Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-1992 Minutes MINUTES MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JUNE 8, 1992 COUNCIL CHAMBERS , This is the time and place set for an adjourned regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino from the regular meeting held at 8:30 a.m., on Monday, June 1, 1992, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The City Clerk has caused to be posted the Order of Adjournment of said meeting held on Monday, June 1, 1992, and has on file in the office of the City Clerk an affidavit of said posting together with a copy of said Order which was posted at 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 2, 1992, on the door of the place at which said meeting was held. The adjourned regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council was called to order at 9:01 a.m., Monday, June 8, 1992, by Mayor Pro Tern Hernandez in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Vale with the following being present: Mayor Pro Tern Hernandez; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Miller; City Attorney Penman, Deputy City Clerk Vale, City Administrator Clark. Absent: Mayor Holcomb; Council Member Pope-Ludlam; City Clerk Krasney. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Phil Arvizo, Executive Assistant to the Council. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was led by Deputy City Clerk Vale. ANNOUNCEMENT POLITICAL SIGNS COUNCIL MEMBER MINOR CAMPAIGN (NB-1) Council Member Minor requested that candidates and committees involved in the June 2, 1992 election remove any political signs that were posted in its behalf; and that if the signs were not removed in a reasonable amount of time that City Attorney Penman pursue enforcing the ordinance requiring their removal. 1 06/08/92 COUNCIL MEMBER At 9:0S a.m., Council meeting and POPE-LUDLAM ARRIVED Council Member Pope-Ludlam arrived took her place at the council table. at the ORD. MC-838 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING CHAPTER 2.02 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. , Uroencv (S-l) Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member pope-Ludlam, that the Mayor and Council address the question of the urgency ordinance relating to the Office of the City Administrator prior to the review of the Fiscal Year 1992/93 budget. The motion carried by the following vote: Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Pope-Ludlam, Council Members Maudsley, Minor. Absent: None. Ayes: Council Miller. Nays: Discussion ensued regarding Measure A on the June 2, 1992 ballot which proposed an amendment to the Charter of the City of San Bernardino, "relating to the power of the Common Council to dismiss or suspend city employees, to give the Mayor and Council certain appointive powers, and authorizing the Mayor and Council to establish the Office of the City Administrator". Shauna Clark, City Administrator, felt that the voters were confused by Measure A because it contained three different issues: 1) the power of the Common Council to dismiss or suspend city employees; 2) to give the Mayor and Counc il certain appointive powers; and 3) authorizing the Mayor and Council to establish the Office of the City Administrator. She explained that the Office of City Administrator has existed, excluded from the Charter, for forty-two years without difficulty, and she felt that the voters saw no reason to make a change when the Office was functioning well. She felt that the three issues contained in Measure A should have been submitted to the voters separately, and explained that the no vote makes no change in the present format of the Office of City Administrator established by ordinance in the Municipal Code. City Attorney Penman explained that Municipal Code (ordinance) Section 2.02 relative to the Office of the City Administrator was inconsistent with the Charter because the ordinance delegates powers to the City Administrator that the charter assigns to other elected officials. If Measure A had been adopted, it would have eliminated the conflict between the ordinance and the Charter. He stated that it is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the present ordinance is not legal, and that the conflict should be resolved. He felt that the present ordinance invited litigation against decisions made 2 06/08/92 by the City Administrator in the course of performing the duties of the office. He explained that the proposed urgency ordinance removes the supervisorial responsibility, but maintains the coordinating responsibility of the City Administrator, and brings the Municipal Code ordinance relating to the Office of the City Administrator into conformance with the Charter. City Administrator Clark stated that she accepted the job of City Administrator to m~e a difference in the City, and that based on the description of the position when it was advertised she believed it had supervisory responsibility. She felt that there are ways to amend Municipal Code Section 2.02 to be in compliance with the Charter, but that the proposed ordinance had been drafted inappropriately without any input from herself or the Mayor. A discussion was held relative to the option of separating the three issues contained in Measure A, and resubmitting them as separate measures to the voters. It was felt that including the three separate issues in one measure had been confusing to the voters, and may have prohibited one or more issues from being adopted due to opposition to another portion of the measure. City Attorney Penman recommended that the urgency ordinance be adopted to eliminate the legal issue of the present ordinance being in conflict with the Charter. Ms. Clark recommended that the urgency ordinance