City of Redwood City

City Council Minutes June 22, 1998

REDWOOD CITY CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR DIANE HOWARD
VICE MAYOR IRA RUSKIN

CITY COUNCIL
COUNCILMEMBER RICHARD S. CLAIRE
COUNCILMEMBER JIM HARTNETT
COUNCILMEMBER JEFF IRA
COUNCILMEMBER MATT LEIPZIG
COUNCILMEMBER IAN BAIN  

CLOSED SESSION

CONFERENCE ROOM 2b

JUNE 22, 1998

1. CALL TO ORDER - 6:45 p.m., Mayor Howard presiding

2. ROLL CALL

Council Members Present: Bain, Claire, Hartnett, Ira, Leipzig, Ruskin and Mayor Howard

Council Members Absent: None

Staff Present: City Manager Everett, City Attorney Schricker, Human Resources Director Rivera-Pena, Battalion Chief Steve Cavallero, and Julia Carroll of ABAG.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT - None

4. SUBJECT

A. Conference with Legal Counsel regarding pending litigation according to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) was held.

Number of cases: Two workers Compensation claims

Case names unspecified: Disclosure would jeopardize settlement negotiations

5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION: 7:25 p.m.

6. REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY: None

7. ADJOURNMENT

After motion duly made, seconded and carried the Meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m.

Ed Everett

City Manager

 

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER

REGULAR MEETING

JUNE 22, 1998

 

CALL TO ORDER - 7:34 p.m., Mayor Howard presiding

 

ROLL CALL

Council Members Present: Bain, Claire, Hartnett, Ira, Leipzig, Ruskin and Mayor Howard

Council Members Absent: None

Staff Present: City Manager Everett, City Attorney Schricker, City Clerk Jorgenson, Public Works Services Director Ingram and Superintendent Rosas, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Superintendent Centeno and Supervisors Gibbons and Gonzalez, Community Development Director Nelson, Engineering and Construction Manager Patterson, Community Development Services Supervisor Jones-Thomas, Economic Development Specialist Michael Cady, and Police Officer Granado

 

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Council Member Hartnett

 

INVOCATION: Reverend James Anderson

Messiah Lutheran Church

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (207)

A. Proclamation proclaiming July, 1998 as Parks and Recreation Month in Redwood City;

(207)

Mayor Howard read the Proclamation and presented it to Chairperson of the Park and Recreation Commission Pauline Truscelli and Members Bob Slusser and Tom Davis. Mrs. Truscelli said it was particularly appropriate that this Proclamation be given this evening, as this was the first day of many of the Park and Recreation Department’s Summer Programs. Chairperson Truscelli said the programs provided a wonderful range of summer activities for Redwood City’s youth, and also provided summer jobs for 45 young people from the community. She thanked the Council and said, "You make it happen."

Chairperson Truscelli invited everyone to attend the tree planting ceremony in honor of Alex Meyer, Chairman of the Senior Advisory Council, at 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 24, 1998, near the tennis courts next to the Community Activities Building. She also invited everyone to attend the wonderful Flea Market this Saturday, June 27, 1998 at the Veterans Memorial Senior Center and to visit the Gift Shop. She introduced Parks, Recreation and Community Services Superintendent Centeno, liaison to the Commission, and thanked her for her great support.

MEMO 6/23/98

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mayor Howard recessed the Council Meeting at 7:41 p.m. in order to call to order the Concurrent Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting and the Special Redevelopment Agency Meeting immediately following the Concurrent Meeting.

 

The Council Meeting reconvened at 7:53 p.m.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (203)

A. Public Works Services Director Ingram introduced Alexandra Tabova, a Foreign Exchange Student from Bulgaria staying with his family, and who was at the Council Meeting "to observe your Meeting and to go home with some impressions of how local government works in the United States." Mayor Howard welcomed Alexandra to the United States and Redwood City.

MEMO 6/23/98

2. Robert Slusser, representing Peninsula Celebration Association, advised the Council that the Association had applied for an amendment to its permit for the Fourth of July Festival to extend its hours from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Friday, July 3. He said he had attended a January meeting of the Downtown Business Group and asked how the PCA could assist the Group in achieving its goals for downtown Redwood City. Mr. Slusser said the Downtown Business Group has asked to hold its second "Redwood City Comes Alive" celebration on July 3 under the auspices of the PCA permit. He said the plans included great music and live entertainment, fantastic food, and surprises. Mr. Slusser said that if the request was granted he wanted to be the first to invite everyone to the second edition of "Redwood City Comes Alive", and promised everyone would have a great time.

