Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-1992 Minutes MINUTES MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JUNE 17, 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 at a regular meeting held at 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 15, 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 June 1S, 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 3:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 16, 1992, on the door of the place at which said meeting was held. The adjourned regular meeting was called to order by Mayor Holcomb at 9:06 a.m., wednesday, June 17, 1992, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Krasney with the following being present: Mayor Holcomb; Council Members Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Miller; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Krasney, City Administrator Clark. Absent: Council Members Estrada, Pope-Ludlam. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Phil Arvizo, Executive Assistant to the Council. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was led by Council Member Miller. COUNCIL MEMBER ESTRADA ARRIVED At 9:09 a.m., Council Member Estrada arrived at the Council meeting and took her place at the council table. ANNOUNCEMENT BY CITY ATTORNEY PENMAN City Attorney Penman stated that as a result of increased enforcement of the blight ordinance and building code, the City Clerk's Office has issued numerous citations to transient merchants. Many of these transient merchants have failed to appear in court. Mr. Penman made a plea to the public, to please go the Courthouse to have their case assigned to a courtroom for 1 6/17/92 arraignment before the San Bernardino County Marshall's Office begins making arrests on outstanding bench warrants. He stated that approximately 337 individuals have bench warrants for their arrest. ANNOUNCEMENT BY MAYOR HOLCOMB - CALMAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JUNE 16, 1992 Mayor Holcomb spoke regarding the Planning Commission meeting held on June 16, 1992, regarding the Environmental Impact Report on CalMat' s proposal, to establish land use districts, permi~ted uses, development standards and guidelines to utilize 1,392 acres of land for mineral extraction located west of Cajon Boulevard, between Devore Road and the unincorporated community of Muscoy, in the County of San Bernardino. Mayor Holcomb expressed concern that during the Planning Commission meeting certain statements were made regarding the competence and expertise of staff in the Planning Department. City Attorney Penman stated that misinformation has been given as to the events which occurred at the Planning Commission meeting. He stated that Deputy City Attorney Empeno was not attacking the Planning staff, but rather informing the Planning Commission that whenever an environmental impact report is prepared by the applicant or by the developer, the City has the responsibility to make an independent evaluation of the expert's work. A question was asked regarding whether or not the City's Planning staff was capable of preparing the independent evaluation on the environmental impact report. The reply by Deputy City Attorney Empeno was that since the environmental problems were so diversified in the proposed area, Planning staff could not mitigate all of ttie environmental concerns. City Attorney Penman stated that a number of residents from the Verdemont area expressed their objection to the project. Concerns of the residents included a variety of issues relating to the noise level, visual obstruction to their properties, and decreased property values. However, the Planning Commission did not take final action, but rather continued the CalMat issue until July 28, 1992. It was suggested that a committee be formed of residents and City staff to review concerns expressed by the public, to provide Planning staff time to obtain experts to evaluate the environmental impact report. PUBLIC COMMENTS - STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUDGET CRISIS City Administrator Clark informed the Council of the State of California's proposal to defer City property taxes to counties and schools. She stated that State legislators have voted not to raise fees, nor require counties to impose a utility 2 6/17/92 tax or business license tax as other cities have done. She stated that two years ago, when the State passed SB 2S57- Booking Fee proposal, cities made drastic cuts contributing to more than $240 million of local money passed onto the State's General Fund. She pointed out that while cities made cuts in their budgets, counties and schools have increased their costs. Ms. Clark reported that the State Employment Development Department released an announcement that in twelve months from May 1, 1991 to May 1992, cities statewide have eliminated 800 jobs, while counties have increased employment by 7, SOO positions; and local schools have increased their staff by 7,200 positions. She stated that if the State continues to cut back on revenues, the City of San Bernardino will have to make stringent cuts in public service areas. Ms. Clark indicated that over S8% of the City's budget is appropriated for public safety. City Administrator Clark urged all citizens in San Bernardino to contact their legislators and insist that the State of California can no longer continue to take away city resources. Ms. Clark pointed out that cities are independent governmental agencies, that utilize their own revenues to pay for