This meeting felt like a repeat of November 13th since the Ferry Takeover and the Budget were both discussed again – very similar sentiments and complaints…

In attendance: (Again, can’t get everyone – plus I need new glasses (yes, I AM aging, remember…)

City staff: Brian Dolan, Annette Taylor, Gary Leach, Crystal Odum Ford (she won Transportation Employee of the Year, congrats to Crystal!), Rob Stout (and his assistant, again, not sure of her name), Joe Tanner, Fred Soley, Mary Ellsworth, Claudia Quintana, John Cerini, & Council members all there, and more... 

From the public: Councilmember elects Joanne “You Go Girl” Schivley, Michael Wilson, Erin Hannigan.  Then us plebes: Bill & Maureen Moore, Allen & Kathy Wildermuth, Dave West & Rick Grant, Pat & Paul Norberg, (it was a couples evening!) Ann Meeter, Sam Kurshan, Kim White, Marc Garman, David Corbett, Richard Hassell, Mark Fox, Marti Brown, Liat Meitzenheimer, Maria Guevara, Bill Haines, John Osborne and more…

Presentations

·       I got there a little late (and cranky) because I had to drive back from my client in Burlingame – hideous traffic.  But I did see the tail end of the presentation: Certificates of appreciation were given to Pioneer Business Tenants on Mare Island.  Richard Hassell on behalf of the VJO Chamber of Commerce commended them for their perseverance in light of uncertainty of Mare Island and for their entrepreneurial spirit.

CONSENT CALENDAR

·       John Osborne requested that Items A & D be discussed: Why was the city purchasing 4 trucks and dump truck technology for two dump trucks in light of the city facing large General Fund deficits.  Tanner noted that these purchases are not being made from the General Fund, but from other solvent funds.  John Osborne who has also been a Council gadfly for years and is a financial wizard should know about different funds but we suggest he read about the budget in VIB’s “meet the budget” feature once it’s complete to learn why these other funds can’t be used to pay for general fund expenses or cover the general fund deficit.

The Consent Calendar was approved unanimously.

Public Hearings

·       Item 7A & 7B were both regarding annexation of Mare Island “Coral Sea” properties.  The Council was asked to keep the Public Hearing open until December 18, 2007.  They did not discuss what this is or why the continuation, so for those who want to know more (like me) here’s a synopsis from the Council reports: Lennar needs to add, or annex the Coral Sea Village subdivision into the Community Facilities District (remember the CFD from the last meeting’s Mare Island Historic Park Foundation discussion?) before they can develop the subdivision.  Lennar and the City were not able to finalize the legal documents needed for a public meeting in time for this evening’s meeting, and so a continuation until December 18th was requested.  Approved unanimously.

No Policy Items this Evening

Administrative Items

Item 9A:

·       This issue, also discussed in the prior meeting, was to request the Council approve funding for the consultants the City wants to hire to address Senate Bill 976, the State’s takeover of our Ferry system.  I am even more concerned about this than ever.  And the more I read about it, the more I realize that City Staff and Council could never have anticipated this.  A tip from a reader (thank you Leanne!) pointed me to this very informative article in the East Bay Express, and it discusses Vallejo’s ferry takeover in much more detail than the Times Herald ever did.    http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/ferryboats_and_mcmansions/Content?oid=526289

So I was right about the Alameda Ferry Owner – Ron Cowen’s - efforts to have the state take over our ferries to help bail out his failing Alameda Ferry Service – a service needed for his “McMansion” development in Alameda (I saw those ads in the MUNI stations, did you?).  This is very serious and we could lose funding for our ferries.  And take note: in the East Bay Express (and in the 11/28 Chron) our Ferry System is described as the “most used” and “most cost-effective” Ferry System in the Bay Area.  Something else for us Vallejoans to be proud of!

If you recall, the City wants to hire consultants to:

1) Get 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 Sacramento

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

5) Influence from our reps at the state level, Noreen Evan and Pat Wiggins.

The City approved spending of up to $100K, a loan from the General Fund to the Transit Fund, and staff is actively *seeking other funds, such as from the Solano Transportation Authority to reimburse us for this.  And they made it part of the consultants’ job to find funds as well.

