Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-2012 Jt. Reg Mtg Minutes O�RNAf2p�Ap City of San Bernardino Mayor Patrick J. Morris 300 North "D" Street Council Members m o San Bernardino, CA 92418 Virginia Marquez Robert D. Jenkins http://www.sbcity.org John Valdivia Fred Shorett Ent Chas A. Kelley Rikke Van Johnson Wendy J. McCammack MINUTES JOINT REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR HOUSING AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ACTING AS THE HOUSING AUTHORITY MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2012 COUNCIL CHAMBERS The joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor Patrick J. Moms at 1:39 p.m., Monday, September 17, 2012, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. Roll Call Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Virginia Marquez Council Member, Ward 1 Absent Robert D. Jenkins Council Member, Ward 2 Present 1:30 p.m. John Valdivia Council Member, Ward 3 Present 1:30 p.m. Fred Shorett Council Member, Ward 4 Present 1:30 p.m. Chas A. Kelley Council Member, Ward 5 Present 1:30 p.m. Rikke Van Johnson Council Member, Ward 6 Present 1:30 p.m. Wendy J. McCammack Council Member, Ward 7 Present 1:30 p.m. Patrick J. Morris Mayor Present 1:30 p.m. James F. Penman City Attorney Present 1:30 p.m. j Georgeann "Gigi" Hanna City Clerk Present 1:30 p.m. Andrea Travis-Miller City Manager Present 1:30 p.m. Mayor and Common Council ojthe City ojSan Bernardino Page 1 Printed 911411011 S Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 1. Closed Session — Pursuant to Government Code Section(s): CA. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): Glen Air Mobile Home Park, et al v. City of San Bernardino, Superior Court San Bernardino County,Case No. CIVDS 1114110, In re: City of San Bernardino, California, US Bankruptcy Court, Case No. 6:12-bk- 28006-MJ 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: One (1) Case 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. City Attorney Penman announced that under Agenda Item 1D, Personnel, the following would be discussed: Request from City Council to add position of Interim Fire Chief. Reading of Resolutions and Ordinances Deputy City Clerk Hartzel read into the record the titles of all the resolutions and ordinances on the agenda. Moment of Silence A moment of silence was observed in memory of Dani Ward. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance The invocation was given by Reverend Kenny Baker from Allen Chapel AME Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member McCammack. C2. Appointments There were no Commission appointments. Mayor and Common Council ofthe City of San Bernardino Page 2 Printed 9 12412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 3. Presentations 3A. Resolution of Commendation and Certificates of Recognition -- United BJJ MMA Fitness Club - Master Rommel Dunbar and Students - 5th Annual Worlds Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Tournament- Council Member Valdivia 3B. Chamber of Commerce Announcements - Jim Gerstenslager 4. Announcements - Mayor, Members of the Common Council, and Elected Officials 5. Consent Calendar 5A. City Clerk Waive Full Reading of Resolutions and Ordinances Motion: Waive full reading of resolutions and ordinances on the joint regular agenda dated September 17, 2012. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Wendy J. McCammack, Council Member, Ward 7 © SECONDER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 AYES: Jenkins, Valdivia, Shorett, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack ABSENT: Virginia Marquez i 5B. City Attorney ORD. MC-1377 — An Ordinance of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Adding Section 3.05.050 to the San Bernardino Municipal Code Regarding Transferring Restricted Funds Without Mayor and Common Council Approval. FINAL READING Motion: Adopt the Ordinance. 1 RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Chas A. Kelley, Council Member, Ward 5 SECONDER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 AYES: Jenkins, Valdivia, Shorett,Kelley, Johnson, McCammack ABSENT: Virginia Marquez Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 3 Printed 911411011 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 5C. Community Development ORD. MC-1378 - An Ordinance of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Amending San Bernardino Development Code Section 19.20.030 to Allow the Use of Barbed Wire, Razor Wire, or Concertina Wire as an Approved Fencing Material. FINAL READING Motion: Adopt the Ordinance. RESULT: ADOPTED [5 TO 11 MOVER: Chas A. Kelley, Council Member, Ward 5 SECONDER: Wendy J. McCammack, Council Member, Ward 7 AYES: Jenkins, Valdivia, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack NAYS: Fred Shorett ABSENT: Virginia Marquez 5D. Finance Approval of Commercial Checks and Payroll Checks Motion: Approve the claims and payroll and authorize the issuance of warrants as listed. RESULT: ADOPTED 15 TO 11 MOVER: Wendy J. McCammack, Council Member, Ward 7 ! I SECONDER: Robert D. Jenkins, Council Member, Ward 2 AYES: Jenkins, Shorett, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack NAYS: John Valdivia ABSENT: Virginia Marquez 6. Public Hearings 6A. Community Development Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Adopting General Plan Amendment No. 11-05 to Amend the Land Use Designation of Approximately 10.23 Acres from Residential Urban (RU) to Industrial Heavy (III) and Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 11-16, to Establish an Auto Dismantling and Salvage Yard with Retail Parts Sales on 10.23 Acres Located at the South Side of Walnut Street Opposite of Artesian Avenue, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (Continued from August 20, 2012) The hearing remained open. Pursuant to Resolution No. 2000-279, City Clerk Hanna administered an oath to the following individual that he would provide true and honest testimony: Mayor and Common Council ojthe City ojSan Bernardino Page 4 Printed 912412012 i Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 Ricardo Vallejo, applicant, displayed a picture of the proposed facility, stating that they already own an auto salvage yard here in San Bernardino, and he has been in the business for over 20 years. He stated that this would be a self-service and full-service auto wrecking facility. Council Member Valdivia stated that an issue for him is the nearby area of Walnut and Muscott which has a low point in the curb and gutter that causes drainage issues. Tony Stewart, City Planner, stated that staff had recommended a new condition of approval (#25) which states that the applicant/operator must submit a cash deposit of $25,000 into the storm drain construction fund for a future capital improvement program project to mitigate the existing drainage issues at Muscott and Walnut Streets. This deposit must occur prior to building permit issuance. Mr. Valdivia stated that he would like it made part of the record that this would be a one- year process—that if the City does not perform within one year on the agreements that he and Mr. Stewart have made in conference, that the $25,000 paid by Mr. Vallejo would be refunded to him. Secondly, Mr. Valdivia stated that on item #25, the CIP project is rather vague—the storm drain construction fund. He noted that Mr. Stewart was going to look into and seek the counsel and advice of the Finance Department and he wondered what he had found. Mr. Stewart referred the question to Gary Akers, Senior Civil Engineer in community land development, stated that if the money is put into the general account within Community Development it can be "lost" if you will. The CIP project allows a specific CUP item so that it can be refunded directly. If you do it in the way that was first described there is an issue with it not being allocated to this project. Council Member Valdivia stated that his point of contention is that knowing the past practices of this City has somehow been to take a big grab and attach monies in various accounts, and he wants to ensure that Mr. Vallejo's money deposited in the storm drain construction fund isn't somehow absorbed into some other project. He asked if there was any guarantee. Mr. Akers replied that he did not know of any way that the money could be allocated any more directly than what they are proposing on this condition. If the City chooses to rob funds, he cannot guarantee that they will not do this. Mr. Valdivia asked if Mr. Akers had contacted the Finance Department as discussed. Mr. Akers replied that they had contacted the Building and Safety Division—that there is not a mechanism that they were made aware of by their finance section that allows any other method under current City procedures. Mr. Valdivia addressed Mr. Stewart, stating that when he left the table they kind of had a gentleman's handshake that that would be looked into. He stated he was not pleased that the construction fund is just so vague here that $25,000 of hard earned money from Mr. Vallejo is just somehow deposited with the hope that in one year we get $25,000 back to him, and there is then no money in that account. Mayor and Common Council ofthe City of San Bernardino Page 5 Printed 912411012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 Mr. Valdivia asked