MEMO 6/23/98

C. Jeff Filippi, 627 Middlefield Road, representing "Music is Instrumental" and the Veterans Memorial Senior Center, invited everyone to attend the "Hot Summer Nights Dinner Dance," July 10, 1998 at the Veterans Memorial Senior Center to raise funds for the Center’s programs and the purchase of computer education equipment. Dr. Filippi said Pauline and Vince Truscelli were helping with this event, and his 17-piece band would be making its debut at the dinner dance. Dr. Filippi said that the "Music is Instrumental" program had received 53 of the 80 instruments they needed to raise the program to the next

level. He said the 53 instruments represented over $15,000 worth of instruments if the School District had to buy them. He said they needed violins and trumpets, and all donated instruments were tax deductible. Dr. Filippi submitted flyers of the event.

3. Dr. Alex Peros, 1817 Madison Avenue, told the Council that his father had passed away last November, and thanked the Redwood City Fire Department for their very kind assistance during his father’s illness.

Dr. Alex Peros described in graphic detail the problems and the damage that he and his neighbors were experiencing due to the alleged "shoddy" work of the contractor who the City had hired to construct the new Madison Avenue Sewer Project. Dr. Peros said one of the most serious problems was raw sewage in the street, on lawns and in some cases, inside homes. He said the damage to landscaping had been severe, and the contractor’s attempt to repair it was totally inadequate and sometimes more damaging. Dr. Peros submitted pictures of some of the damage the neighborhood had endured, and the letter he read to the Council describing the damage. He also described alleged "shoddy" work done by the same contractor on repaving streets in his neighborhood two years ago, and said the City Manager had not replied to his complaints made at that time. Dr. Peros said he believed the problem was the City Manager’s insistence on awarding the contract to the lowest bidder and asked for his resignation.

Mayor Howard extended the Council’s sympathies at the loss of Dr. Peros’ father, acknowledged the seriousness of this situation as he described it, and said the Council would look into his complaints right away.

MEMO 6/23/98

Vice Mayor Ruskin, Chair of the Council Utilities Committee, asked that staff provide information to the Committee regarding these complaints. He said the Committee would keep the Council informed.

MEMO 6/23/98

D. Patrice Bernard, 1103-B Madison Avenue, read a letter signed by her husband, Mark, and herself, which also chronicled the damage done to her property by the contractors for the Madison Avenue Sewer Project and the past repaving project. She submitted the letter for the record, and said she would soon be submitting a claim to the City for the damage. Mrs. Bernard said she agreed that insistence on the lowest bid was the root of the problem.

Vice Mayor Ruskin said this situation was very troubling, and he assured everyone that the Utilities Committee would look into this matter.

Mayor Howard explained that the Redwood City Charter requires that the City accept the lowest responsible bid, and that usually does not present a problem. She said that unfortunately situations like this can arise, and she also assured everyone that this matter would be reviewed right away.

MEMO 6/23/98

 

E. Jerry Rexroth, 1034 Madison Avenue, also addressed the problems and damage caused by the contractors for the Madison Avenue Sewer Project. He said he owned the property at 1320 Madison and his tenants had experienced severe problems with raw sewage in their home. He asked that the City send street sweepers to Madison Avenue as there were piles of debris still in the streets.

MEMO 6/23/98

City Attorney Schricker requested Mr. Rexroth to submit information as to the period of time in which the damage he described occurred. City Manager Everett advised the Council that he would submit a complete report on this matter.

MEMO 6/23/98

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. CONSENT CALENDAR

Council Member Leipzig referred to item 3.D., hiring a consultant for the Woodside Road Widening Project, and said the timeline cited in the Staff Report was two and a half years. He said he understood it was a State Highway, but "We need that Road widened tomorrow, actually yesterday" and asked if there was anything the City could do to shorten the estimated time of completion. Council Member Leipzig suggested that the City work with State Representatives Sher and Lempert to get CalTrans to move the project up. (304)

In response to Council Member Leipzig’s comments, City Manager Everett described the lengthy process and said, "We lose almost a full year in what (CalTrans) calls a Project Study Report and Need for Clearance." He said City staff will sit down with CalTrans and members of the Council to see what can be done. City Manager Everett said he was not optimistic, but promised that City staff would push hard on this issue. He said the Transportation Authority had agreed to pay the $158,000 consulting engineering services because it wants the project done as well. Mayor Howard said the TA was pleased with the City’s leadership and the staff’s actions had helped secure the funding.

