Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/09/22 - Minutes - Adjourned September 22, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING City Council and Foothill Fire District Board of Directors Adjourned Meetin~ 1. CALL TO ORDER. An adjourned Joint meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the Foothill Fire District Board was held on Tuesday, September 22, 1981, in the Lion's Park Community Center. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser at 7:02 p.m. Present were: Councilmembers James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael Ao Palombo, Arthur H. Bridge, and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Board members: John Lyons, "Pete" Amodt, Daniel Richards, and President Bill Alexander. Staff members: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; Fire Chief, Bob Lee; Assistant City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; and Deputy City Clerk, Beverly Authelet. Absent was: Board members Ronald Spiers, Jr. 2. DISCUSSION ITEMS. 2A. RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR FIRE CHIEF. (1) Mayor Schlosser turned the meeting over to President of the Foothill Fire District Board, Bill Alexander. Mr. Alexander stated that Chief Lee would be retiring soon. Because of this, the Board felt that there should be some participation by the City during the selection process of the new Chief since he would be working with the city staff, and since there was the possibility the city would be taking over the fire district some time in the future. Mr. Alexander asked Chief Lee to bring everyone up-to-date on the selection process. Chief Lee said the Board had secured the services of CPS, the State Cooperative Personnel Services out of Los Angeles. It is a State agency to conduct the examining process called an Assessment Center Process. The Assessment Center is scheduled to be held on October 22. Applications are now being received and will be screened by a Board of Professionals. About 10 to 15 candidates will be referred to the Assessment Center Process. Candidates will be put through several stages of an examining process, and a slate of about four candidates will be presented to the Board of Directors for final consideration. It is hoped this will be accomplished by early November and the new chief will be on board by December 1. This will give the Chief about a month to work with the new man before he leaves. Todate, CPS has responded to about 38 requests for applications. President Alexander said that the Board was reasonably up-to-date, but asked if Council had any questions. Councilman Mikels asked if the Assessment Center is where candidates went through exercises of real life situations and reactions were charted under various conditions. Chief Lee said this was correct and it took a full day. Mr. Alexander said they were trying to base the test around not only what the community is today, but to the long-range growth potential of the community. They are looking for someone who is progressive and has the ability to work with people. Joint City Council/Fire District Board September 22, 1981 Page 2 (2) 2B. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY. Mr. Alexander turned the meeting over to Mr. Wasserman to bring everyone um-to- date. Mr. Wasserman went over his written report to Council and the Board dated September 17, 1981. He emphasized the following points. 1. Were there any new alternatives to consider? The answer was no. There were only two alternatives: (1) leave the district as a self-governed independent Board, or (2) become a subsidiary district of the city. At the last discussion, both the Council and Board concurred ~hat if any change occurred, it would be at the time when the city had its regional shopping center. There would be enough sales tax generated to support the services at a somewhat higher level. 2. Has anything changed since then? The only change is that there is a new chief coming on board. There are some who feel the schedule should be accelerated so the new chief could begin a transition to the city. 3. Finances. We have discovered the Fire District is losing some of the augmentation fund, "bail out funds." What is happening is that money raised by the Fire District assessed value and formula set by State legislation is not all being forwarded to the District. The County keeps some and the rest is out into a pot and is portioned out to all special districts on a need basis. Last year the District received $651,000. There was another $170,000 in revenue which was generated by the District, but not received by the District. Reliable sources from the County say that if the District were to become a subsidiary district of the city that all such augmentation funds would automatically come to the city. Although we are not sure what the figure would be for this year, it is probably safe to say there would be at least another $100,000 that is being filtered off to other special districts. Mr. Wasserman stated that one problem with this is that Sacramento could change the rules at any time. With the State facing financial problems, it can be expected that there would be some cuts in assistance programs. However, they are usually not in public safety areas. 