Ventura City Council Meeting
October 24, 2011
Ventura City Hall - 501 Poli Street
Council had previously instructed the staff to come back with specific recommendations for funding the third year commitment to carrying over the Fire Station No. 4 operating costs covered in the first two years under SAFER Grant funding. Council’s first hearing on the issue had determined that $1.2 million divided into three $400,000 segments plus additional revenue and savings measures in other parts of the budget could fund the contract obligation through an additional $1.2 million. The city manager said that as we spoke two weeks ago, the “options have severely narrowed.”.
Deputy Mayor Tracy brought the meeting to order with a call of the roll – Mayor Fulton was absent. It was then asked of Council Member Brennan to lead in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Special Presentations and Announcements – The members of the Ventura High School Glee Club. Sarah DeWitt, Tiana Cohen, Melia Mooney and Hank Tovar were asked to step forward. Sarah and Melia were the two representatives present, announcing their memberships in “Company,” an All District Show Choir in Ventura. A prize of $50,000 is at stake for the winner in a glee contest, with the young people hoping to buy new sound equipment for their school organization. A short video produced by Hank introduced “Company,” VUSD’s High School Show Choir under the direction of music teacher Heidi House. Company is entering to win one of three grand prizes of $50,000. The videos with the most votes will move to the judging phase. Please vote for company (over and over).
The video described a day that begins with students and the dream that surrounds their music curriculum. The students themselves presented a feature promoting their enthusiasm, their hopes and their encouragement in getting out the vote.
Go to http://www.gleegiveanote.com and search for Ventura. There is also a link on VUSD’s website, type “Ventura” and everyone can vote once per day until November 7.
Closed Session Report – At the October 19 meeting there was a performance evaluation regarding City Manager Rick Cole. No reportable action was taken.
Regional Boards Commissions and Committees – Council Member Monahan asked that the meeting be closed in the memory of Susan Haday who worked at the Sportsman's Restaurant and who passed away on Friday. The Greater Ventura Chamber of Commerce is having a Hunting at the Harbor Business Expo on October 27 at the Four Points Sheraton. Admission is $10.
The councilman said that the Appointments Committee has openings from time to time, and that new applications are always welcome. The Design Review Committee, the Housing Authority Board, the Library Advisory Commission, the Public Arts Commission, along with other appointments that are made from time to time.
Council Member Andrews announced that the Elks Lodge will conduct a Preteen Carnival – the third annual drug awareness program geared toward the age range of 9 years 12. From 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. there will be prizes and candy available for the children. The Lodge is located at 2126 Knoll Dr. in Ventura. This is on Saturday the 29th and admission is free. Call Kelly Davis at 639-9573. The councilman thanked participants in the Kinetic Sculpture Race. The fire department was thanked for helping out to create the mud pit.
Council Member Brennan also said that the race was started in Ferndale and that the enjoyment that was had makes a fund raising event all the more pleasurable. It was announced that the Ventura Firefighters Association had shirts printed up to help promote breast cancer awareness month, thus helping to explain why he and the other council members were sitting (pretty) in pink.
The councilman also wanted to mention the Rainbow Coalition's Aids Walk, which raised money as folks marched downtown. An e-mail noted that the Police Department had been placed on tactical alert. Relaying a prior incident, a domestic issue with guns in the residence and a disoriented individual, pointed the councilman’s attention toward the training that is given to police, underscoring the way in which situations that can be explosive are handled by our well trained officers in a calm, efficient manner.
The “haute couture” shirt issue was revisited by the deputy mayor, saying that perhaps the fire engines should be repainted in pink.
Council Member Weir wished to thank the museum and the League of Women Voters for their commemoration of the 100th anniversary of women's voting rights. A semiannual report from the Downtown Ventura Partners organization, the DVP, having been formed couple of years ago decided to assess themselves, pooling the money together to form a business improvement district. A recent report enumerates the progress that had been brought forward by citizens and businessmen help to have 746 bags of debris removed from the streets and sidewalks. 20 new businesses have located in downtown within the last six months, according to the brochure. The next event downtown will be trick or treat on this Saturday from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. All the stores will be giving out candy. A costume parade and a contest is also being conducted for the kids.
Council Member Monahan wanted to say to people on E. Vince St. that a house at 166 E. Vince has been vacant and dilapidated for a year or two. The councilman said the residence is uninhabitable, and it has been questioned as to whether it should be demolished. The councilman was asking Staff to follow up and make a determination as to the suitability of maintaining the property in its present condition.
Council Member Morehouse reminded all that on Saturday November 4th beginning at 4:30 p.m. is the annual Boys and Girls Club auction, held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel. Go to the Boys and Girls Club website for details, the councilman said.
City Manager's Report – A presentation on the opportunities that organizations and individuals may avail themselves of as they seek to contribute to quality of life improvement efforts in and around the community. Someone who would like to make a bequest in their will, or remember a loved one with a memorial was offered the opportunity by being informed of the fact that each department presents a program to help the public with this issue. Kelly Flanders prepared the information in menu format, which is now available on the city’s website.
