Loading...
07/21/2015 ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 21, 2015 The regular meeting of July 21, 2015 was called to order by Mayor Tait at 3:01 P.M. in the chambers of Anaheim City Hall, located at 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard. The meeting notice, agenda and related materials were duly posted on July 17, 2015. PRESENT: Mayor Tom Tait and Council Members: Lucille Kring, Kris Murray and James Vanderbilt. Council Member Jordan Brandman joined the meeting at 3:18 P.M. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Paul Emery, City Attorney Michael Houston and City Clerk Linda Andal. WORKSHOP: UNDERGROUND CONVERSION PROGRAM 5-YEAR PLAN Dukku Lee, Public Utilities General Manager introduced Janet Lonneker, Assistant General Manager of Electric Services to update City Council on Anaheim's five year underground conversion plan. PLAN BENEFITS: Ms. Lonneker announced this was the 25th anniversary of a program which had received national and international recognition and its benefits had been realized with the undergrounding of 60 percent of the city's major roadways. For residents and businesses, she explained, the most noticeable benefit of this program was visual with the removal of poles and overhead wires, although the improved resilience of an underground system to weather events was important as the city annually experienced a fewer number of outages. Additionally, she pointed out, the undergrounding process offered an opportunity to install new equipment with advanced technology and automation providing for faster responses to outages. It is also provided the ability to restore power to customers quicker along with the ability to meet the needs of the growing community by placing multiple lines underground for added capacity for the future. UNDERGROUNDING PROCESS: Ms. Lonneker reported the program established in 1990 was more than half completed and was funded by a four percent surcharge on customer's electric bills, about $2.50 per month for a typical 1,800 square foot home. Approximately $12 million was collected each year specifically for this program. She indicated that new LED street lighting was now being introduced on projects after a successful pilot program that resulted in improved brightness and uniform lighting along arterial streets and intersections. The LEDs were 30 percent more efficient, lasted longer, and its costs had been reduced over the past few years. Recognizing construction was disruptive and inconvenient, customer outreach remained an important element and the department requested feedback through surveys on how the city was doing in terms of notification, traffic relief, and access. She pointed out that in the most recently completed project, 87 percent of the 200 surveys returned responded they were satisfied with the results. Ms. Lonneker reported this year a comprehensive audit was conducted of the underground conversion program by the city's audit division, with over$20 million in transactions made through year 2014, it was determined there were no improper transactions. The areas of improvement that were identified in the audit, she noted, were related to the need for additional written procedures. City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 2 of 26 FIVE YEAR PLAN: Ms. Lonneker commented the five year plan that was before Council for consideration on tonight's agenda had been presented to the Underground Subcommittee and to the Public Utilities Board, and was approved by both. For a project to be included in the undergrounding plan, she reported there were five criteria factored in: i) engineering/reliability, ii) project coordination with other planned improvements, such as street widening and road paving to make it more cost effective or to expedite a schedule, iii) available funding, iv) aesthetics, v) and geographic diversity to ensure projects were spread throughout the city. The projects identified in the five year plan and detailed for Council's information were provided: Completed Projects: • The Miraloma Way project was completed in November 2012 requiring coordination between other city departments and telecommunication providers. The schedule was accelerated to coincide with the completion of the Miraloma Park and Family Resource Center as well as with other roadway improvements in the area. • Phase 1 portion of the Lincoln/Dale project in west Anaheim was completed, two circuit miles at a cost of$8.4 million and the remaining telecommunication utilities were transferring over their systems within the next 12 months, to be followed by removal of the pole. • Phase 2 was now underway on Dale Avenue, with staff coordinating closely with other utilities in a joint pool trenching process to minimize the amount of digging and to place all facilities within a single trench. That project would be completed by January 2016, and reflected 1.4 circuit miles at a cost of$7.7 million. Projects Under Construction: • West Street/Westmont Drive, to be completed by August 2015, was a 1.5 circuit mile project at a cost of$6.6 million. Crews were in the process of energizing new electric cables and converting residents over to underground service; this project worked around the schedule of two schools and was constructed in two phases. Ms. Lonneker indicated the deep trenching was located across the street from the Morton Bay Fig tree next to Founder's Park; to not to disturb the tree's root system based on recommendations from an arborist. • Continuation of the undergrounding on Miraloma and on Miller Street had begun, and was scheduled to be completed in August 2017, 7.8 circuit miles at a cost of$16.9 million. This was a commercial and industrial area with important infrastructure coming from the Canyon Power Plant with Ms. Lonneker emphasizing that reducing exposure of these poles to vehicle collisions was a priority as this was the gateway for the plant to deliver power to the regional grid. Projects in Design: Ms. Lonneker remarked that during the design phase, staff coordinated with neighborhoods and businesses to locate equipment and secure easements. • The Lincoln/Rio Vista project was the last segment along Lincoln Avenue remaining, a 3.7 circuit mile at a cost of$14.5 million. She added this project would eliminate two freeway crossings and required close coordination with Caltrans. • The Ball/Euclid project was the remaining phase of Euclid, a 1.3 circuit mile at a cost of $5.1 million. New Proposed Project: Ms. Lonneker noted this project was an addition to the proposed five year plan, Orangewood from Lewis, west of Harbor Boulevard,and was proposed to address electric system capacity and reliability improvements needed for development activities City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 3 of 26 occurring in central and south central areas of Anaheim. She pointed out by accelerating the undergrounding of this area, the expense of rebuilding overhead lines would be avoided. A second key element for proposing this project was the opportunity to coordinate with the Ponderosa Family Resource Center, which the department would coordinate the schedule of this project and install street lighting to align with the completion of the Resource Center planned for 2018. This was a 1.1 circuit mile at a cost of$5.2 million. Projects in Planning Phase: • Cerritos/Nutwood was .8 circuit mile, a $3.4 million project and staff would coordinate the schedule with the James Madison Elementary School. • La Palma/Sunkist, a 3 circuit mile project at a cost of$11.5 million. Ms. Lonneker indicated this project would offer reliability improvements by eliminating a freeway crossing at highway 57 and was a continuation of previous underground projects along La Palma. • The Ball/Brookhurst project would tie into two completed undergrounding projects, one on each end. This was 1.9 circuit miles at a cost of$7.7 million. • OliveNermont Street in central area was 1.4 miles at a cost of$6.9 million and had a heavy concentration of overhead lines and a railroad crossing to work around. • La Palma near East street was a combination of residential and commercial requiring coordination with Sycamore Jr. High school and would also be a continuation of several completed underground along La Palma, 1.0 circuit mile at a cost of$4.2 million. • Santa Ana Canyon/Royal Oak in east Anaheim, the department would address capacity needs by placing lines underground rather than rebuilding the overhead lines and also address current accessibility as the site location required extra planning and effort for linemen to get to these poles. This was a 1.8 circuit mile project at a cost of$9.4 million. • The last project, Santa Ana from State College going west, was in a residential area with a heavy concentration of telecommunication lines to underground. This would also tie into an existing project on State College giving the department the ability to connect another circuit for added reliability. This was a 1.3 circuit mile project at a cost of$5.3 million. Council Member Vanderbilt inquired if the program was estimated to be completed in another 25 years with Mr. Lee confirming the anticipated time frame, adding it was dependent on how quickly construction progressed. One of the limiting factors, he stated, was the coordination with other telecommunication utilities. Mr. Vanderbilt requested clarification on the surcharge numbers with Mr. Lee replying that the Utilities collected about $12 million a year and it was placed in a separate fund; the five year plan considered the cash flow that would be collected over that time frame and projects were scheduled accordingly. He added that the 50 year timeframe would cover approximately 220 circuit miles on major roadways and it would be up to the City Council if other areas were to be considered. The Mayor and City Council Members offered their appreciative comments for a program that benefited residents and businesses, not only improving electric reliability but improving the aesthetics and property values as well. WORKSHOP—CITY OF ANAHEIM LONG-TERM DEBT City Manager Paul Emery announced this workshop would be presented by Henry Stern, City Treasurer and Debbie Moreno, Finance Director and was in response to a request by Mayor Tait. He pointed out that the city had made significant strides in transparency by providing detailed information as part of the budgetary documents, including long-term debt obligations. Henry Stern provided an overview of the process for the issuance of bonds noting there were three phases involved: pre-production, production and post-production. The pre-production City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 4 of 26 phase identified a project to finance and/or bonds associated to be refunded, developed a plan on how to finance that project, and determined the overall costs. The second phase was the issuance and selling of the bonds and receipt of the final interest rate, and the third phase was the settlement of the bonds. He noted that bonds were marketed and sold at one time followed by a delay allowing the buyers to come up with the cash to receive the bonds. The Finance Department and the director were involved in pre-production and production, while the City Treasurer's office handled the post production process. The City Charter authorized the Director of Finance to approve all expenses, while the Treasurer received and invested funds. Mr. Stern reported that in the past two months, he conducted a