public services, while counties and schools receive funding assistance from the State's General Fund. Ms. Clark stated that last year when the booking fee legislation passed, counties were given the authority by the Legislature to impose business license taxes and utility taxes. Only five of the S8 counties in the State of California implemented a business license tax, while 96% of the cities in California levy this tax. Only 4 counties in California have levied a utility tax on its citizens. Seventy percent of cities had to raise taxes in the last year to balance their budgets. City Administrator Clark answered questions regarding actions of the League of California Cities relative to the State's proposal to defer property tax revenues to counties and schools. Ms. Clark indicated that the League has asked that local cities and citizens write to their local Legislators. She also stated that the League has organized a delegation of local city representatives to go to Sacramento on the issue. City Attorney Penman answered questions regarding possible legal action either by the League of California Cities or individual municipalities against the State. He stated that in general the law is written in such a way that the State Legislature does have a great deal of discretion as to what monies are passed onto cities and counties. Mr. Penman requested an opportunity to research the matter in more detail. 3 6/17/92 Mr. Penman answered questions regarding whether or not municipalities could prepare a statewide initiative ordering the State to return the booking fee monies to cities. He pointed out that voter initiative drives are time consuming to organize. He indicated that it would be unlikely that there would be enough time to present the initiative for the November election to impact this year's budget. Mayor Holcomb indicated that in spite of the League of California Cities' efforts, the State will be taking away large sums of money from cities. He stated that cities will have to pay more attention to their spending habits and closely monitor programs that are costly and only serve a very limited number of citizens. Mr. Holcomb referred to the City's Utility Collection Center as one example. He stated that the Center serves approximately 3,000 individuals and costs the taxpayers approximately $80,000 to operate. He suggested that this expense be cut out of the City's budget immediately. Mayor Holcomb stressed the need to consider more aggressive measures in combating graffiti in the City. He stated that graffiti removal costs City taxpayers approximately $100,000 annually. The Mayor proposed that a special business license tax be imposed on businesses that sell spray paint. He stated that the revenue generated from the special business tax would be used to abate graffiti throughout the City. Discussion ensued regarding the activities of the City's lobbyist in Sacramento and the Council considered the possibility of terminating his contract. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller, to instruct the City Administrator to proceed and make inquiry with the League of California Cities on what they plan to do or not to do relative to State's use of property taxes and report back at the next Council meeting. *Note: No vote was taken at this time. The vote was taken later in the meeting. See page 5 Mayor Holcomb stated that the League of California Cities continues to provide updated information through its bulletins regarding State issues. He stated that the League of California Cities is committed to do everything they can to keep the Legislature from taking away any monies from cities. City Administrator Clark stated that letter to the editor of The Sun urging all their legislators to voice their concerns. she has submitted a citizens to write to 4 6/17/92 Council Member Estrada explained that her motion was based on the potential legal approach that could be taken by municipalities against the State through actions of the League of California Cities. City Administrator Clark suggested that citizens consider initiating a constitutional amendment to extend the term of office for members of the House of Representatives from two years to either four or six years. She stated this action would save the Federal and State governments millions of dollars. City Clerk Krasney restated the motion as follows: That the City Administrator be instructed to proceed and make inquiry to the League of California Cities on what they intend to do relative to the advocacy standpoint in terms of legal activity that could be initiated against the State or County by municipalities and to report back at the next Council meeting. The motion failed by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Miller; Nays: Council Members Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor. Absent: Council Member Pope-Ludlam. BICYCLE CRITERIUM New Business In a memorandum dated June 17, 1992, Council Member Estrada, First Ward, stated that a meeting was held on June 16, 1992 with Council Member Miller, Ann Harris, Executive Director, Main Street, Inc., two principals of Pro Sports, Inc., and herself regarding the hosting of three bicycle criteriums in the City of San Bernardino on August 29, September 12 and 13, 1992. The criterium would be 3/4 of a mile long with the start/finish on 3rd Street in front of City Hall. The races would be held between 2nd and Court Streets, and Arrowhead and "E" Streets. Street closures, barricades, medical support, cleanup, insurance and advertising issues were addressed. The Police Department, Fire Department, and Courtesy Ambulance Service have indicated their support for the event. Council Member Estrada explained the urgency is a matter of advertising in a national magazine, and that they must have their photo copy in by the afternoon of June 17, 1992. A conceptual approval by the Council will provide the go ahead for Pro Sports, Inc. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, that the need to take action relative to a bicycle criterium in the City of San Bernardino arose subsequent to the posting of the agenda. 5 6/17/92 The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Miller. Council Member Minor. Absent: Council Member Pope-Ludlam. Council Nays: Mayor Holcomb objected to the approval in concept for the bicycle criterium proposal. He suggested that the Council perform a study of the promoters, and determine the actual costs for the City before making a decision. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, for the purpose of discussion, to consider Pro Sports, Inc., proposal on the bicycle criterium to be held August 29, September 12 and 13, 1992. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Miller. Council Member Minor. Absent: Council Member Pope-Ludlam. Council Nays: Kieran Mitchell, Pro Sports Inc., 428 Coronado, P. O. Box 7, Long Beach, Ca, 90814, presented to the Mayor and Council a copy of a marketing proposal on the bicycle criterium. Pro Sports Inc., based in Long Beach, California, is considered an up and coming sports marketing and event management company. The sport of bicycle racing has become Pro Sports' main interest. It is proposed that Pro Sports, Inc. , in conjunction with Anheuser Busch, and with the cooperation of the City of San Bernardino, present a series of three main bicycle criteriurns. The bicycle criterium consists of professional and amateur cyclists. The City of San Bernardino will receive national media coverage from ESPN, local television media coverage and bicycle magazines. RECESS MEETING At 10:0S a.m., the adjourned regular meeting recessed for five minutes. RECONVENE MEETING At 10:10 a.m., the adjourned regular meeting reconvened in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Krasney with the following being present: Mayor Holcomb; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Miller; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Krasney, City Administrator Clark. Absent: Council Member Pope-Ludlam. 6 6/17/92 CONTINUED DISCUSSION - BICYCLE CRITERIUM Kieran Mitchell outlined the responsibilities of Pro Sports, Inc., which include race promotion, national advertising, course set up route, commentators box, audio systems, barriers, insurance coverage, security, media coverage, and city permits. Paul Fuller, President, Pro Sports, Inc. , requested the City of San Bernardino to sponsor $5,000 per race for the three series event.' The Council considered funding the bicycle utilizing Civic and Promotional funds or funding the the Main Street program. criterium event from Mr. proposed cities. conflict Fuller answered questions regarding whether or not the dates would conflict with cycling events held in other He replied that the dates have been coordinated, to not with other cities. Mr. Fuller explained that Anheuser Busch, Inc. is a co- sponsor and that Pro Sports Inc., has liability insurance which provides blanket coverage for the planned events and anyone involved in the program. He added that the insurance policy also requires that on-site paramedics be provided at the site. City Attorney Penman advised that if the City co-sponsors the event, the City should be named as an additional insured and a binder sent to Risk Management. Paul Fuller answered questions regarding whether or not there will be sufficient time to produce a successful event. He stated that the three-day bicycle criterium will receive widespread coverage through advertisements in the Bellow News Bicycle Guide inviting all professional and amateur cyclists to participate in the races. COUNCIL MEMBER POPE-LUDLAM ARRIVED At 10:28 a.m., Council Member Pope-Ludlam arrived at the Council meeting and took her place at the council table. Mayor Holcomb requested that the City retain the right to withdraw from the event, if the City determines that the cost is more than affordable and problems arise that have not presently been discussed. 7 6/17/92 Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, to approve, in concept, the hosting of three bicycle criteriums on August 29, September 12, and 13, 1992, by the City of San Bernardino, and to recommend that Main Street coordinate with Pro Sports, Inc., and the City regarding budget and City support services; further that at the next Council meeting, on July 6, 1992, a specific budget be prepared showing all direct and indirect costs to the City. The motion carried by the following vote: Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Pope-Ludlam, Council Members Maudsley, Minor. Ayes: Council Miller. Nays: FISCAL YEAR 1992-1993 BUDGET REVIEW (1) Mayor Holcomb expressed reluctance in making major decisions regarding the 1992-93 budget. He suggested that the Council delay any action until the State of California makes a determination regarding its budget. He urged the Council to review the budget and consider removing non-essential items from the City's budget. Mayor Holcomb identified the Wests ide Utility Collection Center as one item that should be removed from the Ci ty' s budget. He pointed out that the Center only serves approximately 3,000 people on the Wests ide ; and that a private check cashing business will soon open in the new shopping center on Medical Center Drive to provide services to the community. City Administrator Clark presented a recap of previous Council actions regarding the budget. She pointed out that there still remains a minimum deficit of $7SS,SS2 in the budget. Ms. Clark stated that although the minimum deficit is approximately $7SS,SS2 the maximum could amount to $3 million. Voluntarv Time Off Proaram/Christmas Closure/Semi- Monthly Payroll Ms. Clark stated that full support from City employees is needed in order to implement the voluntary time-off program, Christmas closure and semi-monthly payroll proposals. City Administrator Clark stated that during the budget discussions held in February 1992, the voluntary time-off program, the Christmas closure and the semi-monthly payroll proposals were considered. One of the ideas was to convert our payroll from an every other week payroll process, to twice a month payroll process. Instead of having 26 pay periods per year, there would be 24 pay periods. By going on the semi- monthly program, union representatives feel that it is a take away from employees who are going to be with the City for the next twelve years. Ms. Clark stated that because the proposal i~ a take away from employees, the Unions would like to receive more feedback from the employees and report back to the Mayor and Council at a later date. 8 6/17/92 City Administrator Clark added that by converting to a semi- monthly payroll program, the City would realize a savings of $260,000 next year. Chris Gonzales, President of Union Local 122, representing the General Employees' Union, reported that on the proposal to convert to semi-monthly payroll 130 employees voted yes; 159 employees voted no; and. S employees were undecided; voluntary time-off proposal (VTO) i01 employees voted yes; 182 employees voted no; closing of City Hall during Christmas and New Year's Holiday - 87 employees voted yes; 190 employees voted no. Mr. Gonzales stated that out of S82 surveys distributed, only 302 surveys have been returned. Andy Green, Director of Finance, explained that the semi- monthly proposal would not affect employees' retirement. Mr. Gonzales questioned if the voluntary time-off program is a one-time event or on-going program. City Administrator Clark explained that the voluntary time- off program is strictly voluntary and those employees who are not interested are not required to participate. She stated that any employee can participate whenever they desire. This program would provide an advantage for employees that have scheduling problems and need a flexible work schedule within the department. A member of the Council expressed or not each department would have Voluntary Time-Off program is approved. concern regarding whether adequate staff if the Mr. Gonzales stated that during a meet and confer session a suggestion was presented whereby a certain number of hours could be banked and used during the Christmas closure week. He stated that if employees could take small increments of time from the 40 hours allotted in the VTO program, the proposal would be acceptable to the general employees. He pointed out that it would be very difficult for employees to take the full 40 hours at one time. City Administrator Clark stated that the Christmas closure represents only three days. Mayor Holcomb recommended that the City delay further action relative to the budget, until after the State of California takes action to solve its budget crisis. City Administrator Clark indicated that the Council needs to take action regarding the budget before July 1, 1992. 9 6/17/92 Mayor Holcomb suggested that the 1992/93 Budget review be continued until the next regular Council meeting. ~ Ms. Clark requested that the Council tentatively agree to allow each department to spend funds at the same funding level for Fiscal Year 1991/92, until a final decision is made on the 1992/93 budget. Andy Green pointed out that it would not be in the City's best interest to continue to allow departments to appropriate funds when the budget is not balanced. He pointed out that State law prohibits cities from carrying over deficit balances. Mayor Holcomb recommended that the continued to the Council meeting of June 22, Council be prepared to adopt the final budget. budget review be 1992, and that the City Attorney's Budaet City Attorney Penman presented his budget outlining two areas of concern, the litigation account for outside attorneys and litigation expense account. He stated that during Fiscal Year 1992/93 he anticipates a substantial increase of cases going to trial. Mr. Penman presented to the Council documentation comparing the City Attorney's Office with other cities of comparable size to San Bernardino. The cities included Santa Monica, Torrance, Burbank, Pasadena Anaheim, Huntington Beach, Glendale and Riverside. He pointed out that currently the staffing level for attorneys in his office is seven, but the authorized strength is eight. Mr. Penman identified several pending cases that could cost the City a substantial amount of money. Based on the number of cases pending, and the severity of those cases, Mr. Penman requested that the Council approve the City Attorney's budget as submitted. Mayor Holcomb noted that a number of cities, listed in the comparison report of the other cities, reported a lower budget for Fiscal Year 1992/93 than in the previous Fiscal Year 1991/92. City Attorney Penman explained that the reason for a $600,000 increase in his budget is because of the increase in cases going to trial next year. He stressed that he has made considerable decreases in other areas of his budget. Discussion ensued regarding attorneys attending essential commission meetings or advisory meetings. non- 10 6/17/92 City Attorney Penman stated that his attorneys only attend commission meetings when there is a special request. He added that there are assigned attorneys for the Planning Commission, Civil Service Board, and the Board of Building Commission. Discussion ensued regarding denial of the City Attorney's request to increase salaries for various employees within his department. Mayor Holcomb suggested that the Council keep an open mind regarding the City Attorney's Office, until after completion of the audit of the City Attorney's Office. City Administrator Clark stated that the audit of the City Attorney's Office could be completed in a couple of weeks if the City Attorney would agree to the following: 1) that the Ways and Means Committee review the scope of services; 2) that only four audit firms be selected, two firms recommended by City Attorney Penman, and two firms recommended by representatives of the City Administrator's Office; 3) that a selection committee of Ci ty Clerk Krasney, Personnel Director Dillon, and a representative from the City Administrator's Office, be authorized to select the auditor to conduct the audit of the City Attorney's Office. A member of the Council suggested that the proposed audit selection committee consist of individuals who are not City employees. City Administrator Clark explained that the scope of services would be given to the Ways and Means Committee, then the scope of services would be mailed to four audit firms. The second step would be to have Rachel Krasney, City Clerk; Barbara Dillon, Director of Personnel; and a representative from the Mayor's Office or City Administrator's Office select the audit firm. A discussion was held regarding a source of funds to be used to acquire the services of an auditor. City Attorney Penman stated he would feel comfortable with an outside firm of attorneys, or non-politicians making the decision to select the audit firm. A discussion was held regarding the function of the proposed audit selection committee. It was pointed out that the committee would only make the recommendation and the Council would approve and make the final decision. 11 6/17/92 City Attorney Penman objected to the City Administrator's recommendations and the proposed review committee on the basis that the individuals on the selection review committee work directly for the City Administrator/Mayor with the exception of the City Clerk. Mr. Penman voiced concern that the City Attorney's Office would not receive a fair evaluation and that the Mayor would influence the outcome of the audit. Mayor Holcomb objected to Mr. Penman's statement. A member of the Council expressed concern regarding action taken by the San Bernardino Management Association to hire outside counsel to review the opinions of the City Attorney. City Administrator Clark answered questions regarding the City's budget crisis. She stated that she has presented recommendations and has asked the Council to indicate which programs should be cut, but she has not received any direction. Mayor Holcomb benefit the City: Attorney's Office; the City's budget. identified two sources of revenue that could 1) proceed with the audit of the City 2) remove the Utility Collection Center from Discussion was held regarding other sources of revenue that could be used for General Fund purposes. It was pointed out that approximately $300,000 in Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO) funds are available and can be used for General Fund purposes. Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Minor, that $220,000 of Collateralized Mortgage Obligation funds be transferred into the City's General Fund account. Mayor Holcomb recommended that all CMO monies be transferred to the General Fund. It was pointed out that at the last Council meeting held on Monday, June 1S, 1992, the Council/Commission took action to appropriate $112,000 from the Collateralized Mortgage Obligation Fund as follows: $64,000 to the Community Against Drugs Program; $20,000 to the Emmerton School project; and $18,000 to fund the construction of a block wall barrier adjacent to the Crosstown 330 Freeway. 12 6/17/92 Council Member Minor made a substitute motion, seconded by Council Member Estrada, and unanimously carried, that the balance of the Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO) funds, be transferred to the General Fund after the appropriations approved on June 1S, 1992 are made to the Community Against Drugs, Inc., Emmerton School Project, and the construction of a block wall sound barrier adjacent to the Crosstown 330 Freeway. CLOSED SESSION (2) The Mayor and Common Council did not recess to closed session during this meeting. ADJOURNMENT (3) At 12:08 p.m., Council Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Miller, that the adjourn regular meeting be adjourned to 9:00 a.m., Monday, June 22, 1992 in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Members Estrada, Reilly, Hernandez, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Nays: Council Member Maudsley. Absent: None. Council Miller. RACHEL KRASNEY City Clerk No. of Hours: 3 hours No. of Items: 4 13 6/17/92