the Acting City Manager whether she could ensure that this $25,000 is appropriated into a special Walnut/Muscott drainage account so that it is impounded and it is not touched. Mr. Valdivia mentioned some documents that he had received at 3:59 this afternoon from Mr. Liang, and asked Mr. Stewart if any of that information had been provided in the backup, or was it just new fresh revelation to the Council. Mr. Stewart stated that it was not in the original staff report's backup—it was all supplemental based on the meetings they have been having with Mr. Valdivia and the City of Colton. Council Member Valdivia stated he was not comfortable moving forward with this today, as there was a lot of information that had been given to him that is new revelation that was not supplied in the backup materials; and he was not comfortable making a decision and moving this forward without reviewing this material. Pursuant to Resolution 2000-279, City Clerk Hanna administered an oath to the following individual that he would provide true and honest testimony: Nelson Miller, Vice President of the company that had assisted Mr. Vallejo with environmental documents, advised that essentially this material was responding to the City of Colton's comments regarding concerns about the water well that is adjacent to this site. They have requested assurances that the water quality will be protected, and the volume of material that the Council has received is clarifications to the original initial study responding to the City of Colton's comments, further describing the water quality control measures that will be implemented with this project to assure the City of Colton, as well as the City of San Bernardino, that the water quality will be protected. Mr. Valdivia stated he understood the importance of moving this forward; however, he still wanted to read this document at his convenience and continue the matter to the next meeting. He stated he wanted to discuss the CUP and its conditions. He wanted to assure residents in the nearby area that he has advocated for a traffic route that they go westerly on Walnut, northerly on Muscott, and then out onto Rialto Avenue so that residents in the neighborhood of Walnut and Mt. Vernon are not disturbed. He also mentioned the private pocket park that would be open the same hours as the business, and that he appreciated Mr. Vallejo's cooperation in providing said park. Council Member Johnson inquired about what kind of compliance elements are in place to ensure that motorists travel this route as proposed; and it was noted by staff that basically it will be an honor system. Motion: Continue the matter to the Council meeting of October 1, 2012. Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 6 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 RESULT: CONTINUED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 10/1/2012 1:30 PM MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Chas A. Kelley, Council Member, Ward 5 AYES: Jenkins, Valdivia, Shorett, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack ABSENT: Virginia Marquez 7. Continued Items 7A. Police RES. 2012-237 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease Agreement and Authorizing the Issuance of a Purchase Order to Chase Financial Services for a Four Year Parking Lot Lease and Utility Payments Not to Exceed $40,000 with an Optional Annual Renewal. (Continued from September 4, 2012) Motion: Adopt the Resolution. j RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Rikke Van Johnson, Council Member, Ward 6 SECONDER: Chas A. Kelley, Council Member, Ward 5 AYES: Jenkins, Valdivia, Shorett, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack ABSENT: Virginia Marquez 8. Staff Reports 8A. City Attorney Discussion and Possible Action Re: Request for Proposals for Franchising of All Components of the City's Solid Waste Services, and Authorization to Retain Sloan Vazquez, LLC for Consulting Services Related to Selection of Private Refuse Companies Mayor Morris advised that at the last meeting of the Mayor and Common Council there was a motion made, that was passed, to go out for an RFP for leasing public/private partnership opportunities for our refuse operation. The motion included that the City Manager provide a status report to the City Council on this date with an RFP no later than October 1, 2012. Acting City Manager Travis-Miller stated that at the last Council meeting the Council had directed that staff begin to work with the City's expert consultant that they are in the process of retaining, to assist them with the development of the RFP. She stated that she thought the Council had been given a list of issues that had been provided by the consultant that they are still working to address, and their intent is to present this to the Council by the October 1, 2012, meeting as was agreed to. She stated that she believed © the City Attorney had prepared a draft RFP with some assistance from City staff, and certainly some discussions, and he was prepared to address the request for proposal that his office had prepared. Mayor and Common Council ofthe City of San Bernardino Page 7 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 Responding to an inquiry from the Mayor as to whether she had prepared the RFP being presented at today's meeting, Ms. Travis-Miller answered that there certainly had been conversations with him, but he did prepare this agenda item. They still have some remaining things that they anticipate they would need to work through and those have been provided to the Council. Mayor Morris asked if she was referring to the 14 items of concern that were placed before the Mayor and Council today by Sloan and Vasquez. Ms. Travis-Miller answered in the affirmative, stating that Mr. Sloan did send those to her on Friday. She apologized that the Council did not receive them earlier, but affirmed that was the list she was referring to. She stated that they are continuing to collect the data that has been requested, and certainly they are trying to expedite that, given the Council's desire to get this request for proposal out to the community as quickly as possible. Mayor Moms noted that City Attorney Penman had placed on the agenda Item 8A, which included a substantial amount of documentation relative to historical practices in the City relative to trash and refuse streams, and a set of proposed RFPs. He asked if Mr. Penman wanted to address that. City Attorney Penman advised that at the last meeting of the Mayor and Council, Mr. Kelley's motion was to return at this meeting with a Request for Proposal (RFP); so in communication with the City Manager and some consultation with the Interim Director of Public Works, they attempted to put together a request for proposal. Their efforts were somewhat hampered by the fact that information that they had requested from the Public Works Department was not forthcoming; however, they do have draft #4 in the backup, which is not intended to be the final document, but is intended to comply with the motion approved by the Council made by Mr. Kelley at the last meeting. His office had been requested by some members of the Council to have a proposed City Council response to the comments and recommendations by Sloan Vasquez, which had been passed out and distributed to the Mayor and Council. Mr. Penman read to the Mayor and Council a section of the City Charter and an appropriate section of the California Public Resources Code applicable to the RFP. In Article 1, Section 1, The Powers of the City, the Charter provides that the City of San Bernardino may make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to the restrictions and limitations provided in the Charter, and in respect to other matters it shall be subject to general laws. He stated that there is no provision in the Charter, nor any requirement in the Municipal Code, for service contracts to be sent out for request for proposals or for bids. He stated that since the Charter refers us to the General Law, we look at the Waste Management provision, Division 30, Section 40000 of the Public Resources Code— specifically, Section 40059, Issues for Local Determination, which he also read to the © Mayor and Council. A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each County, City, District, or other local governmental agency may determine all of the following: Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 8 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 1. Aspects of solid waste handling which are of local concern including, but not limited to, frequency of collection, means of collection and transportation, level of services, charges and fees, and nature location and extent of providing solid waste handling services. 2. Whether the services are to be provided by means of nonexclusive franchise, contract, license, permit, or otherwise, either with or without competitive bidding, or if in the opinion of its governing body the public health, safety, and wellbeing so require by partially exclusive or wholly exclusive franchise contract, license permit or otherwise, either with or without competitive bidding. So twice in that article of general law, which does apply to the City in this instance, it is stated that the decision can be made either with or without competitive bidding; and also gives to the governing body, in this case the Mayor and Council, the authority to address this issue by partially exclusive or wholly exclusive franchise, contract, license, permit or otherwise, either with or without competitive bidding. It states in Section B, nothing in this division modifies or abrogates in any manner either of the following: 1. Any franchise previously granted or extended by any County or other local governmental agency. 