairwoman Valles; Council Members Estrada, Lien, Schnetz, Suarez, Anderson,
McCammack; Senior Assistant City Attorney Carlyle, Economic Development Agency
Special Counsel Sabo, City Clerk Clark, Economic Development Agency Executive
Director Van Osdel. Absent: Council Member McGinnis.
RES. CDC/2001-13 - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE
AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF
ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE COMMISSIONERS SAN
BERNARDINO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY. (2 % @ 55
for Agency Employees) (R20)
Agency Executive Director Van Osdel explained that in September 2000, staff
had come before the Commission requesting their approval to amend the Agency's
PERS contract to provide a 2 % @ 55 retirement plan for its employees. At that time, it
was noted that staff would be returning at a later date with the requisite resolutions.
Barbara Lindseth, Agency Director of Administrative Services, advised that this
was the first of two resolutions required by PERS to finalize the contract amendment.
Ms. Lindseth advised that staff had to wait to get the new actuarials in order to
determine what this was actually going to cost. When they first looked at this, they
only had the actuarials from June 30, 1998, and the cost was going to be $378,000--a
one-time cost out of the Agency's surplus, which does not impact the Agency's cash
flow. She noted that since then, by waiting, they got the actuarials from June 30, 1999,
and the cost had dropped to $208,000, with the same conditions.
38
3/5/2001
Council Member Suarez made a motion, seconded by Council Member
Anderson, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. CDC/200l-13 was adopted by the following vote:
Council Members Estrada, Lien, Schnetz, Suarez, Anderson, McCammack.
None. Absent: Council Member McGinnis.
Ayes:
Nays:
RECEIVE & FILE - MID-YEAR BUDGET REPORT - ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (R21)
Gary Van Osdel, Agency Executive Director, submitted a staff report dated
February 23, 2001, regarding the Agency's mid-year budget review report. He noted
that Barbara Lindseth, Agency Director of Administrative Services, had taken the mid-
year budget report to the Redevelopment Committee meeting, and they reviewed the
mid-year budget status and recommended that it be moved to the Commission to be
received and filed.
Barbara Lindseth advised that the budget was pretty much on track relative to
what was originally budgeted for this fiscal year, since approximately 90 percent of the
Agency's budget is prior approved contract agreements, bond payments, and things that
are already set. She advised that staff anticipates a small savings in salaries and
benefits, and a couple of pluses insofar as revenues received. She stated she had not
originally foreseen the amount that the Agency would receive off the dollar HUD
homes and that was about $939,000, which accounts for the large variance on the
revenue side, plus the Bank of America lawsuit settlement of $197,000 that was
received.
Mayor Valles inquired whether there was also revenue from the sale of
properties this last year.
Executive Director Van Osdel answered in the affirmative, stating that these
were properties that they had anticipated being sold and the funds had been included in
the projected revenues.
Council Member Estrada noted that periodically Special Counsel Sabo has come
before the Commission and asked for authority to refinance bonds, and we keep hearing
all this talk about Mr. Greenspan and what he is doing and what the Congress is
thinking, and she inquired whether the Agency is anywhere near that possibility.
Mr. Sabo advised that the last time that the Commission refmanced the bonds,
which was in the last several years, they hit a very advantageous market; however,
there are limitations under the federal tax laws as to how many times you can refinance
debt. He stated that he could assure the Commission that if it made sense and the
possibility existed, there would be a proposal coming forward for their consideration;
39
3/5/2001
but as of right now he did not believe there were any of those bond issues, either
because they are currently at a good rate or they are at the maximum number of
refinancings so it doesn't warrant any other refinancing.
Council Member McCammack requested an explanation of where the rental
income is derived from, noting that the Agency is only about half of where it should be
relative to rental income.
Ms. Lindseth advised that the rental income is off the Agency's buildings, and
that was primarily all the rental that was anticipated to be received throughout the
different project areas, according to all the rental or sharing agreements the Agency
had. She noted that one of the reasons it is under budget at this point in time, is there
was also going to be some lease sharing on the Cinema of about $150,000 which is not
going to be realized. Also, she had budgeted the Mexican Consulate for the entire year
and they have moved out.
Council Member Anderson made a motion, seconded by Council Member
Schnetz, and unanimously carried, that the Community Development Commission
receive and file the Economic Development Agency's Mid-Year Budget Review
Report.
APPROVE - AMENDMENTS - STATE OFFICE BUILDING -
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - PHASE II
(R22)
Gary Van Osdel, Agency Executive Director, submitted a staff report dated
February 27, 2001, regarding an amendment to the State Office Building Agreements
(Phase II).
Council Member Anderson made a motion, seconded by Council Member
Estrada, that the matter be continued to the Mayor and Council/Community
Development Commission meeting of March 19, 2001.
Council Member Schnetz stated he would be abstaining on this item due to the
fact that he has been working with the partnership that is acquiring the building.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes:
Lien, Suarez, Anderson, McCammack. Nays: None.
Schnetz. Absent: Council Member McGinnis.