Big Kudos to Tanner, Leach & staff for addressing this issue so aggressively – I think Michael Wilson owes them and Current Council an apology for attempting to blame the takeover on the current council and for not taking action…

*John Osborne again complained of spending General Funds in light of the deficit and in light of “employee contracts negotiated in good faith” (I don’t recall John being supportive of these contracts when they were originally discussed). Regardless of the deficit, if we lose the ferry to another city, we are scr*wed, so this is money well spent regardless of the deficit, and Tanner made it very clear they are seeking other funds to reimburse the General Fund. And if you read the East Bay Express article you will understand just how dire this situation looks.  I still don’t get why Wiggins voted for SB 976 and now she is being discussed as someone to help us.  She has some ‘splainin’ to do!

John Osborne also complained that the City violated the Brown Act when they discussed during the City Manager’s report on November 13th that they preferred Intintoli apply to get a seat on the new state ferry “WETA” board.  The Council was in agreement that if any of them wanted to apply, it should be Intintoli, especially since he has been on other transit-related boards.  But, John needs to understand that it is not up to the Council to appoint anyone – they only suggested Intintoli apply.  Anyone can apply, even John apparently, and it will be the State that appoints not the Council.  So no Brown Act violation at all.

Item 9B

·       was an emergency ordinance to extend the mobile home moratorium from 45 days to one year.  The reason for this is to protect mobile home residents from experiencing mobile home “condo conversions” and resulting very steep increases to expense, through homeowners fees and other new assessments.  The City staff needs this time to draft recommendations to zoning changes to protect mobile home residents from steep increases.

·       Margie Dever, manager of VJO Mobile Estates spoke on behalf of Ed Biggs Sr., owner of the estates, against the moratorium and referred to a letter from their lawyer, Gilchrest & Rutter.  Apparently they believe the section the City is using to justify the moratorium does not apply to this type of action and the City does not have the right to adopt a moratorium.  They also say for some reason the moratorium does not apply to them.  Biggs, a developer around California (Bethel Island LLC, Palisades Bowl Mobile Homes in Palisades Park) has already sued Vallejo on another issue; looks like he’ll try again…another outsider making money from low-income people in Vallejo?

·       Joanne Schivley spoke in favor of the moratorium and in favor of an ordinance that would protect mobile home residents from steep increases.  Schivley pointed out the Social Security increased 2.3% this year, but with Medicare premium increases, she gets $1 less in assistance.  And most mobile home residents depend on social security and Medicare, which are obviously fixed and so they can not afford increases to housing costs.

·       Mark Fox, who apparently works for another City’s government, made a great point that the time frame for creating a plan was too liberal and the ordinance should presented to Council next September before the moratorium expires on Oct 23, 2008.

·         Jerry Davis indicated that he would vote against it for the same reason he voted against it on Oct 23rd, because he believes the lawyers are correct in their insistence that the moratorium is illegal.

·       Passed 6-1 with Davis voting against it.

Ite m 9C

·       Was a resolution to accept the Quarterly Ridgecrest Report – this came out of the agreement, Ridgecrest Homeowners Assn v. City of Vallejo and the City must pay them $14,730.06 for the period of July 1-Sept 30, 2007.  No discussion and passed unanimously, but what is this?  As a Council gadfly myself, I have seen this over and over again.  So I did some digging: This lawsuit requires the City of Vallejo reimburse LMDs (“Landscape & Maintenance Districts”, or special assessments in newer neighborhoods that create funding for trees and streets maintenance) for non LMD expenses.  HUH?

Well, it seems that City staff who are charged to these LMD districts sometimes do work that is not related to the LMDs but were charging the LMDs for the entire staff costs.  So the Ridgecrest HOA decided that wasn’t right, sued the City, and now the City -- in perpetuity I guess -- must reimburse the LMD funds for the non-LMD work carried out by these City employees who are charged to the LMD funds.  Get it? 

Now you know why I say that the City Finance Staff is basically walking a tightrope over a pool of crocodiles with no safety net when they attempt to balance the budget with all these crazy funds and a big general fund deficit.  Crazy funds, I will note that are RESTRICTED.  This is a perfect example of what happens when the City attempts to spend RESTRICTED funds on something that they are not supposed to.  They (and WE) get sued!  Tell that to Mr. Bartee (see next item).