2. Any contact license or any permit to collect solid waste previously granted or extended by a city, county, or a city and county. Although neither the Charter nor State law requires that the City send out for bids, or send out an RFP, it is the recommendation, and was the recommendation of the City Attorney's office that we send out an RFP and accept proposals—not bids, but proposals—and we did that primarily because of the City being in bankruptcy. The Mayor and Council in their wisdom gave some directions to both the City Manager and the City Attorney as to what it was they were interested in, primarily managed competition, and other matters that are in the proposed City Council responses to Sloan Vasquez. Mr. Penman advised that the refuse fund is a restricted fund, and it is a fund that is not to be used for purposes other than refuse purposes, and it is a fund that is governed, in his opinion, by Proposition 218. However, they were informed at the outset of the information discovery that led to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, that the refuse fund had been used to reimburse the City for certain expenditures from the general fund; and the total amount of that money on an annual basis was, has been, and is between $11 million and $12 million per annum. In conversations with the City Manager, and looking back at the transfers of funds during the last many years, it's apparent that the refuse fund has been operating at a deficit. There are two factors—one is the collection rate that is charged to customers—the other ® is the fact that money from the refuse fund has been transferred to the general fund to the tune of about $11-12 million a year. Mr. Penman stated that in discussion with the City Manager he believed they had Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 9 Printed 911411011 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 concluded, and she can speak for herself if she disagrees with this statement, but he believed they had concluded that it would make no sense to outsource refuse from the City's perspective unless the City in the outsourcing, or in the franchising, was able to recoup that same $11 million. In other words, in order to make it worthwhile for the taxpayers to have refuse outsourced, or to have refuse franchised out, whatever term you want to use to describe the process that we are going through, it would be a negative for the City if the City did not receive in return that $11 million minimum, and sometimes it's gone as high as $12 million, that the City's general fund has been receiving for many years. With that in mind, some changes were made to the request for proposals, and some of those are indicated in the proposed City Council responses, which I understood one of the Council members was going to go into. Mayor Morris stated that he was going to take the lead as they engaged in this conversation and indicated that they had received late this morning from the City Manager a memorandum, and attached to that was a memorandum from Sloan Vazquez, a consulting firm that the City has engaged to assist staff in the development of the RFP for solid waste management. Mayor Morris read into the record in its entirety an Interoffice Memorandum from the City Manager to the Mayor and Council dated September 17, 2012, regarding Review and Evaluation of the Draft Request for Proposals for Solid Waste, Collection, and Disposal Services; and the attachment to that memo, a memorandum addressed to Andrea Travis-Miller, Acting City Manager, from Joe Sloan and Enrique Vazquez, Sloan O Vazquez, LLC, dated September 14, 2012, regarding Review of the City's Request for Proposals. (Note: Copies of both documents were placed with the backup materials relative to this matter.) Acting City Manager Travis-Miller explained that staff had discussed doing a contract under $25,000 with Sloan Vazquez, but they realized that would only obtain the services of development of the RFP, and they thought it was critical that they have them for the full implementation, on negotiations of the contracts, etc.; therefore, there is an agenda item before the Council today that would place a cap on that of$50,000. She stated that Sloan Vazquez did provide an initial contract to the City for under that $25,000 amount, but it was very limited in terms of its scope of what they could do. Ms. Travis-Miller stated that she wanted to clarify that the company has been willing to assist us, recognizing our financial situation. They actually reached out to us when they heard that the City had filed bankruptcy. She did not think about it until the Council started pursuing this as a potential alternative for us, and because of the short time frame, the City did reach out to them. They have attended some meetings for us at no cost,just clarifying the understanding and things of that nature. Additionally, information was requested from Public Works. This is information that our Public Works staff is very well aware would be needed for any kind of a request for proposal. We are currently in the process of collecting that data and providing it in the manner that is usable by the potential bidders, because a lot of the data we collect really C doesn't have any meaning unless you are used to our programs and things of that nature. She stated that with respect to the funding, it has been upwards of$11 million, and that :l lui o, rind common Council ofthe City of San Bernardino Page 10 Printed 912412012 i Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 does include things that are truly legitimate costs related to the refuse operation—fuel and fleet and things like that. However, there are some costs where staff feels that they need to do a nexus analysis to determine whether or not that really is an appropriate use of refuse funding, so they are in the process of analyzing all of those things now; but the $11 million includes the refuse proportional share of various costs Citywide. Council Member Kelley stated that he had a deep concern regarding the employees, as they are in limbo right now. He urged that the City get the RFP out quickly. He noted that there were 14 recommendations contained in the memorandum from Sloan Vazquez and felt that there might be a way of resolving some of those issues. Submitted into the record by the City Attorney's office was a document titled, City Council Meeting of September 17, 2012, Proposed City Council Responses to Sloan Vazquez, LLC, RFP Recommendations of September 14, 2012, On Agenda Item 8A. Council Member Kelley went through this document, which contained 14 responses to the 14 concerns raised by Sloan Vazquez. Mr. Kelley reminded the Council that the final RFP will come back to them for approval, and they must start to look at public/private partnerships. Also submitted into the record by the City Attorney's office was a document titled, September 17, 2012 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 8A, which listed three motions shown as Motion 1, Motion 2, and Motion 3. ® Council Member McCammack stated that she was glad that some action had come forward so that they could open the discussion. She stated that in some of the documents these people who will be sent the RFP are called bidders, but they are not bidders, they are proposers to a plan—they are not bidding yet. She stated that she is not interested in selling the asset—the asset belongs to the taxpayer. She stated she was also not interested in seeing the employees get dwindled down by selling the asset. She does not want to see any employees cut until the Council has a full accounting of how monies have gone in and gone out. She is very concerned that the consultant is calling this bidding for services. She stated that she wants the proposers to throw the kitchen sink at them in terms of proposals, and she wants to know they are getting the best proposals possible insofar as taking care of employees. She stated that they are not selling the asset, and what Sloan Vasquez has suggested is selling the asset. She stated that responsible proposals will come back to the Council and they can then decide who they want to negotiate with. Motion: Council Member McCammack made a motion, seconded by Council Member Kelley, to incorporate the comments read into the record by Council Member Kelly (the 14 responses to Sloan Vazquez' concerns) into the RFP. (Subsequently, the motion was amended.) Council Member Shorett stated that the Council needed to begin this discussion because © of their Waste Disposal Agreement (WDA) ending in January 2013, because if they don't agree to extend that (which is item 8F on the agenda), they must find some other alternative. He stated that to him it sounded like a good idea to extend it without changing the agreement one iota, other than we are going to go a longer distance. It Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 