comprehensive analysis of all outstanding debt issues, using official statements from those issues including a review and analysis of all the debt service schedules. In addition, he obtained the debt service schedules from the trustees holding the issues verifying those levels and then verified those debt service levels against the Finance Department's reports; and in all cases, all reports were accurate. As to the question of whether any of the long-term debt had balloon payments, Mr. Stern reported he could find no direct balloon payments to those issues outside of the structure that was put in for the bond issues. He remarked the Finance Director included the actual individual bond issues and their debt service in the latest budget to ensure continued transparency for financial activities. Mayor Tait asked what was meant by no balloon payment and the added caveat, with Mr. Stern responding there was a structure between term bonds and serial bonds and Ms. Moreno would discuss and define that further in her analysis. Mr. Stern emphasized there were no balloon payments facing the city down the road where it had to come up with a significant amount of money to pay it off. Debbie Moreno, Finance Director, explained that in the Department's continuing efforts to improve transparency, staff made several additions to the city's budget documents this year. For the first time, everything about the city's long-term obligations, including bonds, notes payable, computer leases, compensated absences, workers compensation and general liability claims were included. In addition, pensions and other post-employment benefits or OPEB obligations were listed as well. Each item contained a brief description, the estimated balance owed and the expected payments over the next five years and for bonds and notes payable that had a specific repayment schedule, that information was also shown. Other details offered was a brief description of the city's credit ratings by issuance types from the Water Utility's AAA rating, the highest given, to Sewers at AA+, Electric at AA-Al and to the city's strong AA for general fund lease revenue bonds. While the long-term obligation section of the budget contained information about citywide long-term debt, she stated she would focus on those that had an impact to the general fund. Lease Revenue Bonds were obligations secured by a leaseback arrangement with a public entity wherein the general operating revenues were pledged to pay the lease payments which in turn were used to pay debt service on the bonds. In the city's case, the Anaheim Public Financing Authority issued the bonds with the lease payments made by the city through the Financing Authority which were then used by the Authority to make the debt service payments on the outstanding lease revenue bonds. Currently, there were four outstanding issues, the 1997 Resort Improvement Bonds that funded an expansion to the Convention Center and various infrastructures in the Resort, as well as a parking structure. in 2007, a portion of those bonds were refunded to take advantage of lower interest rates. In 2008, the city refunded bonds issued in 1993 to eliminate risks associated with a complicated financing structure, and these bonds were originally issued to refinance a number of prior projects. Lastly, in 2014 the city issued the Convention Center expansion bonds to provide City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 5 of 26 $190 million in proceeds for the Convention Center expansion, $20 million for other capital improvement projects, and approximately $50 million to refinance existing debt at lower interest rates. In total these obligations amounted to $895 million of outstanding debt as of July 1, 2015. She stated that one of the questions that kept coming up was did the city have balloon payments coming due and the answer was no. She added that there might be come confusion about the difference between term bonds and serial bonds that led to this misunderstanding. Serial bonds were sold with a single stated maturity date, for example, the 2020 serial bond required all principal to be paid on a specific date in the year 2020. Term bonds were sold subject to mandatory redemption prior to maturity from a sinking fund, the city was not paying a balloon payment for the term bonds because a mandatory sinking fund was required and was used to redeem a portion of the term bonds prior to maturity effectively making the term bond payment level over a period of years. She added that term bonds were sold to address lack of investor demand for long-term serial bonds in the municipal market place, using the 2014 Convention Center expansion project as an example. Looking at all four bond transactions, she reported the 2008 and 2014 bonds were let through maturity. The debt service requirements for the Resort improvements (1997 and 2007 issues), had grown slightly overtime at three percent. In the final year of the Resort bonds in 2037, she noted, there appeared to be a spike. Normally, she explained this issue required a principal and interest payment on September 1st of each year with interest only being paid on March 1St of each year, however, in the last year; the city would pay a final principal and interest payment six months early from accumulated reserves. She pointed out that reserves were estimated at about$59 million for September 1, 2015. To explain that concept, she reviewed how the Resort bonds worked: Amounts were remitted to the trustee each month based on a formula, and were known as lease payment measurement revenues or LPMR. The formula included amounts equal to three percent of the 15 percent TOT, which was really 20 percent of TOT for all hotel property in the city excluding Disney, plus all Disney TOT, sales and property taxes over the 1995 base and adjusted annually. She explained this formula protected the general fund in tough economic times because as tax revenues declined, the lease payments would decrease as well. Since the LPMR began in January 2001, the LPMR remitted to the trustee had exceeded debt service in all but two years, FY 2003 and FY 2004. As of today, she stated, almost $80 million was on hand with the trustee. To get a clearer picture of how much was available, she pointed out that in September after making the large principal and interest payment and with $80 million with the trustee through June, the city expected to collect another$7.5 million in July and August which would leave the city with $87.5 million to make the debt service payment on September 1St. After making the $28 million debt service payment, the city would still have $59 million on hand available for further debt service which would still cover another 19 months of debt service even if no additional tax revenues were collected. Ms. Moreno then discussed how the debt was structured when refinanced in 2007. The PKF study projected the city would remit between $45 and $51 million within the next five years, however, she stated, the debt service was only $35 to 40 million over that same period, offering a cushion of$10 million each year. Comparing that with the city's five year plan for the general fund, staff estimated remitting almost $54 to $68 million over the next five years, providing for more LPMR than originally estimated by $8 to 17 million which was on top of the $10 million yearly cushion. That would mean that the city was expected to remit 50 to 57 percent more to the trustee than required for the debt service and if all of that came to pass, there would be another$118 million in reserves that could be used to pay off bonds earlier than 2037. She noted that once the Resort bonds were paid off, all that was being remitted to the trustee would City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 6 of 26 revert to the general fund to provide services. She stated the LPMR structure had worked well through one of the roughest economic times experienced. PENSIONS: Regarding pensions, the amount the city was estimated to owe in pension payments to its employees as of June 30, 2013 (the 2014 numbers were not available until October), was just over$2 billion. The City had assets invested with Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)that were worth almost $1.5 billion, leaving Anaheim with an unfunded balance of just over$500,000 and making the city 72.5 percent funded. She expected the 2014 results to show a funding ratio of about 74 percent. in addition, that funded ratio should improve with the implementation of the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act or PEPRA that took effect in January 2013. PEPRA changed the way retirement benefits were applied and placed compensation limits on members, with existing members having no lapse in service and retaining existing benefit levels; any new members receiving a lower benefit upon retirement reducing the city's liability over time. Added to that, through changes adopted by the City Council in line with PEPRA recommendations, all employees were now or would soon be paying a full employee contribution. Over the last five years, Ms. Moreno pointed out, the city's net contribution to PERS after employee contributions ranged from $48 million this year to almost $70 million in FY 2019/20, however only roughly two-thirds of that was attributable to the general fund. Other funds such as the electric and water utilities and conventions, sports, and entertainment venues also had a significant piece of the contribution besides the general fund. That being said, she remarked, the general fund's net contribution ranged from $33 million to $47 million over the next five years which equaled 12 to 15 percent of the budget. The increase in costs beginning in FY 2017/18, she explained, was due to changes in demographics, most notably an improvement in mortality rates. OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPED): She noted that the retiree medical estimated to be owed in OPEB as of July 1, 2013, was $237 million, with the value of existing assets at $75 million. This left an unfunded balance of$163 million with the city being 31 percent funded. She stated the city's retiree health plan was a closed plan and applied only to eligible employees hired before January 1, 1996 or 2001 for safety employees and any employees hired after this date were eligible to participate in the city's medical and dental plans but would not receive a defined benefit upon retirement. She noted the city contributed annually to fund OPEB, an amount not less than the annual required contribution of the employer and as the number of eligible members in the closed plan decreased, the city's liability would reduce as well. Over the next five years, Ms. Moreno indicated the city's net contributions to OPEB would range from almost$14 million this year to nearly$16 million in FY 2019/20. Other funds such as electric, water and conventions, sports, and entertainment venues again shared the contributions with the general fund's net contributions ranging from $8.1 million to $9.3 million over the next five years and remaining stable at three percent of the budget. In summary, Ms. Moreno stated there were no balloon payments and the city had a level payment schedule. In addition, the city's LPMR reserve balance was healthy, the pensions were 72.5 percent funded and improving and OPEB was a closed plan whose unfunded liability would diminish over time. Finally, she stated, all of the information on the city's long-term obligations could be found