Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-2006 MinutesCITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300N. `D " Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Website: www.sbcity.org MINUTES MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Mayor Patrick J. Morris Council Members: Esther Estrada Dennis J. Baxter Gordon McGinnis Neil Derry Chas Kelley Rikke Van Johnson Wendy McCammack JOINT ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JUNE 20, 2006 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARDROOM 201 NORTH "E" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CA This is the time and place set for a joint adjourned regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino from the joint regular meeting held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, June 19, 2006, 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 the adjournment of said meeting held on Monday, June 19, 2006, 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 p.m., Friday, June 16, 2006, on the City Hall breezeway bulletin board. The joint adjourned regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor/Chairman Morris at 4:10 p.m., Tuesday, June 20, 2006, in the Economic Development Agency Boardroom, 201 North "E" Street, San Bernardino, California. Roll Call Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present: Mayor/Chairman Morris; Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, City Manager Wilson. Absent: Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis. 06/20/2006 1. Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section(s): A. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a). 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. 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. 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. Budget deliberations - Fiscal Year 2006/07 - discuss and take possible action concerning proposed City and EDA budgets Mayor/Chairman Morris advised that at the conclusion of the last budget meeting the Council had concerns about the hiring plan of additional peace officers and support staff, department heads had concerns about their budgets, and Finance Director Pachon had been asked to return with some budget projections for the next three to five years. Barbara Pachon, Director of Finance, distributed copies of "City of San Bernardino, Projected General Fund Balance, Fiscal Years 2006-2007 and 2009- 2010," dated 6/22/06; and "City of San Bernardino, General Fund Projections, Fiscal Years 2008-2010." Lori Sassoon, Assistant City Manager, distributed copies of "FY 2006-2007 Summary of Program Change Requests," dated 6/20/06 (pink sheets). 2 06/20/2006 Police Chief Billdt submitted into the record an interoffice memorandum addressed to the Mayor and City Manager dated June 15, 2006, entitled, "Combined Hiring Plan to Enhance Police Staffing (Revised)." He stated that in order to hire 40 sworn personnel they would have to hire 98 new officers during the next 30 months, which included an attrition rate of 58 during that time frame. Chief Billdt reviewed the estimated costs included in Schedules B through G. Chief Billdt stated that 34 new officers were hired last year and he believes they could hire that many each year as long as there are no unforeseen issues and the attrition rate holds. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack questioned whether this program was being brought forward prematurely before they receive the results of the performance review that is going to cost the City almost $200,000. She stated that since the Chief already has his marching orders at least for the next fiscal year, she felt it would be more prudent to receive the results of the performance review fust, then the Chief could alter his proposal as necessary. Ms. McCammack stated that the reason for conducting the review is to help save the City some money, and because police and fire are the lion's share of the budget, she hoped that there would be some savings there for the Chief. Council Member/Commissioner Baxter asked if this included any Federal grant money or could grants be acquired in the future. Chief Billdt stated that this proposal is general fund budgeting. He stated that they actively pursue grant funding and if they were to get some grants in the future, then that would be a decision before the Council as to whether or not they would want to use it for that purpose. Chief Billdt stated that there is a potential that some of this could be offset in future years. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada stated that she hoped the study would help save the City money; however, she stated that one of her concerns is that it will produce a better way of managing departments for the overall good of the City. But, more than that, as it applies to the Police Department, she stated that she believes they may find better ways to manage certain divisions within the department. Ms. Estrada added that she would hate to hold up the potential hiring of additional police officers while waiting for the outcome of that study. Ms. Estrada stated that she felt the crime rate demands that they address this issue quickly. However, she stated that the biggest contribution they could make and to prove to the public that they are definitely serious about combating crime in the community is to budget the necessary funds to be able to accomplish that goal. Ms. Estrada stated that the only way they are going to be able to do that is by taking the information the Chief has provided and coming back with a financial plan. She stated that if the crime rate is not lowered, everything else will be 3 06/20/2006 affected such as social conditions in the community, availability of jobs in the community, companies coming to the community, etc. Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that the budget contains the resources required to hire 14 new peace officers and the Chief has a plan in mind and in place to do the hiring for those police services. He advised that they would not wait for the report from the auditors, but would move on this as soon as the budget is passed, which hopefully will happen before the end of June. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley referred to Schedule E, "Equipment and Administrative Costs, FY 2007-08, and asked the Chief to clarify why only four possibilities for lateral transfers were being projected. Chief Billdt stated that that reference was for that fiscal cycle, and he noted that they tried to project the number of lateral officers that would be hired during future fiscal years based on history. He stated that there is a likelihood they could hire more—but it is only a projection. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley asked if there were any kind of tools they could provide such as incentives for those lateral transfers, or maybe some benefits or something they could do to recruit sworn peace officers from other agencies to help address the crime issues here in the City. Chief Billdt stated that any recruitment or retention incentives that are offered would be helpful to some degree. He stated that it is difficult to project how successful they would be, but it is reasonable to conclude that if people are offered incentives, there's a likelihood you may attract and hire more lateral officers. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that one of the earlier requests from the Police Department was for expansion of the recruitment effort and she indicated that she wanted to see that on the list of program change requests. She stated that the Council as a whole was interested in offering incentives and she wanted to go on record as saying that if they do use any of the reserves for things that should come out of the general fund, she would vehemently oppose it. Ms. McCammack stated that although the crime issue is definitely a crisis, it is not an emergency that needs to be paid for with a budget reserve. She stated that she is confident the City will get what it needs when some of the other tools the department has offered are used. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley stated that they receive document after document on how long it takes to train someone and get them through the academy, so anything that could be done to bring people in who could be put on the streets immediately is something he would support. He stated that any kind of recruitment tool the City could offer is something they should look at because of the need for more officers. 4 06/20/2006 Mr. Wilson stated that there is $100,000 in this budget document for hiring incentives for police officers and he asked Linn Livingston, Director of Human Resources, to speak to the issue. (Ms. Livingston spoke later in the meeting.) Ms. Pachon stated that this projection did include the Chiefs plan so by the end of the three years the City would have hired 50 additional staff for the Police Department. She stated that this projection is the Finance Department's best guess based on past history. Ms. Pachon added that they had asked departments to provide some input; however, some departments were not able to respond. Ms. Pachon stated that she was conservative and projected the worst case scenario. Mr. Wilson stated that the bottom line issue is that the General Fund at this time is simply not in the position to afford 40 more positions and non -sworn positions without identifying another source of funding. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada asked what the numbers would look like if the average rate of growth in resources over the last three years was projected over the next three years. Ms. Pachon stated that the growth over the last three years has been very good, so looking at an average over just the past three years would result in a couple million dollars more in revenue than what was projected; however, what has happened in the last three years is not what she sees happening over the next three years. Ms. Pachon stated that she believes it's going to drop down a little bit in terms of property turnover and sales tax. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that the one area she feels they have under -projected is property tax revenues—somewhere between $1.3 and $1.8 million. She stated that there are program change requests that she feels they should consider as a body, such as: 1) police and 2) the Development Services Department. Council Member/Commissioner Derry stated that he has been contacted by some of his constituents who have said that they would be willing to pay a parcel tax if they could be guaranteed that it would go toward putting more police on the street. He stated that it might be something they could look at as to what might be feasible and what the voters might support. Mr. Derry stated that he believed that any parcel tax for public service, and particularly for police service, would have a hard time passing if it was not directly tied to the beat program and police officers in actual neighborhoods with a breakdown of the City into districts where if it passed in one area, that money would be used to hire a police officer in that area, and if it didn't pass in another area, they wouldn't get the extra police officer, but it would be up to the voters to decide. He stated that he felt that was the only way to get any kind of parcel tax for services passed, but he felt it was something to look at. 5 06/20/2006 Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that he felt it was important to engage in some creative thinking in order to keep their commitment to the beat plan identified this year and when they reach that crunch time they are going to have to think some new thoughts, and it may be that the City will have to go to the electorate for permission to staff up toward these goals. Ms. Livingston read and submitted into the record, "Police Officer Recruitment Incentives," dated 12/01/05. Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that the incentives were agreed to by the Police Officers Association and are included in the budget up to $100,000. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley requested that staff come back to the next meeting with a way to increase the incentives so the City could be more aggressive in dealing with lateral transfers in order to bring in sworn police officers that could be placed on the streets immediately. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack asked if it would be prudent to ask staff to prepare a chart that would show what other cities, other counties, and other jurisdictions are offering, so that we could become more competitive. Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that we have a preliminary budget that meets the test of 14 new peace officers and 3 non -sworn personnel, and we have a proposed increase in the reserves of $1.3 million, which brings the reserves to $8.9 million. He stated that good businesses, both public and private, should have at least a 10 percent reserve, and if that were true, given our budget, we would have a reserve of around $13 million. Mayor Morris stated that the City is well under that desired mark, so we need to be conservative and reserved when considering the list of requests from the departments. He stated that we also need to understand that our Utility Tax income stream is in jeopardy in that the long distance portion of that utility tax may be history. He noted that the City is negotiating for annexation of certain county islands, and based upon the income received from those annexed islands, the intention is to add another code officer. The Mayor stated that at any time during the fiscal year they could revisit the budget, and he suggested setting a budget review hearing in 45 days to see what's happening with regard to their income stream. He stated that they could regularly set such reviews throughout the course of the next year to see if they want in any way to modify or invade the reserves. The Mayor advised the Council that the City has a modest reserve and with the utility tax question still up in the air, he cautioned them about allocating resources that are still very much at risk. Mr. Wilson stated that they are in the process of looking at making some adjustments to some of the user fees including Development Services' processing fees, and it is likely that when that recommendation comes before the Ways and Means Committee, there will be some recommendations from the new Director 6 06/20/2006 regarding staffing of the Development Services Department to address some of the concerns that are out there. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that there is about $775,000 worth of additional expenditures that Development Services could make if they are given the money to beef up some of the staffing they need, and she hoped the Council would agree that the quicker they get people on board in Development Services, the quicker properties would get on the tax rolls with an increased valuation, which means the sooner they could pay back that $775,000. She suggested that they try to earmark an additional $775,000 for Development Services. Mr. Wilson stated that whatever the Council wanted to add to the budget from the list of program change requests would come out of the dollars set aside for the reserves. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada stated that the budget excess is $28,500, and the proposed Program Change Requests represent $6 million, so if they want to implement everything on the list, they would be dipping into the reserves. Mr. Wilson agreed. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that it would come out of the reserves unless they identify other revenue sources. Council Member/Commissioner Baxter stated that Ms. McCammack's projections differ from the projections provided by Ms. Pachon. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that her projections differed by $1.5 million, and she reiterated that the difference would be seen in property tax. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley stated that he is mindful of how important it is to have a reserve, but Department Heads have needs and they have never been able to provide the services they should. He stated that they have to dip into some of the reserves and provide the tools for the departments to fix those sidewalks, account for the payroll services, trim the trees, fill the potholes, put the cop on the street and provide the medical services that the Fire Department provides. He stated that they should come up with some creative ways to look at revenue sources. Mr. Kelley stated that the Council needs to sit down and look at the list of change requests and find out what they can and can't do. He stated that department heads know their jobs and what they need, and the Council has to look at and provide some of these things. Council Member/Commissioner Derry stated that he agreed with Ms. McCammack that we will have revenues in excess of what has been estimated. 7 06/20/2006 But, he noted that there are some things on the list that would create a long-term savings to the City, not just new revenue, but actual savings such as light fixture replacement at City Hall, and just by doing that we would recoup the $30,000 cost in about three years through energy savings. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada asked if they could set some kind of goal by agreeing to set aside "X" number of dollars and work within that amount of money and approve those kinds of expenditures so they don't spend the reserve fund, but at the same time they have prioritized the use of "X" amount of dollars for things that are urgently needed and that can and will be used to the greater benefit of the City. Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that conservative budgeting practices have resulted in balanced budgets and a modest reserve—that is the good news. However, he stated that in order to project out to the coming years with a continuing commitment to build up policing services, the City would be upside down within a year, and by two years we would be doing flips looking for resources. Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that the conservative kind of budgeting practices the City has engaged in historically would serve us well as we continue to drive our primary initiative, and that is the hiring of additional peace officers. Council Member/Commissioner Johnson stated that there is definitely a need to prioritize where to invest in the immediate future of this City, and the one item on the change request list that excites him has to do with the Parks and Recreation Department's creation of the Police Athletic League at four sites in community centers located within the City. He stated that this is needed because it gives the police a chance to interact with the younger people in the community in a positive manner. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that her thought when she went through the Program Change Requests was that the amount of money was huge; however, she was not willing to dip into the reserves for it and project way beyond even a one percent differential from the current budget amount. She stated that she believes revenues will be about 1.1 percent higher than they are projecting, which is a tiny differential in terms of this huge budget, but that tiny differential—and she has identified a list of items that would pay for themselves within one to two years—would create a revenue that they would be happy about at the end of this fiscal year. Ms. McCammack stated that it would not be prudent to move more than 1 or 1.1 percent in revenue projections—it would be beyond conservative, and $1.5 million is about 1.1 percent of a differential from current revenue projections. 8 06/20/2006 Council Member/Commissioner Estrada stated that she was also going to recommend setting a $1.7 or $1.8 million goal, keeping in mind that they probably would be getting more money than what is being estimated. Council Member/Commissioner Kelley asked how the Council was going to determine what to spend the money on. Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that if the Council had some ballpark estimates of where they want to end up in terms of reserves and predictions on the income from increased tax revenues, then each Council member could come back with a set of priorities in terms of categories and amounts and then they could proceed from there. Mr. Wilson stated that giving staff a week to work through some of the concerns that had been discussed was a good idea. In particular, he stated that they needed time to discuss some of the recommendations for Development Services and explore some of the other suggestions on how they could look at lighting efficiency and revenue enhancement. Mr. Wilson stated that they could come back to the Council with a better package of revenues and expenditures, and then the Council could be afforded some time to deliberate. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada recommended setting a minimum of $1.8 million for program change requests that staff could work with, so that when they come back they would be looking at more realistic numbers, and then they could take their own recommendations into account. She stated that she agreed with Ms. McCammack's analysis that if they invest money in Development Services it would pay off. Ms. Estrada stated that they hear from the developers about how frustrated they are because they can't get projects moving and the faster those projects move through the process, the faster those monies would come in. Mayor/Chairman Morris suggested that staff be given at least a week to reexamine the numbers and possibly adjust the change requests. Mr. Wilson suggested that the next meeting be scheduled for Thursday, June 29, 2006, at 4 p.m. It was the consensus of the Council that the meeting scheduled for June 21, 2006, be canceled and that the next meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission be held on Thursday, June 29, 2006, at 4 p.m., in the Economic Development Agency Boardroom. 9 06/20/2006 Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Kelley, that no more than $1.8 million be identified from other revenue sources and set aside for program change requests with the caveat that it not be taken from the reserves; and that the matter be continued to the Council/Commission meeting of June 29, 2006, at 4 p.m. in the Economic Development Agency Boardroom. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis. 3. Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Lease between the City of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino Stampede, Inc. (Continued from June 19, 2006) City Manager Wilson stated that there were issues that needed to be resolved and requested that this matter be continued to the next budget workshop. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that the matter be continued to the Council/Commission meeting of June 21, 2006. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis. Due to the fact that the Council/Commission meeting scheduled for June 21, 2006, was canceled, the following action was taken later in the meeting. Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Johnson, that the matter be continued to the Council/Commission meeting of June 29, 2006. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis. 10 06/20/2006 4. RES. CDC/2006-21 — Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino approving and authorizing the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino ("Agency") to: (1) execute the Vehicle Parking License Agreement by and between the County of San Bernardino ("County") and the Agency for the use of a portion of 247 West 3'" Street, San Bernardino and (2) appropriate $180,000 to fund the Agency portion of the landscaping improvements from the Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) as noted in this Staff Report (Central City East Redevelopment Project Area). (Continued from June 19, 2006) Maggie Pacheco, Economic Development Agency Executive Director, stated that the Agency had modified Page 2, Section 2 of the Resolution to read, "The Commission hereby authorizes and approves the Agreement by and between the Agency and the County in the form as presented at the meeting of the Commission at which this Resolution is adopted and hereby authorizes the Executive Director to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Agency." Ms. Pacheco went on to say that the Agency modified the Agreement between the County and the Agency pertaining to Sections 2, 11, 19 and 22 and eliminated references to the Executive Director and she added that any modifications to the contract would require Agency approval. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada questioned Section 19 of the Agreement where it indicates that the Agreement would be executed by an authorized representative of the Agency, as opposed to just by the Agency. Special Counsel Sabo stated that they could change that sentence to read, "until approved by the Agency and executed by the Agency." Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that the next sentence in that paragraph reads, "The Executive Director of the Agency is, however, authorized to sign amendments to this License which are of a routine or technical nature, as may be required from time -to -time during the Term of this License," and she asked if that language was added anywhere else in the document. Mr. Sabo stated that that language had been deleted. Council Member/Commissioner McCammack stated that Ms. Pacheco had made the comment that this was standard language throughout either all of or many of the Agency documents. She stated that after Councilwoman Estrada brought up the concern and remembering that they have had this concern as a body previously, she stated that her recollection is that there have been no City documents that have similar language and that the content of agreements that they approve in total either remain that way or they come back for amendments or 11 06/20/2006 approval. Ms. McCammack stated that in reading her backup, she noticed that there were some documents that contained language that was even more authoritative than this one, and she felt that it would be prudent for the Council to start spending a little more time reading the resolutions prepared by the Economic Development Agency. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Baxter, that said resolution be adopted, as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/ Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Derry, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: Council Member/Commissioner McGinnis. 5. Adjournment At 5:49 p.m., the meeting adjourned to 4:00 p.m., Thursday, June 29, 2006, in the Economic Development Agency Boardroom, 201 North "E" Street, San Bernardino, for budget deliberations. No. of Items: 5 No. of Hours: 2 RACHEL G. CLARK City Clerk Byo ta✓ z&. .� , Linda Sutherland Deputy City Clerk 12 06/20/2006