Donation opportunities, showing: (1) Donations improve our community – (2) Support existing services – (3) Tax deductible. [Donations help to improve our community]
Support Programs Citywide, showing: (1) Parks – (2) Scholarships – (3) Historic properties – (4) Volunteer services – (5) Urban forest – (6) K-9 unit – (6) Police Activities League.
Make a generation donation , showing (1) Cityofventura.net/donations – (2) Download the donor contribution form – (3) Select a program to sponsor – (4) Return donation and form to City of Ventura
Council Communications – Council Member Weir asked how donators could be recognized publicly. Staff said thanking them for their donation would come in the form of a signed letter by the mayor.
Council Member Monahan asked about the list of opportunities, saying that the list could be longer than a few examples given. A full list of the types of memorials that may be donated are shown on the city’s website, with emphasis on services that had been cut back and where volunteer services could be used. Other programs that people are interested in include trees. The council member said that flags are often necessary because they wear out. The Ortega Adobe was mentioned, with the reply being that the historic properties covers the Ortega.
Mr. Tracy reminded community members to see if the Police Activities League could be contacted to help with donations.
Public Communications – Brian Rencher spoke saying that the concept of donations is a good one, but that the city apparently can also donate to citizens. Particular attention was paid to the suggestion that the Property Based Improvement District covering certain cleanup expenses are not paid for by the taxpayers. And yet when the city and the redevelopment agency voted their properties which is one-third of the weight which carried the so-called self imposed tax by the council and the RDA on property owners who voted no, this now means that one-third of the expenses (which is to say the revenues that are paying for the program) must come from the General Fund and RDA coffers in order to make up the shortfall. The speaker said, “That’s an interesting fairy tale, Mrs. Weir,” over her declaration that the P-bid doesn’t use taxpayer dollars, when in fact it does. All the taxpayers have to do is look at their budget and divide by three to see how much the city and the redevelopment agency are paying. “You should be more honest with the people, Mrs. Wier,” said the speaker.
CONSENT//FORMAL ITEMS – Out of Class Pay Extension; Saticoy Country Club Well No. 3 Well Drilling Project Authorization to Advertise; Amendment to 2011-2017 Capital Improvement Plan and Change to Scope of Golf Capital Improvement Project. It was asked whether or not Council like to pull any items. With one public speaker available, Brian Rencher expressed his support for approving Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Council Member Morehouse moved acceptance of the Consent Calendar. A second was obtained. Deputy Mayor Tracy requested a roll call vote – all members voted yes.
Agenda Item No. 4 [Back] - Temporary Transfer Lease Option for State Water Project . Shauna Epstein presented the material for the council's consideration.
State Water Project, showing: Temporary Transfer Alternative, October 24th 2011 [A new alternative that the Department of Water Resources is offering for the State Water Project. Currently we are operating with a 10,000 acre-feet water entitlement]
Photographs were shown of a series of canals and dams that allow water from Northern California to flow through the Central Valley into Southern California. Entitlements in 1971 allowed the Ventura Watershed Protection District to serve as the contractor. Payment comes from the majority members of the water project.
Costs to City of Ventura, showing: (1) Total costs projected fiscal years 08/09 thru 11/12 – (2) refunds – ( 3) Sales
Recommendation, showing: (1) Grant the Ventura water department the authority to begin investigating and negotiating a temporary [10-year commitment] transfer of State Water Project contract entitlement for the highest price [The next step, it was said, will to be work with the Watershed Protection District, Casitas and United, not to exclude other outside districts who may wish to help in negotiating a transfer.]
Public communications – Brian Rencher spoke, indicating support for Staff’s recommendation.
Council communications – Council Member Andrews asked about the transfer arrangement in its exploratory phase, the question was, would the best case scenario be that we could recover most of the costs for us to retain our rights on the water. This was said not to be a profit-making opportunity but to recover most of our costs.
Council Member Monahan wanted to know whether there was a cancellation clause and that the city could then back out of the agreement. Ms. Epstein said all of the details are not available currently but that it doesn't seem we could “get that water in a 10-year period” after going through what it would take to set up the agreement, and that cancellation could probably not be obtained. Mr. Monahan said that people have fought for years to have this water available to us, and have warned us never to give it up. Ventura could be in the situation that Santa Barbara is in and that we could regret such a decision.
Council Member Brennan said he respected Mr. Monahan’s position but that spending over the years not to use the infrastructure, but only to maintain the right has been a “scratching the head” situation. Saving the city $1.3 million means we are getting some money back for something we have not been able to use within 10 years. This is not water that is coming in now, it was said, but that this is paying for the infrastructure in order to keep that option alive. The council member said that Sandy Smith brought it forward to Council as a policy consideration, along with the Solar Partners Program, and it was said further that this is the opportunity to get more of that money for us.
