Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-02-2006 MinutesCITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300 N. "D "Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Website: www.sbcity.org Mayor Patrick J. Morris Council Members: Esther Estrada Dennis J. Baxter Vacant Neil Derry Chas Kelley Rikke Van Johnson Wendy McCammack MINUTES MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 2, 2006 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARDROOM 201 NORTH `E' STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mayor of the City of San Bernardino has called a joint special meeting of the Mayor and Common Council/Community Development Commission to be held at 4 p.m., Wednesday, August 2, 2006, in the Economic Development Agency Boardroom, 201 North "E" Street, San Bernardino, California. The purpose for which this special meeting was called was to discuss and take possible action concerning the possibility of a revenue enhancement ballot measure. The joint special 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 4:08 p.m., Wednesday, August 2, 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, Johnson; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, City Manager Wilson. Absent: Council Members/Commissioners Kelley, McCammack. Vacant: Third Ward. 1. Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section(s): 1 08/02/2006 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: Diamond Concession v. City of San Bernardino Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc. et al. v. City of San Bernardino 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. Closed Session Announcement City Clerk Clark announced that during closed session a motion was made by Council Member/Commissioner Baxter, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Derry, to approve a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement on behalf of the City with Michael Colantuono, retroactive to Friday, July 28, 2006, in an amount not to exceed $25,000. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Derry, Johnson. Nays: None. Absent: Council Members/ Commissioners Kelley, McCammack. 2. Study Session to Discuss Possible Revenue Enhancement Ballot Measure Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that the purpose of the workshop was to discuss issues relating to the budget, and specifically, the City's budgetary needs with regard to public safety. He stated that crime is a dominant issue that has plagued the City for years and in recent months has escalated to the point of becoming a 2 08/02/2006 public safety crisis or emergency. He indicated that this issue is one that needs to be discussed further because the budget will not allow them to meet the staffing needs of the Police Department. Mayor Morris stated that Chief Billdt had previously expressed his law enforcement needs and the Mayor and Council have pledged to meet those needs if at all possible. He stated that at the present time the budget forbids that kind of achievement, so they need to discuss how they are going to hire the additional 28 officers that the Chief needs to meet the terms of the beat plan. Mayor Morris stated that this year they were able to find funding within the budget for 14 additional officers and 4 non -sworn personnel, but the budget forecast gives a very dim prospect in terms of supporting ongoing crime fighting efforts in the City. He stated that there simply is no money in the treasury to meet the needs of the Police Department to staff up the community policing plan, nor are there resources to meet any crime intervention or prevention needs. He asked Fred Wilson to share the results of the community safety survey and what the community is saying about this issue and what they would be willing to agree to by way of funding our critical need for public safety. Fred Wilson, City Manager, stated that the survey results showed that crime is "almost an unbelievably large concern for voters in the City of San Bernardino." He stated that a 92 percent rate of concern is extremely high, and in the consultant's opinion, ours is a community in crisis. He stated that the research from the survey also showed that the most critical crime problem is murder, followed closely by gang violence, and that the voters generally get the idea that the Police Department is under -funded. But, most significantly, when it comes to how to pay for such a measure that would add more cops to our Police Department, what the poll showed was that when it comes down to a parcel tax, such a measure would really have almost no chance of passage. Mr. Wilson stated that the research also showed that a one-quarter cent sales tax does generate support from about 69 percent of the electorate. So, in the opinion of the polling firm, a sales tax measure has a good chance of passage to address the issues the City is dealing with today. Mayor Morris stated that just today he had lunch with a group of the City's most important constituents, that is, those business leaders who pay the lion's share of the sales tax. He stated that Milt Johnson was present from Home Lumber and Cliff Cummings from the Toyota/Kia dealership, who are two of the City's largest tax generators. He stated that other business leaders concerned about the community, the business environment and its safety were present at that meeting including Glen Moss of Moss Brothers Dodge, John Shirley from Barr Lumber, Don Baker from Stater Bros. Market, Pete Shaver from Shaver Auto, Larry Sharp from Arrowhead Credit Union, Jerry and Ann Atkinson from Center Chevrolet, Nick Pasquale from Fairview Ford and Economist John Husing. 