ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL
ANTIOCH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Meeting Minutes
Adjourned Regular Meeting
February 16, 1999
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54952.2, the City Council Agenda for February 16,1999 was posted on the door of the City Council Chambers, Third and "H" Streets on February11, 1999.
CLOSED SESSIONS
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR. Agency Negotiator Yanie Chaumette, Director of Personnel/Assistant City Attorney. All Employee Organizations. (Shannon Study) This Closed Session is authorized by Government Code §54957.6.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR. Agency Negotiator Yanie Chaumette, Director of Personnel/Assistant City Attorney. Employee Organization: Antioch Police Officers Association. This Closed Session is authorized by Government Code
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL. Anticipated Litigation. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 (one matter). This Closed Session is authorized by Government Code
Mayor Rocha called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M., and City Clerk Martin called the roll, all members were present.
Mayor Rocha stated she had nothing to report from the Closed Session.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Pam Angelo, Director of Parents Involved in Education, was not present, but sent an announcement there would be a Parents Involved in Education Workshop on February 22, 1999 in the Council Chambers. The speaker would be Terry Franke, an attorney and authority on the Brown Act.
Arne Simonsen noted the Antioch Rivertown Business Association's web site offers listings and links to all the businesses in the Rivertown District that have web pages or e-mail addresses. The web site also provides a listing of all the improved and unimproved parcels in the Rivertown District. He stated he hoped the City's web site would provide a link to Rivertown Business Association's web site, which he felt would better promote economic development in the Rivertown area.
COUNCIL REGULAR AGENDA
City Attorney Galstan presented the staff report dated February 11, l999, recommending Council approve the resolution approving the transfer.
Council Member Freitas felt the amount of refund should include the inflation factor and interest from July 1994 through February 1999. He further stated the difference between what the City is claiming and the amount that is actually refunded to the seniors who actively apply for the refund should be given to the City in a lump sum to be used specifically for senior citizen activities.
Norma Hernandez discussed the differences in the rates between the SSI-SDI program and what is already in the contract between the City and TCI. She felt the seniors would better benefit from the original contract.
Marian Jackson representing TCI/AT&T, stated TCI is open for discussion on the issue of reimbursement to the seniors. Ann Johnston introduced herself as Counsel for TCI, responded to various questions.
In response to a question by Council Member Sudario, Director of Financial Services Tasker stated the City does not have the necessary information in its database to provide the names of seniors who are entitled to the reimbursement. He noted they have the necessary information for seniors who are homeowners, but not those who rent.
Council Member Sudario emphasized she would like to see the City use every effort to see the seniors get every dime of the their reimbursement.
City Attorney Galstan noted this resolution is a "done deal" if accepted by both parties tonight. Ann Johnston, Counsel for TCI, noted TCI may appeal the ruling made by the FCC, but stated the appeal would not affect the agreement made with Antioch.
Council Member Sudario felt fewer seniors would qualify for the SSI/SDI Program, than qualified using the requirements for water rate payers. Council Member Freitas, referencing the staff report, stated 350 more seniors will qualify for the SSI/SDI Program than qualified under the water rate payer requirements for senior discounts. City Attorney Galstan responded to questions from Council, stating that in fact, more Antioch seniors would qualify for the discount using the SSI/SDI Program.
RESOLUTION NO.99/15
On motion by Council Member Freitas, seconded by Council Member Soliz, the Council unanimously adopted the resolution with language inserted stating the amount, as well as interest (according to the Bay Area CPI), be the amount of refund; that after negotiations have been concluded and attempts by TCI to refund the money to individual senior citizens, all unclaimed monies come to the City of Antioch; that the City of Antioch use their records to try to refund any additional money to individual seniors; that the remaining unclaimed monies be earmarked for Antioch senior citizen activities; that if TCI does not accept the language that has been added, the Council will rescind this resolution, and adopt the original resolution as introduced at the City Council meeting of February 9, l999.
Paul Heller, Administrative Analyst I, presented the staff report dated February 16,
l999.
Jean Kuberra noted that under the Community Development Block Grant Program, housing can be rehabilitated within certain districts in the City, and inquired what the nexus is between that position in Antioch and what is available to the County. She felt the position of the boundary lines is not made clear.
On motion by Council Member Sudario, seconded by Council Member Soliz, the Council unanimously received and filed the report.
Mayor Rocha declared a recess at 8:00 P.M., the meeting was reconvened at 8:07 P.M. with all members present.
PUBLIC HEARING
City Attorney Galstan presented the staff report dated February 3, l999, recommending
the City Council: A) Introduce the Ordinance by title
only; B) Introduce the Ordinance approving a Development Agreement for Sand Creek Project.
Mayor Rocha opened the public hearing.