MEMO 6/23/98

M/S: LEIPZIG/RUSKIN WAIVE READING OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR, EXCEPT THE ORDINANCE TITLE, ADOPT THE RESOLUTIONS AND THE ORDINANCE, AND APPROVE OTHER ITEMS:

ADOPTED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS IRA AND LEIPZIG VOTING ‘NO’ ON ITEM 3.C. AND COUNCIL MEMBER BAIN ABSTAINING FROM ITEM 3.I. DUE TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

A. Approve the Minutes of the June 8, 1998 Closed Session and Regular Council Meeting, and the June 10, 1998 Interview Session as submitted;

MINUTE ORDER NO. 98-155

B. Approve Task Order No. 1 to the agreement with Vali-Cooper and Associates for additional Construction Management, Inspection and Testing Services, in an amount not to exceed $182,000; (Jefferson Underpass) (100)

MINUTE ORDER NO. 98-156

C. Approve the recommendation of the Housing and Human Concerns Committee to fund the Teen Pregnancy Coalition at $10,000 for fiscal year 1998/99; (304,404)

MINUTE ORDER NO. 98-157

D. RESOLUTION NO. 13361 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE WOODSIDE ROAD WIDENING PROJECT (MARK THOMAS & CO., INC.); (304)

E. RESOLUTION NO. 13362 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE REDWOOD CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE SAN CARLOS POLICE DEPARTMENT (Swat Team); (905)

F. RESOLUTION NO. 13363 APPROVING AND ACCEPTING PARCEL MAP NO. 98-4; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF INTENT TO CREATE A PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT; AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE SAID MAP FOR RECORDATION (Bradford Street Parking Lot); (606)

G. RESOLUTION NO. 13364 ACCEPTING BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2) LEAF VACUUMS; AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF PURCHASE DOCUMENTS THEREFOR (Municipal Maintenance Equipment); (304)

H. RESOLUTION NO. 13365 APPROVING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RUBBERIZED RAILROAD CROSSINGS IN THE CITIES OF BURLINGAME, SAN MATEO AND REDWOOD CITY; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS THEREFOR; (304)

I. RESOLUTION NO. 13366 APPROVING APPLICATION FOR FUNDING OF POLICE ACTIVITIES LEAGUE ("PAL"), "IMPROVE THROUGH ADVANCE" PROGRAM; AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 13344; (706)

J. RESOLUTION NO. 13367 ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF AGREEMENT FOR THE RECEIPT OF FUNDING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS FOR THE REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF ABANDONED VESSELS WITHIN THE WATERWAYS OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY AND APPOINTING THE PORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PORT MANAGER) TO BE THE CITY'S DESIGNEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT; (509)

K. ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR 1998 RUBBER CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL PROJECTS; (304)

1) RESOLUTION NO. 13368 APPROVING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE ASPHALT RUBBER CHIP SEAL PROJECT 1998; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS THEREFOR;

2) RESOLUTION NO. 13369 APPROVING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE SLURRY SEAL PROJECT 1998; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS THEREFOR;

L. NOVEMBER 3, 1998 SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION (307)

1) RESOLUTION NO. 13370 CALLING SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO TO CONSOLIDATE ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 3, 1998;

2) RESOLUTION NO. 13371 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FOR CERTAIN SERVICES RELATING TO SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 3, 1998;

3) AUTHORIZE CITY CLERK TO COLLECT AND DEPOSIT AN ADVANCE DEPOSIT FROM EACH CANDIDATE WHO WISHES TO SUBMIT AND HAVE PUBLISHED A CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT ($300 EACH FOR ENGLISH AND SPANISH, IF DESIRED, FOR ACTUAL COSTS ONLY; WITH AN ADDITIONAL $50 NON-REFUNDABLE CHARGE FOR TRANSLATION SERVICES.);

MINUTE ORDER NO. 98-158

M. RESOLUTION NO. 13372 AMENDING EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 12622 RELATING TO THE SALARY AND WAGE PLAN FOR EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATIONS REPRESENTED BY THE REDWOOD CITY MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, BY REVISING THE SALARY FOR THE POSITIONS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANALYST I, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANALYST II, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGER AND SENIOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANALYST; (905)

N. ORDINANCE NO. 2144 APPROPRIATING SPECIFIED AMOUNTS FROM DESIGNATED UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCES TO SPECIFIED APPROPRIATIONS, CANCELING CERTAIN APPROPRIATIONS, AND TRANSFERRING SPECIFIED AMOUNTS FROM DESIGNATED APPROPRIATIONS TO OTHER SPECIFIED APPROPRIATIONS; (1st Reading on June 8, 1998); (501)

O. Approve warrants dated through June 29, 1998; APPROVED

 

 

P. Reject claims of Robin Carter, No. 1667; Martha Reber, No. 1668 and Olivia Medina, No. 1669; (303)

MINUTE ORDER NO. 98-159

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

None

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. BOARDS, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

None

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. PUBLIC HEARING - Seaport Centre Maintenance District - Levying Assessments; Overruling protests, if any, approving, confirming and adopting the Engineer's Report, and ordering Special Benefit Assessments to be levied and collected for Seaport Centre Maintenance District, FY 1998-99 and 1999-2000; (507)

Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing on file in City Clerk Department.