Council Members Estrada,
Abstain: Council Member
40
3/5/2001
RES. CDC/2001-11 - RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APPROVING (I) THE
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES OF THE INLAND
EMPIRE, INC., AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, DATED
SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 INCREASING THE AGENCY HOUSING
FUNDS TO $1.2 MILLION ANNUALLY FOR THREE YEARS,
SUBJECT TO FUNDING AVAILABILITY; MAKING CERTAIN
PROGRAM REVISIONS; AND (2) AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE AGENCY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO
EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT NO.2. (R23)
Maggie Pacheco, Director of Housing and Community Development, advised
that Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS) is a nonprofit organization currently under
contract with the Agency, which administers two programs for the Agency. One is the
Neighborhood Initiative Program (NIP) single-family, owner-occupied loan and
beautification grant program and the second is the single-family maintenance grant
program.
Ms. Pacheco stated that their current contract calls for NHS to administer both
of these programs, and it is an owner-occupied loan and grant program. The funds
have been depleted for both programs, and staff is now asking for a contract extension
to provide additional funding for these two programs in the amount of $1.2 million.
She noted that page 2 of the staff report outlines how staff is proposing to allocate the
$1.2 million. She stated that essentially the money would be used for administration,
pre-development costs, $390,000 for NIP loan grant program, and $600,000 for the
city-wide, single-family maintenance grant program.
Ms. Pacheco pointed out that there is a current demand for the single-family
maintenance grant program, more than the loan program; and that is why they are
requesting appropriation for that program greater than the NIP loan and grant program.
She stated that staff is also asking for some revisions to the program that would allow
the provision of loans up to $35,000 as opposed to $25,000 in the NIP program, in the
event they need it. She noted that from time to time a situation exists where the
Agency has a home that has excessive repairs and the $25,000 isn't sufficient.
Ms. Pacheco noted that the request before the Commission today is the $1.2
million request for this fiscal year, and assuming the Agency has funding for the
following year, they are asking for a three-year contract extension provided there is
funding availability. This would save them from coming back to the Commission every
four months when they run out of funds due to the current demand for the program.
41
3/5/2001
Council Member Estrada stated that although she had absolute confidence in
Neighborhood Housing Services, as she has seen them perform for a number of years,
since this would be a three-year commitment, she questioned whether the contract had a
termination clause in the event they failed to perform.
Ms. Pacheco stated that the contract contains termination provisions in the event
they don't perform. She added that under the loan program they are required to
perform certain loan amounts per month, and if the requirement is not met, they don't
receive compensation--there are some benchmarks they have to meet.
Council Member Schnetz inquired as to how much the Agency has already
contracted with NHS for this fiscal year.
Ms. Pacheco stated that according to her staff report, initially the Agency put in
$500,000 in 1999 for the NIP initial contract. Subsequently, during this fiscal year
$350,000 was added to the single-family maintenance grant for a total of $850,000.
Ms. Pacheco advised that NHS also runs the Mobile Home Handy Worker
Program for the Agency, which is a separate contract and funding source.
Council Member Schnetz noted that the $1.2 million for this fiscal year would
bring the total up to about $1. 55 million for the fiscal year, with the inclusion of the
$350,000. He pointed out that this is a little over one-third of the set-aside budget and
inquired whether there would be money left over for the HUD project; Ms. Pacheco
answered in the affirmative.
Council Member McCammack noted that on page 1 of the resolution it speaks
of $1.2 annually for three years, for a total allocation of $2,050,000; and it appeared
this was an incorrect figure. It was noted that the amount should be $3.6 million over
the three-year contract.
Council Member Suarez made a motion, seconded by Council Member
Anderson, that said resolution be adopted; and that the monetary amount shown on
page 1, line 18 of the resolution be corrected from $2,050,000 to $3.6 million.
The motion carried and Resolution No. CDC/2001-11 was adopted by the
following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Lien, Schnetz, Suarez, Anderson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: Council Member McGinnis.
42
3/5/2001
RES. CDC/2001-12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, APPROVING THAT CERTAIN 2001 LEASE
AGREEMENT (EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT) BY AND
BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO AND EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ON
THE TERMS SET FORTH IN SUCH AGREEMENT. (Continued
from February 20, 2001) (R24)
Agency Executive Director Van Osdel stated there had been a couple of changes
to the agreement, and staff believed they could now move forward on this item;
however, he requested that Special Counsel Sabo review the changes with the Council.
Special Counsel Sabo noted that there was really only one change with a couple
of conforming changes that go along with it. He advised that in Section I under Term
of the Lease, they simply want to have the right to terminate this agreement earlier
upon 30 days notice, and that change necessitates a couple of conforming changes.
Therefore, instead of a fixed two-year agreement, it will be "not to exceed two years,
or unless terminated earlier," and then the rent payments would stop upon 30 days
notice.
Council Member Schnetz noted that over the last six months he has received
several constituent complaints, and he wondered if there was anything in the agreement
about making sure that the vehicular access to the property by unauthorized people is
going to be curtailed. He stated that there has been a lot of dumping out there, people
taking their trucks and off-road vehicles up in the area with trash, and he was just
wondering what could be done to safeguard the area as part of this agreement.