in the recently adopted budget for FY 2016/17. Council Member Vanderbilt, addressing pension liabilities, remarked that even though the funding ratio could change, the actual funding cost could keep going up because of the ratio of the overall budget. Ms. Moreno responded that based on some of the actuarial assumptions by PERS, that liability had increased over the last few years as PERS had been aggressive in City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 7 of 26 reviewing their assumptions to make sure rates were set to match what would happen eventually looking at mortality rates etc. She added that it was expected the overall number, not just the percentage, would decrease over time with pension reforms and with some of the changes in PERS "smoothing" process to make sure the unfunded liability was funded during a fixed 30 year period. Mr. Vanderbilt added that some other fund would be needed to shore that up, or the PERS employer debt might be adjusted to contribute more. Ms. Moreno concurred adding that was happening with some of the increased rates seen for the beginning of this fiscal year. Discussion continued with Mr. Vanderbilt asking if staff thought"improving" was a term that could be applied not in five years but possibly in 15 or 20 years with Ms. Moreno stating she expected the funding ratio to improve over the long term. Mayor Tait stated the general fund lease obligations roughly totaled $900 million, pensions reflected $560 million, and OPEB was about $163 million asking what the totals were for other long-term obligations. Ms. Moreno indicated electric revenue bonds were just over$500,000, water revenue bonds were about $130 million, sewer revenue bonds at$42 million, computer leases at roughly$700,000, compensated absences with the bulk funded at $18.5 million, self- insurance obligations completely funded at $42 million, the decommissioning which was also funded at $135 million. He asked if the city was responsible for electric, sewer and water bonds, with Ms. Moreno stating they were payable from an identified revenue stream. He asked if there could be an increase in sewer rates to pay for those bonds, with Ms. Moreno remarking there operating costs could increase over time but she had not seen a significant increase in rates in the recent past. After some discussion of the PERS assets and liability costs, he inquired whether PERS would allow cities to remove those assets. Ms. Moreno responded she believed the entire debt obligation would have to be paid off. Council Member Murray requested staff explain the rating agency's scoring and how Anaheim ranked with other municipalities in terms of the city's obligations. Ms. Moreno stated the Water Utility had a AAA, the strongest rating possible. Sewer and the general fund were in the AA category, which indicated a strong credit rating and very unlikely chance of defaulting. She noted those were ratings that not a lot of other cities enjoyed and was based on the city's economy, existing debt, and not only the debt but pensions and other post-employment benefits. It also looked at reserves and management of city and part of why Anaheim was rated so high was due to long-standing conservative fiscal practices, such as fully funding liabilities for compensated absences, insurance, and long before any other city was making contributions and setting aside money for OPEB, Anaheim was doing that based on actuarial results. Ms. Murray asked what the principal drivers that rating agencies considered when looking at the economic viability of the city with Ms. Moreno indicating they looked at the stable TOT and assessed value during the economic downtown and while the TOT could be volatile, Anaheim's had rebounded well based on the strength of the Resort. She added they also considered past performance, how the city was managed, what the expectations were and where the flexibility was and the fact that Anaheim weathered a large recession, using reserves but never dropping below the eight percent mark, those markers were all looked upon favorably. Council Member Murray emphasized that the rating agencies were telling the residents of Anaheim the city was in sound fiscal shape. Mayor Tait questioned the 2007 Senior Lease Obligations and their BBB+ rating, wondering why there should be any difference in the ranking. Ms. Moreno stated those obligations were the LPMR with a different revenue stream and because that number could fluctuate up and down, it was considered different than normal tax revenues and the ability to pay. It was related to the protection built in for the general fund and as the city went through a recession, in 2008/09 the tax revenues declined, and payments that went to the trustee also declined, City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 8 of 26 thereby protecting the general fund. That meant there was not the same certainty with that revenue flow to bond holders. Mayor Tait requested information on the total debt obligation going out to year 2046 be provided to show where the obligations dropped off, including estimates of the pension costs. Mayor Pro Tern Kring requested each member of council be provided with that data as well. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None At 4:03 P.M., Mayor Tait recess to closed session for consideration of the following items. CLOSED SESSION: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (d)(1)of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code) Name of Case: Judy Bailey-Savage v. City of Anaheim, County of Orange, County of Orange County, George Jorge Garcia and Does 1 Through 100, Inclusive, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2015 00784297-CU-WT-CJC 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (d)(1)of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code) Name of Case: Jennifer Cruz, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al., USDC Case No. CV10- 03997 MMM (JEMx). 3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Subdivision (a) of Section 54957.6 of the California Government Code) Agency Designated Representatives: Chris Chase, Jason Motsick Name of Employee Organizations:Anaheim Police Association, Anaheim Firefighters Association, Local 2899 (AFA) The City Council meeting was reconvened at 5:18 P.M. INVOCATION: Pastor William Eng, Chinese Baptist Church of Orange County FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Pro Tern Lucille Kring At 5:21 P.M. Mayor Tait called to order the Anaheim Housing Authority for a joint public comment session with the Anaheim City Council. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDAS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items). Prior to receipt of public comments, a brief decorum statement was provided by City Clerk, Linda Andal. Cecil Jordan Corcoran, Outreach Homeless Ministries, remarked he was willing to distribute flyers informing those in need about the Kraemer Homeless Shelter and suggested police officers do the same. Sandra Sagert announced Anaheim Beautiful had partnered with Republic Services to help sponsor and fund-raise for the Flag Day program. Anaheim Beautiful collected $1,500 with Republic Services matching that amount and presented the check to the city. Brenda McGuire, City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 9 of 26 Republic Services, emphasized this was an ongoing program and encouraged the community to give something back and keep the flags flying high. Donations could be made to the Anaheim Beautiful nonprofit organization, contact( ..AnaheimBeautifui.orq. Ivan Thompson, resident, thanked the city for the dog park at Lemon/La Palma, remarking it was well appreciated by the community and set the model for other dog parks in the area. His only concern was inadequate parking since most of the curbs were painted red near the park and requested the city reconsider this policy. Mayor Tait referred Mr. Thompson to Terry Lowe, Community Services Director, to discuss the issue. Judy Dickinson, ACACIA, thanked the City for CDBG funding that was received in the past, and also thanked members of CDAC and the Community Services Board for their efforts in this grant award process. She reported that ACACIA served 22 individuals from the city of Anaheim and looked forward to a continued partnership. An unidentified individual requested the city help with OCTA. Mayor Tait suggested the gentleman contact him with details and he would see what he could to help. John Standiford, ACACIA Board, announced this non-profit organization had been serving senior citizens in Anaheim for more than 36 years with adult day care and related services to promote health wellness and keep seniors independent. He invited City Council to an event this September for a better understanding of what ACACIA offered to seniors throughout the county. Peri Austin, resident, announced there were a number of people in the audience in support of permit parking for West Street, and requested Council's approval of the permit. Denise Cato, Fair Housing Council of Orange County, spoke on Item No. 8 and stated for the past 15 years her organization provided fair housing services to the residents, owners, brokers and managers of housing in Anaheim and had collectively provided services to the city for about 50 years. For this contract year, she reported the Fair Housing Council worked with more than 2,600 issues, comprised of 875 unduplicated households and 932 contacts and had also worked 25 discrimination complaints that resulted in 17 cases. In addition, over 2,500 homeowners in the county, 30 percent of those in Anaheim were assisted and were able to keep their homes through refinancing and other programs. She added those were only the successful cases and not the total number of individuals and families assisted. She asked that the City Council reconsider staff's recommendation and retain the Fair Housing Council of Orange County in the city of Anaheim. Nicholas Dunlap, Apartment Association of Orange County (AAOC), addressed his remarks to Item No. 8, stating AAOC represented 70,000 units in the County of Orange, 8,000 in Anaheim and had over 113 owner-operators in the city, with another 15 service providers here as well. He was speaking in support of the Fair Housing Council of Orange County because MOC disagreed with staff's recommendation to change the fair housing service providers. He remarked since 2003, the Fair Housing Council had provided training and educational resources to members, educated over 2,260 and believed they were a strong ally to the housing industry. He believed stakeholders such as the Apartment Association, realtors, building owners and operators should have been contacted for references as their association members were governed by fair housing guidelines and regulations. He emphasized given the deadline for submittal to HUD, the AAOC believed it was in the public's best interests to retain the incumbent provider, Fair Housing Council of Orange County. Julia Araiza, speaking to Item No. 8, remarked she owned 55 apartments in Anaheim for about 40 years and was a board member on the MOO. She supported the Fair Housing Council of City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 10 of 26 Orange County over the Long Beach Fair Housing Foundation to continue the local culture. She stated the Fair Housing Council focused on eliminating discrimination through education and mediation and presented a significant number of seminars many of which the AAOC sponsored