1. Staff report;

REPORT: Peter Vorametsanti, Senior Civil Engineer, June 22, 1998

Joel Patterson, Manager, Engineering and Construction, presented the staff report and said no increase in assessments were planned. He said the funds are used for maintenance of the storm water system, water system, drainage system and the levees.

2. Open public hearing;

Mayor Howard declared the public hearing open at 8:20 p.m.

3. Hear public comment;

Mayor Howard asked if anyone wished to address this issue. No one came forward.

4. Close public hearing;

M/S: RUSKIN/IRA TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:21 P.M.

MINUTE ORDER NO. 98-160

5. Council action;

M/S: IRA/RUSKIN. TITLE READ.

RESOLUTION NO. 13373 OVERRULING PROTESTS, APPROVING, CONFIRMING AND ADOPTING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT, AND ORDERING SPECIFIC BENEFIT ASSESSMENT TO BE LEVIED AND COLLECTED - SEAPORT CENTRE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (FISCAL YEARS 1998-99 AND 1999-2000)

ADOPTED BY UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. PUBLIC HEARING - INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE - Amendment of Sewer Service Charges - Introduction of Ordinance amending chapter 27 of the Code of the City of Redwood City relating to sanitary sewerage services fees and providing for refunds thereof, respectively; (802)

Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing on file in City Clerk Department.

1. Staff report;

REPORT: Manuel Rosas, Public Works Superintendent, June 22, 1998

Vice Mayor Ruskin, Chair of the Council Utilities Committee, spoke to both the sewer and water proposals scheduled for public hearings this evening. He said it was the unanimous recommendation of the Utilities Committee (Council Members Claire, Ira and himself) to increase the service charges by the modest amount proposed. He said that Council policy supported the requirement that revenue must equal expenses in both funds, and the proposed increase would cover the increased costs. Vice Mayor Ruskin said that the Committee had previously recommended to Council, and Council approved, that the City "look into creating a variable rate charge for the sewerage charges, the same as we have for the water charges. The purpose of that, of course, is to allow people who need to and want to and can effectively conserve, to be able to pay lower rates than those who do not. It is also a way of helping people such as seniors on fixed incomes to better adjust to the utility charges."

Vice Mayor Ruskin said that the Utilities Committee also recommended a small increase in water charges "for much the same reason. It is our Council policy that the basic service charges reflect the exact amount of the fixed overhead which includes labor as well as other costs."

Vice Mayor Ruskin said the City is expecting steep increases from the City’s water supplier, San Francisco Water, in the near future. He said to avoid charges that increase dramatically one year followed by a dramatic decrease the next, the Utility Committee tried to seek a balance over the next few years based on the expected long term increases proposed by San Francisco Water.

Public Works Services Director Ingram said it had been three years since the Council had changed the current sewer charge. He said the proposal was for a 2% increase in the monthly basic service charge from $16.92 to $17.25 per month, which is about 33 cents per month per household. Director Ingram said there were many factors in the sewer fund that influence the final bill, including the cost of treatment at the City’s subregional treatment facility, SBSA. He said SBSA’s costs had gone up this year due to increased operating costs and treatment costs, and the City’s costs had also gone up due to the growth of the system. Director Ingram said accrued overtime was driven by a higher level of service calls on weekends and evenings. He said there were also one-time costs included in the proposal for rate studies, mapping systems and technical work on some regulatory issues.

Public Works Services Director Ingram described the scenarios the Utility Committee considered including, "what it would cost to pay bonds back if we were to do that." He said the current proposal was for one year, and next year at this time, staff would have completed the rate structure proposal and a new way of billing for services, including variable rates.

In response to Council Member Leipzig’s questions, Director Ingram said the total sewer revenue last year was $8.37 million and with the proposed increase revenues would be $8.6 million, FY 1998-99. He said the rules that govern Enterprise Funds require that revenues equal expenditures, and the proposed adjustment would keep the Fund in balance.

Vice Mayor Ruskin said that Council Policy as well as State Law requires revenues to cover expenditures.

2. Open public hearing;

Mayor Howard declared the public hearing open at 8:31 p.m.

3. Hear public comment;

Pete Hughes, 18 Admiralty Court, spoke to both issues, the proposed sewer and water rate increases. He said although they were both Enterprise Funds, the purpose of such Funds was to "keep down expenses not to drive up costs." Mr. Hughes said he was not a proponent of Enterprise Funds, and "this was not just a little tax increase. And that’s what it is, a tax increase. You can’t look at it any other way. I don’t care if there is a service provided." He drew an analogy with fire protection services and said it was the same thing with sewer and water. Mr. Hughes said the proposed sewage increase amounted to $230,000 and over two years water charges would increase 7% and over four years it would increase by 11%. He said that the water increase amounted to

about $500,000 over that period. Mr. Hughes suggested that the City use revenues from new hotels and hotel expansion, about $250,000, to cover the proposed sewer and water charges.