Item 9D – The budget (again!)

·       This was the second step in a two-step process, the first which took place on 11/13.  On the 13th, the City Finance Staff alerted the Council of the looming $5.3 million dollar General Fund deficit.  They proposed budget amendments, which require a two-step process and Staff were following protocol.  This evening staff was requesting the council adopt the amendments they presented on the 13th.

·       Gomes suggested the vote be delayed until December 11th so that the new council would be given the opportunity to weigh in on the amendments (cuts basically).

·       All other council members agreed that the vote should be postponed, but not without lengthy comments from Bartee and Sunga.  The others chose to hold their comments until the item is considered for a vote on 12/11.

Bartee and Sunga complained of approving a budget that was not balanced, but for the public’s edification, Tanner & Stout did report in the memo to the Council that: “Staff does not believe [budget adjustments of $5.3 million] is possible without a major reduction in services” but that they are creating a budget team to address:

1.      employee contracts (the only area where savings of the magnitude that we require can be created, if we have unions that are truly willing to step up to the plate),

2.      evaluate insolvency (bankruptcy) (I supposed if item 1 can’t be achieved)

3.      and prepare budget changes that would create a long term fix to our budget issues.

Of course, the elephant again in the room is that the City has no where to cut anymore.  Why not just shut down City Hall and have the firefighters give out building permits?  And it is infuriating that Bartee and Sunga went on to suggest various changes to the budget – some which sound like they are not even legal (see below) and would never fill the $5.3 million dollar deficit.

·       Bartee suggested that Council Elect be supplied with the budget documents to prepare for the 12/18 meeting.  The Council Elect better be ASKING for them since they ALL said they were qualified to vote on budgets during the campaign trail. I am hoping that they all studied the budget before they decided to run for office! Even I have studied the budget and I didn’t run (I’m weird).  We at least can be assured that of the three, Joanne Schivley knows the budget and she has enough history to fill in all the gaps of those leaving council.

Bartee reminded City Staff of the City Charter article 7, section 701 that requires a balanced budget (revenues = expenses) and it is “basic common sense”.  If it makes sense, then why did we give firefighters a 10% raise this year?  The elephant in the room just won’t go away. 

Bartee wants to find other savings/revenues so as to not exhaust the general fund reserves and made the following suggestions:

-         Pay Police out of Redevelopment Fund as Oakland does, where we have Police patrolling Redevelopment areas. (Possibly not legal - see Joanne Schivley’s comments below)

-         Operating profits from Public Utilities - water funds - be transferred to the General Fund.  OK, now he wants surplus WATER FUNDS to go to Firefighter raises?  Remember, the City is now giving them a 10% raise this year that we can’t afford!  And so instead of them making compromises, Bartee wants the City to use our WATER FUNDS to pay for firefighter raises?! Don’t get me started!  How about any surplus going back to us taxpayers since if there are large surpluses, it means we were charged too much. (And this might not even be legal - see Joanne Schivley’s comments below).

-         Then the idea of getting rid of Interim Fire Chief Sherman by reorganizing the top Fire Deputy Chiefs and the Fire Chief/Police Chief is trotted out: will save money. Joanne Schivley reminded him that this department can not function without administrators, and that the Unions vehemently objected to this when it was last proposed in 1999.

·       And then Sunga, – ohmygod – he said he agrees with everything his colleagues stated but then went on to say he would disapprove the amendment.  Said it was “really, really hard” to be given a packet that “violates the city code” – accusing City staff of violating the City Charter. 

He then said information was missing and he did not have enough information to make a decision.  He has used this reasoning each and every time he has been asked to approve a budget.  What about that MBA Hermie?  Oh yeah… 

It was laughable – and disturbing at the same time since he does sit on council – that he is not apparently able to understand the budget information that everyone else seems to.  He keeps saying he “needs more data”. Mr. Stout for the first time - ever so slightly - lost his patience with Sunga but said he is very willing to go over all the budget information with Sunga.