to educate rental owners. She added that rental owners from Los Angeles County had also attended and were impressed by the services offered. Lou Penrose, Apartment Association of Orange County, speaking to Item No. 8, remarked the apartment owners were very satisfied with the process and relationship developed with the Fair Housing Council of Orange County, asking the city to reconsider and retain this working relationship. Michael Chu represented Professional Building Management with over 1,000 units in Anaheim and L'Abri Management (whose representative was unable to attend); he was also a board member of the AAOC. He supported the Fair Housing Council of Orange County remarking they had represented tenants and landlords fairly, and provided quality training and education and he had personally worked with Ms. Cato on a number of matters. He requested Council reconsider staff's recommendation. William Fitzgerald, Homeowners Maintaining Their Environment, objected to an ordinance that prevented the homeless from keeping personal property in municipal parks and requiring enforcement by police officers. Julia Moore, Community Housing Management Services (a 28 year affordable housing management company) addressed Item No. 8. She explained she was first introduced to the Fair Housing Foundation 12 years ago when her non-profit agency needed education for its employees and eventually became a member of the Foundation and was now chair of their board of directors. She thanked the city for recommending the Fair Housing Foundation for CDBG funding adding that it was the Foundation's mission to provide education and outreach to the various communities served. Barbara Shull, Fair Housing Foundation (FHF), spoke to Item No. 8, stating the FHF currently provided services to 22 cities, ten of which were in Los Angeles County and 12 in Orange County. She thanked staff for recommending Fair Housing Foundation stating her agency began providing services in Orange County about nine years ago and that many cities were now utilizing their services. She added that CDBG funds were meant to be used for low income individuals and that it was important to work closely with apartment associations, realtors and rental property owners but she would also be looking at providing services for low income residents. She stated since Anaheim would be the Foundation's largest contract city, if approved; the agency would move their county office to Anaheim within six months. She also emphasized that FHF were advocates to educate tenants, landlords, managers and owners about their rights and responsibilities and historically 85 percent of allegations with evidence had been conciliated successfully. She added that in the last five years, FHF had filed only two fair housing cases, similar to that of the Fair Housing Council and that neither organization was litigious. Malcom Bennett, Fair Housing Foundation board, Item No. 8, remarked he had worked in the rental housing industry on the local, state and national level over the last 40 years and had been recognized nationally for his work in the fair housing area. He was also on the board of the National Apartment Association and National Association of Realtors. He emphasized the FHF realized education was more valuable than litigation and offered classes, seminars and training to bring businesses and tenants together and he looked forward to working as the city of Anaheim's fair housing service provider. City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 11 of 26 Dr. Cynthia Smith remarked Creative Identity was a therapeutic music and expressive arts program for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, thanking the Community Services Board for recommending Creative Identity's prevocational growth initiative for funding by the CDBG grant. She added with this funding, her clients had better access to supplies needed for ceramics, art and music and they were able to sell their work at craft fairs or to play at community concerts as a result. Dr. Smith was appreciative of the funding that enabled this successful program for adults with disabilities like autism, Down syndrome and cerebral palsy. Karin Marquez, apartment manager in Tustin, spoke in support of the Fair Housing Foundation, remarking the agency was responsive to any questions or concerns raised, was involved and worked well with the city, and apartment managers were now much more educated and more comfortable doing their jobs. She supported approval of Item No. 8, as presented. R. Joshua Collins, Homeless Advocates for Christ, encouraged Council and the community to keep the issue of police appropriating the belongings of the homeless. He recommended church leaders, if they had open parking lots, to allow three or four of the homeless to sleep in the parking lots until the shelter was available for use. Raymond White explained he lived on Floret Street which turned into Tedmar Street after a right turn. He emphasized that at 1802 Tedmar, rooms were rented to individuals with substance abuse difficulties which was causing the problems in the neighborhoods. He reported Anaheim Police had been called to that house 89 times from June 2010 to June 2015 with problems associated with drugs to assault and battery. He requested similar information from the Anaheim Fire& Rescue, however due to health privacy issues relating to paramedic calls, that information was not provided to him. Mr. White asked for the city's assistance. Mayor Tait requested the City Manager investigate Mr. White's concerns. Rene, stated on Friday, July 24 at 6:00 PM, Anaheim residents and the Anaheim communities would be speaking out under the Disney sign on Harbor Boulevard, talking about corporate subsidy, gentrification, the police terrorizing the homeless and criminalizing/terrorizing the city's youth, and the officer-involved fatalities that occurred in Anaheim. Lynn Cudd, Community Services Board, stated she and board member Earl Kelso were available to answer questions regarding the 2015/16 Annual Action Plan and distribution of CDBG funds, Item No. 8 on tonight's agenda. Sara Ellen Vasseur, resident, remarked Illinois Street and surrounding area residents were requesting parking permits to stop and prevent tagging, loitering, distribution of illegal substances, vehicle abandonment, and other unwanted activities in the neighborhood. Rick Roshan, an apartment owner in Anaheim, requested City Council continue the current relationships with the Fair Housing Council of Orange County and to reconsider staff's recommendation. As a board member of the Apartment Association of Orange County, he pointed out the Association had a good working relationship with the current provider and there should be strong reasons for making a change and the housing industry members should be asked to participate in that decision Jeff Harris remarked he owned a house at the corner of West and Broadway and had been concerned about the parking situation on West Street. He added that during the year there had been loitering which led to tagging his house and sidewalk, littering, and having his driveway blocked. He had also seen several abandoned vehicles to the point the tires were flat adding that as a resident of that area, approval of parking permits would make a positive impact on the quality of his life as well as the rest of the residents in that area. City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 12 of 26 James Vega, addressing his comments to item No. 27, requested Council approve permit parking for Kenwood and Norwood Streets to address overflow parking from adjacent mobile homes, resident garages and driveways blocked and having to tow cars. Christopher Le remarked Norwood and Kenwood areas experienced loitering, disruptive arguments and incidents of cars being damaged, asking Council to approve Item No. 27. Phat Bul, Vietnamese American Federation of Southern California, commended Council for considering a resolution supporting the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2015 that would attach human rights conditions to trade and security agreements with Vietnam. He stated when Saigon fell, more than two million people escaped in search of freedom because the violation of human rights in Viet Nam was unbearable and that suffering continued, suppressing all religions to the demands of the government. Asia Pham remarked she worked for a management company with over 65 properties dealing with multi-family units in Orange County as well as in Los Angeles, of which 17 properties were in the city of Anaheim. She had been working with the Fair Housing Foundation for 15 years, having had their 125 employees trained through the Foundation, adding that the agency was a great resource in helping property owners to understand fair housing regulations and was fair in their treatment of all parties. Dana Fagen, Volunteers of America, spoke in support of the Fair Housing Foundation, stating they were a community partner with programs assisting veterans with housing, a rapid rehousing and homeless prevention effort. Both staff and the veterans benefited from training and education by the Foundation, and were apprised of workshops on a regular basis. Dwayne Tiegs, spoke in support of the Fair Housing Council of Orange County, remarking he was employed in the housing industry and was personally appreciative of the education and training he had received. He did not understand why the city was changing a housing provider that offered good service and was working well in the city and suggested sharing the grant for the next year and making a determination based on performance. Victoria Michaels, resident, remarked that Anaheim voters had been disenfranchised by Council's approval of the Disney agreement at the previous meeting, objecting to the figures used in the economic impact analysis and to the Council majority conduct, Cynthia Ward stated the latest grand jury report agreed with CATER regarding the Anaheim Public Financing Authority issuing bonds for the Convention Center expansion, urging the community to review it for themselves. Regarding the City Manager's employment agreement, she objected to a number of provisions in the contract, including the indemnification and hold harmless clause and its impact to taxpayers. Referencing the 1996 Disney agreement, whose reimbursement provision was the basis for a new agreement approved July 7, 2015, she stated it was a real property agreement that should not have been amended and restated, as it continued certain provisions that were enforceable through 2047 regarding the 2007 bonds, asking if any of those bonds had been diffused and refunded and whether due diligence was done. Dr. Patricia Adelekan spoke to the nationwide issue of homelessness where individuals went hungry and lacked the basic right to food and shelter. She remarked it was the responsibility of all citizens to make sure human beings had these basic rights and they were not taken away, urging the community to review the human rights act and make a difference. City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 13 of 26 Sandra Tricia Leech, spoke on behalf of the Fair Housing Foundation for educating her on the rights of a perspective tenant as well as the property owner's rights. She requested Council reconsider their funding as their services were important to the community. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: None CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE Paul Emery, City Manager, reported that staff was still meeting with stakeholders regarding the city's smoking lounge code amendments, an agenda item that was continued to this meeting and therefore not yet presented. He advised that a report would be coming to Council at a later date. In addition, he stated Anaheim was welcoming delegations from Canada and the country of Senegal as a Host Town for the 2015 Special Olympics World Games that would take place July 25—August 2, 2015 in Los Angeles. He also shared a video of the Cops4Kids members honoring American soldiers on Memorial Day by planting more than 10,000 flags at Riverside National Cemetery. At 8:10 P.M., the City Council meeting was adjourned to consider the Housing Authority agenda, reconvening at 8:11 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Member Vanderbilt pulled Item Nos. 6, 8 and 9 for further discussion and indicated he would abstain on Agenda Item No. 22, as it was his belief Council should not focus efforts on matters with other jurisdictions addressing world and national issues. Mayor Tait removed Agenda Item Nos. 27, 28 and 29. Mayor Pro Tem Kring then moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and to adopt the balance of the consent calendar as presented, in accordance with reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each city council member and as listed on the consent calendar, seconded by Council Member Vanderbilt. Roll Call Vote: Ayes—5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring, Murray and Vanderbilt.) Noes—0. Motion Carried B105 3. Receive and file minutes of the Sister City Commission meeting of May 18, 2015 and Community Services Board meeting of June 11, 2015. D116 4. Approve recognitions to be presented at a later date recognizing the 50th Anniversary of Mama Cozza's Italian Restaurant and Anaheim High School essay contest winners. D117 5. Approve the Investment Portfolio Report for June 2015. AGR-9092 7. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Micon Construction, Inc., in the amount of$278,949, for the Anaheim Senior Center Exercise Equipment Project, adopt a CEQA finding of categorically exempt, and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. D175 10. Approve speed lumps on Atchison Street between Center Street and Broadway as a traffic calming measure. 11. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property with 101 Ball Road Anaheim AGR-9093 LLC, in the acquisition payment of$99,500, for the purchase of property located at 101 East Ball Road for the Anaheim Boulevard/Ball Road Intersection Improvement Project (R/W ACQ 2015-00607). AGR 9094 12. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property with Norma Moreira, in the acquisition payment of$388,000, for the purchase of property located at 1252 North City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 14 of 26 Brookhurst Street for the Brookhurst Street Improvements from 1-5 to SR-91 (R/W AGR-9095 ACQ2013-00455). 13. Approve the Temporary Construction Easement Agreement with Baylo University, in the amount of$4,000, for property located at 1126 North Brookhurst Street for the Brookhurst Street Widening Project from the I-5 to the SR-91 (R/VV ACQ2013-00436). AGR 5745.2 14. Approve the three Site License Acknowledge Amendment Agreements (Amendments) AGR-5144.2 with T-Mobile and Metro PCS (formerly known as Royal Street Communications) AGR-6728.1 acknowledging Metro PCS's Business Combination Agreement and merger with and into T-Mobile USA and to consent to the terms of the Amendments for with telecommunication facilities located within Ronald Reagan Park (formerly known as Toyon), Riverdale Park, and Manzanita Park. 0182 15. Approve the proposed Five-Year Underground Conversion Plan for Fiscal Years 2015/16 to 2019/20. 16. Approve and adopt the updated Program Procedures for Customer Information Security 0182 (Program) consistent with the Federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act) and authorize and direct the Public Utilities General Manager to implement as well as periodically review and refine the Program to address changes in the FACT Act or successor statute. 0182 17. Approve the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHG Reduction Plan) to be used as a guide for the Public Utilities Department in meeting its goals for greenhouse gas reductions and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager, or designee, to submit the GHG Reduction Plan to the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research and take the necessary actions to implement, update and administer the GHG Reduction Plan. AGR-7810.A 18. Determine that the proposed Amended and Restated Renewable Power Purchase and AGR-7810.1.A Sale Agreement and Amended and Restated Interconnection Agreement with Anaheim Energy LLC are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Sections 15060(c)(3) and 15378(b)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines; approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute said amended agreements and any other related documents, and take any and all actions as are necessary, required, or advisable to implement and administer the amended agreements. 19, Approve the Termination Agreement for wholesale energy services between Portland AGR-9096 General Electric Company and the City of Anaheim, and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute and take the required actions to implement and administer the Termination Agreement, and any other related documents. 20. Determine the San Juan (SJ) Generating Station (SJGS) agreements and the activities AGR-1683.1V and undertakings referenced therein are exempt from the California Environmental AGR-1683.1.A Quality Act under Sections 15060(c)(3) and 15378(b)(4) of Title 14 of the California AGR-1683.V Code of Regulations; approve the San Juan Project Restructuring Agreement, the AGR-1683.1.1 Amended and Restated Mine Reclamation and Trust Funds Agreement (collectively AGR-1683.1.2 Restructuring Agreements), the San Juan Decommissioning and Trust Funds Agreement(Decommissioning Agreement), and the Restructuring Amendment Amending and Restating the Amended and Restated San Juan Project Participation Agreement and the Exit Date Amendment Amending and Restating the Amended and City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 15 of 26 Restated San Juan Project Participation Agreement (collectively Conforming Amendments) each of which is among Public Service Company of New Mexico, Tucson Electric Power Company, Southern California Public Power Authority, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., M-S-R Public Power Agency, the City of Farmington, New Mexico, the Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, the City of Anaheim (Anaheim), and PNMR Development and Management Corporation; authorize and direct the Public Utilities General Manager or designees (collectively GM), to negotiate and finalize a SJGS decommissioning trust funds agreement(Decommissioning Trust Funds Agreement) with an appropriate financial institution consistent with the mandatory provisions of the Decommissioning Agreement; and authorize and direct the GM to execute and deliver the Restructuring Agreements, the Decommissioning Agreement, the Conforming Amendments, and Decommissioning Trust Funds Agreement, all with such changes, insertions, and omissions thereto that are in substantial conformance with the aforesaid agreements as determined by the City Attorney's Office, and any other related documents and instruments necessary or advisable to implement, administer, fund, and carry out Anaheim's responsibilities under the aforesaid agreements, including but not limited to certificates, opinions, disclosures, submittals, reports, and filings, and for the GM and other Anaheim staff, to take any and all actions envisioned by each of the aforesaid agreements in order to facilitate Anaheim's divestiture of its ownership interest in the SJGS. 21. Determine that the Second Amendatory Power Sales Contract between the City of Anaheim and the Intermountain Power Agency (previously approved by City Council on AGR-8000.2 February 25, 2014) and the activities authorized therein are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 22. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-222 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF R100 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, supporting H.R. 2140, the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2015, that would attach human rights conditions to trade and security agreements with Vietnam to promote freedom, human rights, and the rule of law as part of United States-Vietnam Relations. Council Member Vanderbilt recorded an abstention on this item. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES—4:(Mayor Tait and Council Members:Brandman, Kring and Murray) NOES— 0. ABSTENTION; Council Member Vanderbilt. Motion Carried. D175 23. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-223 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM requesting temporary closures to Caltrans 1-5 offramps for Disneyland Half Marathon, 24. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-224 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain interests in real properties (City Deed Nos. 11809, 11810, 11811, 11812, 11813, P124 11814, 11815, 11816, 11817, 11818, 11819, 11820, 11821, 11822, 11823, 11866, 11867, 11868, 11869, 11870 and 11871). P124 25. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-225 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain interests in real properties (City Deed Nos. 11824, 11828, 11854 and 11865). City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 16 of 26 P124 26. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-226 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real properties or interests therein (City Deed Nos. 11859, 11860, 11861, 11862, and 11883). 30. RESOLUTION NO, 2015-230 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF P110 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating three public utility easements located at 1265 Van Buren Street pursuant to California Streets and Highway Code Section 8330, et seq. - Summary Vacation (ABA2015-00312). D154 31. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-231 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2015-173 nunc pro tunc (Unrepresented Part-Time). D114 32. Approve minutes of the Council meeting of May 5, 2015. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR: AGR-9091 6. Approve an employment agreement with Paul Emery for his services as City Manager. The City Attorney stated Mr. Emery left the dais to allow for discussion of his employment contract and Ms. Ridge was available to answer any questions. Council Member Vanderbilt remarked an earlier speaker referred to a provision of the contract regarding outside contract work in the event of a possible lawsuit. Mr. Houston replied that the indemnification section of the contract provided that in the event there was litigation against the city that arose during Mr. Emery's tenure and he subsequently departed, that the city would provide reasonable compensation for him to come back and testify on behalf of the organization. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Kring moved to approve Item No. 6, seconded by Council Member Murray. DISCUSSION: Mayor Tait announced that consistent with his prior vote, he would not vote to approve the employment agreement, specifically because he disagreed with certain recommendations made by the City Manager during his interim service, citing the luxury hotel incentive policy and the recent Disney reimbursement agreement. He stressed his decision was not personal, adding that Mr. Emery was a man of character, but that he fundamentally disagreed with some significant recommendations made. He also objected to the one year severance clause and accumulation of 800 vacation hours and for those reasons, he stated, he would vote against the agreement. Council Member Vanderbilt, offered a revision to the contract and moved to amend the agreement to reduce the severance pay from 12 months to six months, seconded by Mayor Tait. The City Attorney explained that any action taken by Council at this point to amend the agreement must be agreeable to the other party. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES—2: (Mayor Tait and Council Member Vanderbilt). NOES—3: (Mayor Pro Tern Kring and Council Members Brandman and Murray). Motion failed. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Kring then moved to approve Item No. 6 as presented, seconded by Council Member Murray. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES—3: (Mayor Pro Tern Kring and Council City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 17 of 26 Members Brandman and Murray). NOES—2: Mayor Tait and Council Member Vanderbilt. Motion Carried. Mr. Emery returned to the dais. 8. Approve the fiscal year 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and the FY 2015-2016 Annual Action Plan, in the funding total amount of$7,135,671, for federal Community 0155 Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grant(ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons With Aids (HOPWA)funds; and designate the Director of Community Development as the certifying official authorized to execute all documents related to the administration, management and implementation of the CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA programs. John Woodhead, Director of Economic Development introduced Grace Stepter, Housing Programs Manager, who also managed the city's federal grant programs including all of the items in the Consolidated Plan before council. Mr. Woodhead reported staff was requesting approval of the FY 2015/2019 Consolidated Plan and the FY 2015/16 Annual Action Plan for the federal funding received from the US. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) for four major programs: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons With Aids (HOPWA)funds. The funds totaled $7.1 million with these programs used to address critical unmet local needs in the areas of affordable housing, public facilities, infrastructure, economic development and public service. To address public statements made earlier on the fair housing services provider, Mr. Woodhead explained the process. As a CDBG recipient, the City was required to certify to HUD that the city's grant would be administered according to the Fair Housing Act and that the city would work to affirmatively promote fair housing. Those fair housing counseling services were funded by direct grants from HUD to the service providers. He pointed out that given the large number of apartment units in Anaheim as well as distributing over 6,000 vouchers for the Section 8 program, the city understood the importance of these services and decided to augment the direct HUD grants by providing a city subgrant of CDBG funds allocated to a discretionary program administration to ensure the promotion of fair housing, and had done so for a number of years. At the time of the original award two decades ago, there was only one service provider, the Fair Housing Council of Orange County, and that$100,000 administrative contract had been awarded to them. However, over the last several years, a Los Angeles County provider, the Fair Housing Foundation, gradually entered the Orange County market providing services in 21 Los Angeles and Orange County Cities, including Buena Park, Costa Mesa Fullerton, Garden Grove, Hunting Beach, Irvine, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, San Clemente and Tustin. Following good business practices, staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP)for fair housing services with the Fair Housing Council of Orange County and Fair Housing Foundation responding to that RFP. He indicated that in assessing the proposals, staff relied on the evaluation criteria in the RFP, an interview along with extensive reference checks including interviews with several cities that had recently switched service providers. Based upon proposed service levels, the ability to provide detailed case management and demographic data as well as a commitment to establish presence in Anaheim, including an office in the city, the Fair Housing Foundation was selected by staff to be recommended to CDAC. The CDAC in turn considered staff's recommendation at a public hearing in June as part of its consideration of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and recommended Council adopt the plan with an allocation of City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 18 of 26 $100,000 of CDBG funds to be awarded to the Fair Housing Foundation. He added that both agencies had a presence in Orange County, offered similar education and training, and had regular business hours. The Fair Housing Foundation, he pointed out, made a commitment for a more robust presence in the city which staff believed would better serve the residents and reflected the purpose behind augmenting the federal grant. He pointed out this administrative services agreement was to be submitted along with the plan to HUD by July 31, 2015. Regarding the full Consolidated Plan, Mr. Woodhead explained that as a condition of continued funding, HUD required that the city prepare a consolidated plan every five years to identify housing and community development needs, outline strategy to identify those needs and establish the first year implementation of the strategy in the form of an annual action plan. Priority needs were determined through an extensive process that included the review of demographic data and consultations with both community partners and citizen input. During the plan development period staff attended a number of community meetings throughout the city and also obtained community feedback through a survey which was available from February to April 2015. As identified in the Consolidated Plan, the proposed priority needs and goals for the next five years were: preservation and expansion of affordable housing through rehabilitation, production and financial assistance, housing for persons with special needs including excess accessibility needs, assistance for homeless including housing services and homeless prevention, community and public services especially for youth, the elderly, the homeless and persons with disabilities, economic development and antipoverty programs focused primarily upon job training, and career preparation, public facility and infrastructure improvements including neighborhood improvements to neighborhoods, code enforcement and fair housing. The plan and its accompanying documents were published online with copies available in the Economic Development Department and the Anaheim Central Library, noted for a 30 day public comment period ending June 30, 2015. For FY 2015/16 the entitlement budget for the four federal programs was about $7.1 million, and a breakdown of the specific program funding was as follows: CDBG, about $4.2 million; HOME, slightly more than $1 million; ESG, about $377,000; and HOPWA, a little more than $1.5 million. The public hearing held on June 24th, included the Community Development Advisory Committee or CDAC, whose members included the seven members of the neighborhood council districts. In addition to input received, CDAC considered recommendations from the four district neighborhood councils, the Community Services Board and the Housing and Community Development Commission, and reviewed the needs survey received during the public comment period. He emphasized that CDAC again voted to recommend City Council approve the draft Consolidated Plan for consideration this evening. Council Member Vanderbilt stated he pulled this item from the consent calendar to address the public comments offered regarding the Fair Housing Foundation CDBG award, specifically, because the Apartment Association of Orange County and other stakeholders were surprised there was no indication of any issue with the current contractor. Mr. Woodhead reiterated there were two qualified entities providing fair housing services and that staff took the opportunity to initiate the RFP process, that offered a choice to the city and the evaluation was to look at those options and determine which organization would do the best job. Council Member Vanderbilt added that with a deadline to submit this documentation to HUD by July 31St, there was not the ability to continue this item for further review which would have been his preference. He inquired if this was a one year contract with Mr. Woodhead responding it was a five year contract, reviewed each year via the annual action plan and could be reconsidered by Council each year when the annual action plan was submitted. City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 19 of 26 Mayor Tait remarked he was concerned about changing a service provider that had worked well for years and was also concerned that stakeholders, such as the Apartment Association, were not contacted for their feedback. He recognized that many comments were in support of the proposed service provider but felt it was premature to switch at this time and moved to approve the Consolidation Plan while retaining the current contractor, the Fair Housing Council of Orange County. Michael Houston, City Attorney, remarked if changes were to be made to the recommendation, this item would have to return to Council for consideration at a future date. He suggested approving the Consolidated Plan and omitting a provider for that particular line item and in that way HUD's requirements would be satisfied. Direction could then be given to staff to return at a later date for discussion on the selection of the fair housing services provider. Mayor Tait concurred, explaining it would give more time for Council to analyze the information with possible feedback from the stakeholders and to make sure the right decision was being made. Council Member Brandman remarked that members of Council had been contacted on this issue and the first request he had received was that stakeholders be given more time to analyze what had transpired at CDAC through the selection process. He had no issue with approving the plan omitting identification of the fair housing service provider and determining that at a future meeting. Mr. Emery indicated staff would follow up with those interested parties and provide the opportunity for additional dialogue and provide Council with that information and/or schedule any briefings to work through the issues. Mr. Woodhead pointed out that the Fair Housing Foundation and the Fair Housing Council would continue to provide services as they received funds from multiple areas. This action would not eliminate the Fair Housing Council from providing service in the city; it only changed the way in which it was funded. He reiterated that staff believed the Fair Housing Foundation had a