Mr. Sabo stated that the lease only deals with our property.
Mr. Schnetz stated that was correct--that it is the 8.3 acres that the breach is on,
and that's where everybody keeps going over the cables and the fence--there is just a
little cable across it and when we were working on this problem, staff told him this
lease would be part of the solution and East Valley Water would properly secure the
property. He stated he wanted to make sure this happens and that there is somebody
who can be called, as he receives a lot of constituent complaints on this.
43
3/5/2001
Mr. Van Osdel advised that provision 5 on page 2 deals with security and East
Valley must provide security for the premises, including without limitation, temporary
fencing around all portions of the premises, security guard/patrol services, as
necessary. He stated that hopefully that would take care of the problem, although some
of the off-road vehicles are able to get to the property via the church.
Mr. Schnetz stated that every time he has gone by the church, their gate has
been locked when there is nobody there, but it would be great if we could have a phone
number to call when we do get these calls.
Council Member McCammack noted that the Council did not have a copy of the
lease agreement, but she had a question as to what provisions, if any, are in the lease
agreement regarding how they will leave the property when they are done with it.
Mr. Van Osdel stated it was his understanding that they have to restore it just as
they found it.
Mr. Sabo stated there was a provision on page 5, Section 8.K., that says prior
to termination or surrender of the site, EVWD must schedule a joint environment
inspection with the Agency, and the Agency may retain our own environmental
consultant to inspect the property, including soils sampling and other testing of the
premises. It will have to be restored to the environmental and physical condition it was
in before.
Mrs. McCammack inquired at whose cost and whether this was in the lease
agreement.
Mr. Sabo pointed out that under Section L it says East Valley must pay to the
Agency all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Agency in
connection with the environment indemnity and the enforcement.
Council Member McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member
Anderson, that said resolution be adopted.
Resolution No. CDC/200l-12 was adopted by the following vote:
Council Members Estrada, Lien, Schnetz, Suarez, Anderson, McCammack.
None. Absent: Council Member McGinnis.
Ayes:
Nays:
44
3/5/2001
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INDEMNITY
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE SAN BERNARDINO
MOBILEHOME PARK CORPORATION IN CONNECTION WITH
THE REFINANCING OF THE SEQUOIA AND RANCHO
MERIDIAN MOBILEHOME PARKS. (RAS1)
Gary Van Osdel, Agency Executive Director, stated he was happy to report that
this item could be tabled, for at the eleventh hour it was discovered that there were
some unpaid property taxes.
Council Member Suarez made a motion, seconded by Council Member
Anderson, and unanimously carried, that the matter be tabled.
COUNCIL MINUTES (Discussed earlier in the meeting - pages 10 &
~ ~
City Clerk Clark stated that as the keeper of the official records for the City of
San Bernardino and to clear the impression that might have been left this morning that
the Council minutes of January 8, 2001, were not complete or accurate, she wanted to
say that in addition to hearing the official audio tape, and the audio tape of the City
Clerk's Office, staff had also seen the video tape provided by Channel 3, and there was
no record that the Mayor made the statement alleged to have been made; therefore, the
minutes of January 8, 2001, properly reflect the action taken at the meeting. She noted
that the minutes for January 8, 2001, and January 29,2001, needed to be approved.
Council Member Schnetz made a motion. seconded by Council Member
Anderson, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of the following meetings of the
Mayor and Common Council/Community Development Commission of the City of San
Bernardino be approved as submitted in typewritten form: January 8, 2001 and
January 29, 2001.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
(25)
Roger Henderson, 2516 Valencia, San Bernardino, CA, stated that he was
sorry to hear that Mayor Valles had decided to run for a second term and that he agreed
with Council Member Estrada that the City wasn't ready for Measure M.
Jaime Alvarez, announced that there would be a meeting on Saturday of the
League of United Latin American Citizens and extended a personal invitation to all of
the Council members to attend; and noted that the League would like the Mayor to
make a presentation.
45
3/5/2001
Paul Sanborn, a resident of San Bernardino, presented his ideas relative to the
operation of the theater, including better signage as to what is playing and using the
various theaters for different language features; stated he would like to see bullfights at
the Stampede Stadium; and admonished The Sun newspaper to quit dividing their
articles and put the complete article on one page.
Jay Lindberg, 6340 Orange Knoll, San Bernardino, CA, spoke regarding the
disposal of nuclear waste at the former Norton Air Force Base, stating that the same
people who were here in San Bernardino have recently been dumping illegally into the
water supply in Idaho.
ADJOURNMENT (26)
At 4: 12 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. The next joint regular meeting of the
Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission will be held at
8 a.m., Monday, March 19, 2001, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North
"D" Street, San Bernardino, CA.
RACHEL G. CLARK
City Clerk
By-4~ ~ ~
mda E. Hartzel
Deputy City Clerk
No. of Items: 28
No. of Hours: 7
46
3/5/2001