11 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 wouldn't affect any of the refuse personnel—they continue to pick up the trash; we will just be delivering further. He stated that he understood that there would be a cost associated with that. He stated that a request for proposal should be made by the experts. It should be coming from the Public Works Director, and then he and the City Manager should find the expertise needed to help them present that to the Mayor and Council to determine whether it is something they really want to do. He stated he was completely against the item they are dealing with right now and would not be supporting it. Mr. Shorett stated that he wanted to go back to Sloan Vazquez and hire them to put this through a real RFP—one that passes the political smell test—and not a rush to get something out before they have given it some real thought and have it done by the experts. They need to extend the WDA for three and one-half years and take that time to look into new opportunities with new technology. They have said it before—their trash stream is a valuable product, and if it wasn't there wouldn't be three or four trash haulers in the room today wanting to purchase it. Council Member Valdivia noted that Council Member Kelley had inquired about the consultant that Acting City Manager Travis-Miller had hired, and he asked when she had entered into an agreement with Sloan Vazquez. Ms. Travis-Miller clarified that initially Mr. Sloan had called when the City announced © that it had filed bankruptcy, and she did not think much of the phone call as it was one of many she received at that time offering assistance. It wasn't until the Council directed that they begin to look at that process, and there was some discussion, that she called him because staff was looking for someone. Mr. Penman represented to her that they had had discussions with various trash companies that indicated that they would pay for consultant services, and that was the first person she thought of to call. They did have a meeting with Mr. Sloan, which he agreed to do that at no cost. He met with the Mayor, herself, Public Works Department representatives, and representatives of the City Attorney's office; and then they have had various conversations with him. They initially talked about entering into an agreement with him for an amount not to exceed $25,000, really just focusing on the development of the RFP. Mr. Valdivia asked approximately what date she actually entered into an agreement for less than $25,000. Ms. Travis-Miller stated they had talked about doing that, and he had presented one to her. She contemplated signing that, but then Mr. Penman indicated that he planned to place an agenda item on this evening's meeting to expand that, so he was assisting with the actual negotiations and things like that, and so you have that contract before you. She stated that she believed that she really needed to do something because Mr. Sloan needs to be compensated for the significant amount of time he has expended in dealing with © them. She stated she would like to see the City pay him for at least the services that have been rendered. Responding to an inquiry from Council Member Valdivia, Mr. Penman stated that they Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 12 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Mi utes September 17, 2012 had received the letter from Sloan Vazquez at 6:27 p.m., Friday, September 14, and they worked on it over the weekend and finished the final draft just before the Council meeting. City Attorney Penman stated that just to clarify some things that have been said, the Council gave direction on August 6, and during that discussion he stated that the City Attorney's office would not, could not, do negotiations on this type of a proposal without the assistance of the City Manager. Two days later when he and the Mayor met, along with his chief of staff, the City Manager, Sr. Assistant City Attorney Jolena Grider-he told the Mayor then pretty much what he has heard the Council say and what he has heard the audience agreeing with them. The City Attorney's office does not have personnel who are qualified to determine what needs to go into an RFP for refuse services, and he has said that all along. He told the Mayor on that date, August 8, that they needed to have expert advice and his office would need to work with them. He and the City Manager discussed it, and she mentioned the conversation, as she has indicated, that she had received a call from Joe Sloan, and that was fine with him. He knew that she had had experiences when she was in La Mirada, as the city manager there, with negotiating such an agreement, so she set up a meeting around the 14` of August with Mr. Sloan, the Mayor, himself, a couple staff from his office; and he listened for awhile and it was obvious that they were well enough qualified and his office went back to work. The Mayor continued to discuss with them. We have had other meetings since then. The Mayor, I'm sure was trying to be as accurate as he could be, but when he said that the draft #1 agreement was the same as the one that is in the backup, that is not true, because last week, for the first time, they were finally given an interview with Jim Smith, the Director of Public Works. He stated that Mr. Smith had over 30 suggestions for the RFP, and because he agreed with Mr. Shorett, that the City Attorney's office was not the one that should be deciding what is in the agreement, he directed Mr. Empeiio and Mr. Luczak to proceed to incorporate the concerns that Mr. Smith had voiced, with the exception of any that were contrary to the will of the Mayor and Council as expressed by the Mayor and Council in previous open session meetings. That was done, and the specific items were determining the area of the two service areas (the Mayor and Council had indicated that they wanted to hear the proposals from the people responding to the RFP); and other issues such as how long the trial period would be. He stated that as an attorney he could tell everyone, because he does understand legal language, that whatever the trial period is, that's going to be the period of the contract—that's just the way it's going to be. So, as a result of the August 6 action of the Mayor and Council, and Council members had been meeting prior to that with refuse haulers and his office had been invited to some of those meetings, and refuse haulers had stated that if there was an RFP, or a process that called for bringing in a professional, that they thought it was appropriate that the refuse proposers, or at least the company that got the successful contract or contracts, would be the ones to pay those fees. So it was the intention throughout to have in the © ultimate contract the provision that whoever the successful provider was, assuming there ultimately is one, that they would pay for that. So the proposal that is in the backup is a combination of the information they have received to date. Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 13 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 Mr. Penman stated that it appears from the Sloan Vazquez proposal that they thought this was a proposal to sell solid waste—that is what they are saying in here when they talk about qualified bidders. But this was not a for-bid RFP, it was an RFP to prepare and submit a bona fide proposal. Mayor Morris noted that Sloan Vazquez used the terms interchangeably. They say proposals throughout the document. Mr. Penman stated that irrespective, what he was saying is that it does not appear that they knew exactly what the direction of the Mayor and Council was. The City Attorney's office was responding to that, and so that draft RFP is there. Then they went through Sloan Vazquez' 14 points, and on their 14 points they made proposed changes to conform with what they had suggested in many cases (in a couple of cases not to), based on the direction that the Council had previously indicated that they wanted to go. Also, in addition to them not knowing exactly what the Mayor and Council's proposal had been, was that his (Mr. Penman's) office had repeatedly requested information, and as Sloan Vazquez points out in their memo, the RFP in the backup doesn't have that information. No, it doesn't have it because the City Attorney's office, despite the fact that they were acting at the direction of the Mayor and Council, was unable to get that information. The City Manager has explained that she is in the process of developing that information. The Attorney's office was not successful in getting follow-up conversations with Mr. Smith, Interim Director of Public Works, until fairly late today before the meeting, despite the fact that the proposal had come in on Friday; and they finally got information from Sloan Vazquez late today. Prior to that he had one phone conversation with Sloan Vazquez. The City Manager had indicated to him that she was going to be sending them the draft proposal, our draft proposal #1, which they knew was in no way adequate to be sent out; and he assumed that she had sent it to them, so he contacted them and they said, no, they had not received it. In subsequent conversations with the City Manager he was informed that she had been advised not to send