PROPONENT
Mike Gallagher, representing McBail Company, referred to Paragraph 5 of Exhibit "C" regarding the Local Preference Program, stated they have reviewed staff's proposal as contained in the February 9, l999 memorandum, and McBail accepts the language for Paragraph 5. He further stated they have reviewed the Union's proposed wording for Paragraph 5, as set forth in the Union Attorney's letter of February 5, l999, and found the language unacceptable to the McBail Company. He felt the Union's language eliminated the provision for local preference, and differentiates between acceptable apprenticeship programs on the basis of graduate statistics. He urged the Council to accept the wording contained in the staff's memorandum, and approve the project.
Arne Simonsen, President of Simonsen Mechanical Services, discussed apprenticeship and training programs, noting there are many avenues through which people learn skills in the building trades. He stated he does not want to see the City get into a position of litigation over this issue. He urged the Council to support free and fair bidding on a privately funded construction project. He noted the local preference program was intended to try and get more business for Antioch contractors and workers, and that had not been accomplished.
Merle Gilliland, Richland Development Corporation, stated it is time for the Council to make a decision and move forward.
OPPONENT
Greg Feere, Contra Costa Building Trades Council, felt the meetings concerning the Local Preference Program was an exercise in futility, as a consensus was never reached and there had been no firm commitment to local jobs or apprenticeships. He stated the proposal before the Council is a failure, and noted Dale Peterson had come up with some alternative language for the local preference program, which they felt addressed everyone's concerns regarding the program. He further stated he is disappointed they were unable to reach common ground, and felt the language before the Council would not provide any benefits to the City of Antioch.
Steve Umbenhower, Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 342, stated he is opposed to the project and emphasized the need for language that would provide Antioch residents the opportunity to learn career skills to obtain decent jobs.
Ken Faria wrote he is against the project, unless each contractor and sub contractor's work force is local hire and meets California State Department Apprenticeship's standards for all workers.
Larry Howard stated that if the Council approves this agreement, they are cheapening Antioch's future. He felt the Council had not taken the opportunity presented by FUA #2, which is the possibility of putting together a project that would benefit Antioch. He noted this proposal does not guarantee jobs, nor are jobs defined in the project.
Norma Hernandez discussed the Municipal Services Fee, stating the fee of $600 per house is not enough to cover services. She noted developers have never paid the mitigation required by the General Plan, to mitigate the impacts to the existing roads caused by development. She stated this is a bad project and will create additional negative impacts for the citizens of Antioch.
Public Works Director Brandt responded to questions from Council Member Sudario, stating the creek renovations on the property would be paid for by the development community, probably through a land-based financing district.
Jean Kuberra noted she is opposed to the Agreement because the public was not involved in the negotiations pertaining to the Local Preference Program. She stated the Development Agreement does not address the concerns for the negative impacts this project will have on the community. She felt the language in the Local Preference Program is a big political statement that means nothing, and will probably be challenged in court. She further stated it is not the role of local government to meddle in commerce. She further stated she would like to see a validation in court of this Agreement before the City enters into the Agreement, to eliminate the possibility of lawsuits.
Mark Brady, Antioch Labor to Labor Committee, noted there are thousands of union households in Antioch, not just in the building trades, and felt unions give a lot back to the community. He noted the battle is not over. The union and non-union men and women of Antioch need to stand up together and take the community back, and express what we want for our future.
REBUTTAL
Mike Gallagher, representing McBail Company, stated he has read over the language presented by Dale Peterson, and noted it is his preference to stay with the language contained in staff's proposal. He felt the language presented by Mr. Petersen precludes non-union trades.
Mayor Rocha closed the public hearing.
City Manager Ramsey responded to questions by Council Member Freitas stating the Council has not adopted an amount for the Municipal Services Fee. City Attorney Galstan noted the fee would have to be adopted by a resolution or an ordinance, and neither has occurred.
City Manager Ramsey stated he expects it will be three to five years before the flood plain issues are resolved sufficiently to allow full development of the site. However, he noted the first piece of the project provides for three commercial lots that would be available for development much sooner than three to five years. He emphasized this is a very complex project with significant flood plain and infrastructure issues requiring the combined efforts of a number of development interests in order to make it happen.
Council Member Sudario noted this project is placing commercial development on a flood plain, and does not define what types of jobs the project will offer. She felt this project goes against Measure "U" and the vote of the people. She stated there is no health and safety clause included in the Agreement, and discussed the additional negative impacts this project would have on schools, roads, City services, and Highway 4. She further stated this is radical sprawled growth and does not follow the General Plan. She felt the property should be rezoned to commercial land only.