MEMO 6/23/98

Mayor Howard asked if anyone else wished to speak. No one came forward.

4. Close public hearing;

M/S: LEIPZIG/HARTNETT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE AND HEARING CLOSED AT 8:36 P.M.

MINUTE ORDER NO. 98-161

5. Council action;

In response to Council Member Claire’s comments, Director Ingram described the variable costs proposed for the sewer fund, including costs that are beyond the direct control and purview of the Council. He said, "The primary variable cost in the sewer activity is the treatment of all of our effluence by SBSA." Council Member Claire said the actual increase, influenced by that variable as well as others, amounted to $470,000 over the next budget period. He said the City was not passing along that whole amount to the consumer, and was trying to hold the line on expenses. Council Member Claire said that the intent of Proposition 13 was to have users pay for what they used, and the City had done a good job in keeping rates low by lowering costs in other areas.

Council Member Ira, member of the Council Utilities Committee, said the Committee had tried to plan sewage rates and expenses over a four-year period. He said they tried to reach a balance so that people wouldn’t be significantly inconvenienced during certain years. He said, "I love Enterprise Funds, and wish we had more of them, because they are the only Funds where we can truly measure the revenues and the services provided to make them equal. I wish we had more to work with in the City."

Council Member Bain said that State law requires the City to balance revenues and expenditures in Enterprise Funds, and asked if other anticipated revenues suggested by Mr. Hughes could be used in those Funds.

City Attorney Schricker said, "the law requires that you project your costs because we budget on a fiscal year basis, and consequently the projected revenues have to be based on estimated costs." City Attorney Schricker described the sewage variable costs controlled by SBSA. He said the law did not allow the City to single out a specific user to pay increased expenses.

MEMO 6/23/98

City Manager Everett said the expected new Transit Occupancy Taxes paid by hotels have been apportioned in the budget to pay for the City’s new police officers.

MEMO 6/23/98

Council Member Claire advised that Mr. Hughes’ proposal would be "an absolute violation of Proposition 13."

MEMO 6/23/98

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE – FIRST READING.

M/S: IRA/RUSKIN. TITLE READ.

ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 27.100 OF, AND ADDING SECTION 27.106 TO, CHAPTER 27 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY RELATING TO SANITARY SEWERAGE SERVICES FEES AND PROVIDING FOR REFUNDS THEREOF, RESPECTIVELY

CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS BAIN, CLAIRE, HARTNETT, IRA, RUSKIN AND MAYOR HOWARD

NOES; COUNCIL MEMBER LEIPZIG

MINUTE ORDER NO. 98-162

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. PUBLIC HEARING - INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE - Amendment of Water Basic Service Charges - Introduction of Ordinance amending Chapter 38 of the Code of the City of Redwood City relating to water service charges and fees and providing for refunds thereof, respectively; (802)

Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing on file in City Clerk Department.

1. Staff report;

REPORT: Manuel Rosas, Public Works Superintendent, June 22, 1998

Public Works Services Director Ingram presented the Staff Report and said that previous Councils in 1992 and 1993 had established a "fairly concise Council policy for the way the Water Fund would be operated as a business." He said it was a significant overhaul of both the practices and the policies of the Water Fund. Director Ingram said water revenues were collected in two ways: The City sells water at varying rates that go up based on use; and that money is used to pay San Francisco PUC and for power and other costs that are beyond the City’s control. Director Ingram said the basic monthly charge at the meter is a direct connector to the costs that are required to operate and maintain the water system. He said, "We are required to balance those two pieces of the equation on an annual basis."

Director Ingram said the overhaul about five years ago changed a troubled system into a well-controlled program with a $2 million emergency reserve and a $2 million per year planned capital improvement program. He said the Council was being asked to act upon that part of the program it directly controlled, the rates. Director Ingram said the Utilities Committee’s recommendation covers the next four years based on what is known about future costs. He said those costs were averaged over four years and resulted in a proposed 3.5% increase. Director Ingram said rather than have the rate go up and down from year to year, the Committee recommended that the City establish "a cost of business increase per year of 3.5%."

Director Ingram said, "This is also the third full year since you have adjusted this item in your water service charges. We have held the line for three years, and to make sure that your Fund is healthy for the next several years out, this increase is required." He said the proposal would result in an increase from $9.10 per month to $9.42 per month, or a 32-cent increase per month. He said that at the same time, "the projected rates from San Francisco on a wholesale level to us… will go down next year by almost 12%, increase 26% the year after that, they will increase 22% in the third year, and are projected to increase 8% in the fourth year, for an average increase of 11% per year over the next four years. That is completely out of this Council and every other Council and Board of Director's control who buys water from them." Director Ingram said the "real driver for this (increase) is a long delayed and much needed capital improvement program of the Hetch Hetchy water delivery system." He said that the City supported the proposed improvements, but, "The real dilemma is whether San Francisco is going to be able to deliver those improvements in a way that we get tangible results for the money we will be paying through our rates…. The Bay Area Water Users is actively watching out for your interests in that respect."

Director Ingram said that a household using 20 units of water per billing period, twice the Lifeline use, the average increase would be about 1.5% on the bill, from $43.60 to $44.24 for two months.

In response to Mayor Howard’s questions regarding an appeal process for someone who felt it was unfair or unjustified, Director Ingram said there were no plans for an appeal process at this time, but suggested that this public hearing was the vehicle for people to bring their concerns to Council. He said the Council will set the rates after this public hearing. Director Ingram described the very strong conservation program that the Public Works Services Department provides to everyone who is interested, including going to customer’s homes to help in landscaping and home use conservation.

2. Open public hearing;

Mayor Howard declared the public hearing open at 8:50 p.m.

3. Hear public comment;

Pete Hughes, 18 Admiralty Court, said that someone said, "democracy fails when good men sit back and do nothing." He said, "All I’m really interested in is that we really look at it and we say, that’s a tax increase. That’s more money that we are spending for government services. And why that should be when this country is in the midst of probably its most prosperous period ever. Why we should be increasing taxes on the people of Redwood City, and why we have a roomful of people and I’m the only one who seems to object to paying this little bit extra in taxes, is beyond me."

Mayor Howard asked if anyone else wished to speak to this issue. No one came forward.

4. Close public hearing;

M/S: LEIPZIG/IRA TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE AND HEARING CLOSED AT 8:51 P.M.

MINUTE ORDER NO. 98-163

5. Council action;

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE

M/S: HARTNETT/IRA. TITLE READ.

ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 38.5 AND 38.10 OF, AND ADDING ARTICLE V TO CHAPTER 38 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY RELATING TO WATER SERVICE CHARGES AND FEES AND PROVIDING FOR REFUNDS THEREOF, RESPECTIVELY

Council Member Hartnett thanked the Utilities Committee for its hard work on this issue, and said he had every confidence that the Committee had been diligent in attempting to minimize any increase for the people of Redwood City while maintaining an efficient system. He said, "While I think it is reasonable, philosophically, to take the position that every time the City charges for something that it is a tax, that’s based upon an assumption that other sources of revenues, other taxes, will take care of the costs of the service being provided. That is simply not the case here. In fact, there aren’t other taxes that are devoted to paying costs of the water that we must purchase… Not only do I disagree with the characterization of the charges as a tax, I disagree with what appears to me to be the assumption on which that argument is based. I think it is a very good argument for other kinds of charges."

Council Member Claire said that the cost presented to the City by other agencies is going up, and the alternative is to stop doing maintenance and stop capital improvements. He said the City had pipes in the ground that were 100 years old, and they needed to be replaced. He said this was a business situation where costs were going up, over which the City had no control, and the alternatives to a small increase, such as lowered maintenance and capital improvements, would have a detrimental effect on the people who use the system.

Vice Mayor Ruskin said that in the business sector "in the time of a booming economy a company, while it may want to keep its prices stable, can increase its revenues and ultimately its net profit, by increasing its market, the volume of its sales. Some of the options open to private business are not open to the water supply. We are not in the position to increase the volume. We cannot take the water business away from the City of San Carlos or the City of Palo Alto."

Council Member Leipzig said that several years ago the revenues the City received from customer use in Redwood City exceeded the cost charged by San Francisco Water, and the City did not issue a rebate.

ITERATION OF THE MOTION:

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE - FIRST READING

M/S: HARTNETT/IRA. TITLE READ.

ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 38.5 AND 38.10 OF, AND ADDING ARTICLE V TO CHAPTER 38 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY RELATING TO WATER SERVICE CHARGES AND FEES AND PROVIDING FOR REFUNDS THEREOF, RESPECTIVELY

CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS BAIN, CLAIRE, HARTNETT, IRA, RUSKIN AND MAYOR HOWARD

NOES; COUNCIL MEMBER LEIPZIG

MINUTE ORDER NO. 98-164

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. MATTERS OF COUNCIL INTEREST

This item limited to fifteen minutes.