it. So they didn't have it. We did not have to have the so-called last minute proposals because it could have been sent as early as the 8th or 9th of August-well over a month ago; and Sloan Vazquez has indicated that they could probably put something together in four to six weeks. We have had five weeks go by since that first draft. Mr. Penman stated that he thought there was a lot of misinformation, and he thought some of it was intentional—that there was a desire to delay the process, and he thought the employees that were in the room had been put into a very unfortunate situation. He thought that what the employees didn't realize was that the majority of the Mayor and Council, including the Mayor, had expressed previously their desire to franchise out, at a minimum, if not sell, refuse. But there is an internal dispute going on as to who they want to handle it; and the people in refuse right now who think that one faction of City _ government is on their side should know that they are not on their side—they are just waiting because they have another group that they want to come in and do it. That is what is really going on behind the scenes, and he thought the public should know that. That is why there is a delay going on because there is a requirement in the proposal that Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 14 Printed 911411011 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 the bidder have a recovery facility within a 12-mile radius of the City yards. Right now there are only two providers who have a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) within that 12-mile radius, and some of the people who are today arguing against this RFP have stated that we need to take off that 12-mile radius because there are other people out there who want to bid and they won't be able to bid if we keep this 12-mile radius in. What has come out of this process is the fact, and the Council had not been presented with this information before, in this detail, some of us had received it from former employees of the Refuse Department, and last week, when we finally got the meeting that we had been trying to get since the 8`h or 9th of August, Mr. Smith confirmed that the refuse fund has been in effect supplementing the general fund to the tune of $11-12 million per year. If you want to know why the refuse fund is in the red, that is a good start. We also learned,just last week, that the amount that the City is presently expecting to receive is $11 million per year, and that puts us in a very interesting situation. Because it makes no sense to do anything with refuse except what we are doing with it-not to sell it, not to outsource it, not to franchise it-unless the general fund can receive at least the same $11 million that it has been receiving for many years. Mr. Penman stated that he thinks that puts the entire perspective of the layoffs in doubt, and he did not think it was fair to the employees, if this is what is being suggested politically, to move ahead now, lay off some of them, and then next year, when someone else gets an MRF online, as some folks think they will, but they probably won't in reality because of the State's licensing laws, the rest of them will be transferred to private refuse haulers. He stated that this is the truth and every word he has spoken is the truth and everyone knows it. Council Member Shorett stated that it was absolutely not the truth. Council Member Valdivia noted that Mr. Penman had alluded to the fact that the City general fund had been subsidized by the Refuse Department. He asked whether the Finance Department had confirmed that. City Manager Travis-Miller answered that in prior years the refuse fund has provided funding to the City's general fund-it reimburses for fuel charges and fleet charges and a whole host of other things. She added that there have been some charges—specifically the street sweeping charges, some of the graffiti removal, etc. that staff believes need further analysis to really determine whether or not they are appropriate, because those are rate-payer dollars that are paying for that service and staff is not sure the nexus is there, so they are looking at some of those charges. But they have been recovering the costs of all their fuel and things like that and paying for that to the general fund. With respect to future transfers, the reason you don't see future transfers proposed in this FY 2012-13 is because staff does not feel that that fund can bear those kinds of charges other than paying for their minimum fuel charges, etc. that are directly related to that service. Council Member Valdivia asked the maker of the motion and the seconder if they were trying to piggyback all three motions into one, because he did not feel comfortable with that and he was not ready to support that as a whole. Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 15 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 Council Member McCammack stated that as the initiator she had planned on amending Motion 1 to have additional language in it based on the documents so that the City Clerk is not interpreting it in a way that it is not written, and she had no problem breaking up Motion 2 and Motion 3 because she thinks they are as critically important, but she definitely thought they needed to get the process moving or they will be six more months down the line and they are already months into this conversation. Motion: Council Member McCammack amended her motion, seconded by Council Member Kelley, to direct the City Manager to issue Draft#4 of the revised "Request for Proposal (RFP) for Solid Waste Collection, Receiving, Processing, Transfer and Disposal Services" after retaining all sections of Draft #4 of the RFP not specifically removed by the Mayor and Common Council and after amending that RFP to include any and all revised and/or additional language provided by the Mayor and Common Council; the revised Request for Proposal is not to be issued by the City Manager unless both the City Manager's office and the City Attorney's office have approved the wording of said document and have approved the final document to be released in its entirety, and the revised Request for Proposal is to be mailed to all appropriate vendor candidates no later than September 20, 2012. (The vote was taken following additional discussion.) O Council Member Johnson stated that he appreciated the City Attorney's interpretation of how events have transpired, but he is not on the same page as everybody else; and he believes this agenda item is hastily written and he also believes this process stinks. He stated that the RFP seemed to be written with providers already being awarded, which is a problem to him. He stated that he wanted to speak to some of the items he had highlighted in the memorandum. First of all, it falls short of what is needed in order to attract the highest and best offers for the City's most valuable public asset; however, the RFP as drafted lacks important features that will make it impossible for qualified bidders to prepare and submit a bona fide proposal. He noted that Sloan and Vazquez have 30 years of experience in municipal solid waste procurement processes in the state that would help the City secure the best possible services and revenues from our municipal solid waste. They talk about the time frame that is required as being four to six weeks. Mr. Johnson stated that whoever gets the proposal, rates will be raised. He stated that they talk about contracting out, but until we start talking about contracting out parks, public safety, refuse—all of them—instead of piecemealing them, he would not be in favor of any of this talk about contracting out trash. He stated that he has lived in this city for over 50 years and they are just finishing their freeway. As everyone knows, there has always been a division where it has basically been a Berlin Wall with the freeway—the 215 with all the on-ramps and off-ramps emptying to the east. So as they talk about dividing the city into two areas, once again they are talking about putting up another wall in our city and he has a problem with that. Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 16 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 Council Member Shorett pointed out that the very last sentence of the motion states that �� "the revised RFP is to be mailed to all appropriate vendor candidates no later than September 20, 2012. He asked if it shouldn't say mailed to "both" appropriate vendor candidates,because with the 12-mile radius there are only two that can qualify. Public Comments: Paul Sanborn, San Bernardino, CA Gary Clifford, CEO, Athens Services, City of Industry, CA George Swift, General Unit Representative Paul Flores, General Unit Representative Charles Greenwood, City Refuse Employee Matthew Briones, City Refuse Employee Karol Moseby, San Bernardino, CA Stephen Johns, City Refuse Employee Richard Mendoza, City Refuse Employee Mayor Morris stated that he believes the process they have engaged in thus far is deeply flawed. He added that Draft #4 of the RFP from Mr. Penman's office has all the hallmarks of the first draft of the 14`h of August when they sat and talked about this with Mr. Penman and two of his deputies, with Sloan and Vazquez, and the City Manager. He stated that they were all told by Mr. Penman that he and Mr. Luczak had an RFP already prepared. Mr. Luczak confessed he did not have one actually, but Mr. Penman had said © this must go out by tomorrow. The Mayor stated that he had previously vetoed the proposal that came before the Council because he thought it was a flawed process; and he would veto it again. We are not going to rush to judgment on this. This is going to be a carefully thought out, intelligent conversation about the merits of this idea and about the contents of an RFP. Mr. Penman had in mind, and he confessed as much, that members of the Council that he had talked to had two providers in mind and that was Republic and Burrtec; and those were to be the providers of this new out-sourced set of franchises or disposition. The Mayor stated that he had said that it does not meet the test of an open and transparent process. That conversation has continued with no progress to speak of until the last Council meeting, and then the City Manager was commissioned to drive this forward. It was her commission-not the City Attorney's commission. He stated he was deeply troubled by the prospect of a politically engaged city attorney calling the shots here. He said that initially when this whole thing unfolded and he vetoed it; and they need to keep the professionals in charge of this process. Mayor Moms noted that Mr. Kelley had said it was "only an RFP." He responded that this is a critically important document that will allow them as a group of policymakers to carefully look at opportunities that may exist out there. They may not exist, but this needs to be done with great craftsmanship—it is a remarkably complex process. If they are going to be engaged in an RFP process, they need to have it a refined process. This C hastily thrown together set of responses to the 14 concerns prepared and filed by Sloan Vazquez does not begin to meet, in his view, the needs of this Council and this City as they go forward. They need to do this in an intelligent, carefully constructed way. The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 17 Printed 912412012 do= Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 City's refuse stream is, as pointed out by Sloan and Vazquez, and all with whom they have talked, next to Water, the City's most valuable asset. They understand that and it cannot be disposed of in any hasty, cavalier way by an RFP of the kind and variety that they have before them. He stated he would not support this. Council Member Kelley stated that clearly there are longstanding animosities that are clouding the judgment and the longevity of the health and safety and well-being of the residents of San Bernardino. He implored people to put their personalities aside and do what is in the best interest of the city. To decode what is said in a thoughtful and intelligent way, or that this is hastily done, or done in a cavalier way—he strongly disagreed with those observations. People are entitled to have their observations, but they can be dead wrong. RESULT: VOTE FOR APPROVAL VETOED BY MAYOR MOVER: Wendy J. McCammack, Council Member, Ward 7 SECONDER: Chas A. Kelley, Council Member, Ward 5 AYES: Robert D. Jenkins, John Valdivia, Chas A. Kelley, Wendy J. McCammack NAYS: Fred Shorett, Rikke Van Johnson ABSENT: Virginia Marquez l Motion: Direct the City Attorney to notify the County of San Bernardino that the City of San Bernardino intends to discontinue use of the County disposal facilities effective January 1, 2013. RESULT: VOTE FOR APPROVAL VETOED BY MAYOR MOVER: Wendy J. McCammack, Council Member, Ward 7 SECONDER: Chas A. Kelley, Council Member, Ward 5 AYES: Robert D. Jenkins,John Valdivia, Chas A. Kelley, Wendy J. McCammack NAYS: Fred Shorett,Rikke Van Johnson ABSENT: Virginia Marquez No further action was taken on this item. 8B. Council Office Nine Point Adjustment Plan to the Pre-Pendency Plan Council Member McCammack stated there were several questions and apparently a need for clarification, and now something else had come up that she thought needed to be discussed here regarding this item. She stated that she had written the 9-Point Adjustment Plan adding just a few words to clarify some revenue or financial arrangements that would pay for some of these items; O for instance, in terms of the library, Villasenor had not been mentioned in writing, so she put it in writing. She also had asked for some conversation and negotiation status updates regarding the employee groups—this actually puts it in writing that this Council needs a weekly update on those negotiations and a timeline that describes events to the date of Mayor and Common Council ofthe City of San Bernardino Page 18 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 each status update. It also asks for no layoffs to refuse and sewer workers. Ms. McCammack stated that some of these things actually clarified what they had discussed publicly and agreed upon by the majority to ask for the City Manager to give us some clarifying documents back. I know she is working on them, but actually to have them in writing a little bit more specifically gives the Council the ability to point to something that says this was the Council action. Motion: Made by Council Member McCammack, seconded by Council Member Jenkins, to clarify and amend the previously approved 9-point adjustment plan to the pre-pendency plan. (Motion was subsequently amended.) Mayor Moms pointed out that the Mayor and Council had passed a Pre-Pendency Plan and they have begun to execute on that plan and they are moving on a number of fronts to make that plan a reality. He stated that this would be going backwards. Council Member McCammack stated that every day that goes by the numbers that the Council were given in the original pre-pendency plan dated August 23, 2012, have changed. They just got a memo dated today that has changed these numbers from August 23, and she wasn't going to ask for this because it creates more work; but she was not prepared to make cuts in any department until the numbers that were in this document of August 23 are now updated with the numbers from this memo from September 17. She stated the reason she is saying this is that in many of the cuts within the pre- pendency plan, she does not see the methodology or the justification that corresponds with the reduction in revenue related to those cuts, because many of those cuts that are listed in the pre-pendency plan were revenue generating employees above and beyond the cost of their vehicles, the cost of the computer, and the cost of their time and benefit package. Therefore, she informed the City Manager that she would like to have a revised pre- pendency plan in terms of the summary page, page 1 of 1, that shows a methodology of the revenues in the top section and a breakdown of what exactly that means; and show her where the reduction of the revenues that are corresponding with the reduction of employees appears. She also requested a revision of the revenues that were suggested, and passed by five votes at the last Council meeting, for the nine points without the clarification and amendments. She stated that if the City Manager could do that it would give the Council a much better understanding of what is left. Ms. McCammack continued, stating that if they can't get a clarification of the refuse transfers in and transfers out (the same with sewer transfers in and transfers out), they don't have the whole picture. She stated she was not trying to micromanage around $11.7 or $10.7 million as that is a huge hole to have to then make decisions about cuts surrounding that potential hole. �. She stated that earlier today there was a parking control jeep perusing the Carousel Mall parking lot instead of driving every two-hour-parking-limit street. She understands they are trying to save gasoline, but if you are not finding any tickets then what would be a better use of that person's time. She stated that that revenue is not currently reflected in Mayor and Common Council ofthe City of San Bernardino Page 19 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 the pre-pendency plan. Ms. McCammack stated that the code enforcement officers that were not cut and the revenue generation above and beyond their salaries is not in this summary plan. She has had a couple of Council members tell her that this is a moving target-we know it is a moving target; but the moving target also means humans, jobs, house payments. That moving target to her means the fewer people that have to lose their jobs, the much more easily she can put her head on the pillow at night. Right now, without all of that information that is asked for in this 9-point amendment and clarification, she can't make those decisions without the proper amount of information. Council Member Shorett stated that this was the reason he did not vote for bankruptcy in the first place, because he said back then that this Council was not capable of coming up with a pendency plan that was going to be accepted and get the City through bankruptcy. When he asked the City Attorney two weeks ago at the last meeting what happens to us if we don't get through bankruptcy, the answer was (in other words, he didn't say this, but I will clarify) he says, we're going to get through it. I will de-code that—it means don't worry about