HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-29-1992 Minutes
MINUTES
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JOINT ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 29, 1992
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
This is the time and place set for a joint adjourned
regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community
Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino from the
regular meeting held at 8:30 a.m., Monday, September 21, 1992, in
the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San
Bernardino, California.
The City Clerk has caused to be posted the order of
adjournment of said meeting held on Monday, September 21, 1992,
and has on file in the office of the City Clerk an affidavit of
said posting together with a copy of said order which was posted
at 1:00 p.m., Wednesday, September 23, 1992, on the door of the
place at which said meeting was held.
The joint adjourned regular meeting of the Mayor and Common
Council and the Community Development Commission of the City of
San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor Holcomb at 9:01 a.m.,
in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San
Bernardino, California.
ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken by City Clerk Rachel Clark with the
following being present: Mayor Holcomb; Council Members Estrada,
Hernandez, Mauds1ey, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City Attorney
Penman, City Clerk R. Clark, Assistant City Administrator Wilson.
Absent: Council Member Reilly.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JOINT ADJOURNED
REGULAR MEETING
At 9:01 a.m., Chairman Holcomb called the joint adjourned
regular meeting of the Community Development Commission to order
in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San
Bernardino, California.
LOS PADRINOS GANG INTERVENTION PROGRAM FUNDING
(R-1)
=~:..i.:'1Ci.::' ::2::',::=:::- ~~-::::~~2~~S.~Z ~.2.c.c; ::'. :':'.-::;~~'2~_, :=::::;cc:~c.e'::: =~{ ~ounci.l
Member Minor, that the request for funding for the Los Padrinos
Gang Intervention program arose subsequent to the posting of the
agenda.
1
9/29/92
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes:
Members Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller.
Council Member Estrada. Absent: Council Member Reilly.
Council
Nays:
In a memorandum dated September 28, 1992, Kenneth Henderson,
Executive Director, Economic Development Agency /Development
Department, stated that Council Member Hernandez recommended that
the Los padrinos Gang Intervention program request for financial
assistance in the amount of $96,000 be placed on the agenda.
The Los padrinos Gang Intervention program has been
reviewed, and the merits of the program have been acknowledged by
the Community Development Citizen Advisory Committee, the Mayor
and Council and Community Development CommisSion, and the Ways
and Means Committee, who have been frustrated by their inability
to identify available and eligible funds to fully fund the
program. In an effort to alleviate this administrative impasse,
on July 30, 1992, Mayor Holcomb sent a letter to the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in Los Angeles requesting
a waiver of the fifteen percent limitation relative to the
expenditure of public services category of Community Development
Block Grant funds. Simultaneously, ~ayor Holcomb requested that
the Ci ty' s Washington D. C. lobbyist intercede and expedite a
favorable HUD response.
Prior to HUD' s response, the Commission provided the Los
padrinos program with a $25,000 grant using tax increment funds.
Receipt of the funds was predicated on the development of a
"professional services agreement" between Los padrinos and the
Agency. The agreement would include within its Scope of
Services: gang surveys, employment training, retention of
construction trade industry experts, neighborhood revitalization
strategies, community clean-up, graffiti removal, exterior
painting of houses, and related matters. The intention of the
Los Padrinos program was to undertake high profile activities
that would make a dramatic improvement in the community.
HUD's reply was not positive. HUD officials indicated that
the fifteen percent restriction is a congressionally mandated
statute and cannot be unilaterally and administratively waived.
Due to these circumstances, staff recommended funding the
difference between the $96,000 original request, and the $25,000
already received by the Los Padrinos program. The funding can
be accomplished by having the City return the $200,000 in
Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO) funds previously
transferred to the General Fund to the Agency, and replacing the
CMO funds with rental income on a one-time only basis, from
Shal1dir-l =:-=-~:.= Sc2..:: ':2..:..::::. ~~2 ::2S-.22..4:.:.~g 2.gr29~2~t ',lith :Sos
padrinos would be an extension of the earlier Scope of Services
referenced in the $25,000 contract and allow all tasks to be
undertaken completely.
