Presentations

·       The City presented the upcoming celebrations for the 40th anniversary of the Sister-city relationship with the City of Akashi, Japan.

2008 will be the 40th anniversary of this relationship between Akashi and Vallejo and celebrations will revolve around exchanging baseball games – our high school players (since we are “sister-cities”, I hope some girls go too!) will travel to Akashi & their teams will travel here (will we have any playing fields left by then?).  The City of Akashi sent several delegates to Vallejo to present this idea to the council, including their Manager of International Culture and Affairs, Chief of International Relations, Chief Director of the High-school Baseball Federation, and several members of the Akashi Sister City Committee.  Representing Vallejo was Dinah Villanueva, Chair of the Vallejo Sister City Commission and Sister City President Kent Zadwick (also the president of the Mare Island Historical Park Foundation, see item 9B).  Wouldn’t it be nice to have our own International Culture and Affairs and International Relations Department? Sigh…

 

On to the meeting:

CONSENT CALENDAR:

·       The consent calendar was unanimously approved but not before Robert Roe requested some items be discussed, like how is Vallejo able to pay $8 million in expenses for October when the City has a $9 million deficit.  Somebody donate this guy some accounting lessons.  This is why we have a reserve, to be able to pay our bills.  Although a dwindling reserve (see item 9A).  Mr. Roe also questioned why there are to be more assessments levied onto the Vallejo Tourism Business Improvement District – for which members of the district requested to have levied against themselves, approved at a prior meeting (Robert didn’t go to that meeting I guess.)

But folks, it IS good to pay attention to what’s on the consent calendar because this is the last place anyone can object to something the City has passed.  Once it gets final approvals at the consent calendar level, it’s a done deal.  That is, the window to object is closed.  That’s my lesson in civics for the week.

And the first of three administrative items:

·       Item 9.A was a vote to approve a consulting contract with Watry Designs, for engineering of the Vallejo Station.  This is the garage and bus terminal that will take surface parking off the waterfront so that Waterfront Development can start.

The conundrum here is that the State passed SB 976, the resolution to appropriate Vallejo and Alameda’s ferry system for “emergency ferry service”.  The fishy thing about this state resolution is that it was crafted by the owner of Alameda’s ferry service and State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata.  Fingers are pointing fast and furiously at the City Council for not stopping it (Michael Wilson blamed the current council at the Sierra Club/VHNA candidate forum), but it’s like blaming home-owners instead of the robbers for a break-in.  At least try blaming Senator Pat Wiggins, Vallejo’s representative in the State Senate who approved the takeover - time for a new senator!   And who on council or in Vallejo could have suspected that this coup d'état was taking place?  Word on the street is that this takeover is a ruse by the Alameda Ferry owner, friend of Perata’s, to bail out his Alameda Ferry which is going bust.  This sounds reasonable – why else would a private owner lobby to be taken over by the state?

There is a concern that if there is a state take-over, the state could move the ferries to another city, possibly Benicia, and leave Vallejo high and dry. There are two sides of the discussion, both valid; first, Tanner & Bartee believe that building the garage will give us a bargaining chip to keep the ferries, and second, Pearsall predicts that building the garage will be a waste of money because we have no commitment from the state - we could have a ferry parking garage with no ferries.

There is also the concern (Intintoli) that we already have state and federal earmarks for the project that we could potentially lose if we don’t move forward on the project. Don’t get me started on this view. Why build something just because we could lose the money?  This is never a good basis for a decision but is often used to approve items that aren’t necessarily the best option.

But the overriding factor for the council was that having the garage will help us keep the ferry (the “chip”) and that the garage and ferry system are the crux of the Downtown/Waterfront/Mare Island development.  The developers of these projects could be our allies to support keeping the ferries stay here.  The council approved awarding the contract 5-1, with Pearsall nay and Gomes absent excused.

Big thanks to Council member Pearsall for helping Gary Leach and the audience figure out the “two phases”.  It was even starting to sound to me as if the City was suddenly adopting the VWC’s plan that called for two smaller garages built on separate parcels in order to create better traffic flow.  What Mr. Leach actually meant was that they anticipate difficulty in getting the Post Office to relocate in a timely manner.  And so the garage might have to be built in two sections – with a temporary wall adjacent to the P.O. while the City attempts to negotiate the P.O.’s relocation.