4. Management Issues: A new chief coming would have the opportunity of becoming a part of the city team and to work on long-range planning. There is existing city staff available to help relieve the Chief of some of the finacial burdens and personnel functions. Mr. Wasserman turned the meeting over to City Attorney, Robert Dougherty. to give his report on procedures for formation of a subsidiary district. Mr. Dougherty stated that he had nothing to add from his written report except that in order form a subsidiary, at least 70% of the assessible or taxible land must be within the city. He said he felt we could meet this requirement. There was also a population requirement which was not a mroblem at all. Councilman Mikels asked if a separate special district and a subsidiary district of a local government were treated any differently under the law. Mr. Dougherty said they were treated precisely the same. According to Government Code Section 56539, "Such district shall continue in existence with all of the powers, rights, duties, obligations and functions provided for by the principal act, except for any provision relating to the selection or removal of the members of the board of directors of such district." Joint City Council/Fire District September 22, 1981 Page 3 Councilman Palombo asked if on page 2 of his reoort any one of the three could initiate the resolution of application or did it have to be a combination of the three agencies (Board of Supervisors, City Council, and/or Fire District Board). Mr. Dougherty said any one of the three could initiate the resolution. Councilman Frost asked if the District became a subsidiary district if their ability to lobby for additional funds through the State or County might decrease with the thought that the city might be able to provide for those resources. Mr. Dougherty said he could not answer that question. However, the city would not be assuming the obligation as a city to orovide fire services. As far as funding is concerned when a subsidiary district is formed, terms and conditions can be attached to that formation. One of the conditions we would want to see included in the Resolution of Application is that the subsidiary district receives all funds allocated to it without deductions from it as has happened in the past. Councilman Frost said it was his understanding that this last year the fire district was able to dip into the funding by requesting additional equipment that otherwise would not have been received. Wouldn't it be possible that in any given year, if you could provide a need, you could receive in excess of the 100% funding? Mr. Alexander said there were different opinions on the Board regarding that. However, for this particular year, the district did better than expected. Dan Richards said you are talking about bail-out augmentation monies which probably will be reduced in the next year and possibly not available in two years. We are not talking about long-range financing. He said he feels they got the money because they asked for it. He felt we should continue asking and justify- ing expenditures. Mr. Dougherty stated that we have not been able to come un with anything to show that the subsidiary district would be guaranteed full funding. This would be up to the County. He understood a precedent has been set with Big Bear Lake, but there is nothing to require the County to handle this situation the same. Councilman Bridge asked Mr. Wasserman to clarify the terms used: bail-out funds and funds generated by the district. Mr. Wasserman stated that the amount of bail-out (State assistance) is done by formula. What can be determined is how much the district can generate by using a formula based upon assessed value and some other factors. There are not two separate types of funds. Mr. Dougherty stated that in the apportionment of property tax, it is done by a fairly complex formula. The 1% property tax is divided up by the County by a formula. In the case of a special district, the part of what they are allocated on a gross basis if funds are available is not bail-out funds; it is tax apportionment money. There is no guarantee that this amount would be reallocated to the subsidiary district unless the County agrees to this. Mr. Amodt asked if it were up to the Board of Supervisors how much money a subsidiary district would be allocated. Mr. Dougherty stated that by State law the district continues in existence then these funds can be agreed upon to go to the subsidiary district. However, there is nothing in State law that requires this to be done simply because a subsidiary district is created. Mr. Wasserman said that we had a commitment made on the staff level that based upon the precedence set in Big Bear, the County would follow the same thing for Rancho Cucamonga and the Foothill Fire District. Mr. Alexander said he thought a precedence had been set in Victorville also. They are currently a subsidiary district and have enjoyed considerably more in the last three years. Councilman Mikels questioned if the Board of Supervisors could bind subsequent Boards to an 100% reallocation to the subsidiary district. Mr. Dougherty stated that the only way would to have that provision as a condition of the creation of the subsidiary district. The Board can commit a future Board, but can a later Board reverse the action? We would argue "no" because it was part of the action of the formation. However, if this were simply an agreement made apart from the process and not a condition of the formation of the subsidiary district, then the Board could change it. Joint City Council/Fire District Board September 22, 1981 Page 4 Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public bearing. Addressing the combined Boards were: Captain Dennis Michael. He read a statement favoring the formation of the sub- sidiary district which was presented on behalf of the Foothill District Fire Fighters and Fire Prevention Bureau. They voted unanimously to take the necessary actions, if feasible, to form the subsidiary district to be governed by the city council. (Chief Lee said that Captain Michael was speaking for the Rancho Cucamonga Profession Fire Fighters Association and not for all the department). Mr. Wasserman said that should we decide to proceed with the formation of the subsidiary district, this changeover would not occur until the beginning ~_ the new fiscal year, July 1982. Jeff Sceranka asked if