-"
2
9/29/92
The Council discussed the scope of the Los padrinos Gang
Intervention program; and how the additional funding would be
utilized to contact and work with additional youth at risk and
gang members.
Ken Henderson, Executive Director, Economic Development
Agency /Development Department, answered questions from the
Council relative to the proposed use of CMO funds and Shandin
Hills Golf Club rental income funds. He explained that by
exchanging the funds in this manner, it would allow both the Los
Padrinos program to be fully funded, and the City to continue
operating many of its programs from the General Fund.
A discussion was held regarding potential funding sources
for the Los Padrinos program, such as CMO funds, and private
sector funds, and how other funding sources could be sought more
aggressively. Concern was expressed that the City of San
Bernardino was the primary funding source for the Los padrinos
program.
Tim
Street,
program
City of
Gergen, Executive Director, Los Padrinos, 909 North
San Bernardino, CA, explained that at this time
is only serving youth at risk and gang members in
San Bernardino.
"0"
the
the
Council Member Hernandez made a motion, seconded by Council
Member Pope-Ludlam, that the Mayor and Common Council transfer
$200,000 in Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO) funds to the
Economic Development Agency with $71,000 of such funds to be used
to finance the Los Padrinos Gang Intervention Program; and that
the Community Development Commission appropriate and transfer to
the City, on a one-time only basis, $200,000 in Shandin Hills
Golf Club rental income.
The motion carried by the
Members Estrada, Hernandez,
Council Members Minor, Miller.
following vote: Ayes:
Maudsley, Pope-Ludlam.
Absent: Council Member
Council
Nays:
Reilly.
ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR WILSON RETURNED
At 9:20 a.m., Assistant City Administrator Wilson returned
to the Council meeting.
MANAGEMENT /CONFIDENTIAL COMPENSATION -
CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION - CONTINUED
21, 1992
SAN BERNARDINO
FROM SEPTEMBER
(2)
This is the time and place continued to for consideration of
the San Bernardino City Management Association
~W~~__~~~~~ !~~"~~~~"~~~1 ~~~~o~~~~~~~
~~"""'~~"""':;;;_."'-..-J -~---~--~._--~.- -_.,,~~~---~--_.-
In
Chairman
a memorandum dated
of the Advisory
September 15, 1992, Annie Ramos,
Commi t tee, San Bernardino Ci ty
3
9/29/92
Management Association, stated that in May 1989, the Mayor and
Council approved Resolution No. 89-129, approving a Management
and Confidential Employee Compensation and Benefits Plan.
Resolution No. 89-129 designated the following specific
compensation levels and timelines for implementation:
January 1, 1990
January 1, 1991
January 1, 1992
January 1, 1993
4.9% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)
4.3% COLA and Benefits Survey
3.6% COLA and Salary Survey
2.9% COLA and Benefits Survey
In 1990, with the realization that the City was experiencing
financial difficulties, the Management Association voted to
voluntarily forego its approved increases in the interest of the
City. Consequently, the Management and Confidential employees
have not received a salary adjustment since 1989. By foregoing
these approved increases, the City has saved over $1.1 million;
however, all other employee units have continued to receive
approved salary increases, costing the City $5.6 million.
A balanced budget was adopted by Council on June 24, 1992.
A number of events have occurred since that time that present a
much better revenue picture than previously anticipated. First a
pending Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) lawsui twas
decided in favor of the City and Statd. Council took action on
June 24, 1992 to transfer the balance of the PERS refund of $4.5
million to the Liability Fund. This action should fund almost
all contingent liabilities, based on the Fiscal Year 1990/91
Annual Financial Report. Second, a recently completed financial
audit of the City's liability fund has identified $1.3 million in
uncollected insurance payments. Risk Management is currently
negotiating for collection of these payments. Third, the State
budget was finally adopted and Finance has done an analysis of
its impact on the City. The City Fiscal Year 1992/93 budget
assumed a $1,067,000 loss in property tax revenues, and a
$500,000 loss in motor vehicle in-lieu fees. It now seems
evident that the property tax revenue loss will be $800,000.