it. Well, I am worried about it—I worried about it then and I'm still worried about it; and the longer we add and subtract and take apart and not listen to the people that have worked tirelessly since we determined that we are in such horrible shape (our department heads, the City Manager, everybody involved)the more I worry. We have to start trusting them. We have all stood up here and said we've got the greatest city manager going and we are so glad to have her onboard right now, she's leading us in the right direction. Everybody is working in the right direction, and we tend to be micromanaging the process. The cuts are difficult, but they need to be made, and the longer we take to make them, the longer we are going to be in this problem. I am not convinced that we are going to be able to come up with the appropriate plan to get a bankruptcy judge to say that we are serious about this, and from that point forward—I guess we will find out what happens after that. I do not support any changes to the original pre-pendency plan. I haven't voted on it in the past; I won't vote on it tonight. The constituents and business people I have talked to said, what are you people doing? Why didn't you vote on that pre-pendency plan? We need to get moving. Let's just stand with what we did last time. We moved the ball a little bit down the field, and let's move to the next level and do what we have to do as elected officials. Council Member Jenkins stated that he wants to trust, and he sent an email to the City Manager and to the Fire Chief thanking them for reaching out and working with labor and they have a tough job. All of our department heads have a tough job. But when we started going down this road, we had constituent after constituent after constituent stand up and say, ask the hard questions, find out what is going on. Part of the problem, and he strongly believes this, is that they haven't always asked the right questions and they haven't drilled down. When you look at the corruption of other cities, and if you look at JPAs in our area, we trusted professionals; and we can roll our eyes and I know this is a taboo subject, and this is no blame to anybody else, but a certain JPA trusted Scott Spencer-he was the professional; and that has gotten us in a world of hurt, unfortunately. The taxpayers are hurting because we trusted a certain professional and we did not ask certain questions. So, as one of my heroes, a former president, said, trust but verify. I will verify. Madame City Manager, I will give you the respect, but I am going to verify Mayor and Common Council ofthe City of San Bernardino Page 20 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 and I'm going to email you, and I'm going to text message you, I'm going to reach out to you, and I'm going to verify. Mr. Jenkins stated that after the last Council meeting he spoke with a leading businessman, a businessman who probably brings in the most tax revenue into our city. He flat out told me, your revenue numbers are wrong. You are using a static budget. You need to be looking at a dynamic budget-things have changed. You have had a lot of employees leave, you've laid off some. He noted that one of the local car dealerships sold over 160 cars on Labor Day—the best since 1986—and that is revenue coming into our city. At one committee meeting he praised Mr. Shorett-he is a businessman and I am not-I'm a public employee-I'm a school teacher. Being the public school teacher that I am, cuts need to be made. Where are the cuts always made in the schools-the teachers and instructional assistants-the direct services to the public. Every time I have to go through cuts I turn around and there are more principals at the district office, there are more renovations at the district office-it's amazing how beautiful the district office is-the grass is very green and mowed. But we have not had book monies, we have not had new computers, we beg and plead for parents to donate basic supplies; and I see that happening even in this chamber. I agree with Council Member McCammack. If cuts don't have to be made, I'm not going to make them. If cuts have to be made, then so be it. But until I see the numbers that �1 justify the cuts-because whenever you cut you are talking about a service to my �J constituents, you are talking about a cut to my home. We voted on this-this is just to clarify. So, therefore, Madame City Manager, Mr. Mayor, it passed by five votes and it is veto proof-it's law. Those nine points are part of the pre-pendency plan. Mayor Morris stated, that that which went before is the pre-pendency plan—not this. Mr. Jenkins stated OK, but now we move into the game of interpretation—and it is a game. He stated that this Council has sometimes voted 7-0 and it has not been implemented. Far beyond the veto proof and it hasn't been implemented. I support this for the clarification sake. If we don't, then I know that the will of the veto proof majority of the Council will not be heard. If my memory serves me correctly, we as a Council passed an RFP to go out to RFP for the cell phone towers and I'm still waiting to see that. This Council keeps voting and acting, and acting, and acting, and a lot of times it is just for naught. Council Member Johnson stated that they talk about "where is the money"—well, there is no money in reserves, there is no money to pay retirees, there is no money to pay the leases that we have for our City, so whatever we do, we know that there is no money there. This figure keeps moving,but it is always in the negative. We have to go way into the positive before we are in any type of position. Right now we have to move forward with this pre-pendency plan. We still have the pendency plan that is going to come forward and there will be more reductions in our expenditures. Any type of revenue enhancement that we keep talking about is going to be a long time before it hits. Right now our only option is to reduce our expenditures, and the only way we are going to do this is through cuts. Mayor and Common Council ofthe City ojSan Bernardino Page 21 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 Public Comments: Stephen Johns,City Employee Mr. Johns had noted that the two employees due for reduction in the sewer are not general fund obligations, they are otherwise, so why are they then on the cut list. Council Member Johnson asked the City Manager to explain this. Acting City Manager Travis-Miller indicated that the sewer fund, the water fund, and several other funds are currently being analyzed, but what they have found is that those funds are also running in a deficit position and there are contributions coming in from the general fund to assist those funds. So the elimination of those two positions while they will have a direct impact on the fund itself, they will have an indirect impact on the general fund,which is the one she is most concerned with at this point in time. She clarified that when she looked through Ms. McCammack's items, the only thing that really was beyond a clarification is the fact that we reference the sewer positions, which had not previously been referenced. Everything else really is clarifying-it's providing some additional revenue estimates and cost adjustments, which we are currently in the process of evaluating. What our intent had been, we are in the process of preparing the pendency plan, because as I have indicated, these cuts don't go far enough. We still do not have a balanced budget that I could recommend that the Council approve. We are in the process of updating those numbers so that the pre-pendency plan does have that. We will get that done much more quickly, but we understand truly the magnitude of these changes, but also the fact that our employment base has changed. At the time that we started developing that pre-pendency plan, it obviously took several weeks to do in working with the departments and others, and so those numbers changed. We did see a mass exodus of employees. That has leveled off somewhat now, so we have a better understanding of what our employment base is, which will facilitate the preparation of that. Council Member Johnson asked whether the "health and safety" aspect of losing the two sewer employees had been taken into consideration. Ms. Travis-Miller answered in the affirmative, adding that they have been balanced with all the other various issues-the reality is we are also concerned about maintaining sufficient numbers of police officers on the streets and firefighters and things like that, so unfortunately they have had to balance all those things. Amended Motion: To clarify and amend the previously approved 9-point Adjustment Plan to the Pre-Pendency Plan; and obtain an updated budget and budget summary, including an explanation and the methodology of the revenues that are coming in and any additional revenues that you expect to come in that have been approved by Council action and a reduction of the revenues that were approved by the cuts by Council action. Mayor and Common Council ofthe City of San Bernardino Page 22 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 RESULT: FAILED 13 TO 31 MOVER: Wendy J. McCammack, Council Member, Ward 7 SECONDER: Robert D. Jenkins, Council Member, Ward 2 AYES: Robert D. Jenkins, Chas A. Kelley, Wendy J. McCammack NAYS: John