stronger proposal, more Anaheim centric, and recognized that Anaheim was providing substantial sums of money and Anaheim residents would realize more service than other cities. Mayor Tait remarked he had some level of discomfort when a nonprofit had been performing well for years and suddenly was not awarded a grant and appreciated additional time for review. Mayor Pro Tern Kring pointed out that the Fair Housing Council had been aware of this process for seven months. She emphasized city boards and commissions provided assistance and direction to the City Council. She added CDAC and CSB worked diligently to identify how these federal monies should be used and she did not think it was fair to second guess their decisions. Mr. Woodhead clarified the point that the CSB looked at different allocations of funding under the CDBG grant, reviewing public service nonprofits and making recommendations on that portion of the grant. This grant was the administrative programming that had been reviewed and vetted through CDAC that included members of the Housing Commission and the four neighborhood council chairs. Council Member Murray remarked there was a procurement process in place and the two respondents had been notified every step of the way. She added if stakeholders were not informed and felt they should be informed, and Council felt it was appropriate to have further discussion with them, she was willing to support that, but to change a seven month process based on stakeholders' feedback, she was not comfortable with. She added when she began getting feedback on this item, she requested copies of the RFP's and found that the difference between the Fair Housing Council and the Fair Housing Foundation scope of work was significant. She also added that the priority should be low income residents looking for housing and how the city could best serve them and it was clear in the RFP that Fair Housing Foundation had more to offer Anaheim residents in contrast to what was provided in the past. City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 20 of 26 Mayor Tait remarked he would just like to find out more about the details and why providers were being changed and if it made sense to him, he would vote for approve. He appreciated the flexibility offered in leaving the provider unnamed to give Council time to digest this information. MOTION: Mayor Tait moved to approve the plan as presented to guarantee the total funding amount, omit the line item related to the program administrator for the federally mandated housing services, and further review said section and return to Council on August 4, 2015, seconded by Council Member Vanderbilt. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES—5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring, Murray and Vanderbilt). NOES—0. Motion Carried. 9. Adopt a seven-year Transportation Capital Improvement Program to fulfill part of the D175 Renewed Measure M eligibility requirements to enable receipt of local formula based funding. Council Member Vanderbilt remarked that one of the items listed in the staff report was related to Anaheim Rapid Connect and discussed advanced engineering, project development, and preliminary engineering which he believed could be considered beyond the environmental analysis requesting clarification on that point before voting on the item. Natalie Meeks responded this was not an application for additional funds but was a required step by OCTA to make sure each city adequately planned their capital improvement programs to maintain infrastructure and growth capacity to be eligible to receive money from Measure M. Part of that agreement, she remarked, was for the city to approve the environmental documentation, authorize staff to move forward, and to have the OCTA board approve and accept the EIR. Alternatively, she stated, the city could request OCTA take over the project and take it into preliminary engineering and funding applications for New Starts programs. She remarked there would be a time after the environmental process and the project was more defined. MOTION: Council Member Murray moved to approve Item No. 9, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Kring. DISCUSSION: Mayor Tait explained he often abstained on OCTA items because his firm had worked with OCTA this past year, however, on this specific matter, and on the advice of the City Attorney, there was no conflict of interest because the adoption of the plan was simply to maintain eligibility for Measure M. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES—5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring, Murray and Vanderbilt. NOES—0. Motion Carried. Item No's 27, 28 and 29, were considered prior to Item No. 6 and were voted on collectively. 27. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-227 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM designating the north side of Kenwood Avenue from East Street to Merona Street, the south side of Kenwood between 1208 Kenwood Avenue D175 and Merona Street, and Norwood Street from Kenwood Avenue northerly to the end of cul-de-sac as Permit Parking Only streets within Permit-Eligible Parking District No. 31 (Kenwood, Norwood, & Candlewood Neighborhood). City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 21 of 26 D175 28. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-228 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM designating northside of Romneya Drive from Baxter Street to 1813 E. Romneya, Warrenton Avenue from Baxter Street to Roxboro Street, west side of Baxter from 1081 N. Baxter Street to Belmont Avenue, and east side of Baxter Street from Warrenton Avenue to Belmont Avenue as Permit Parking Only street within Permit- Eligible Parking District No. 33 (Baxter Romneya). D175 29. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-229 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing Permit-Eligible Parking District No. 39 (Illinois Street) and determine the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Regulation No. 15061(b)(3). Item Nos. 27, 28 and 29 were considered jointly. Mayor Tait stated he would support all three items to provide for permit parking, recognizing the need and the interest of the city to protect the integrity of neighborhoods, adding that the streets were publicly owned. He did not want to impact those neighborhoods in the process, but ultimately, he pointed out, that it made areas without permit parking even more impacted by taking parking off the streets. He added that other options were used in other cities, such as no overnight parking, and he urged staff to continue looking for another solution because he did not feel this policy was sustainable. Mayor Tait then moved to approve: • RESOLUTION NO. 2015-227, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM designating the north side of Kenwood Avenue from East Street to Merona Street, the south side of Kenwood between 1208 Kenwood Avenue and Merona Street, and Norwood Street from Kenwood Avenue northerly to the end of cul-de-sac as Permit Parking Only streets within Permit-Eligible Parking District No. 31 (Kenwood, Norwood, & Candlewood Neighborhood)I; and • RESOLUTION NO. 2015-228, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM designating north side of Romneya Drive from Baxter Street to 1813 E. Romneya, Warrenton Avenue from Baxter Street to Roxboro Street, west side of Baxter from 1081 N. Baxter Street to Belmont Avenue, and east side of Baxter Street from Warrenton Avenue to Belmont Avenue as Permit Parking Only street within Permit-Eligible Parking District No. 33 (Baxter Romneya); and • RESOLUTION NO. 2015-229, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEM establishing Permit Eligible Parking District No. 39 (Illinois Street) and determine the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Regulation No. 15061(b)(3), seconded by Council Member Murray. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES —5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring, Murray and Vanderbilt). NOES—5. Motion Carried 33. Consider appointments to the Community Services Board to fill an unscheduled vacancy 8105 term ending June 30, 2016 and Public Utilities Board to fill an unscheduled vacancy term ending June 30, 2017 (continued from July 7, 2015, Item No. 21). Community Services Board APPOINTMENT: Christine Villeoas (June 30, 2016) (unscheduled vacancy of Grant Henninger) City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 22 of 26 Council Member Brandman nominated Christine Villegas, who was unanimously appointed to the Community Services Board. Public Utilities Board APPOINTMENT: Abdulmaqeed Abdulrahman "AB" (June 30, 2017) (unscheduled vacancy of Vincent"Chip" Monaco) Mayor Pro Tern Kring nominated "AB"Abdulrahman to the Public Utilities Board and Council Member Murray nominated Ernesto Medrano. Straw vote for Mr. Medrano reflected Ayes -2: Council Members Murray and Brandman. ABSTENTION —3: (Mayor Tait and Council Members Kring and Vanderbilt. Straw vote for Mr. Abdulrahman reflected AYES—5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring, Murray and Vanderbilt). Mr. Abdulrahman was appointed to the Public Utilities Board. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 34. This is a public hearing to consider an ordinance granting a non-exclusive franchise to F130.2 Center of the Universe LLC for transportation services within and around the City of Anaheim Packing District. ORDINANCE NO. 6336 (INTRODUCTION) AN (UN-CODIFIED) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM granting a non-exclusive franchise to Center of the Universe LLC for transportation services within and around the City of Anaheim Packing District and stating the terms and conditions upon which said franchise is granted based upon the finding and determination that said ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 21080(b)(10) of the California Public Resources Code. This public hearing was considered at 8:01 P.M. Natalie Meeks, Public Works Director, reported the project applicant, Center of the Universe LLC was requesting approval of a franchise agreement with the city to operate a trolley bus service between the Packing District and public parking facilities, shops and restaurants along Center Street Promenade. On June 16, the Council approved the franchise application submitted by the applicant and a temporary agreement and scheduled a public hearing on this night to consider the franchise agreement. She reported, if the ordinance was introduced tonight and adopted on August 4th, the franchise would become effective by the beginning of September. The proposed trolley service would shuttle patrons between the public parking facilities and other points along Center Street Promenade, including the Muzeo, several restaurants and shops, and the Packing District; she added the trolley would operate a free service from noon to midnight on Friday and from noon to 9 pm on Sunday. On others days, Ms. Meeks stated, the trolley could be available for a fee or for private parties. The route would include five stops and pick up passengers every 15 minutes with the first stop being the Packing House on Claudina Street, which would be a designated bus stop when the trolley was operating; she advised other vehicles cold park in this spot when the trolley service was not in operation. The second stop would be on Center Street Promenade in front of the Good Food restaurant, the next in front of Rinks, and the