Motor vehicle in-lieu fees are still undecided. Assuming these
preliminary figures from the State are accurate, and revenues and
expenditures remain constant, the ending General Fund balance is
estimated at $2,005,994 in reserve.
The Management Association requested that given these
revenue factors, that the Mayor and Council authorize full
implementation of the salary survey as designated by Resolution
No. 89-129. Comp Plus completed the survey for seventy-six
management and confidential classes in November 1991. Based on
this survey, compensation levels and salary ranges have been
develoned ~~at ?~~ C0~02~~~le ~0 +~e ~V~~?~8 lpvpl for similar
positi~ns in like cities. Implementation- of the survey for
calendar year 1992 is $568,036, which includes both salary costs
and variable benefits.
4
9/29/92
Mayor Holcomb spoke in support of
survey in light of the Management
willingness to forego salary increases
years when the City was experiencing very
implementing the salary
Association's members
over the last several
tight economic times.
Council Member pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by
Council Member Estrada, that the salary survey of November, 1991
be fully implemented effective July 1, 1992; and that the
Director of Personnel be instructed to prepare the necessary
amendments to Resolution 6413.
Bob Elliott, General Manager, San Bernardino Public
Employees Association (SBPEA), 433 Sierra Way, San Bernardino,
CA, stated that he was encouraged by the City's current financial
situation and hoped that the Mayor and Council would keep an open
mind during upcoming general and mid-management employee contract
negotiations.
Annie Ramos, Chairman, San Bernardino City Management
Association, Advisory Committee, answered questions from the
Council regarding the November, 1991 salary survey conducted by
Comp Plus.
Mayor Holcomb stated that the City still has a very serious
financial situation to face, but with good management the City
will be able to weather the storm. He explained that there are
no salary increases proposed for elected officials, and that City
Administrator Shauna Clark has volunteered to forego her salary
increase. He stated that the City has the best management team;
however, they are earning far less than their contemporaries in
other cities.
City Attorney Penman explained that Resolution No. 89-129
concerning salaries for the management/confidential employees of
the San Bernardino City Management Association is not a legally
binding agreement, and could be repealed at any time. He
expressed concern that it may not be the proper time to approve
such salary increases because the City still faces tough economic
times.
The Council discussed the mid-year bUdyet projections and
the budget projections for fiscal year 1993 94 relative to the
liability funds, internal service funds, and claims. The
Council reviewed the budget actions taken in June of 1992
relative to the Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO) funds,
and the PERS refund which created a reserve of $484,400 which
was placed in the Unappropriated Reserve fund. Discussion ensued
regarding the potential liability that may arise from legal
'::2.~es.
Annie
Association,
Ramos, Chairman, San
Advisory Committee,
Bernardino City
answered questions
Management
from the
5
9/29/92
Council.
Concern was expressed regarding the budget projections for
Fiscal Year 1993/94, and whether it may be premature to approve
these salary increases in light of a possible budget deficit next
fiscal year.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes:
Members Estrada, Maudsley, Minor, pope-Ludlam, Miller.
Council Member Hernandez. Absent: Council Member Reilly.
Council
Nays:
PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-08-
DELETE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-
BUSINESSES IN EXCESS OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET WHERE
ALCOHOL SALE IS NOT PRINCIPAL BUSINESS (3)
This is the time and place set for a public hearing to
consider Development Code Amendment No. 92-08, to change the
square footage requirement for businesses or establishments that
are subject to a conditional use permit when its primary business
is not the sale of alcoholic beverages.
