The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14-City Attorney . .... , CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: HUSTON T. CARLYLE SR. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY Subject: MEASURE S - REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Dept: CITY ATTORNEY Date February 20, 1997 0B/B1..~:~ , {., ,...' .... J... Synopsis of Previous Council action: June 17, 1996- City Attorney directed to prepare necessary documents for ballot measure for a Special Parcel Tax for police services. December 10, 1996 - Council adopted MC-985, later numbered MC-987 relating to Special Tax for Police and Fire Protection. November 18, 1996 - Council adopted Resolution 96-352 submitting Police and Fire Tax to voters on March 18, 1997. November 18,1996 - Council adopted Resolution 96-353 calling Special Municipal Election be March 18,1997 and approving the wording of the ballot. Recommended motion: None - Discussion of item. Contact person: HUSTON T. CARLYLE Phone: 3662 SuqJOrting data attached: Staff Report Ward: All >l "::DING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: Finance: Cnuncil Notes: 75-0262 1/8/03'197 Agenda Item No. /'1 . " STAFF REPORT Council Meeting Date: March 3.1997 TO: FROM: DATE: AGENDA: Mayor and Common Council Huston T. Carlyle, Sr. Assistant City Attorney February 20,1997 MEASURE S . REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Council Members and members of the public continue to raise questions regarding Measure S. This is the time to ask questions on the Measure S issue. Questions: 1. Is there any Sunset Clause to Measure S? 2. If there is no Sunset Clause, does that mean it goes on forever and the public can do nothing about it? 3. What is the origin of Measure S? 4. We have heard a lot about Measure S and mobile homes, but what is the tax on businesses and how does it relate to residences? 5. What is to prevent the Mayor and Common Council from cutting the existing fire and police budgets if Measure S passes? . ORiGINAL To The Citizens of San Bernardino: I have recently read articles in The Sun Newspaper that quoted a couple of former politicians, making statements regarding the audit that was performed on the fire departement. They were commenting on a document that was not created objectively as the public was led to believe and I feel certain those former politicians are aware of that. When the consultants, Mr. Jim Spar and Associates, first met with the former City Administrator's Assistant, the Deputy Chief and myself (the former fire chief), the City Administrator's Assistant told the consultants that the City Council would not be very happy if they came back with a report that stated the fire department needed another fire station, fire equipment, or firefighters. She said the City was broke and couldn't afford to spend more money on the fire department. As she was leaving the meeting her final words to the Consultants were, " and don't forget to look at cutting the Deputy Chief's position". It was quite obvious at that time the Audit was not intended to be an objective analysis of the fire department, but a costly tactic by the City Administrator's office to cut the department. It appeared the purpose of the outside consultants was to encourage them to add others ideas on cutting the fire department and make it look as though the proposed cuts were the consultants findings; thereby taking the pressure off of any City officials that might support the suggested cuts. The consultants told me and the firefighters that the fire department needed more personnel, as well as improved automation, and fire apparatus. When the draft of their report came out, to my surprise, it contained 3 options. One option, to add personnel and resources like they had stated to the fire department; another to cut 1 fire station; and another to cut both a fire station and 3 battalion chiefs. When I confronted Mr. Spar, the lead consultant, about the other 2 options, he said he was directed to look at other alternatives since the City didn't have any money to balance the budget. As I had suspected, the audit apparently was a facade to cut the fire department, not to objectively and honestly evaluate it. Why would one option recommend adding staffing and the others recommend cuts? If the purpose was to do an objective analysis of the department and the City couldn't afford to add the staffing that the consultants were recommending, then why wasn't one of the options to leave the department as it was staffed? Because the intent always was to cut the department. Prior to the report going to the City Council, the Assistant to the City Administrator gave me an ultimatum: Support cutting the fire station or she would recommend cutting both the fire station and the Battalion Chiefs to the Council. I requested she submit the entire report to the Council but she chose instead to go through with her threat since I wouldn't agree. Consequently, she wrote the staff report for the Audit and presented ONLY the cuts while purposefully AVOIDING any mention of the recommendation that suggested adding personel. The Consultant, Mr. Spar, was not allowed to present his own report but merely given and opportunity to answer questions. When asked by Councilman Devlin what his recommendation was, Mr. Spar stated that if it was up to him he would give the fire department several hundred thousand dollars for personnel and resources.. He also stated that if there were cuts in the 1 of 2 if /?/ 3)5/'1"1 02/28/97 68;42:0' fire department it would create chaos and the City might lose its Class 2 fire insurance rating. The audit report did not have supporting documentation, statistical analysis, nor comparisons of similar Cities to San Bernardino to support the options that suggested cutting the department. In fact, the City Administrator stated to the Council that one of the suggestion of closing the fire station came from the former Mayor and that's why it was in the audi t. I AM CONVINCED THE RECOMMENDATION TO CUT THE STATION AND THE BATTALION CHIEFS WAS TO INTIMIDATE ME INTO SUPPORTING THE OPTION WHICH RECOMMENDED CLOSING THE FIRE STATION OTHERWISE I WOULD RISK LOSING MORE OF MY STAFF. Ironically, initial drafts of the audit report stated there was a need for more battalion chiefs. In summary, as a property owner in the City of San Bernardino and your former fire chief, I too, prefer not to pay more taxes and assessments. However, if I am faced with that possibility I want to know. the truth on the issues before deciding. That is why I have written this letter. I am not a politician, just your former fire chief. I have nothing to gain by misleading or lying to the citizens of San Bernardino. What I have written can be corraborated. Regardless of how you vote, you now have the truth as to why the fire department audit was so skewed and misleading. And, I feel certain that is why the Council rejected it! I urge all of you to support Measure "5". It will direct your tax dollars to public safety to serve and protect you, your family and loved ones. The best thing that the City has going now is you are banding together and fighting back! Keep up the good work; soon it will be an even Greater Day in San Bernardino!! Respectfully submitted, William L. Wright Fire Chief, Retired Entered into Record It CouneillCmyDevCms MIg: 3 h /97 by ___ d re Ayenil(j Irp.Ht C1~~ City ClerklCDC Seey City of San Bernardino 2 of 2 02/28/97 08:42:09 ALMONT ASSOCIATES. INC. February 28. 1997 "n'~re~ into Record at "llir.mvOevCms Mtg: ~ hi? 7 n It! Richard !...l!wis, Secretary. Treasurer San Bernadino Cicy Profession:o.l Firelighters PO Box 2703 San Bemadino, CA 92406 -14-~ ~ City Clerk/CO!: Secy City of San Bernardino Dear ~. Lewis: In order to clarify our position regarding the needed improvements for the San Bernadino FlIe Department. we offer the fcllowiI:g. Our analysis identi1ied critically needed improvements in the department. One of the options we provided was a way to fund these needed improvements with a cost neutral appruach. We felt strongly enough about the departmental and community needs that i cutbacks were the only way the improvements could be attained. then cutbacks should be made. We are on record as stating our first oreference was that the COlTUTlUnitV orovide additional funds for the improvements. The condition of the apoaratus fleet. some stations. and under-serviced areas of the community. are areas that need immediate attention. The community should support the pending proposition in order to proYide ;l first rate level of service to all of the citizens of San Bernadino. Sincere:)'. :7 (~ ftr--c,,'l/\. OJim SD=.~Presjdent AlJnont Associates. Inc. PO BOX 338 . ALMONT. COLORADO. 81210 PHONE: 970/641-3813 . 1:1 ;-1 :3/3/91