Council Member Soliz stated Council Member Sudario's concerns about economic development and the flood plain are addressed in the Development Agreement. He noted the Municipal Services Fee and Measure "U" are still being discussed, and felt it is very clear this project is being developed in the spirit of Measure "U" by including the 2:1 jobs to housing ratio before the 334th home can be built. He addressed the concerns voiced regarding the lack of job description and stated it is not the Council's position to find businesses to fill this project. He emphasized the Council can only create an environment fertile enough to attract businesses.
On motion by Council Member Freitas, seconded by Council Member Soliz, the Council: 1) Introduced the Ordinance by title only; 2) Introduced the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement for the Sand Creek Project, with the language submitted by Dale Peterson to be inserted into the Agreement as paragraph 5a. The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: Davis, Freitas, Soliz, Rocha
NOES: Sudario
Mayor Rocha declared a recess at 9:25 P.M., the meeting was reconvened at 9:37 P.M. with all members present.
Mayor Rocha adjourned from City Council to the Public Financing Authority.
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
Mayor Rocha adjourned from the Antioch Public Financing Authority to Antioch Development Agency.
AGENCY REGULAR AGENDAMayor Rocha adjourned from Antioch Development Agency to Council Regular Agenda.
COUNCIL REGULAR AGENDADirector of Financial Services Tasker presented the staff report dated January 28, l999, recommending Council receive and file the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, l998.
Andrew Sisk, Audit Manager for Macias, Gini & Company, gave a summary of the role of auditors, why audits are required, and what an audit entails.
Council Member Soliz referred to Y2K and inquired if their process suggests any sort of beta testing the City can do on their systems to determine whether the City is in compliance. Mr. Sisk responded this issue has been addressed on Pages 40 and 41 of the report.
Council Member Sudario directed staff to give the Council a complete report detailing where the City stands on Y2K compliance. She stated she hopes the City is making Y2K compliance their top priority and does not fall behind on the compliance issues, and emphasized the importance of testing the changes thoroughly. Director of Financial Services Tasker stated they are meeting on a weekly basis to discuss compliance, and have contacted all vendors.
On motion by Council Member Sudario, seconded by Council Member Davis, the Council unanimously received and filed the report.
PRESENTATION OF MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW
City Manager Ramsey presented the staff report dated February 11, l999. He expressed his appreciation for the work done in the Finance Department. He noted the purpose of this mid-year financial report is to provide the Council with not just financial information, but also to give the department heads an opportunity to update the Council on how they are doing on meeting the goals and objectives they had expressed were important to them when the budget was adopted.
Public Works Director Brandt gave a brief summary of what Public Works has been accomplishing the first six months of this year. He discussed goals, objectives and significant issues pertaining to the Public Works Department.
Ahmed Abu Aly gave a brief presentation on the Capital Improvement Program, and the status of the current CIP projects.
Community Development Director Ward gave a mid-year assessment of progress toward 1998/99 objectives and discussed significant Community Development Department issues.
Acting Chief of Police, Mark Moczulski, highlighted some of the significant accomplishments of the Police Department, and outlined some significant objectives for the second half of the fiscal year.
Director of Information Services Pavlicek presented the mid-year budget review pertaining to Information Systems.
Assistant City Attorney/Personnel Director Chaumette presented the mid-year budget review pertaining to the Personnel Department.
Financial/Leisure Services Director Tasker presented the mid-year budget review of Leisure Services. He also presented the mid-year budget review of the General Fund.
Norma Hernandez stated the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan needs to be revised. She felt this was an opportunity to make FUA #2 pay for the infrastructure, as required by the General Plan and Measure "C." She further stated City Manager Ramsey had promised that City staff would read the General Plan and implement it. She questioned when that would be accomplished.
Larry Howard referred to the $1.6 million operating deficit at the end of November, stating it was a larger deficit than expected, and inquired as to why there was such a deficit. Director of Financial Services Tasker responded the deficit was planned and was actually lower than originally anticipated.
Jean Kuberra referred to Page 6 of City Manager Ramsey's memo regarding building and planning fee projections. City Manager Ramsey stated the projections for the years 2000-2002 are not known because it is not known how Measure "U" will impact our development policies. Ms. Kuberra also asked several questions regarding the Personnel Department segment of the mid-year budget review. Mayor Rocha suggested that Ms. Kuberra contact Ms. Chaumette to get her questions answered.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Pete Lopez, Former Antioch City Council Member, discussed the Social Security increase. He thanked City Attorney Galstan for his handling of the TCI senior discount issue. He wished the Council luck in the future, and stated he hopes they can look back 30 years from now and be proud of their record as Council Members.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, Mayor Rocha adjourned the meeting at 11:18 P.M. to the next scheduled City Council Meeting on February 23, l999.
Respectfully Submitted:
L. JOLENE MARTIN, City Clerk