What was also quite interesting, thanks to Council member Pearsall’s questioning, is that the land the Post Office is built on is privately owned, not owned by the Post Office or the City.  We will be doing some calling around to discover who that private landowner is.  Will it be another example of good ol’ boy ownership of Vallejo?  We’ll let you know.

Hermie Sunga asked why local businesses were not given favoritism for this project.  He was informed that it is against the City’s procurement policies, which is obviously a way to keep the City from playing favorites.  Playing favorites can drive up costs, which Sunga doesn’t seem to be concerned about, or he hasn’t read up on important city policies.

Leach did say that local businesses were encouraged to apply under the master contractors who were selected to submit proposals, but that none bothered to put their names in.  Maybe because they aren’t qualified?

Item 9B

·       was an update to the Council by Finance Director Robert Stout on the General Fund, (CLICK HERE to see a copy of Mr. Stout's presentation as received by members of council) with a notice of intention to amend the 2007-2008 City Budget.  As we all know, the City budget is in dire straits – now projecting a $5.3 million dollar deficit - largely because of very generous salaries we have been giving and continue to give our safety unions, and the unsuccessful negotiations/arbitration with the Fire Union and the likely unsuccessful negotiations/arbitration with the Police Union.  Embedded in the budget was a projected savings of about $4 million based on what was hoped to be the outcome of safety union negotiations. 

I must say, I appreciated Gerald Davis’ comment the most: He asked Tanner about continued negotiation, and Tanner indicated that the City can not make any more concessions or offers.  Davis then said continued employment was worth offering as a concession!  Right on, Davis!  Maybe you will lead the way to rid the City of binding arbitration so that the City can actually say this with some authority?!

Gary Cloutier stated that the decision to “file a motion to vacate the arbitrator’s decision” was correct because it will bankrupt the City, especially if the arbitrator makes the same decision for Police negotiations. What does this mean? 

Here’s where it gets complicated and nuanced, and where it is very difficult for the City to present their side of the argument to the public.  The Fire Union Leaders (and the candidates they supported for election) need only say “people will die” (not true!) to create support for their outrageous compensation.  The City has a very complicated legal argument on their side to present, and sometimes they can’t even present it due to confidential negotiations. 

But here goes my explanation:

A motion to vacate means that the City has asked the courts to vacate – or undo – Tom Angelo’s (the arbitrator) decision.  Angelo said that the City has no right to reduce the contracted minimum staffing of 28 per shift. 

Binding arbitration is like a card game – it gives the City a lousy hand to “play” with, similar to a bunch of “low hand” cards.  The City has very little options when negotiating with IAFF 1186 Local Firefighters Union.  The IAFF 1186 basically has a “Royal Flush” – if IAFF 1186 does not give concessions the City believes is fair, then the City’s only option is to enter into binding arbitration, where a third party, in this case Tom Angelo from Mill Valley, makes the decision that everyone has to live with.  The City was hoping to reduce minimum staffing by 4 – from 28 to 24.  Let’s not forget that other similar cities have minimum staffing requirements of much less than 28 and operate quite well.  But Angelo said no and Vallejo is forced through binding arbitration to accept his decision. (If you Google Tom Angelo, you will find that he is very closely connected with Unions so his decision was not surprising.)

So the City, already with a very weak hand, now find their hand is the worst “low-hand” while IAFF 1186 holds their “Royal Flush”.  Big loss for the City.

The City has one ace they can play.  If the City believes the IAFF 1186 did not negotiate in what they believe to be good faith, then the City can ask the courts (and has) through a “motion to vacant” to dismiss the arbitrator’s decision. Not sure what happens after that – it’s back to the table?

What’s even worse, the IAFF 1186 continues to insist the City create revenue by selling City property - property that will be lost forever – to pay for their handsome salaries, outrageous raises, and primo benefits.  We all know what happens to sold property.  Possibly a builder will buy it – like KB Homes at the parcel on Rollingwood sold off by our school district to address their deficit.  Maybe one of the good ol boys – like whoever may own the Post Office property (see item 9A) will buy it.  Or maybe Tom Bartee -- who has been known to buy City owned property cheaply and then resell for a lot more (look for a more detailed article on this in the coming weeks).  Legal? Maybe.  Ethical? You decide.