Councilman Brennan then moved to support the recommendation. A second was obtained from Council Member Morehouse, who then said he appreciated the discusson on the alternatives, but the temporary transfer around a ten-year period remained the issue before the council membership. It is not locked in and might be canceled. It was said that this is worth exploring and that we should now be doing this with more consistency. It was repeated that this is not a permanent transfer, but temporary, saying further that we’re not acting on the measure – merely exploring.
Council Member Monahan said that a partner in this program is Lake Casitas. If we want to bring water to this area, Casitas has always said they would join with us in pipeline construction, or whatever, and that we should be in agreement with them. On each past opportunity to get a pipeline here, the council has turned it down, even in instances where the water was needed, which means that many opportunities have been available and they have all been rejected.
Staff replied to Mr. Monahan by saying that all of our partners, Casitas and United, have been invited to participate, and that the support of all parties would be seriously considered before any movement in that direction would be made.
The deputy mayor asked for a roll call vote – all members voted yes with the exception of Mr. Monahan.
Agenda Item No. 5 [Back] - Funding for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Acceptance Grant Match. Joining Staff before the council was Fire Chief Kevin Rennie. The SAFER Grant was brought up two weeks ago as a method of reopening Fire Station #4. A funding plan for that grant will be considered along with a follow-up presentation on the grant. City Manager Cole joined Staff before Council to present the material.
Funding Options for SAFER Grant It was noted that Council had previously instructed the staff to come back with specific recommendations for funding the third year commitment to carrying over the Fire Station No. 4 operating costs covered in the first two years under grant funding. Mr. Cole had said upon Council’s first hearing on the issue that $1.2 million divided into three $400,000 segments, in the hope that through additional revenue and savings measures in other parts of the budget, that this could be used to fund, over a three-year period, the contract obligation to an additional (year three) $1.2 million. The city manager said that as we spoke two weeks ago, the “options have severely narrowed.”
Background, showing: (1) The Department of Homeland Security has awarded $2,339,473 in funding under the FY 2010 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant to the City of Ventura Fire Department.
Background (cont’d), showing: (2) On October 10 the city council endorsed acceptance, however... – (3) Directed the city manager to return in two weeks with a plan that specifically identifies where that funding will come from over the next three years – (4) Staff has developed three options
Option A, Permanent Reductions In Operating Costs, showing: (1) $100,000 annual drawdown from the Paramedic Funds – (2) $50,000, Annual prepayment of Parklands – (3) $107,023, Annual savings from elimination of Park Supervisor Position – (4) $68,896, Annual Savings from elimination of Finance and Technology Secretary position – (5) $50,000, Annual savings from the elimination of Planning Studies line item in Community Development – (6) $24,000 annual savings from elimination of funding for gang graffiti tracking software
This option represents reductions in operating costs, citywide, which amount to $350,000 total. The city manager said that in each of the options, $50,000 in each of three years would come from a prepayment on a $3 million commitment made via the Parklands Development project, which will see the construction of 479 homes over 3, 5 or 10 years. These are funds that have been fully negotiated as an offset toward infrastructure that will support the additional growth, along with the fact that the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) will make a final decision based upon whether or not Fire Station #4 can be made operational prior to annexation. A developer’s representative had made himself available to grant assurances to the council on the continuing understanding of such a prepayment option.
On Option A, Item No. 5 it was said that we probably have as many plans as we can support at one time. And in the $26 million police budget the last item (No. A6) represents a small portion which could be eliminated – computer software that tracks gang graffiti. This was to help us solve gang crime and since we no longer have a gang officer, a small 1/10 of 1% ($24,000) was left in the budget for other purposes.
Option A, Permanent Reductions In Operating Costs (cont’d) showing: (1) Pros – (1.1) State of the economy still not healthy, some previous reductions are not sustainable – (1.2) Supports “Living within our means” – (2) Cons – (2.1) Further reduces capacity and flexibility to meet routine workload and new Council priorities
Option B, Funding Within the Fire Department, showing: (1) $350,000 Annual drawdown from the Paramedic Fund – (2) $50,000 Annual prepayment of Parklands
On the Paramedic Fund, Mr. Cole said that payments from American Medical Response (AMR) is the county’s first-line-response unit working in parallel with agencies in the West County area, which includes Ventura, obviously. The arrangement is one of shared responsibility in the event of an emergency, with transport from the scene being AMR’s function. They pay us because they are held to certain performance standards by the county, and quite often could not meet those contract standards without the assistance or backup by City Fire. These funds have been considered reserves and are used judiciously, according to Mr. Cole, for important defibrillators and sophisticated radio (since 9-11) communications equipment, including the fact federal standards for agency inter-operability are on the horizon. The stockpile amounts currently to $892,000 with limited drawdowns occurring mostly for things such as specialized training.
Option B, Funding Within the Fire Department, showing: (1) Pros – (1.1) Utilizes the reserve designed for paramedic service which has adequate capacity for the first year’s funding – (2) Cons – (2.1) Will force the scaling back or delay of important capital expenditures – (2.2) Funding is not guaranteed
$1,050,000 million could be stretched out over the next four fiscal years (three grant years), according to the city manager. There is not always a guarantee that we will get this much or as much money in the out years, which would mean that we would have to make decisions in our capital investment.
Option C, Funding From Emergency Reserves, showing: (1) $350,000; Annual drawdown from the emergency reserve – (2) $50,000; Annual prepayment from Parklands
Emergency funds are typically not increased beyond the anticipated adequacy since the expectation is that they would be used only in an emergency and so typically are not drawn down frequently either. With this being the case the city manager indicated disfavor in using Option C as an alternative.
Option C, Funding From Emergency Reserves (cont’d), showing: (1) Pros – (1.1) Requires no action or reductions – (2) Cons – (1.2) This is only a fallback option – (2.2) High risk; Negatively affects long-term security, credit ratings, future flexibility – (2.3) No ability to pay back the reserve in the reasonable future
Mr. Cole said that these are his recommendations based on his position asked city manager or it there may be other options, but in terms of moving quickly and giving Council something they can rely upon, these would be recommendations that could move the program forward. Mr. Carrillo from SEIU has been warning the city that in a layoff situation there are demonstrable impacts and it becomes the city manager’s task and the task of City Council to deal with the mitigation of those impacts.
Staffing for a SAFER grant, showing: October 24, 2011. The balance of the report was to come from Jay Panzica, Chief Financial Officer, to present non-grant funded budgetary considerations that arise as a result of considering all the ramifications of accepting the SAFER Grant.
Incremental Costs Re-Opening Fire Station #4, showing: (1) The purpose of this analysis was to identify the a incremental costs to the General Fund – (2) Costs that occur today, and would continue to occur, are not part of the analysis. [Electricity and lighting costs not included since the station has remained fully operational during its time of closure.]
Staffing Plan
Operating Costs, Year One, Non-salary, showing: (1) One-Time costs – (1.1) Uniforms and safety equipment [$52k] – (1.2) Background checks [$15k] – (1.3) Training, 4 weeks [$20k] – (2) Ongoing costs incl. Internal Service Funds (ISF), Facilities [$20k] – Total Year One, Non-salary [$107k]
Operating Costs, Year One, Salary, showing: (1) Total new hire salary and benefits costs [$970k] – (2) Total promotional s&bt costs [$120k] – (3) Total Year One, Salary & Benefits [$1,090k]
Operating Costs, Year One, Total, showing: (1) Total Non-salary [$107k] – (2) Total salary [$1,090k] – Total [$1,197k] – (3) Reimbursed by SAFER Grant [$1,090k] – Cost To City [$107k]
Operating Costs, Year Two, Salary, showing: (1) Year one total salary and benefit costs [$1,090k] – (2) 5% salary step increases, etc. [$55k] – Total [$1,145k]
Operating Costs, Year Two, Total, showing: (1) Total Non-salary [$20k] – (2) Total salary [$1,145k] – Total [$1,165k] – (3) Reimbursed by SAFER Grant [$1,145k] – Cost To City [$20k]
Operating Costs, Year Three, Salary, showing: (1) Year two total salary and benefit costs [$1,145k] – (2) 5% salary step increases, etc. [$57k] – Total [$1,202k]
Operating Costs, Year Three, Total, showing: (1) Total Non-salary [$20k] – (2) Total salary [$1,202k] – Total [$1,222k] – (3) Reimbursed by SAFER Grant [$0k] – Cost To City [$1,222k]
Summary of Costs
A Note About PERS, showing: (1) in FY 2010/11 employees will begin contributing 2% towards PERS – (2) in fiscal year 2011/12 employees will begin contributing 3.5% towards PERS – (3) in FY 2012/13 employees will begin contributing 4.5% toward PERS – (4) In FY 2012/13 PERS rates will rise by 1.2% – (5) In FY 2013/14 PERS rates will rise by 4.2%
Council Member Andrews asked about the defibrillators as an issue that could be responsible for a different reduction and accounting for the Emergency Response (AMR) money. The councilman read off a figure of $215,000, which represents a 5-year replacement cost. It was asked of Chief Rennie how this will impact the department’s budget situation.
The chief said it was not critical and that they are now taking delivery of a new shipment of defibrillators, giving them what will become a ten-year turn around on that product. The councilman asked for confirmation that deferment of the $215,000 would be essentially painless. Going also on the union contract, the six-month option was brought up, which will come to term in 2013.
Council Member Weir said that the county mandate to replace onboard fire department computers was essentially an unfunded mandate. It was wondered whether there was potential for county grants to pay.
This requirement was not through the EMS agency but from the county that dispatches us, Mr. Rennie said. This cost for certain upgrades and/or modifications to the equipment does come over to us, and that funding may become a little slow coming through. The councilwoman seemed to take it, then, that these upgrades and such are not specifically mandated, but that we must be compatible. Going back to a previous slide on the PERS increases, it was wondered whether the 4.2% was on top of the current, making this 5.2%.