3 08/02/2006 Mayor Morris stated that the Council needed to discuss if and how they should go to the electorate. He stated that the poll gives little chance of success if they go with a parcel tax. He stated that as the City Manager has indicated, the sales tax has an obvious base of support that's substantially large enough to allow them to consider it as a possibility. Mayor Morris suggested hearing from the tax expert on how to construct a one-quarter cent sales tax. Doug Jensen, Director of Client Services, MBIA MuniServices Company, 1400 K Street, Suite 212, Sacramento, CA, stated that he provides tax advice and consulting only to the public sector, and he works for about 260 cities nationwide, including many in the region. He stated that he was asked to talk about this type of tax, commonly referred to as a sales tax. He stated that technically it's known as a transactions and use tax, also known as a district tax, so it has slight differences from the existing sales tax that cities currently receive. Mr. Jensen stated that currently there are 72 active district taxes in the State of California including one in San Bernardino County that has been in existence for quite some time that funds transportation projects. He stated that it is similar to sales tax, but sourcing for certain types of sales are destination based. An example of that is when a business is determined by the State Board of Equalization to be engaged in business in any district where they deliver their product using their own vehicles; another example being auto sales which are sourced to the buyers' residence. If a person buys a car in the City of San Bernardino, the City would get the one percent local tax that it currently receives, but the district tax would go to where the person resides, so if they reside outside the City of San Bernardino the district tax would not apply. Mr. Jensen stated that the Board of Equalization set that up years ago to create an equitable playing field for businesses so that you cannot escape a tax that the electorate votes for. Mr. Jensen stated that the State sales tax has been in place since 1932 and the local tax has been in place since 1954, so it's not a new tax to California. He stated that it is currently administered by the State Board of Equalization and the State Board charges about one percent to administer the tax. Therefore, businesses that are already reporting sales tax to the State Board of Equalization would require a very minimal change to their reporting. The State Board of Equalization would notify businesses of the change into the district tax, and every business with a registered seller's permit would file their normal Schedule A and track the sales that would flow back to the State Board of Equalization; and the State Board would then send the district tax revenue back to the City. Mr. Jensen stated that because of the destination -based sourcing rules, the forecast of revenues is not a one-to-one ratio with existing sales tax. He stated that in the forecast prepared for the City of San Bernardino, they estimated that about 67 percent of the existing local sales tax would be applied to the district tax and would yield at one-quarter percent about $5.6 million annually. Mr. Jensen 4 08/02/2006 stated that the equity of the tax is very similar to sales tax so it doesn't apply to food, medicines, housing or services, all of which are exempt. He stated that everyone is governed by the same set of rules so there in no inequity within a business sector, and it can also be audited by the State Board of Equalization to determine that everyone is in compliance. Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that the analysis showed that locally such a tax would be paid primarily by non-residents and he asked what that percentage factor was. Mr. Jensen stated that it is a difficult number to measure, but about 70 percent of the local tax is most likely being imported from the surrounding areas. Michael G. Colantuono, Attorney at Law, Colantuono & Levin, 11406 Pleasant Valley Road, Penn Valley, CA, discussed with the Council the manner in which the proposed tax could be taken to the community under the restrictions of Proposition 218. Mr. Colantuono stated that the first choice is whether to adopt a special tax, which is by law limited to particular uses, or to adopt a general tax. He stated that a special tax can be presented to the voters at any time, requires a majority of the quorum of the Council to propose, and must be adopted by two-thirds of the voters. A general tax can be proposed at any time when city council seats are being contested or at another time when the council unanimously determines that there is an emergency requiring an exception to that rule. Mr. Colantuono stated that the proposal of a general tax by a charter city also requires a majority of the quorum. He stated that there is a provision in Proposition 62 that requires two- thirds of the members of the council for proposal of a general tax, but it is the opinion of his firm, based on four published court of appeal decisions, that those requirements do not apply to charter cities like San Bernardino. Mr. Colantuono stated that once placed on