In a memorandum dated September 16, 1992, Al Boughey,
Director of Planning and Building Services, stated that when the
Development COde was adopted, the minimum size requirement of
25,000 square feet that had been included in the Municipal Code
was continued as a Development Code standard. The square footage
requirement set the standard to determine which establishments
would be subject to a conditional use permit for the sale of
alcoholic beverages where this activity was not the principal
activity of the business. The proposed amendment would not lead
to an increase in the number or intensity of projects proposed;
therefore, staff has determined that Development Code Amendment
No. 92-08 is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Development Code Amendment is consistent with General
Plan Goal 1G and Policy 1.7.1, where the intent is to achieve a
pattern and distribution of land uses which retain and enhance
residential neighborhood and commercial districts, as well as to
accommodate the new development, adaptive reuse, and renovation
in accordance with the Land Use Plan Map. This amendment would
further implement this goal and policy by enhancing new
development in commercial districts throughout the City.
The intent of the square footage requirement was to exclude
grocery stores and drug stores, that did not sell alcohol as
principal business, from the requirement for a conditional use
.t:2r:ni::.. C2ri.~~~Cn~21'"'L:::c =::.S~?S 2!'.C. ~.i_1'..lC'~ ~tc)2::''2S TTOl..!:!.d still be
subject to the conditional use permit requirement.
6
9/29/92
The 25,000 square footage requirement is too large for a
number of establishments (i. e., drug stores in strip centers)
that would like to sell alcoholic beverages in addition to other
primary items including the sale of drugs, pharmaceutical items,
and household products, etc. These establishments are of
sufficient size to satisfy development objectives of the original
25,000 square foot minimum and normally are smaller, ranging from
15,000 to 18,000 square feet. In order to consider the request
of these smaller establishments to qualify for the sale of
alcoholic beverages, a Development Code Amendment is necessary.
These businesses would still be required to go through the
Development Permit process. The Planning Commission, at its
August 4, 1992 meeting, recommended approval of Development Code
Amendment No. 92-08.
City Clerk Rachel Clark read the title of the ordinance.
Mayor Holcomb opened the hearing.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING
SECTION 19.06.030(2) (B) OF THE SAN BERNARDINO
MUNICIPAL CODE (DEVELOPMENT CODE) RELATING TO THE
REQUIREMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF
ALCOHOL BEVERAGES IN RESTAURANTS OR LARGE BUSINESSES.
First (3)
Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council
Member Minor, to waive further reading of the ordinance; and that
said ordinance be laid over for final adoption.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Members Estrada, Hernandez, Minor, Pope-Ludlam,
Council Member Maudsley. Absent: Council Member
Ayes:
Miller.
Reilly.
Council
Nays:
Several Council Members requested that
separated into individual motions; therefore,
retaken.
the
the
votes be
vote was
COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER EXCUSED
Council Member Miller left the Council meeting.
Council Member Hernandez made a motion, seconded by Council
Member pope-Ludlam, and unanimously carried, to reconsider
Development Code Amendment No. 92-08, to change the square
footage requirement for businesses or establishments that are
subject to a conditional use permit when its primary business is
not the sale of alcoholic beverages.
"
_~._1~~1 1...~~ r<_,.~~~1
Member Minor, and unanimously carried, to close the public
hearing.
7
9/29/92
Council Member Pope-Ludlam made
Council Member Estrada, and unanimously
reac~ng of the ordinance.
a motion, seconded by
carried, to waive further
COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER RETURNED
At 10:16 a.m., Council Member Miller returned to the Council
meeting and took her place at the council table.