Bartee criticized Staff for presenting details of the cuts that night instead of in advance, even though Staff was not asking the Council to approve the cuts.  Bartee said he “didn’t want to rub salt in the wound” as he poured it on.  And sorry folks, public humiliation of staff for what they presented, especially when it is in accordance with a 5-2 council vote, even if Bartee was one of the 2 opponents, is very bad form and Bartee should know this.

At every juncture since this budget has been discussed, Bartee has criticized City Staff for what he believes is manipulation of the data.  Has he ever criticized the IAFF 1186, who generously supported his campaign (see card game analogy above) for manipulating data? Of course not.  Bartee went as far as to criticize Tanner for allowing Parker to retire.  IMHO, Parker should have been fired, based on the Union Business Leave Abuse report and the fact that Parker was put on notice by Thompson and even bumbling Kemp to put a stop to it.  The abuse of union business leave actually escalated after Parker was warned to put a halt to it.

And let’s not forget what Parker offered on June 5th as the panacea to our budget crisis – he suggested laying off the only two “union critics” one who was actually sued by Kurt Henke, along with accepting retirement of two other administrators in the Fire Department.  This “savings” plan was supported by Bartee and Sunga, the two council members supported by the IAFF in the last election.  Hmmmm…

Of course we came to find out later through Parker’s own admission to the Times Herald that the department would not even be able to function with these layoffs/retirements and the savings created by them would no where near meet the savings the City needed from the Fire Department.   And laying off someone who was sued by a fellow employee could have easily led to a wrongful termination suit which based on circumstances would have been easily won, and cost the City much more than any “salary savings” created.

Mr. Bartee said of his comments back in June that he didn’t vote for the budget back then because it was based on “whims and hopes” and had a $5 million deficit. Let’s remind Mr. Bartee of his comments back then:  He accused the City of distortion of the facts and disagreed with arbitration but based his decision against approving the budget based on the fact that the City could not find $90K in a budget of $85 million.  Bartee should know as the businessman he claims to be that it is the “we can find $90K” that got the City in trouble in the first place.  And, Tanner, whose job is to serve at the direction of the council, was only doing what the 5-2 majority asked him to do.  Again, the 2 in the minority were Bartee and Sunga, supported by the IAFF in their election bids.  Hmmmm….

Huge thanks again to Pearsall for:

·          Pointing out that the Safety Union raises are now 10% for this year, not the already unbelievably generous 8.5%.  This new 1.5% additional raise will cost us another million or so! 

·          For supporting the Finance Staff in their incredibly difficult job of balancing the budget which is now like walking a tightrope over a pool of crocodiles with no safety net. 

·          For alerting the public that the IAFF 1186 wants our lakes system to be put on the table!  IAFF 1186 actually wants us to sell off our water rights – privatize it, gone forever – to pay for their outrageous raises, and primo benefits.  And sell public property at the very worst time, while real estate prices, especially in Vallejo, plummet. 

When we have sold off everything, then how will we pay our bills?  And if you think Vallejo’s in bad shape now, well, at least we have some assets and collateral in the form of property.

Comments from the community included those from Sam Kurshan, stating that the City is watching to see how the IAFF endorsements affect council votes.

Item 9C.

·       Was a discussion brought about by Tom Bartee regarding the Mare Island Historic Park Foundation (MIHPF) which is run by Kent Zadwick.  To begin with, Intintoli -- clearly annoyed by Bartee’s request because this issue was very recently discussed at council -- gave a brief history of the issue.  The MIHPF has to pay the City of Vallejo about $128,000 for Community Facilities District (CFD) fees, which cover all municipal services provided on MI including all Fire, Police, Street maintenance, bridge maintenance, etc.  Bottom line is that development on Mare Island is not yet sufficient to absorb these fees that were originally assessed for the Island.  Bartee’s blaming of City Staff for delays in reporting this information (a week? A month?) is irrelevant - the situation has not changed, the MIHPF properties are crumbling, there is no money available to fix it, and there is no way to get the other landowners on the island to absorb the costs of what MIHPF is required to pay.