A. Renovation of Playing Fields in San Mateo County, oral report by Council Member Hartnett; (205)

Council Member Hartnett presented an update of this Council priority. He said that he and Vice Mayor Ruskin had been in discussions with representatives of San Mateo County, Redwood City 2000, and the Elementary School District on a number of subjects, including how to increase the inventory of playing fields for the community’s youth and others. Council Member Hartnett said the discussions included many topics, including the expansion of school multipurpose facilities into gymnasiums that would be appropriate for community use. He said the County had made an offer to the Elementary School District that involves participation from the City of Redwood City should the Council approve it. Council Member Hartnett said the County had federal block grant funds it was willing to use to fund the expansion on at least two campuses available for the school's use and the community at large. He said in connection with those discussions there had also been discussion on whether or not the County of San Mateo would invest in fields, either through renovation or acquisition, as well as discussion about the County’s contribution to maintenance of those fields.

Council Member Hartnett said, "As of this date the County has not, in fact, made an offer to the City representatives of Redwood City, with respect to a contribution of County funds for such purposes. It had been reported in at least one of the local newspapers, that such an offer had been made, that Council Member Ruskin and I had attended formal meetings in that regard with County representatives and others. No such offer had been made at those meetings. However, the topic is still under active discussion, and there are meetings that are still occurring at a policy maker level, in an attempt to determine whether or not the County, in fact, might be able to make an offer of a contribution. As well as to determine whether or not the Elementary School District may be able to partner in that endeavor in a way that is perhaps fuller than the Elementary School District might have initially anticipated. As well as to see whether or not in fulfillment of City Council objectives the City may be able to partner in that endeavor as well. I do expect we will be hearing more from the County in that regard shortly, in a matter of weeks. I hope that there will come a time when Vice Mayor Ruskin and I, together with Council Member Claire, as the City/School Liaison Committee, may be in a position to make a recommendation to the Council with respect to such partnering. I am optimistic that something quite positive may occur, but discussions are still ongoing."

Vice Mayor Ruskin thanked Council Member Hartnett for working with him in these discussions. He said, "When something is reported in the newspaper, an editorial, it tends to have a certain amount of credibility just by virtue of its being there, and it is very important to us that the public understands that sometimes things that are reported are not accurate." Vice Mayor Ruskin said he concurred with Council Member Hartnett’s statement, "The County has yet to make a specific offer to us, but I feel… we are going to work out a partnership… We have already reached agreement in terms of the expanded mutli-purpose rooms which will become gymnasium size by partnering with the County and the School District."

Mayor Howard thanked Vice Mayor Ruskin and Council Member Hartnett for representing the City working with the County and School District. She said the article was most unfortunate and thanked them for bringing clarification to the issue. Mayor Howard said there has been no program or recommendation brought to the Council at this point despite what the article said. She said it was very clear when the Council overwhelmingly supported a motion to allocate $1 million for renovation or acquisition of

playing fields, that the Council had made a strong commitment to the youth of the community. She said the article was unjustified and not researched very well, and she was glad that the Council had the opportunity to set the record straight.

Council Member Leipzig said, "A formal offer from the County may not be on the table, or in writing, so I’ll accept that. But let’s make an offer to the County. Let’s get moving. This has been going on for months, and months. Let’s agendize this for next week. Let’s notify the public, let’s have them come in, give their input on the direction they would like us to go, take a vote of this Council, and make an offer to the County to move forward."

Council Member Hartnett said, "I appreciate Council Member Leipzig’s belated support for moving forward quickly. However, the City Council has already made its intent clear, I believe, by having set aside $1 million for playing fields for use this coming fiscal year. When the Council voted to set that aside, I recall comments from a number of Council Members, including Council Member Ira and myself, and others, that we believe that (set aside amount) should be just the beginning. We need to do more than that. We expressed a strong desire to do more. The County is aware of the Council actions and priorities in that regard. The Elementary School District is aware of the Council action. The discussions that have taken place at the policy level have reflected an acknowledgement that the City Council is quite likely to be interested in participating with the County. It is now in effect in the hands of the County to work with us by saying how they may be able to partner with us. There has been a general expression of interest in that regard, and we are expecting that there will be more specific expressions of interest very shortly." Council Member Hartnett said he expected a dollar figure to accompany that expression of interest, and he said that at that time he fully expected the City to be able to partner with the County on a specific proposal.

Council Member Leipzig said he would still like to see this matter agendized to have a dialogue with the community. He said the negotiations may be going on, but "I don’t get paid to negotiate, speak by the word, so I tend to get things done. I have spoken to several people that are in the negotiations, or close to them, and they feel they are bogged down. Politics is at play. Back room dealing is going on. And that the editorial that you speak of is actually right on the money. So I would like to see this agendized so we can all discuss it in the open as a community."

Council Member Claire asked for clarification from Council Member Leipzig regarding his "back room dealing" comment. Council Member Leipzig did not respond.

In response to Council Member Bain’s questions regarding what specific actions the Council such take, such as a resolution, Council Member Leipzig said, "I would like to hear from the community. I would like the community to know what is going on, what the Council is trying to accomplish, what the School District and the County are trying to

accomplish. And yes, a resolution to move forward to make an offer to the County so we can put something on the table" and everyone could vote on it. He said this was going on too long and people were getting frustrated with the process.