Sunga wanted Stout to increase property tax and sales tax revenue and Stout countered that at this time there was not enough information available to justify this increase and that sales tax comes so late from the state that it is not prudent to *project increases.  Sunga also wanted to know why Marine World ticket sales revenue wasn’t increased (See Joanne Schivley’s comments).  Sunga said he would rather wait until February for more information, called the budget “conjectures”.  What a budget is, Sunga, is the staff’s best estimates at the time based on currently available information – Sunga chooses to disparagingly refer to these estimates as “conjectures.”

* NOTE TO HERMIE: Asking to increase budgeted revenue in a time of slowing home sales and consumer purchases?  This is what got us in this mess in the first place.  During their tenure, Martinez/Wright advised Council that the City could afford the Safety Union contracts and now look where we are.  This type of budgeting is what got our school district into its situation: Gladys Phillips-Evans and her finance director estimated much higher attendance then Vallejo Schools could ever hope for, which she went and spent.  And since the State funds schools based on attendance, when the estimated revenue never materialized, our schools went bust.

·       JD Miller rightly indicated that a budget is not perfect, it’s a best guess but said the budget was based on a “wing and a prayer”.  But where does he and others think the cuts will come from?  Miller wanted the council to approve the budget amendments this evening because he thinks City Staff will assume they can spend at higher levels without a new, reduced budget.

·       Mark Fox, addressing Miller’s comment, said that he has the confidence Tanner has given all staff direction to spend prudently.  He also asked if the $4.2 million dollars in additional salaries/benefit costs due to unsuccessful arbitration was related to an increase of 14 staff added back to the budget.  He was concerned and confused if this means the cost per staff person when you divide the $4.2 million by 14 new staff is an astounding $300,000 each.  He must not have seen the Firefighter salary listing on VIB.  Salaries alone last year were as high as almost $250,000.  Add on benefits and yes, it could be as high as $300,000. Oh yeah, and then there’s that 10% raise the Firefighters got this year on top of it.  There’s that elephant again (I think it’s a herd).

·       Sam Kurshan started his comments by complaining of bias in the newspaper and the dialogue they seem to encourage. Intintoli noted that Sam needed to stick to the topic so Sam then asked whether Bartee & Sunga acted as “emissaries” as he asked them to do on 11/13.  Kurshan believes Bartee & Sunga, since their campaigns were supported by the Unions and those Union salaries and benefits are mostly what are creating the deficits, should ask the Safety Union heads to make concessions.

·       John Osborne thinks the current budget crisis is a result of former staff and council actions and does not think it’s fair to put the decision off because of the loss of experience when the new council is seated.

I take issue with this – I believe it’s correct to have the new council members make the decision, since they are the ones who are going to have to live with the decision regardless of who makes it.

John also indicated that the Charter requires a four-year financial plan but the staff’s recommendation only asks for a three year financial forecast which he sees as a “violation” and if it doesn’t change he says “this item will go elsewhere” (lawsuit?).  He also said the Redevelopment Fund owes the General Fund $7 million dollars).

·       Joanne Schivley requested the City check into this supposed $7 million loan from Redevelopment to the General Fund, and she also addressed many other comments made by Bartee, Sunga and Osborne:

-         She said that while the charter requires a balanced budget, she interprets it as only applying to the original budget adopted at the beginning of the fiscal year, not the amendments that Bartee and Sunga complain they can’t approve or violate this charter.  She asked the City Attorney to look into this.

-         She indicated that two items Bartee suggested: paying for Police from Redevelopment Funds and transferring profits from the Water Fund, are now illegal due to the passage of Prop 218 and requested the Attorney looked into this.   Proposition 218, voted in, in November 1996, significantly changed local government finance and applies I believe to all city special funds, including water funds and redevelopment funds. We’ll report back after Fred Soley investigates this issue.

-         She indicated that creating a Chief of Public Safety, combining the Fire and Police Chief was attempted in 1999 and did not work when there were two deputy chiefs and now this is being suggested with only one deputy chief.  And back in 1999, this staffing pattern was vehemently opposed by the folks that are now advocating it (does this prove the point that some believe the IAFF - through Bartee - is using this as a ruse to get rid of Russ Sherman? (interim Fire Chief) Remember, Sherman is not a member of IAFF 1186. You decide).  Joanne correctly pointed out that the Fire Department cannot function without administrative staff, as Parker admitted to the Times Herald even after he suggested back in June that these positions could be gutted to create cost savings for the budget.