Council Member Pope-Ludlam made a
Council Member Minor, and unanimously
ordinance be laid over for final adoption.
motion,
carried,
seconded by
that said
RECESS MEETING - CLOSED SESSION (1)
At 10:18 a.m., the Mayor and Common Council and Community
Development Commission recessed to closed session for the
following:
a.
based on existing facts
below, the City Council
whether a closed session
California Government Code
and circumstances, set out
is meeting only to decide
is authorized pursuant to
Section 54956.9 (b) (2);
b. to give instruction to the City's/Commission's
negotiator on the purchase of property pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8. The r6al property
which the negotiations concern is generally located at:
;
c. to consider personnel matters pursuant to Government
Code Section 54957;
d. to meet with designated representatives regarding labor
relations matters pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6;
e. to confer with the Chief of Police on matters posing a
threat to the security of public buildings or a threat
to the pub~ic's right of access to public services or
public facilities pursuant to Government Code Section
54957;
f.
to confer with the
litigation pursuant to
54956.9(b)(1), as there
litigation;
attorney regarding pending
Government Code Section
is significant exposure to
g.
to confer
litigation
i:;4?5C 0/,.-..\
wi th the
pursuant
en +-'"';:l+-
attorney regarding
to Government Code
r"1~""'r'''; l 1~0mrn";_s;:::i0!". T1lav
pending
Section
decide
whether to initiate litigation;
8
9/29/92
h.
to meet with an applicant for a
applicant's attorney pursuant
Section 54956.7;
City license and the
to Government Code
i. to confer wi th the attorney regarding pending
litigation which has been initiated formally to which
the City is a party to pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a) as follows:
Stubblefield Construction Company. et al vs. City of San
Bernardino. et al - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No.
242998; San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 252058;
City of San Bernardino vs. Liberty Cable T. V.. et al-
United States District Court Case No. 82-6876 WMB;
City of San Bernardino vs. County of San Bernardino. et al-
Riverside Superior Court Case No. 207900;
Tomas Armendariz. et al vs. James F. Penman. et al. - United
States District Court Case No. 91-5757 CMB (JRx);
Garcia vs. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior
Court Case No. 249518;
San Bernardino Police Officer's Association vs. Citv of San
Bernardino (Bashaw) - San Bernardino Superior Court Case No.
239366;
Tammv Murphv vs. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino
Superior Court Case No. 254764;
Citv of San Bernardino vs. Bert Bussell. et al San
Bernardino Superior Court Case No. 271568;
Petrillo vs. Citv of San Bernardino
Superior Court Case No. 255735;
San Bernardino
Weslev vs. Citv of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior
Court Case No. 265422.
Lines vs. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior
Court Case No. 221289.
CLOSED SESSION
At 10:18 a.m., Mayor Holcomb called the closed session to
order in the conference room of the Council Chambers of City
Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California.
9
9/29/92
ROLL CALL
Roll ca11 was taken by City Clerk R. Clark with the
following being present: Mayor Holcomb; Council Members Estrada,
Hernandez, Maudsley, Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City Attorney
Penman, City Clerk R. Clark, Assistant City Administrator Fred
Wilson. Absent: Council Member Reilly.
Also present: Senior Assistant City Attorney Morillo,
Deputy City Attorney Roth, and Administrative Operations
Supervisor Scorggin, City Attorney's Office; Ernest Wilson,
Affirmative Action Officer, Mayor's Office.
SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY MORILLO & DEPUTY CITY
ATTORNEY ROTH EXCUSED
At 10:24 a.m., Senior Assistant City Attorney Morillo and
Deputy City Attorney Roth left the closed session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS ESTRADA, HERNANDEZ & POPE-LUDLAM
EXCUSED
At 10:54 a.m., Council Members Estrada, Hernandez and Pope-
Ludlam left the closed session.
LACK OF A QUORUM
At 10:54 a.m., there was no longer a quorum present at the
Mayor and Common Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT (4)
At 10:54 a.m., the joint adjourned regular meeting of the
Mayor and Common Council adjourned to 8:30 a.m., Monday, October
5, 1992, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D"
Street, San Bernardino, California.
RACHEL CLARK
City Clerk
By: ~~~
Melanie Vale
Deputy City Clerk
~
-
No.. of Items: 7
No. of Hours: 2
10
9/29/92