trolley would then go around the circle and head east on Center Street Promenade with a stop in front of St. Josephs Health Care, with its final stop being near the Muzeo. The trolley would then head back to the Packing House, City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 23 of 26 The franchise agreement was proposed for an initial term of seven years with one year extensions subject to the City Manager's approval, based on the trolley service meeting the terms of the franchise agreement, including following the trolley route approved by the city and payment of an annual $1 franchise fee. Staff supported the proposed franchise agreement as it would enhance circulation in City Center by providing convenient and frequent connections between the public parking facilities and other uses along Center Street Promenade and the Packing District. Council Member Vanderbilt wondered how the trolley would operate during Farmer's Market or other special events. Ms. Meeks responded the trolley would operate on the weekend in the afternoon and evening hours and would not conflict with the Farmer's Market; if there was a special event such as the Art Crawl that closed the street, staff would work with the trolley provider and either discontinue the service that evening or reroute the trolley. Council Member Murray asked how the word would get out to the community and would the city be assisting with signage and marking the stop areas. Staff responded signage would be placed to direct visitors to the Center Street parking lots and social media would be used to make sure the public understood where the preferred parking was located. Once there, the trolley would be available for those who did not care to walk and would circulate every 15 minutes. Mayor Tait opened the public hearing for comments, inviting the applicant to speak first. Linda Sadeghi, Center of the Universe LLC, remarked she and her husband, Shaheen, were small business owners on Center Street Promenade and also a managing partner with the Anaheim Packing District. In recognition of the challenge to finding an open parking space, they sought a solution and purchased a used trolley from the city of Long Beach. It was mechanically ready to operate, had been outfitted for riders, and would add entertainment value to the task of finding ample parking. She intended to send advertisement postcards to about 5,000 immediate residents to get the word out and identify the starting hours of noon to midnight on Saturday night, and noon to 9:00 PM on Sunday night, as a trial to see how those hours worked with the public. William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, was concerned with political donations made to City Council members and suggested a one year contract on a trial basis for extension if the trolley system worked. Gretchen Shoemaker remarked there was not enough space for parking at the Packing House, even with valet service. She believed a free trolley ride for visitors who could park in the downtown area was a great solution. With no other remarks offered, Mayor Tait closed public hearing portion of the meeting. Mayor Tait remarked there was parking available in the downtown but it was difficult to figure it out and this service would not only take visitors from the parking lot to destinations, it would also connect Center Street, an area that was doing well. He appreciated the Packing District solving their own problem with their own funds and making this service part of the experience of coming downtown. Council Member Murray remarked the Packing House and the city in partnership with Center of the Universe LLC, was a successful example of public/private partnerships with the city providing the land and helping with renovation costs and the Packing District bringing in a mixture of restaurants that made a difference in the downtown and would now spread out to the Promenade. She stressed that she hoped to bring a successful venture to the west end of the city as well. City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 24 of 26 MOTION: Council Member Murray moved to introduce ORDINANCE No. 6336 an uncodified ordinance of the City Council of the City of Anaheim granting a non-exclusive franchise to Center of the Universe LLC for transportation services within and around the City of Anaheim Packing District and stating the terms and conditions upon which said franchise is granted based upon the finding and determination that said ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 21080(b)(10) of the California Public Resources Code, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Kring. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES—5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring, Murray and Vanderbilt. NOES—0. Motion Carried and Ordinance No. 6336 was introduced. 35. This is a public hearing to adopt an ordinance repealing Chapters 6.05, 15.03 and 16.08 and adding new Chapter 15.03 to Title 15 and new Chapter 16.08 to Title 16 of the M142 Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the California Building Standards Codes and the California Fire Code, respectively. Determine that the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. ORDINANCE NO. 6334 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM repealing existing Chapter 6.05 pertaining to public safety radio system coverage, repealing Chapter 15.03 and adding new Chapter 15.03 to Title 15 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the California Building Standards Codes, and repealing existing Chapter 16.08 and adding new Chapter 16.08 to Title 16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the California Fire Code (Introduced at the May 19, 2015, Item No. 37). David Belmer, Director of Planning and Building, reported this was the second reading and final adoption of Anaheim's new building code, the 2013 California Building and Standards Code. The building codes and fire codes were adopted into a single ordinance to facilitate its implementation and all of these subject specific codes were included by reference in the ordinance presented for council's consideration. The codes were mandated by the state and also served to ensure buildings were safe to occupy and provided consistency throughout the building process and also made it easier and faster for those trying to navigate the system by setting clear standards. He noted codes were generally adopted in three year cycles and highlighted a few of the changes: an improved alignment of the state and federal ADA handicap requirements, an expansion of the applicability of the CALGreen Code, and indoor water reduction requirements. He added that the state allowed municipalities to adopt local amendments and staff recommended amendments only required addressing important issues affected by local climatic, geological and topographic conditions. He indicated staff was implementing these codes every day mostly through the building and fire departments to ensure public safety. He recognized the codes were technical in nature adding that staff worked with all customers to make sure code compliance process was easy and clear to understand. Staff recommended adoption of this ordinance that was introduced on May 19th Mayor Tait opened the public hearing for comments. William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, objected to the amendments, stating they were not business friendly. City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 25 of 26 With no other remarks offered, Mayor Tait closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Council Member Vanderbilt confirmed that as far as any new requirements and their impact on existing businesses or residents, if a property was not in compliance, it was categorized as non- conforming and allowed to continue to operate unless there was a change that mandating compliance with the new codes. Mayor Tait asked why the change in the high rise definition from 55 feet to 75 feet with Fire Marshal responding that the change had been looked at countywide with other fire marshals and with all the protection measures currently in the building code, lowering the high rise definition to 55 feet was not necessary. Mayor Tait added that keeping the code in alignment with the state had a business friendly effect. MOTION: Council Member Brandman moved to determine that the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6334, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM repealing existing Chapter 6.05 pertaining to public safety radio system coverage, repealing Chapter 15.03 and adding new Chapter 15.03 to Title 15 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the California Building Standards Codes, and repealing existing Chapter 16.08 and adding new Chapter 16.08 to Title 16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the California Fire Code, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Kring. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES --5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Kring, Murray and Vanderbilt). NOES—0. Motion Carried and Ordinance No. 6334 was adopted. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: None COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Mayor Pro Tern Kring announced the Anaheim Police Department's 32nd Annual National Night Out crime prevention celebration to be held on August 4 at Stoddard Park and spoke about the visit of City Councilor Wayne Smith from Casey, Australia, to learn about Anaheim's form of city government and how it functioned, specifically interested in the graffiti abatement program and the drought response. She also attended the July 4th parade and celebration, the visit of the Dalai Lama attending a breakfast in his honor, the grand opening of the Brooks Sandwich Shop and lastly the Community Care Response Unit event, sponsored by Kaiser Permanente. Council Member Brandman highlighted the events of the EID Festival, the 4th of July Parade, and the 100 Chances event. He also attended the Special Olympics torch run ceremony at Downtown Disney joined by many stakeholders from all over southern California. Council Member Murray spoke of the 100 Chances program, a new mentoring program for at risk youths in the city, announced the Town Hall meeting regarding the Homeless Shelter on July 22nd at the Eastside Christian Church, and welcomed the delegations from Canada and Senegal for the 2015 Special Olympics. Council Member Vanderbilt spoke of his attendance at July 4th Parade and Celebration, the 100 Chances event, the EID Festival and the Special Olympics Torch Run Ceremony. Mayor Tait spoke of the Special Olympic Torch Run Ceremony and the work and effort by police officers and sheriff to make that occasion special. He mentioned the EID Festival and the visit by the Dalai Lama on July 5th to celebrate his 80th birthday and council hosting an event for our mayors and elected officials, school board members and business leaders. He discussed the City Council Minutes of July 21,2015 Page 26 of 26 million acts of kindness performed by students and its impact on surrounding cities to follow up with that goal. Mayor Tait remarked he would adjourn this meeting in memory of three year old Stephanie Martinez, who suffered a tragic accident while on vacation in Anaheim. ADJOURNMENT: With no other business to conduct, Mayor Tait adjourned the July 21, 2015 meeting at 9:06 P.M. in memory of Stephanie Martinez. -sp- tfully submitted, Linda N. Andal, CMC City Clerk