the funds which the County gets -- is this independent of the bailout money? Mr. Wasserman said they were the same. The District receives some funds as a portion of the property tax as does the city. In addition they get through a complicated formula State augmentation funds which are called bailout funds. This amount goes into a pot, and the Board establishes a need of all the special districts and doles it out based upon need. Jeff Sceranka asked how the formation of a subsidiary district would effect the allocations of tax funding to the city since we are forming a redevelopment agency. Mr. Wasserman said this would not adversely affect this because we have to negotiate tax increments. Rick Label, former member of the Foothill Fire Board. He expressed that the formation of the subsidiary district would benefit members of the cormmunitv. He said he has been asked if his interest was because of the upcoming new ~hief's position. He stated he was not intere~ed in the position, but was interested in the fire protection of the community. Mayor Schlosser asked for the Board's and Council's position. He said personally he was here to listen and learn. Councilman Mikels said he was concerned about the agreement, but since assurances were built in that we would not lose the funding to the County and even might be able to recapture some additional revenues for the District. he saw some advantages. He suggested that after further discusstion tonight that if the Board wanted to discuss this at their own Board meeting and pass such a resolution and forward it to the City Council then the City Council could then take action and file such an application. Councilman Bridge said he had no reluctance in stating his position that he favored the creation of a subsidiary district and thought it would be worthwhile pursuing. Councilman Frost stated that we were not in a position to give a definite "yes" now. Mr. Ed. Barnes. He requested a cony of the statements which were read earlier in the meeting by the city attorney. He felt a lot more time should be spent investi- gating this, and that the Council and Board had not done their homework. Mayor Schlosser replied that the Council had made it clear that if they received a resolution from the fire board, the Council would take it under consideration and study it. He assured Mr. Barnes that the Council will do their homework. Richard Nelson. He expressed that he hoped we would proceed with the formation of the subsidiary district. Dan Richards. He felt we had not taken a good look at this. He urged Council to ask themselves if they expected to improve the levels of service which we currently have and will there be a noticable funding difference. And, could the Council assume the extra time involved -- their board now meets regularly once a month for several hours. Joint City Council/Fire Distr{ct September 22, 1981 Page 5 Mr. Richards stated he was not convinced that the city could assume 50% more employees which would be roughly 20% more money to allocate and distribute without assuming additional cost. He said such issues as personnel, salaries, benefits have not yet been raised. Currently their fire district could operate less exoensively oer capita Der man per square mile than neighboring city fire departments -- could this be con- tinued under the city. Pete Amodt expressed that he was in favor of the creation of the subsidiary district. He felt it was right for the city to take over the management of the fire district. John Lyon expressed that as a member of the Personnel Committee he felt that we should talk about personnel. He said we continually get feedback from the State that we are going to lose revenues. The same feedback comes from the County. He said we talk about layoffs, closing stations all of which has a detrimental effect on the firemen and the fire service. He felt that the city take over would eliminate much of this. Mr. Alexander summarized some of the advantages which had been mentioned before; increase of funding, more local control, provide a fire chief who could function as a fire chief. He also stated that they hoped they could take advantage of the city attorney at least in some form of consultation. Mr. Alexander stated he had talked with the fire chief in Victorville. He said that situation as a subsidiary district is working out tremendously well. In answer to Mr. Barnes, he said they have been studying this for a year now. Regarding funding -- you will save funds when you give a man the ability to do his Job and not pay him to do another person's Job. Operating on less funds per capita -- whether we like it or not, we are also providing less service than most other communities. Councilman Frost asked Mr. Label for his comments of anything which he felt had not been discussed. Mr. La Belle stated that the greatest benefit he has heard regarding the development of a subsidiary district would be in the operational efficiency of the fire district in terms of community services. One governing board which would deal with all of its community services can do a better service to its citizens. Mayor Schlosser said that Councilman Mikels had exnressed the concensus of the Council and that nothing further could be accomplished tonight. He asked if there was anyone else wishing to address the issue. There was no response. Mr. Alexander said that he knew the climate of the Fire Board and the City Council could expect a resolution from the Board shortly. He thanked the Mayor and Council for the opportunity to meet with them. 3. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo and speaking in behalf of the City Council and Board to adjourn the meeting. Council to adjourn to an executive session, not to reconvene this evening to discuss pending litigation. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk