6-23-09 Laguna Hills City Council Meeting

Three council members vote NO to More Transparency in City Government and YES to dumping two Sherrif's deputy positions.

06/23/09 Laguna Hills City Council Meeting
All city council members were present.
=======================================================================

PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS - A Certificate of Recognition was given to Mr. Sam Castillo, who served in Viet Nam, for lifelong support of American Veterans. Sam drove his fully restored 1948 Willy's Military Jeep to Washington DC to meet with the director of Veterans Affairs, Gail Wagner, to raise awareness of the needs of American Veterans. He stopped to talk with Veterans all along his route to DC and back and he has an Adopt a Veteran program where people can be pen, phone or e-mail pals with a Veteran. Everyone was very receptive and obviously proud of Sam's dedication and accomplishments. Sam mentioned that he completed his trip in his vintage jeep with only the loss of his starter and thanked everyone for his Certificate.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Mr. Pierre Gilbert of Laguna Hills asked for additional police presence related to the increased running of a red light in the area of Moulton Pkwy, between Laguna Hills Dr. and Alicia. He reported that there was a traffic collision in this area last Sunday and added that a lot of people crossing Alicia from Moulton do run that light.

Lt. Steve Doan, Chief of Police for Laguna Hills thanked Mr. Gilbert for his information and agreed that this does warrant attention so will look into this area related to the need for increased police presence. He confirmed that there was a traffic collision there.

Consent Calendar


The Consent Calendar included: Warrant Register for $1,955,012.59 - includes $12,112.72 on B of A Visa for training, travel and supplies, $22,998.72 for Professional Fees for Public Art, Progress payment of $328,059.36 for El Toro Median Island, etc.

Items Removed from the Consent Calendar

Item 4.9 - (2009-20011 Salary and Benefits Resolution entitled A resolution of the City Council of Laguna Hills regarding employment and establishing salary ranges and benefits for classes of employment in the city) was pulled by City Council Member Melody Carruth.

City Council Member Melody Carruth unleashed a firestorm by simply asking if there were any guidelines for the City Manager's bonus program for the city staff. Funds for this program were established to be between about $75, 000 and $85,000 per the city manager and the assistant city manager. Melody asked if there were always bonuses for the staff.

Bruce Channing, City Manager stated there would be no cost of living adjustment for next fiscal year but he could increase salaries a year from now based upon consumer price index and comparables related to staff salaries in neighboring cities up to a 5% maximum. He stated this was at the city managers discretion. He noted there are not always bonuses, staff must qualify for them.

City Council Member Melody Carruth asked if the words "with the approval of the city council" could be added to the words "at the city manager's discretion" in the interest of transparency and check and balances, especially in times like this when many cities are looking at every benefit and the public expects transparency. Melody noted that there was no requirement now for the city council to even be advised of this expenditure. She also asked about the car allowances and mileage reimbursement for staff and if there were any guidelines or requirements for these and would he give the city council a set of the guidelines.

Bruce Channing, City Manager stated the staff could make this clear to the city council and noted that the auditors would pick up on any inconsistencies related to employees receiving both a car allowance and mileage reimbursement, etc. He said all employees are allowed to make requests for mileage reimbursement if they are driving on city business and are paid the federal rate for mileage reimbursement. Channing added that the code enforcement officer/building inspector positions get a car from the city because this was deemed to make more sense. He also said that salary and bonus information for staff would be available to the city council members at quarterly as well as mid cycle budget reviews. Channing did not commit to giving the city council a set of guidelines, or a specific report. He talked around that subject. He did say the city engineer and community development director receive a car allowance and the city clerk does not.

City Council Member Randy Bressette suggested that language be added to "at the city manager's discretion" stating that a report be given to the City Council regarding salary increases and bonuses, etc. rather than adding that the city council must approve the city manager's discretion because the Council is very interested in assuring that staff is adequately compensated.

Greg Simonian, City Attorney suggested language stating the city manager should provide a report to the city council regarding salary adjustments, bonuses, etc.

City Council Member Craig Scott said he was very strongly opposed to comments in the motion because they intrude inappropriately on the city manager's authority. If we don't like the way he's doing this we ought to change the city manager but we ought not to underrmine his discretion. When we charged him to make these decisions I think it's inappropriate to then require that there be a public report or that he justify in some way the exercise of his discretion. He stated that in many cities it is part of the city code that
the city council cannot intrude in the way that has been suggested by the comments and by the impending motion. Perhaps this is something we need to look at.
**Note - Because Craig Scott negotiates the city manager's salary package and bonus, one might think it would be in Craig Scott's best interest that there be transparency in the entire process of staff salaries, benefits and bonuses including the salary, benefits and bonus of the city manager? This is called checks and balances and if never checks are never conducted there is a danger of inappropriate behavior that is never discovered.

City Council Member Randy Bressette stated he does did not believe Ms. Carruth's request was intrusive or inappropriate. He said he has discussed previously and he wants to make sure that this happens or it will require more discussion in the future. Randy said he doesn't need details he wants the city manager to say he has done this and increased that, etc.

City Council Member Allan Songstad said he saw no reason for any report from the city manager.

Mayor Joel Lautenschleger said this is how we have been doing business for 18 years, Channing has the authority and no need to invade. This is superfluous.
** This is how we have been doing business for __X___ years is a frequently repeated response from Lautenschleger & Songstad that they seem to believe is a credible answer to questions regarding transparency or change. See a direct quote below from Songstad under City Council Member Say the Darndest Things".

Vote was taken on motion for additional language to be added to City Manager's discretion and this motion failed 3 to 2. Scott, Lautenschleger and Songstad voted NO, Carruth and Bressette voted Yes.

City Council Member Melody Carruth followed this vote with a motion that the city manager provide an auto allowance policy to the city council. She said this is pretty standard procedure and some cities are eliminating car allowances and other expenses.
We are just asking for a policy from the city manager.

Mayor Joel Lautenschleger responded that this is not necessary.

Vote was taken and motion failed 3 - 2.

** This was an exceptionally interesting discussion for the public related to the resistance to transparency by 3 of the council members in the area of staff salary and benefits in addition to the fact that no one has or apparently will reveal what the 8 mysterious objectives are that the city manager has reportedly met in the past, is meeting in the present or will meet in the future to qualify for his large annual bonuses??

Item 5.1 - the Biennial Budget

Bruce Channing, City Manager stated the city budget is $1.4 million less than the prior budget. He reminded us again of the possibility that the State could raid city funds and he noted that it appears the State may be interested in taking gas tax money in the amount of perhaps $1.7 billion over the next 2 years. (The gas tax is used by cities for maintaining and rehabing or improving public streets and is dependent upon the city's population. The $1.7 billion is the amount that Bruce Channing says could come from all CA. cities collectively not from each city. From The Bond Buyer - Daily newspaper of Public Finance says - "Calls for suspending about $1 Billion in fuel tax apportionments to local governments in fiscal 2010. using the money instead to fund state general fund debt service on transportation bonds. Local governments say this proposal would illegally strip those governments of one of their main tools for street maintenance.") http://search.aol.com/aol/searchs_%20it=%20top%20search%20box.search&q=Gas+tax%2C+state+of+CA Channing continued that the State may also try to take $350 million from re-development funds which would not affect Laguna Hills but is also thought to be illegal. The State could also borrow for 3 years $860,000 from the City of Laguna Hill, which Assistant City manager Don White said would not affect our city by itself.

City Council Public Hearing for the Biennial Budget - Were any Citizens aware of this Public Hearing?

Public Comments

Tom Epperson, Laguna Hills Resident spoke on lack of transparency stating about the budget, the lack of transparency shocks me. I'm shocked at the fact that you folks stand up against transparency. That's all Mrs. Carruth is asking for. When you talk about budget you're talking about spending our money and all of you spoke against any transparent thing. Nobody is talking about what Mr. Channing is doing wrong or what he's doing that he shouldn't be doing. All we're talking about is transparency. If we don't have transparency this is the age for it and you need to realize that.

Mayor Joel Lautenschleger - interrupted Mr. Epperson by stating thank you Mr. Epperson we are talking about the budget this evening and

Mr. Epperson responded this is about the budget, transparency is part of the budget. We're talking about the budget for Laguna Hills for next year so I'm sorry but to me that's my money you're spending and that's my budget. Thank you very much.

Mayor Joel Lautenschleger continues with Well, lets see, no one wishes to speak to the budget this evening we will now close public comments.

There is a resolution in the city council to adopt the budget and a second.

City Council Member Melody Carruth asked how could the State borrowing $860,000 from Laguna Hills not be an important concern for us?

Don White, Assistant City Manager stated if the State takes multiple sources of money for the city such as the gas tax money and the $860,000 and didn't pay it back it would become a concern and we may have to reshuffle.

City Council Member Melody Carruth stated that she felt we should let our legislature know this is a problem for us.

Don White, Assistant City Manager responded that is a job for the League of Cities.

Bruce Channing, City Manager advised that the State should be given the message that they need to use their own resources not ours. He said the cities are required to balance a budget and they should do that as well with out taking local government's money. They need to make more cuts in staff.

Mayor Joel Lautenschleger stated there is an increased lack of transparency at the State Level.
** This is a surprising comment from Joel if you have read the information above. Did Joel mean there is more lack of transparency at the State level than at the Laguna Hills level or that he is only interested in transparency at the State level??

City Council Member Randy Bressette stated that 18 years ago when Laguna Hills was incorporated a higher degree of safety was promised to the citizens than they were receiving through the County at that time. That promise has been met and the cost of law enforcement has increased very significantly but now we are cutting 2 full time deputies from our city police force. He said in doing this we reduce the safety of our neighborhoods and our residents to an unacceptable level and that's a decision I'm not willing to participate in. Randy suggested that one deputy be returned to us in fiscal year 2010. Randy suggested that the city council move some items around to accomplish this including the traffic light planned for La Paz and Appaloosa because this area already has good traffic flow and $29,000 of funds that were identified as "Rounding" funds. (** The Traffic Light for this intersection is noted in the extended agenda to be funded by funds from Prop. 42, and developer fees.) Randy made a motion to restore one deputy in 2010.

Mayor Joel Lautenschleger said we are safer now than in the past and the last city survey said the citizens felt this is a safe place to live.
** Important Note - The last city survey was conducted in February of 2009 and the 2nd Sheriff's deputy position had been gone for only 1 month at that time.

City Council Member Allan Songstad said there was a very positive report from Lt. Doan so don't think this loss of 2 deputies will be a problem. Seems prudent and don't think we can divert money from highway funds for police services. Can't backfill this with prop. 42 money.

City Council Member Randy Bressette said pardon me can I clarify that for you. Mayor Lautenschleger mumbled something. Then Randy said to Mayor Lautenschleger, He brings up a point that he misunderstood. Mayor Lautenschleger mumbled something again, and Allan Songstad responded that if he interrupted every time he thought someone was not understanding there would be a free for all here.

Greg Simonian City Attorney - stated he believes money for highways cannot be diverted to police but will check on that.

City Council Member Melody Carruth said she favors restoring 1 deputy sheriff position because the city council took a pledge to preserve and protect at incorporation and if these positions are deleted now it will be tougher to restore them in the future. She said if we ask the public if they would rather have an additional deputy or a traffic signal she believes they'd say a deputy. She also noted that it would take possibly a year for the public to feel the impact of the loss of the 2 deputies.

City Council Member Craig Scott said he wanted to clarify to the public that there were 2 positions here, one has been vacant for a year and the other for 6 months. During that time crime has gone down so no jeopardy to community by not filling these positions in the next 2 years. He asked for a response from Lt. Doan to this matter of safety. He also stated never use Capital dollars for an Operating Expense like the police budget.

Lt. Steve Doan, Chief of Police for Laguna Hills responded that both of these positions have been vacant, 1 for a year and the second since the first of this year. He said the police force will not change or decrease performance indicators and will look at alternatives and work on maintaining them and on preventative patrol time. He said he hopes to be able to do that and will work hard to be sure citizens don't notice any deficiency.

** Note - It is very important to note here that there are 2 deputy sheriff positions being eliminated from the city budget. Lt. Doan confirmed that 1 deputy position has been unfilled for about a year but he also clarified that the other deputy position has been vacant only since January of 2009. The last city survey was conducted in Feb. of 2009 so Mayor Joel Lautenschleger was really reaching in quoting the city survey as proof that there was no perceived change in safety by citizens with 2 deputy positions gone. In Feb. of 2009 when the citizens were surveyed the 2nd deputy position had been gone only a month which is not long enough for citizens to notice a difference in a survey.

City Council Member Randy Bressette responded that he agreed the city could not use highway funds directly for police services but there are legitimate ways to shift funds and projects to make the rehiring of 1 deputy work. He said he believes Lt. Doan will work hard on this but why take the risk?

Mayor Joel Lautenschleger laughed.

City Council Member Randy Bressette asked Joel, "I'm sorry, that was amusing?"

Mayor Joel Lautenschleger answered, Yeah, are you finished?

Mayor Joel Lautenschleger also stated that it is foolish to use the money for this. No support from him.

City Council Member Craig Scott said in the last year we have done without these 2 positions and have done well.
**Note to clarify for Craig Scott, we have not does without these 2 deputies for the past year. The 2nd deputy has only been gone for almost 6 months.

City Council Member Randy Bressette asked for a roll call vote on this elimination of deputies from police services issue and was denied. The vote was 3 to 2 against keeping the deputy positions.