the ballot, the general tax requires only 50 percent of the voters to adopt. He added that one of the tensions in public life is that voters rarely approve taxes without knowing what they are going to be spent on, so there is always some necessity regardless of whether you're doing a general tax or a special tax to explain to the public where their money is going and why they ought to vote for it. He stated that there are a variety of ways to do that ranging from legally meaningless political speech to advisory political speech that takes the form of a resolution, ordinance or a policy, all the way up to a budget appropriation, which lasts for a year, to binding language in an ordinance which prevents you from ever spending the money any other way. Obviously, if the language is binding you've got a special tax. If it is legally meaningless, but politically sound (promises to your community) it is a general tax. 5 08/02/2006 Mr. Colantuono stated that there is a model of a ballot measure referred to as the A Plus B Approach or the Measure A, Measure B Approach, which is based on a case called Coleman vs. County of Santa Clara decided back in 1996. Santa Clara County asked their voters to approve a one-half cent sales tax on a binding general measure that the County Board of Supervisors could spend for any purpose, that was Measure A. Measure B was an advisory question that stated, "We the voters of Santa Clara County advise the Board of Supervisors that should Measure A pass we would like it stamped on the following very specific list of transportation improvements in ranked order." Measure B was politically quite meaningful and when the measure passed there was no question that the Board of Supervisors was going to follow that political advice from the voters, but it was purely advisory. Mr. Colantuono stated that that decision was challenged as violating the rule that special taxes restricted to special purposes require two- thirds vote of approval. Measure A quite plainly was legally a general tax and if the Board of Supervisors wanted a new fleet of limos for the Board's use that would be a lawful use of those revenues. Measure B was, in form, advisory. Mr. Colantuono stated that it was his professional opinion that notwithstanding the approval of Proposition 218, that continues to be the law—that a Measure A/Measure B approach is lawful. He stated that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association disagrees and they say they will look for an opportunity to litigate that question when it presents itself. He stated that the relevant legislative history of the language of Proposition 218 says it was intended to codify a decision that was already the law in 1996 when the Coleman case was decided. Mr. Colantuono stated that the Council has a choice between a general tax and a special tax. If they choose a general tax, they have a choice as to how far along that spectrum of certainty they can go in assuring the voters that the money will be spent in a particular way. Mayor Morris asked if the City could specify in the advisory vote the hiring of 28 additional police officers and prevention programs that relate to the issues of violence reduction and anti-crime programs and then on the list would also be added other municipal purposes. Mr. Colantuono answered in the affirmative. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada asked how far they could go in having a general tax with a specific use with no flexibility. Mr. Colantuono stated that they could do such things as appoint an oversight panel from within the institution of government or a citizen's panel of some kind, and they could require reporting mechanisms to the community or to the Council. He stated that there were a lot of procedural things that could be done to create transparency and accountability, but you can't tie the Council's hands with respect to the use of the money in a legally binding way without buying the two- thirds approval requirement. Mr. Colantuono stated that if they want the 50 6 08/02/2006 percent approval requirement, the tax must be discretionary in how it is used by the Council in legal form, and they need to find other ways to assure the community that their priorities are also the Council's priorities. Mr. Colantuono advised that the City could adopt a budget that's conditioned upon the measure passing and could adopt an ordinance requiring staff and the police chief to spend the money in a particular way. That ordinance like other ordinances could be amended by the Council, but it would reflect the Council's commitment to the community. Chief Billdt stated that during the budget deliberations in June he had made a presentation about the timeline for hiring 40 new police officers and 10 new support personnel to enhance public safety in the community. He stated that he believes they would be able to hire the 40 additional officers during a 30 -month period ending in December 2008. Chief Billdt stated that they have calculated the first, second and third year costs for the 30 -month period of hiring those additional resources and have also calculated the dollar amount that will be recurring in the fourth year—the 2008/09 fiscal cycle—and that cost is approximately $5.4 million. The Mayor stated that currently they are doing the best they can to create a safe community by borrowing six officers from the County to patrol the streets and have persuaded