Kudos for Intintoli in pointing out that all other entities on Mare Island can pay these fees and are. This includes any and all businesses, homeowners, even the Christian Help Center.  I wonder if anyone has looked at the management of the MIHPF to see if the problem lies therein since they are the only entity that struggles to pay these fees.

It appeared to me that Bartee was attempting to make it sound as if the City is encouraging the MIHPF to give up some properties which would then revert to Lennar, which was not true.  Bartee should be sure to get the facts straight before blaming the City for “major losses of city assets”. 

If we wanted, we could point fingers at the Vallejo Convention & Visitors Bureau (the chamber of commerce) for lack of business development on Mare Island since they have and have had a contract for years to market Vallejo to businesses. 

Sunga brought up his “foreign trade zone” idea on Mare Island.  He better not be asking for tax-exemptions given to importers that will fill Mare Island with warehouses of junk that do not generate jobs or taxes.

Howard Fitzpatrick commented that about the tax base issue and housing versus business development (note: because there’s been no market and our schools are terrible). Robert Roe compared Benicia to Vallejo (note: ditto, and the shipbuilder doesn’t seem to have a viable business plan).

We then all adjourned to a redevelopment meeting -

where new redevelopment funding (hint: NOT general fund money, so legally can not pay for firefighter salaries) of $394K generated by financing of the Empress, was approved to be used for a contract with the National Development Council for a “grow Vallejo” program.  The Redevelopment Agency also approved minutes from meetings on 10/23/2007 and (?) 06/26/2001. (We're not sure about the mention of minutes from 2001 on the agenda.  Perhaps a typing error. ed.)

·       There were no appointments. 

·       There was no correspondence

·       City Manager report: Tanner presented his “five-prong” response to address the State’s takeover of the Ferry System in order to protect Vallejo’s ferry system.  This was actually in response to a good question by Sunga during the budget discussion.  I found it amusing that Tanner used language similar to Sunga’s “five star plan” campaign platform language (whatever that was – what happened to it?).  The City truly has a five star plan to address the ferry takeover (Michael Wilson, take note).

1) Legal experts to look at the SB 976 resolution 

2) Get a transit expert to look at the Ferry system

3) Get lobbyists for Vallejo in Sacto – Michael, you could volunteer to do this

4) Use the Downtown/Waterfront/Mare Island Developer muscle

5) Influence from our reps at the state level, Noreen Evan and Pat Wiggins. Problem with Wiggins is that she already sold us out by voting in favor of SB 976.  Evans did lobby very hard against the takeover, kudos to her!

·       No City Attorney’s report.

·       Community forum comments came from:

Robert Roe suggested he was happy about the candidates’ faith based on a conversation with Intintoli.  He was somewhat unclear.  Referred to deficit budgets over the years and thinks that the City does not deserve any federal dollars because of these deficits (even though he admits himself of being in debt).

David Corbett asked if the City plans on pursuing legal action regarding the abuse of union business leave or can it be left up to politics (AKA, swept under the rug when the new, IAFF 1186 dominated council is “sworn” in). He compared it a prior comment of Tanner’s: if the Council asks me to dig a ditch, I ask how deep and how wide…maybe the new council would like him to forget about digging that ditch when the ditch is Union Business Leave [Ab]Use?

Joe Feller spoke in support of ending the agreement with Wal-Mart for the White Slough Super-Center since they are stalling and the delays are a disincentive to other businesses in locating to Vallejo because of the uncertainty around Wal-Mart.  Again, those who like to blame council for Wal-Mart stalls.  The City followed protocol to the letter.  The ball is (and has been since July) in Wal-Mart’s court.  Those who love and want Wal-Mart, blame them!

Sam Kurshan again reminded council and council elect in the audience of the very keen interest in IAFF 1186 influence and the possibility of recalls from an angry voter base

·       No updates from Council Members

·       There was no closed session

·       Meeting was adjourned.

That’s it for my first installment of reporting from YOUR City Council.