Valdivia,Fred Shorett, Rikke Van Johnson ABSENT: Virginia Marquez i Since the motion failed, Council Member McCammack inquired whether she would still be getting the information she had requested in the motion from the City Manager. City Manager Travis-Miller stated that it was her intent to provide said information. The Council inquired whether it would be possible to get Mr. Busch to come and review all aspects of this process. Ms. Travis-Miller answered in the affirmative, stating that they would need to have Mr. Glassman there also. 8C. Finance Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Authorizing the Execution of a First Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement Between Urban Futures Incorporated and the City of San Bernardino for Consultant Services. Motion: Council Member Jenkins made a motion, seconded by Council Member Kelley, to adopt the resolution. (No vote was taken.) Council Member Jenkins asked why there were two contracts with Urban Futures being lumped together in one resolution and agreement. The City Manager agreed that it would be better to separate the two contracts. Substitute Motion: Continue the matter to the Council meeting of October 1, 2012. RESULT: CONTINUED [4 TO 1] Next: 10/1/20121:30 PM MOVER: Robert D. Jenkins, Council Member, Ward 2 SECONDER: Chas A. Kelley, Council Member, Ward 5 AYES: Robert D. Jenkins, Fred Shorett, Chas A. Kelley, Rikke Van Johnson NAYS: John Valdivia ABSTAIN: Wendy J. McCammack ABSENT: Virginia Marquez Mayor and Common Council of the City ojSan Bernardino Page 13 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 8D. Fire Review, Discuss, and Provide Direction on the Fire Department's Proposed Pre-Pendency Plan Related to the City's Proposed FY 2012/2013 Budget. Acting City Manager Andrea Travis-Miller submitted an Interoffice Memorandum from herself to the Mayor and Common Council, dated September 17, 2012, Regarding Fire Department Revised Pre-Pendency Plan Restructuring Recommendations. Attached was the updated document submitted by Interim Fire Chief Paul Drasil. At the Council meeting of August 20, 2012, Chief Drasil had presented the City's pre- pendency plan restructuring recommendations for the Fire Department. Subsequently, Council Member Kelley had presented a revised proposal. The Council then directed that the Fire Chief review the changes proposed by Mr. Kelly and compare them to the original recommendations, have discussions with various interested parties, and then come back with a newly prepared set of recommendations. Chief Drasil provided an overview of the proposed changes prepared by Council Member Kelley and his comments and recommendations regarding those proposed changes. He stated that Mr. Kelley's proposal had included eight points, four of which were in the City's original pre-pendency plan. He then addressed the new points that had been suggested by Mr. Kelly, explaining why he did or did not agree with them. Ultimately, he noted that if the proposal presented by Council Member Kelley was adopted, there would be a savings of approximately $1.9 million. However, if his newly proposed plan were to be adopted there would be a savings of approximately$2.9 million annually. Council Member Johnson pointed out that the original proposal called for $3.4 million in reductions and this plan is only$2.9 million. Chief Drasil stated that was correct, the major difference being that rather than proposing the elimination of a responding engine, he proposed the elimination of a squad. He listened to the Council, he listened to other input, and so they don't close a station (all 12 stations will remain open) he tried to mitigate that, but it does come with a corresponding loss of approximately half a million dollars. Public Comments: Paul Sanborn, San Bernardino, CA, spoke and submitted handout Eric Esquivel, City Safety Employee Deb Bunger, San Bernardino, CA Barbara Witmer, San Bernardino, CA John Matley, San Bernardino, CA Jim Smith, San Bernardino, CA Motion: To table. Mayor and Common Council ofthe City of San Bernardino Page 24 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 RESULT: TABLED [4 TO 21 MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Chas A. Kelley, Council Member, Ward 5 AYES: Robert D. Jenkins, John Valdivia, Chas A. Kelley, Wendy J. McCammack NAYS: Fred Shorett, Rikke Van Johnson ABSENT: Virginia Marquez 8E. Human Resources Personnel Actions—Unclassified Council Member Johnson stated that he thought the personnel actions needed to be broken down and acted on separately. He noted that there were five separate actions being requested—a voluntary demotion (City Clerk's office), three promotions (City Attorney's office), and one appointment (City Treasurer's office). He inquired as to why there were not memos of explanation regarding each action, as there have been in the past. Jolena Grider, Senior Assistant City Attorney, directed the Council to the two organization charts for the City Attorney's office that had been distributed to the Council after closed session and provided information on the City Attorney's budget and the three recommended promotions in the department. © Motion: Approve the unclassified personnel actions, as submitted by the Director of Human Resources, in accordance with City policies and procedures. RESULT: FAILED [3 TO 31 MOVER: Robert D. Jenkins, Council Member, Ward 2 SECONDER: Wendy J. McCammack, Council Member, Ward 7 AYES: Robert D. Jenkins, Chas A. Kelley, Wendy J. McCammack NAYS: John Valdivia, Fred Shorett, Rikke Van Johnson ABSENT: Virginia Marquez Motion: To approve Personnel Action#1 (demotion) RESULT: FAILED [3 TO 21 MOVER: Rikke Van Johnson, Council Member, Ward 6 SECONDER: Fred Shorett, Council Member, Ward 4 AYES: Fred Shorett, Chas A. Kelley, Rikke Van Johnson NAYS: Robert D. Jenkins, Wendy J. McCammack ABSTAIN: John Valdivia ABSENT: Virginia Marquez Mayor and Common Council ofthe City of San Bernardino Page 25 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 Motion: To approve Personnel Action #5 (appointment) RESULT: FAILED [3 TO 21 MOVER: Fred Shorett, Council Member, Ward 4 SECONDER: Chas A. Kelley, Council Member, Ward 5 AYES: Fred Shorett, Chas A. Kelley, Rikke Van Johnson NAYS: John Valdivia, Wendy J. McCammack ABSTAIN: Robert D. Jenkins ABSENT: Virginia Marquez 8F. Public Works Discussion on City REP and Waste Delivery Extension Motion: Authorize Staff to Extend and Expand Upon Existing Recycling Agreements with Local Vendors on a Month-to-Month Basis and Authorize the City Manager to Give Notice to the County of San Bernardino of the City's Intention Not to Extend the Waste Delivery Agreement (WDA). RESULT: TABLED [4 TO 21 MOVER: Wendy J. McCammack, Council Member, Ward 7 SECONDER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 AYES: Robert D. Jenkins, John Valdivia, Chas A. Kelley, Wendy J. McCammack NAYS: Fred Shorett, Rikke Van Johnson ABSENT: Virginia Marquez 8G. Public Works RES. 2012-238 - Resolution of the City of San Bernardino Approving a Joint Use Agreement with the Southern California Edison Company for the Relocation of Company Facilities in Connection with the Construction of the Hunts Lane Grade Separation at the Union Pacific Railroad (SS04-051). Motion: Adopt the Resolution RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: John Valdivia, Council Member, Ward 3 SECONDER: Rikke Van Johnson, Council Member, Ward 6 AYES: Jenkins, Valdivia, Shorett, Kelley, Johnson, McCammack ABSENT: Virginia Marquez Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 26 Printed 912412012 Joint Regular Meeting Minutes September 17, 2012 9. MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR HOUSING AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 9A. City Manager RES. 2012-239 - Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Acting as the Successor Agency of the San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency Approving Amendment No. 2 to the Employment Agreement with Barbara Lindseth. Motion: Adopt the Resolution. RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1] MOVER: Robert D. Jenkins, Council Member, Ward 2 SECONDER: Fred Shorett, Council Member, Ward 4 AYES: Robert D. Jenkins, Fred Shorett, Chas A. Kelley, Wendy J. McCammack i NAYS: John Valdivia ABSENT: Virginia Marquez,Rikke Van Johnson 10. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda Betty Jean Long, San Bernardino, CA, spoke regarding Agenda Item No. IE. Paul Sanborn, San Bernardino, CA, spoke about the budget and ways to generate revenue. Barbara Babcock, San Bernardino, CA, spoke about Route 66, volunteerism, and the continual tabling of motions by the Council, rather than making difficult decisions. Tim Prince, San Bernardino, CA, expressed his disgust with the actions of the Council, stating that because of the lack of political will of this Council the City now has $10 million more in cuts. 11. Adjournment At 9:04 p.m., the meeting adjourned. The next joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and the Mayor and Common Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency is scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Monday, October 1, 2012. GEORGEANN"GIGI"HANNA City Clerk By 1 Linda Hartzel Deputy City Clerk Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Page 17 Printed 912412012