the Highway Patrol to do likewise. He stated that he had asked the Chief to search every piggy bank in the department for resources and some asset forfeiture money was found for the purpose of retaining the services of a helicopter to patrol the skies and those services will end in September. He stated that the Chief has reassigned 28 personnel to meet the peak needs of crime in our streets and officers at every level are working a considerable amount of overtime. Council Member/Commissioner Estrada stated that it is hard to control staffing levels, and she asked if the Chief had a method by which he could guarantee that he would be able to have enough officers out in the community to provide the level of service we are currently receiving. Chief Billdt stated that the hiring of new officers and their progress is available to the public. He stated that in terms of the deployment of resources, they have to deploy their resources when the community is most vulnerable to crime. They have to use the data that's available to them through their crime analysis, they have to use their geo-mapping technology, and they have to know when the peak crime periods are, when their highest calls for service load are, and they need to know strategically where in the community they are having a crime problem. In addition, they know that in order to prevent crime there has to be visibility, and the beat plan is a critical component of that. The Chief stated that it is a two-part approach. First, they have to identify crime trends and patterns, identify the time of day that crime is most prevalent, identify when our citizens are most vulnerable to crime, and deploy accordingly. The second part of that is to have a 7 08/02/2006 mechanism to deploy personnel equitably across the City in order to prevent crime problems. Chief Billdt stated that he thinks the beat plan is an outstanding component of their larger community policing model. He stated that they have to be proactive and they also have to have people ready to respond to emergency calls. In addition to that, they have to deploy those resources when they know there is a crime problem and statistics show that violent crime typically occurs between 6 p.m. and 3 a.m. Chief Billdt provided a brief overview of the use of the new helicopter. He stated that it is a brand new, state-of-the-art Robinson 44 Helicopter with all the bells and whistles. It has Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR), which means they can identify people at night from their body heat when they're hiding. He stated that it has the capability of communicating with all the regional law enforcement agencies during a pursuit. Chief Billdt stated that the helicopter is a force multiplier in that it has been proven that one observer in a helicopter can do the work of ten officers on the ground. He stated that in his professional opinion, the helicopter is a viable program that the City should keep. Chief Billdt stated that his officers have been working overtime and they have been flexible in their reassignments to work nights. They have stepped up to the plate and have worked the at -risk corridors and they have been willing and able to do whatever he's asked them to do in that regard. But, he cannot expect them to do that forever. Council Member/Commissioner Johnson stated that last week he had held a youth roundtable and one of the concerns that came up was response times. He asked the Chief to expound on how he handles calls for service. Chief Billdt stated that they have a policy that prioritizes Priority E's, which are emergencies, as Priority 1, 2, 3, etc. Priority E is the highest priority they have because it is an in -progress crime (robbery, assault, rape) and they have to get to those in the shortest amount of time. Some of the other priority calls such as Priority 2 and Priority 3 are what they call "cold" calls meaning that someone came home and discovered that they had been a victim of a property crime and they want a police officer to respond. The Chief stated that the officers respond as they are able, but sometimes the response times are extended, and it could be one to two hours before they could get there and help the member of the public because they have to attend to those emergency calls for service where human life is in jeopardy. He stated that there are several categories of priority responses and they enter all that information into their computer and their computer tells them when they have an in -progress Priority E, and the dispatcher dispatches those resources immediately to tend to those issues. 8 08/02/2006 Council Member/Commissioner Estrada stated that for some time they have been working on the civilianization of the police department. She asked how far along they were with that effort because the frustration in the past has been that the police officers are needed more out on the street than doing the reports in the department, and it was her understanding that they still have to do that. Chief Billdt stated that they are doing better in that regard, but they could improve. He stated that his philosophy is that sworn officers need to be out on the street attending to crime problems in the community, and to the extent that they can use non -sworn personnel to supplement that they will. He stated that one initiative they will be undertaking in the weeks and months ahead is a push to get as many civilian volunteers