be continued to allow time to meet with the City Attorney and Mayor to draft an ordinance acceptable to all parties. Concern was expressed that if the urgency ordinance was adopted, it would hamper the City Administrator's ability to perform the duties of Office. Shauna Clark, City Administrator, stated that when the Charter was adopted in 1905, the City had a part-time Mayor who was given general supervision over all departments and elected officials. At that time the City Clerk, an elected official, was the only full-time employee of the City. The position of City Administrator was established in 1948, and has since existed, to direct the operations of the City under the part-time Mayor. The City had a part-time Mayor until 1973 when a Measure was placed on the ballot to make the Mayor a full-time position. She felt that the City Attorney's Office was basing their legal opinion on the argument that because the power of general supervision had been reserved to the Mayor in the Charter, it could not then be delegated, and therefore; supervisory responsibility was entirely vested in the Office of the Mayor. Ms. Clark stated that she does not concur with the opinion of the City Attorney's Office. She felt that the strict interpretation of the Charter would mean that the Mayor would have to supervise 3 06/08/92 every City department. She explained that under the strong Mayor form of government the Office of City Administrator has only as much authority and responsibility as the Mayor delegates. She felt that the proposed urgency ordinance would relegate her to a coordinator role and exclude her from a supervisory role. City Attorney Penman explained that a legal conflict exists between the Charter and the existing ordinance for the City Administrator's position.... which originated when the Mayor went from being a part-time position to full-time in 1973, and the Charter was not amended to reflect that change. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller, that a committee be given the responsibility to work with the City Attorney, City Administrator, and the chairpersons of the Personnel Committee, Legislative Review Committee and Ways and Means Committee to prepare a recommendation, and to return at the next council meeting (June 15, 1992). (Note: There was no vote taken at this time.) City Administrator Clark recommended that the urgency ordinance be continued to July 6, 1992 to allow time to meet and prepare an alternative ordinance. Concern was expressed that if the urgency ordinance was adopted that it would disregard the action taken by the voters on June 2, 1992, when Measure A was rejected. It was felt that by rejecting Measure A, the voters had indicated the desire not to make changes regarding the Office of City Administrator and that any action taken to adopt this urgency ordinance would not be responding to the direction given on June 2, 1992 by the voters relative to the Office of the City Administrator. Jim Lynas, 1160 East Sonora, San Bernardino, CA, stated that if the Mayor and Council adopted this ordinance changing Municipal Code Section 2.02 relating to the Office of the City Administrator, it would be a subversion on the voters action taken relative to Measure A on June 2, 1992, and that he would file a complaint with the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, in Washington, D. C. charging violation of his civil rights. Council Member Reilly made a substitute motion, seconded by Council Member Pope-Ludlam, that the Mayor and Common Council adopt said urgency ordinance; and direct that a committee be given the responsibility to work with the City Attorney, City Administrator, and the chairpersons of the Personnel Committee, Legislative Review Committee and Ways and Means Committee to prepare a recommendation, and to return as soon as possible. (Note: There was no vote taken at this time.) Ms. Clark expressed concern relative to why the proposed 4 06/08/92 ordinance was considered an urgent matter. She felt that since the official results of the June 2, 1992, election would not be available until Friday, June 12, 1992 that it was inappropriate to proceed with adoption of the urgency ordinance. She expressed concern over the City Attorney's statement that the proposed urgency ordinance should be adopted today, when the legal opinion it is based on was written in March 1992. Council Member pope-~udlam withdrew her second. Council Member Miller stated her second to the motion. Discussion ensued regarding the duties of the Office of the City Administrator, and whether the proposed urgency ordinance would hinder the Mayor's ability to delegate responsibility to he City Administrator. Ordinance MC-838 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Miller. Nays: Council Members Minor, Pope-Ludlam. Absent: None. RECESS MEETING At 10:09 a.m., Mayor Pro Tern Hernandez declared a ten- minute recess. RECONVENE MEETING At 10: 18 a. m., the adjourned regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council reconvened in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Vale with the following being present: Mayor Pro Tern Hernandez; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Pope- Ludlam, Miller; City Attorney Penman, Deputy City Clerk Vale, City Administrator Clark. Absent: Mayor Holcomb; City Clerk Krasney. FISCAL YEAR 1992/93 BUDGET REVIEW (1) Shauna Clark, City Administrator, read from a memorandum dated June 3, 1992, regarding the Fiscal Year 1992/93 Budget wherein she explained that the City is facing challenges in financing the current levels of service. The impact of the recession, the rising number of legislative mandates, and stagnant development over the past two years have strained the City's financial condition. Last