[Comment] For many politicians the term “unfunded mandate” simply jumps off the tongue. We really shouldn't fall for this. See, safety never ever goes unfunded – ethically speaking. If it does and someone dies as a result, then it's not just a matter of ethical malfeasance. It's a matter of criminal negligence. Now let's see … how long has Fire Station #4 been de-activated? But even so there is more to the issue and it's simply this ~ If with every measure that floats its way up to the city council there were to be a big fat check tucked into the inner lining, then the city clerk could run the city for crying out loud. But instead, it's your job and it really is bad form to be complaining about it.
The fact is, Mr. & Ms. Ventura, that you are not living within your means. Just because your budget says so doesn't make it true. If there were real justice in this country, the first person to die because of the lack of safety would turn a local politician's disdain for the “unfunded mandate” into something else entirely – a pair of striped pajamas. [Ed.]
Mr. Panzica said that October of each year marks a recalculation point in all of the numbers, and that the 4.2% may not go higher but will be cumulative and updated. On our contracts were talking about a 4.5% decrease, the councilwoman thought, because the employees will begin to pay, but we were still going to fall behind due to the increase in PERS to over 5%. Mr. Panzica said that it's approximately a wash, meaning that the money is collected ahead of time and banked to help pay out the costs in 2013/14, but beyond that the changes will take place.
Deputy Mayor Tracy asked that if using Option B and the paramedic fund so extensively, and yet because of federally mandated radio interoperability and costs in the range of $350,000 for Emergency Vehicles Preemptive Systems and other mandated sources, it was wondered how we would get those sources funded. The fire chief said that we worked out a 10-year plan on those monies within a department, and that the department feels confident in the ability to cover those. The mandate for radio equipment must be done by 2013, and that the paramedic fund could be used as a stopgap, over and above the drawdown. Fire mitigation issues enter into the situation. The paramedic fund is fed annually with money coming in and was said to be about $500,000 per year
The deputy mayor wanted to review the slide on the salaries for paramedics and other personnel. What explains an “A” step recruit listed at $90,000 versus what the deputy mayor knows to be $120,000 for a police cadet “with full roll-ups,” was the question. It was explained that the recruit position is close to being considered a “temp” until finishing the 17-week academy. Mr. Tracy sought the CFO’s take on those same numbers, with Mr. Panzica saying that for accounting purposes these numbers remain rather static, and yet he seemed to be saying also that the number could be taken up to the actual recruit “A” step level.
Mr. Panzica explained that the salaries in the SAFER rollout are actual salaries being paid today, which are higher than mid-range which would be used in any normal hiring situation for city workers. Mr. Tracy said then it's not the same as the total roll-up costs, including overhead, supervision and the rest. It seemed to be the deputy mayor’s intent to get someone to verify that while $90,000 may go into the employee’s pocket, the city’s cost of hiring that employee is much higher – as high as $50,000 higher.
Fire Chief Rennie volunteered the fact that budgeting occurred at “top-step” position in the past. More recently the standard has been to calculate exact figures. The deputy mayor went on to question the practice of “back-filling” for duty when personnel were unavailable, and whether or not those costs were figured in. The chief responded in the negative, saying that after budgeting for attrition that the back-fill/overtime function taken over a period of time is generally looked at as “low.” There is a number reflective of how many shifts people take off, per year, but couldn’t be specified with certainty at the moment. Nine “new folks,” it was said, aren’t eligible for vacation and this makes budgeting easier than for tenured people.
City Manager Cole informed the deputy mayor that he’d asked the same question, and was assured that the department would remain within budget.
Council Member Monahan asked for clarification on the “new radios” that are being required. The 9/11 era has required “narrow banding,” or more channels per the airspace. The new radios are narrow band capable, which is a national program. In the fire department this will be $250,000 to replace all the “handy talkies” and mobile radios in the engines. It was said that there is interoperable capability with other departments such as the police. Mr. Monahan said that when we went through the Parklands project we put money in for their radios. Mr. Cole said that $200,000 was to improve the radio coverage for the police in the east end of town. This is one of the ways for us to work ahead and get prepayment from Parklands. Knowing that this is coming later will help solve the operational issue. If this recommendation is accepted, said city manager Cole, $200,000 comes with installation of the 180th unit, with the police chief having requested $89,000 in the current year for improving radio coverage.
Council Member Monahan wondered what the cost to the city was for outside contractors on the living wage issue. Mr. Panzica said that the main impact of that is between 150,000 and $275,000. Our own staff, said Mr. Cole, is also covered by the same ordinance, excluding golf, but this is typical of both areas.