-         There will no longer be profit sharing from Marine World because of the sale of the park and Marine World did not want an entertainment tax on the tickets so they agreed to pay us a flat $750K per year, which answers Sunga’s question about no additional ticket sales tax.

-         Next time this comes to the council, Joanne would like to have the impact considered of: the price of oil estimated to rise to $150/barrel by middle of next year; housing not expected to pick up until 2009 and how will this impact development fees; housing values are expected to drop by 16% and how will this impact property tax.

-         And Joanne proposed that any recovery of funds from the Abuse of Union Business Leave by the Firefighter Union Member be allocated to the cuts made to the Community Based Organizations (CBOs). Great suggestion - The Fire Union heads wouldn’t oppose this since parts of their paychecks were earned while “volunteering” to raise money for these CBOs.

The resolution to postpone the decision was approved unanimously – with an allocation of $100,000 in funding approved this evening to address the Ferry Takeover.

·       There were no appointments

·       There was no correspondence

·       No City Manager report

·       The City Attorney reported that two lawsuits were settled. Solano Superior Court case FCS024828: John Glenn Adjusters vs. CA Transit Insurance Pool - it was a dispute with the City over insurance adjuster services of approximately $298,000 and was settled by the City for $195,000. Council gave authority to settle in closed session back in October.

·       FCS023582: Ricardo Lumsey vs. Travel Inn et al.  The case was a Complaint for Personal Injury allegedly by the Vallejo Police Department against Lumsey, and the City paid $250,000 in exchange of a dismissal of a lawsuit against all Vallejo Police Department employees.  I found this by searching the Solano Superior Court documents.  Did not find much more than this.  There was also a case involving Ricardo Lumsey in 2000 related to an unlawful detainment. It appears the courts are familiar with him.  Well, now he has $250,000 (less lawyers’ fees of course).  Council gave authority to settle in closed session end of August/early September.

·       Community forum comments came from:

Mariko Obinata just moved to Vallejo three months ago, loves Vallejo and walks on the Waterfront all the time.  She alerted the Council to fishing lines, some with hooks, left behind by fisherman and asked if something could be done to encourage them not to discard these improperly.  She even saw a seagull with a line wrapped on its leg.

Kenny Lewis, founder of Stop the Violence Track Meet, the longest all-comer track meet in the history of Vallejo, thanked the Council and Community for supporting them and he is willing to get behind any organization to stop the violence in Vallejo.

John Osborne called Vallejo the City of Despair and Fear because he believes the City has taken an adversarial relationship because he believes they have not explored all options to renegotiate employee contracts in good faith.  Osborne requested that each termed out Council Member write up a summary of their time in office including highlights and what could have been done better.  Intintoli said he’d get right on it, with chuckles all around (except from John).  Osborne seemed to blame the Council for the ferry takeover because he says we are now creating “another adversarial relationship” with the State, and spending money that should go to city services.  He thinks the Ferry transfer to the state is a good thing because of the costs of fuel and ferry maintenance.  He should read the East Bay Express article – he might just change his mind on that.

Sam Kurshan complained about being interrupted by Intintoli during his previous comments, thought it was rude, and again reminded council and council elect in the audience of the very keen interest in IAFF 1186 influence and requested again that Council members supported by the IAFF 1186 be emissaries to their leaders to request concessions.

Reports from Council Members:

·       Bartee suggested that placement of Community Forums be placed on the front end of the council so that those who cannot wait until the end get a chance to express their concerns to the Council.

·       Cloutier again apologized to the Vallejo Community for the incident in Palm Springs and that it has instilled in him a deep sense of humility, and he promised he would do what he could to expedite the situation.  He expressed gratification for the outpouring of support he has received from many folks and it has made him believe more than ever that Vallejo is a City worth fighting for.

·       There was no closed session.

·       Meeting was adjourned.

That wraps number 2 of YOUR City Council report!  I hope next week’s is easier!!! J