PLANNING AGENCY ISSUES

Vern Jones Community Development Director stated a vote needed to determine if the Capital Improvement program was in conformity with the General Plan.
Vote was Yes 5 - 0

No other Planning Issues - Back to the City Council Meeting

Administrative Reports

Lt. Steve Doan, Chief of Police Services report - on fees for false alarms in the city. Lt Doan asked if the city wanted to continue in the County program to charge fees for false alarms and if so need to put this in the Municipal code and agree on a price.

City Council Member Melody Carruth asked how is a "false alarm" determined?

Lt. Steve Doan, Chief of Police Services responded when a home alarm goes off the alarm company calls the resident and if they believe the alarm is real they then call the police. When the police investigate and they find that something has happened like a service worker entering the home without knowledge of how to use the alarm system a false alarm is determined. There were 200 false alarms in 2008 and Lt. Doan stated that in 25 years with the Sheriff's Dept. he has responded to only 3 real alarms. The fees are for 3rd false alarm offences and all those beyond that number and is about $64 to $85. About $18,000 collected by the city for this in a year.

Greg Simonian, City Attorney stated This city has always been a participant in the program for false alarms and has allowed the County Board of Supervisors to set the fees that are from about $64 - $85

Matters Presented by Mayor & City Council Members

Mayor Joel Lautenschleger - The Oso trail is well used and some resident ducks are in the bog area now. He is going to Sacramento on Friday.

City Council Member Melody Carruth asked Assist. City Manager Don White what would happen if the Governor chopped 3 days off the 6 days allowed at government animal shelters like the one the City of Laguna Hills required it's citizens to use in the city of Orange. Don White responded the city has bought an additional 3 days at the shelter for Laguna Hills pets so this would mean no difference for us.
**Note - Assistant City Manager Don White is WRONG - The Orange County shelter touts 7 days as it's length of stay not 6 although we determined that the 1st day is usually spent inside an animal control vehicle because each County Animal Control Officer has such a huge area to cover. Additionally the 3 days purchased by the city are on a space available basis only so are rarely usable since the OC Shelter is always overcrowded and the additional 3 days may not be for all animals - the city does not keep us updated on that. Our last update was a document, dated Nov. 22, 2006, stating the Laguna Hills City Council approved the purchase of 3 additional retention days for all dogs and non-feral cats received by the Orange County Animal Care Services from Laguna Hills. This document also states that at the conclusion of FY 2006-2007 these 3 additional days will be re-evaluated for effectiveness by the city council and it asks that the staff of the OC Animal Shelter track any costs for this service. What the city failed to tell citizens is clearly stated in the contract between the city of Laguna Hills and the county animal shelter as follows: "Additional retention days will be offered to CITY upon written approval by County's OC Community Resources Director, or designee, on a space available basis only." So the very poor services from the OC Shelter for citizens of Laguna Hills will become perilously worse if a citizen loses a pet, especially if that citizen is on vacation, or otherwise away. Also citizens of Laguna Hills already do not want to turn found animals over to such a high kill shelter and if days are cut the kill rate will climb.

Melody asked Don White if he has had any discussions with other cities about supporting AB 250 the new neuter and spay law. Don White responded he had no discussions.

Melody asked if any update on the County building the new animal shelter. Don replied they are still working on it, no updates.

** Go to the OC Register newspaper and locate Pet lovers wage war on plan to cut shelter holding period to learn more about this or You can call the governor’s office at 916-445-2841 or leave him an e-mail the Governor at: http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email

City Council Member Melody Carruth said Grad Night for LHHS was very successful although their budget was cut by $20,000. She also reported that West Nile Virus is off to a slow start this year compared with last. Vector control is identifying abandoned back yard pools and treating them. They are also letting the neighbors know that the abandoned pools have been treated so the neighbors won't treat them as well.

City Council Member Allan Songstad said the State League of Cities is preparing a draft resolution for the State regarding city funds and meeting to discuss how to reform the State Government.

City Council Meeting Adjourned to closed session for a conference with legal council re anticipated litigation.

Dog Mauling Victim files Claim Against Laguna Hills
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/claim-dogs-city-2457274-right-christian
The claim states the city is liable because it was aware of general deficiencies in Orange County Animal Care Services' dealing with dog bites and had notice that the dogs were "potentially dangerous or vicious dogs" but failed to use "reasonable diligence" to ensure the animals were adequately restrained or euthanized.
Will the city have to pay more for this law suit than it would have cost them to obtain good animal care services for it's citizens with pets?