January, in response to a weakening economy, the Mayor and Council approved a series of budget reduction measures in an effort to balance the Fiscal Year 1991/92 Budget. It was estimated that unless such measures were implemented, the City 5 06/08/92 would end the fiscal year with general fund expenditures - exceeding general fund revenues by approximately $6 million. In response to this anticipated shortfall, all departments decreased their existing budgets by 5%. These department reductions, along with other budget reduction measures, were considered by the Mayor and Council. The budget reduction actions approved in January, 1992 total $6,045,000 in savings, and eliminated a total of fifty-seven positions city-wide. It was recognized at that time that many of the budget reduction measures were one time in nature, and that additional cuts would be necessary to balance the Fiscal Year 1992/93 Budget. In March 1992, the City Administrator presented a memorandum to the Maror and Council outlining information for the Fiscal Year 1992/93 Budget which included a preliminary analysis of general fund revenues and expenditures. Anticipating no real economic recovery and assuming that the City staff and supply the departments at the levels established as of February 1992, and set aside mandatory reserves, such as Charter Section 186 salaries, and accrued booking fees, it was estimated that a shortfall of approximately $2.9 million could be anticipated. Five options were approved to close the gap, and even with these actions, it was recognized that a shortfall in the range of $1 million would have to be addressed by the Mayor and Council as part of the Fiscal Year 1992/93 Budget process. General Fund Revenues The Fiscal Year 1992/93 total resources represent a two percent increase over the Fiscal Year 1991/92 revised estimate ~f $66,602,804. Revenue sources most affected by the economJ.c situation are sales tax which have been reduced by approximately 18%, and development fees which have been reduced by 27%. These combined revenue sources provide 33% of the General Fund revenues. Service users tax (utility tax) reflects a slight increase over Fiscal Year 1991/92 mainly due to the action taken at mid-year to increase the rate from 8% to 8.5%. The majority of the other revenue sources have not been increased. Fund transfers to the General Fund budget total $3,006,728; fund transfers out of the General Fund budget total $3,644,605. These two factors combine to result in a net transfer out of the General Fund of $637,877. EXDenditures The Fiscal Year 1992/93 Budget is $71,231,407, which represents a 1% increase over the beginning Fiscal Year 1991/92 Budget. Factoring in the Charter Section 186 and other mandatory increases, results in a net reduction of discretionary expenditures. A total of 1187 full-time positions are budgeted, which is a reduction of funding for 73 full-time positions over last fiscal year. In keeping with this fiscally conservative 6 06/08/92 approach, the only funds included this compensation adjustments will be requirements budgeted at $1.6 million. Overall, the budget reflects a 7.98% decrease in the departments' operating budgets when compared to the original 1991/92 budget. Based on the revised estimated resources and expenditures, the estimated shortfall for the General Fund will be $3,392,752. This shortfall increased over what was projected in March 1992, due to revised revenue projections, increased reserve requirements and revised personnel figures. Listed below are some recommendations which have been identified in an effort to help close this gap: year for annual employee Charter Section 186 1. Eliminate appropriated reserve 2. Reduce funding set aside for Charter Section 186 3. Fund Police overtime costs from the Assessment District carry over 4. Transfer balance of CMO proceeds to general fund 5. Use EDA funding for Community Against Drugs Program 6. Job vacancy factor city-wide 7. Increase Engineering fees 8. Bill EDA for Police Officers in Mall 9. EDA reimbursement for Enterprise Zone fee waivers 10. Apply Service Users Tax (utility tax) to cellular telephone base monthly charges 11. Reduce Civic & Promotional funding TOTAL $500,000 $300,000 $600,000 $438,000 $ 44,500 $200,000 $250,000 $ 64,700 $100,000 $125,000 S 15.000 $2,637,200 These eleven recommendations would generate $2,637,200, which would close the gap to $755,552. It is requested that the Mayor and Council provide staff with policy direction in terms of which programs should be targeted for cutbacks. Once this direction has been identified, the appropriate information would be developed to assist with the decision-making process. Shauna Clark, City Administrator, explained the basis for selecting each of the eleven recommendations, and answered questions relative to the budget reduction recommendations. Discussion ensued regarding whether any of the eleven budget reduction recommendations would be eligible for any other funding source, such as Community Development BlOCk Grant (CDBG) funds; funding from the Economic Development Agency, or Inland Valley Development Agency. 7 The Council requested that Tim Sabo, of Sabo & Green, 06/08/92 special counsel to the Economic Development Agency, be present at the next budget hearing scheduled for Thursday, June 11, 1992, to answer questions relative to the utilization of funds from the Economic Development Agency (EDA) or the Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA), such as tax increment funds, to fund City general fund programs. Also, the Council requested a legal opinion relative to the potential use of EDA or IVDA monies to fund certain programs in order to relieve the General Fund for the cost of certain progr~s. Concern was expressed relative to the use subsidize City general fund programs, and how funding responsibility was impacting and priorities of the Economic Development Agency. of EDA funds to the transfer of realigning. the Fred Wilson, Assistant City Administrator, explained a proposal submitted by Bert Murphy, Director of Facilities Management, regarding a proposal to upgrade the City Hall lighting system. Currently throughout City Hall there are fluorescent lighting fixtures that require as much as four lights per fixture. The proposal would retrofit the existing lighting system with a more energy efficient system recommended by the Edison Company, and reduce the number of light bulbs in each light fixture. The cost to retrofi t all of the light fixtures in City Hall would be $147,000. It is proposed to up- front the capital costs by borrowing from construction funds, which would be paid back over three years with interest. This retrofitting would save $50,000 annually in reduced energy costs. Discussion ensued regarding a new signal light system a neighboring community would soon be installing. This community would replace its red signal lights with a new type of lighting system. It is estimated that after retrofitting its fifty-one lights the community would save $75,000 annually in energy costs, as well as increase the life expectancy of the new system by two and one half years longer than the old system. City Administrator Clark explained that revenue are based on assumptions, past experience, and provided by the State of California. The problem with revenue projections is that the State is also budgetary times, and is constantly seeking ways to own revenue by reducing subsidies to the cities. projections information encountered having lean enhance its Ms. Clark introduced a video presentation that would explain to the public where and how the City spends its tax dollars. Shauna Clark, City Administrator, explained that the budget format was changed for more clarity. In the past, the City has utilized a line item budget where each department showed line by line expenditures. She explained that the line item budget was 8 06/08/92 still provided for reference; however, this year the City has prepared a program budget for the first time. The program budget begins with a department budget summary, and follows with a program summary which explains the programs that each department conducts. The program budget breaks down the programs each department provides so that if consideration is given to reduce or eliminate programs there would be a clearer picture of the dollar cost associated with each program. She recommended that rather than reviewing th~ line item budget that the focus of the budget discussion be directed to the program budget. City Administrator Clark requested that the Council give staff some direction as to which budget recommendations to pursue so that further research can be conducted, and legal opinions prepared in response to the Council's specific concerns. Discussion ensued regarding the use of Economic Development Agency (EDA) and Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA) funds to subsidize City general fund activities. City Administrator Clark explained that several issues addressed in the January 1992 budget discussion were still pending: semi-monthly payroll, Christmas closure of City Hall, the VTO (voluntary time off) program, and little league lighting fees. She stated that all these issues, except for the little league lighting fees, involve the City employees and recommended that the Union representatives for each employee unit be permitted to come before the Council on June 11, 1992 to discuss their concerns about each issue. A discussion was held regarding the maintenance of public buildings, Charter Section 186 (police and fire employees salaries), the potential of receiving the PERS refund, the Department of Motor Vehicles in lieu fees, and the use of asset forfeiture funds. Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller, and unanimously carried, that the Mayor and Common Council proceed with the approval of the eleven recommendations listed on page A-4 of the memorandum from Shauna Clark, City Administrator, dated June 3, 1992, which will provide staff with general policy direction in terms of which programs should be targeted for cutbacks; once this direction has been identified, the appropriate information will be developed to assist with the decision-making process, with the understanding that these recommendations can be readdressed in the future. The recommendations are: l. 2. Eliminate appropriated reserve Reduce funding set aside for Charter Section 186 9 $500,000 $300,000 06/08/92 3. Fund Police overtime costs from the Assessment District carry over 4. Transfer balance of CMO proceeds to general fund 5. Use EDA funding for Community Against Drugs Program 6. Job vacancy factor city-wide 7. Increase Engineering fees 8. Bill EDA for pOJice Officers in Mall 9. EDA reimbursement for Enterprise Zone fee waivers 10. Apply Service Users Tax (utility tax) to cellular telephone base monthly charges 11. Reduce Civic & Promotional funding TOTAL $600,000 $438,000 $ 44,500 $200,000 $250,000 $ 64,700 $100,000 $125,000 S 15.000 $2,637,200 These proposed $3,392.752 recommendations would recommendations and in the General Fund. leave a $755,552 gap between the the estimated shortfall of CLOSED SESSION The Mayor and Common Council did not recess session during this meeting. (2) to closed ADJOURNMENT (3) At 11:41 a.m., Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned to Thursday, June 11, 1992 at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ~~ d~~ By Melanie Vale Deputy City Clerk No. of Items: 5 No. of Hours: 2.75 10 06/08/92