as they can. The Chief stated that they have just rewritten their citizen volunteer manual, and he is going to call upon the public to assist them by becoming their eyes and ears and also to do some of the fundamental functions in the Police Department so their sworn officers can get out onto the street. Mayor/Chairman Morris stated that his office is deeply committed to ramping up block captains for every block in the City for neighborhood watch type of engagements. He stated that they have received dozens of e-mails and telephone calls about this crisis and are taking full advantage of every opportunity to take those who raise their hands and enlist them in volunteer service for public safety. Gil Navarro, 1440 W. Sixth Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that there was an audit of the Fire Department several years ago and at that time there were concerns about the use of overtime. He stated that he wanted to find out what direction the City was going to take regarding overtime, and he asked that the report be shared with the public. Mr. Navarro suggested that the City audit their business tax department and all holders of business tax registrations to make sure revenues are being reported correctly. Mark Westwood, Democratic candidate in the 63rd Assembly District, stated that the victims of crime in San Bernardino should not be made the victims of a new tax. He requested that a sunset clause be added to ensure that it ends at a specific time. Tim Prince, resident of San Bernardino, CA, stated that this tax proposal concerns him and his main concern is timing. He recommended that the City look at the audit and implement the changes and reassignments prior to asking the taxpayers for more money. Mr. Prince stated that studies indicate that the City of San Bernardino has the highest cost to do business of any city in the Inland Empire. He stated that this is a regressive tax which means that it will affect the 9 08/02/2006 elderly and the poor. He stated that if the City is making more efficient use of the officers it currently has, it may not need to hire 40 new personnel. Robert Rego, City of San Bernardino business owner, agreed that the City needs to increase its police force; however, he had concerns about some of the issues relative to the car dealers. He wanted to know how it would be determined whether someone registering a vehicle is a resident of the City of San Bernardino and what would be the administrative cost to manage that. If someone is charged the excess tax that shouldn't have been, what will be the recourse and who will be responsible for that recourse. Mr. Rego stated that the City is sending a message that business is cheaper outside the City and San Bernardino has a crime problem so why would you want to shop here. He stated that these are two big messages we are sending with this type of tax increase and the people who will be hurt the most will be the poor and the elderly. Mr. Rego believes there are alternative methods that should be considered relative to the issue of funding additional officers. Mr. Jensen addressed Mr. Rego's concern by stating that the cost of administration is netted off the payments made to every jurisdiction in California, and that fee is paid to the California State Board of Equalization. He stated that all cities and counties are required to contract with the State Board of Equalization to administer local sales taxes and for that contract they pay slightly more than a one percent fee. Joseph Turner, P.O. 91000, San Bernardino, CA, stated that the Mayor campaigned that he was going to be tough on crime and that he was going to put 40 new officers on the street. Then, it was possibly 40 new officers over three years. Now, it's 40 officers if the City adopts a tax increase. He stated that the Mayor should have known the constraints of the City's budget and whether or not the hiring of 40 new officers was possible. Mr. Turner stated that he did not understand why the City doesn't wait to find out what the audit reveals, take the money in the reserves and use that to kick start the hiring of new police officers and then in the next subsequent budget year, take into account the inefficiencies revealed in the audit and plan accordingly. No action was taken on this matter. NB 1. RES. 2006-275 — Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorizing the execution of a Professional Services Agreement between Colantuono & Levin, PC and the City of San Bernardino to advise the City on revenue enhancement ballot measures and to prepare one or two ballot measures to be placed on the November 2006 ballot. (Pursuant to action taken in closed session.) 10 08/02/2006 Council Member/Commissioner Baxter made a motion, seconded by Council Member/Commissioner Derry, that said resolution be adopted. Resolution No. 2006-275 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members/Commissioners Estrada, Baxter, Derry, Johnson. Nays: None. Absent: Council Members/Commissioners Kelley, McCammack. 3. Adjournment At 5:14 p.m., the meeting adjourned. The next joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council/Community Development Commission is scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Monday, August 7, 2006, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. No. of Items: 3 No. of Hours: 1 RACHEL G. CLARK City Clerk By rn s �ti orf Linda Sutherland Deputy City Clerk 11 08/02/2006