Council Member Morehouse asked about the salaries/benefits and wished to know whether those promotions are automatic and will be “givens.” In order to open a station and keep the station open, each engine needs an engineer, a fire captain and a firefighter/paramedic. New hires typically come in at the lowest level, which means that the tenured people have to move up, and they would do so by being promoted from within. Mr. Morehouse wondered further about tapping into the paramedic fund, saying that even if being replenished at the rate of $500k/yr, if getting the advantage out of the signal preemption capability would provide enough capacity in the fund while augmenting the third year out, noting that the preemption is the actual key to expedited response times. Traffic preemption will be coming before Council a bit later this year, according to the fire chief, while noting that “this puts us a little further behind,” and that it would be best to have more intersections taken care of, but the goal is to have the entire city taken care of within the next three years.
Council Member Andrews asked about the park supervisor position and whether it would be a layoff. Mr. Cole said that the position is not in the budget but is being filled with salaries savings. With his management authority, the city manager is capable of expediting whether or not Council accepts this recommendation and that through the normal process of contract negotiations with SEIU this is perfectly legal. The councilman responded by saying that “a layoff is a layoff.” As for the trainee positions, assurances were sought that that the promotions were worked into the budget and accounted for as they move into tenured positions within two and three years. The question seemed to center on the cost of compensation for trainees as they gradually move up into the higher tax brackets. The fire chief responded by saying that within the grant itself there are provisions for those types of increases. These are looked at as increases of 5% “by step” annually. A true increase to the city would be 1% in each of the first two years.
City Manager Cole jumped in by saying that the grant was “an analysis,” applied for on one basis, with the chief financial officer going on the basis of actuals. The figures point to a number that is $110,000 less than the figure applied for based on other criteria. On the issue of turnover, however, Jay’s was a less conservative number. This number then will compensate, surmised Mr. Andrews, for the natural promotions of the new hires, but not without being reminded by Mr. Cole of the attrition factor – that with a staff of 66, a natural progression into retirement can be reasonably expected. The councilman said for about the fifth time that “he understands.”
Public Communications.
[Comment] David Grau of the Taxpayers’ Association spoke first, but as usual, his comments were totally irrelevant. His sentiments, as usual, favor money over life, health and happiness – as long as it’s someone else’s life, health or happiness, of course, and not his own. [Ed.]
Council Member Monahan asked Mr. Grau whether he’d heard earlier that the project before LAFCO on the issue of annexation requires that Fire Station #4 be opened. The speaker said, “This is way above my pay grade,” and that the Taxpayers Association was looking short-term only as to how the money is spent within the three year period.
[Comment] This of course was not what Mr. Grau said during his 3-minute address. He chastised the council for its apparent lack of concern over what happens to firefighters’ salaries in the fourth year out. And then, as everyone can see, the story changes when confronted with the bigger picture, like how do you provide fire coverage and safety to a development already approved which will see the addition of 435 new families in an area that would otherwise be without adequate fire protection? The lack of an answer to this and others is because they stand before us on ideology alone – forethought optional. [Ed.]
Danny Carrillo spoke, saying that as a resident and voter and member of SEIU, he noted that there would be potential for layoffs elsewhere within the city as one of the funding measures for this, but that a prudent decision can be made to restore the fire station.
Brian Rencher spoke saying that unlike Mr. Grau he wasn't concerned about year four. The speaker was worried about years 1, 2 and 3, and that we aren't faced with life-and-death issues within the space three years. Response times are grossly under where they need to be. The speaker preferred option A. This is a first line priority, the speaker said, like needing shoes before candy. As for the annual drawdown of the paramedic fund, we could either have response times lowered through more labor or by increasing capital. In the short run all we really have is labor in meeting community expectations for response times. The signal preemption would allow fire and police to override signals and enhance response times. But to take away the capital investment and then use science would possibly be the best way to use the drawdown of our paramedics fund and at the same time save our reserves.
Chuck Cohen, speaking on behalf of both John Ashkar and the Parklands project, felt that to be working with Mr Lambert and his staff means to him working on an issue that belongs under the purview of the city more so than with LAFCO. It was represented to LAFCO that the city would find the funds to open Fire Station #4. It was a failing, however, not to have pointed out that it's really Fire Station #6 that would serve Parklands. As for Mr. Ashkar’s participation in advancing funds, the faster we can move Parklands through the process and get LAFCO’s annexation certified, the faster we can accomplish all of our objectives. The Island annexations in the Montalvo area under LAFCO’s guidelines were also considered important. City manager Cole’s raising of the issue of the advance payment underscored Mr. Ashkar’s full cooperation in that he would agree to a $50,000 annual payment, hoping also that the city would find additional sources. Based on what the speaker had heard in testimony this evening, it was said that with full authority from Mr. Ashkar, his preordained commitment will be honored.
Mr. Cole said it is a pleasure to work with Mr. Grau in working with the city on the city's fiscal responsibilities, saying that we don’t always agree on solutions, but we have over the years worked hard to agree on facts.
[Comment] Enough said. [Ed.]
Council Communications – Council Member Morehouse felt the need to comment, as a LAFCO member, that the Island annexation issue is being worked upon but that the Hertzberg Act means that the Islands issue must be tackled in order to get to Parklands. What Staff at LAFCO analyzed was that while this is within the operational area for Station #6, a down Station #4 has a big effect on response times for both areas. The undedicated $3 million has been offered to the city by Mr. Ashcroft, and that this represents something to tap into.
Paralleling a question from Mr. Grau, Council Member Morehouse asked Staff to address concerns over what happens after that third year to those nine people.
City Manager Cole said that the fire chief could handle the logistics of an attrition plan, but Mr. Cole still believed in living within our means … that scaling back our support of #4 in the out years would remain an option. Number two we could look at a second way of reducing costs, and number three we could cut in other areas. In Mr. Cole's recommendation it was said that we should act prior to year three, looking at the financial situation, operational results, and continue to analyze our deployable resources. Eighty positions have been eliminated with two layoffs said Mr. Cole. We did this by being very smart in how we have managed attrition and early retirements.
The chief said that nothing has changed from the early 1960s and fire coverage. Nine of the best people we can hire would be the goal and to keep them employed, saying also that we will manage this fire station with the money they give us. Mr. Cole then tacked on the fact that we've done this before at Station #4 without layoffs.
Council Member Morehouse asked about the graffiti tracking program with Mr. Cole saying that there was a sophisticated program that would help police quickly identify potential perpetrators, but that the $24,000 had not been eliminated, it's just that the money became available for doing similar things but in dissimilar ways. Doing what is proposed would mean a moving out of the funds into other areas.
Getting away from the historic survey in Midtown was problematic to the councilman based on a delay of information getting to the CEQA process, translating into a delay in getting certain developments approved. The councilman also expressed skepticism over various treasury enhancement schemes like cracking down on business license deadbeats (Item 4) and the parks/rec “stuff” (Item 3) didn’t appear to offer short term solutions while at the same time knowing that Parks is running into long term problems of its own. It was thought that Option B would represent “a pretty good alternative” for us. The very loud voices of some very adamant citizens have been heard concerning the Station #4 issue, according to the councilman.
Council Member Andrews said that Option C “is not an option” for him. The planning studies – historic et al – is that “$50,000/yr “forever?” The answer was yes. Mr. Cole stated further that “this isn’t money burning a hole in our pocket.” Money not used is returned to the General Fund. There is capacity there now, but if it is cut for purposes such as the one presently, it will not exist for the future. Mr. Andrews then replied that he would like to see the historic study fund “cut” but also would like to see it remain available “over the next 3 years.” Also that depleting the paramedic fund would delay “things that [he] would be reluctant to delay.” Computers and radios seemed important to the councilman. Neither would he favor cutting the Science and Technology secretary’s position. The remaining shortfall (in the $800,000 range) meant that the councilman would “hesitate to plan” for a reduction of fire forces in the fourth year or beyond. This means – to this councilman – that it must be made clear to the city’s public employee workforce that tougher days must ensue in the coming years over compensation and benefits. According to Mr. Andrews, if this issue goes forward, he is “putting them on notice” of a new focus to take place in the renegotiation of union contracts coming up (2013).
[Comment] It's a horse, of course, and a Trojan one at that, so if we can just get enough people to climb inside and take their anger out on those greedy little public workers, then eventually all will be made right with the world. Naturally the known world is as flat as ever for these people, so looking out over the horizon makes absolutely no sense. Inflation? … what inflation? Falling wages? … what falling wages? Have no fear, the king is here. With the king demanding ever greater production from the serfs in the field while they and their families starve at home, it's basically Divine Right that is holding everything together. There was a little thing called the Magna Carta written over situations such as this which prevented the British monarchy from suffering the same fate as that of the French after the storming of the Bastille. Et tu, Bruté? [Ed.]
Council Member Weir quoted a statistic saying that 75% of cities and counties in California are grappling with budget reductions. Cuts from Both A and B will be necessary, in the councilwoman’s estimation. The motion was then made to approve Option B, along with some degree of judicious selection from areas outlined in Option A (Staff’s discretion, or so it was said). The renegotiation with the firefighter’s union also seemed like a carrot hanging out there that couldn’t be ignored. A second was obtained on the recommendation to implement Option B.
Council Member Brennan agreed also on the Option A and the holding on to those positions. The councilman said further that “we’re up here to provide leadership.”
Deputy Mayor Tracy wished to note specific items in Attachement A, saying that Item No. 1 – the mandated radio upgrades, and others, should receive first consideration when coming from the paramedic fund. Adherence to whatever is left over after $300,000 is taken for the fire station was critical in Mr. Tracy’s view.
Current funding stands at $892,000 in the paramedic fund, according to City Manager Cole, representing almost a third of what is expected as receivable over the next 3 years. This recommendation would not be coming about if it were thought that the city would be putting off the acquisition of critically needed equipment.
The motion maker accepted that the items listed in Attachment A, No. 1 be taken out of the remainder of the paramedic fund.
Council Member Morehouse wanted clarification – Option B with augmentation as laid out formally on Option A and not the motion maker’s earlier comment to Staff as to “their discretion” on other line items within A.
The deputy mayor asked that a roll call vote be taken – all members voted yes and the measure passed with unanimous support.
Agenda Item No. 6 [Back] - Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Acceptance Grant. Fire Chief Rennie brought forward the formal recommendation that Council accept the SAFER grant, briefly reiterating a few of the highlighted points brought forward by the Chief Financial Officer, such is the $107,000 which would be due and payable by the city in Year One. It was then asked of the council to put forward any remaining questions.
Council Member Weir made comment on an item at the bottom of page 3, saying that the staffing model should be subject to annual review, considering the nature of budget realities, with the question being proposed to Chief Rennie whether or not this had been a forgone conclusion within his department, and had the chief anticipated further participation or oversight by the city council in future years. The reply was that his department is accustomed to doing all that is necessary in order to provide the highest level of service to the community. Therefore, as data begins to be available upon the reopening of fire station No. 4, we will be keenly aware of the need for adjustments.
Public Commnications – Brian Rencher took to the podium to say that he supports Staff recommendations, saying further that he is in favor of saving lives beginning in Year One. It was the speaker's feeling that future developments, perhaps within the realm of a scientific breakthrough of one type or another, would help in reducing the need for manpower such as we are considering here. But with this as an unknown, what we are doing today is buying time. If we can save lives in the first three years, we should worry about year four when faced by the prospect, or so it was said.
Council Member Andrews said that as an idea dredged up from the past, and which the councilman would put forward again, would be to “float” our equipment to various parts of our neighborhoods whenever a high-volume of activity was to be expected in that area, helping to reduce response times. This, it was said, could be the model for our citywide fire service – a roving engine “task force” which could be made more efficient with today’s computer technology, making this a much more feasible solution then it was 30 years ago. With that, the councilman made the motion to accept Staff’s recommendations A, B and C. A second was obtained.
[Comment] You know, there is nothing we like more than a serious consideration, and this, unfortunately, is nothing like a serious consideration. [Ed.]
Deputy Mayor Tracy wished to commend the staff for the work that went into bringing this issue before the council, saying also that the fire service is but one part of a larger picture involving public safety within the community. With the motion maker’s approval the deputy mayor wished to include direction to the line department head, Mr. Rennie, to prepare a yearly report on evaluating staffing and service models going forward.
It was asked of the city clerk to proceed with a roll call vote – Brennan, yes; Weir, yes; Morehouse, yes; Andrews, yes; Monahan, yes; Deputy Mayor Tracy, yes, The motion to accept the SAFER Grant passed with unanimous approval.
The city manager wished to recognize the excellent work of Victor Dobrush, who, as a grant writer, seldom gets to see a ray of sunshine with such brilliance come his way. In receiving a grant of this type where we don’t need to repay the government simply because every note was placed appropriately; because all the numbers added up; because we filed every form; and yet “While it isn’t heroic work,” said Mr. Cole, “It’s damn good work,” and it was the city manager’s pleasure to extend his thanks to Victor for an extraordinary job done extraordinarily well.
Agenda Item No. 7 [Back] - Aesthetic and Safety Enhancements to the Union Pacific/Highway 101 Railroad Trestle - Graffiti Abatement Agreement. City Attorney Ariel Calonne took to the duty of introducing the measure by asking the council to ratify the agreement it approved on October 10 (page 19 of packet). The agreement related aesthetic and safety improvements on the Union Pacific Railroad trestle over Highway 101 in Ventura CA.
Public Communications – Brian Rencher said that for rhetorical purposes the measure was deemed unfavorable, saying also that an appraisal on the actual value of the lease should have been performed, while insisting still further that Union Pacific should have been pressed much harder to pay an amount related to what the market would bear, based upon the value on an important right-of-way. “I’m opposed to it,” said the speaker.
Council Member Weir moved to accept Staff’s recommendation to ratify the final agreement with Union Pacific and Caltrans. A second was obtained.
Council Member Morehouse felt the need to reiterate his position from the meeting on October 10, saying that a 50-year tie-in makes necessary the councilman’s apology in advance to future councils over an issue that they may quite rightly be incensed about. It is all about the public will, however, said the councilman, and the burdens will simply be allowed to settle as they may.
The deputy mayor asked that a roll call vote be taken – Brennan, yes; Weir, yes; Morehouse, yes; Andrews, no; Monahan, no; Deputy Mayor Tracy, yes. The measure passed 4 – 2.
Public Communications – Brian Rencher said that in putting out campaign placards over the past week, a noticeable lack of cleaning and trash pickup was in evidence throughout the city, and even the sidewalks are littered with hazards, according to the speaker.
The deputy mayor adjourned meeting in memory of Susan Haday.