Council Member Claire said the information he had received from the County and the School District involved Garfield and Fair Oaks Schools, both beyond the City’s borders. He asked what the rest of the Council felt about spending money on school facilities that lie within the County’s jurisdiction. He said the argument seemed to be that the County would use their federal block grant monies to build the facilities but would take no responsibility for any maintenance. He asked Vice Mayor Ruskin for his comments.

Vice Mayor Ruskin said, "I guess I’m stuck in time about three minutes back. I don’t like a fellow Council Member to talk about back room dealings and not have the guts when asked what he means by that, to state exactly what he means by that. I was asked by various people in the community, including Dave Stuart who is in the audience, who represents private schools and independent sports leagues, to attend informal sessions, to see whether there were some ways in which we could look toward a partnership. Various people were there: Jack Greenalch from the Chamber and Redwood City 2000, Mr. Stuart representing the independent leagues, people from the County Board of Supervisors, Council Member Hartnett was there, I was there, there were others as well from the School District, from the School Board. When you talk about back room dealings it has a very serious connotation. And I suggest you stop throwing around slanderous remarks. And the efforts that we made were in good faith; so much so, that we came back to the Council and talked about what had occurred at those meetings. To let the full Council know, so that the Council was able at that time to say, don't go on. We don't want to do it that way. But you didn't say that then. And we went on and are continuing to make improvements, to try and reach an agreement with the various other agencies in the County, and we are doing that fully within the authorized scope of City Council, as representatives of the City/School Liaison Subcommittee of which Council Members Claire, Hartnett and myself are members, and which I’m chair. And it was in that capacity that I believe Council Member Hartnett and I were asked to attend. There are no back room dealings going on. If you would like some more information about it, there are positive ways to ask for it."

Council Member Hartnett said, "First of all, I agree with Vice Mayor Ruskin’s comments completely. With respect to Council Member Claire’s question, a number of issues have arisen with respect to contributions from respective parties that might benefit by an increased number or better school fields. The meetings that Vice Mayor Ruskin and I attended as Council Members, there was not an offer on the table from the County to spend either County money or federal money to improve fields. The offer that was on the table was to spend federal money towards expansion of multi-purpose rooms so that they would be actual gymnasiums. There was discussion about the need for fields, and it appeared that all parties, including community representatives, school board representatives, school staff representatives, County representatives, County policy making representatives, and private parties all agreed that there ought to be something done about fields if something could be done. And there still are discussions in that regard. I expect there will be something offered by the County in specific terms. And if the County does in fact do that, that will be something that I think will be appropriate for the Council to discuss as a full Council with maximum community input to see in what way we could best partner, if at all. One of the considerations, Council Member Claire, is the one about ongoing maintenance of fields because the County has not to this date expressed an interest in contributing money whether to fields in unincorporated County or in the City, towards maintenance. The School District has indicated that they don’t have a budget for maintenance of new or improved fields. But nothing is ruled out. And that is why the discussions are still continuing."

Council Member Bain said, "I have no problem with putting this on the next agenda or a future agenda for discussion, certainly I think it is something we are going to have to have a discussion about at some point. I would be very interested in hearing from the public. Of course the public has a right to speak to that issue at any time during the Meeting. I’m still not clear of what our resolution would be at the next meeting if we were to agendize it. If it is simply to say, ‘we think this is a great idea, please offer us CDBG funds to go ahead and do this,’ I really don’t see how that is going to have any effect. That would be nothing more than a ‘feel good’ resolution. However, I want to say, that I have absolutely no problem with agendizing it and having a full discussion with the County… and the public participating."

Council Member Claire said the public had participated in terms of the people who were most interested in playing fields in the community. He described a meeting a few years ago with most of the users of the fields. Council Member Claire described his history with field maintenance and scheduling field times since 1979, and said the problems of field use and maintenance must be addressed by a multi-jurisdictional partnership. He said that years ago the people of Redwood City "pumped a ton of money into renovating fields", but there was no money for maintenance in the School District budgets, and the fields soon deteriorated. Council Member Claire said if the City was going to spend money on fields, it had to have a plan to maintain them. He said field users also involved Sequoia High School as well as the Elementary School District and the County, and said the real discussion should "center on how these different jurisdictions can work better together for the overall betterment of all the fields that our kids use." Council Member Claire said he believed there had been a lack of cooperation among all the League Chairs on scheduling, and advised that all the impacted agencies should discuss a whole range of issues regarding the need for renovated or new playing fields which would take much longer than one Council Meeting next week.

Council Member Leipzig said, "I agree with Councilman Claire. I agree with Council Member Bain on the focus, what we should be talking about. I do certainly understand that the schools are outside of the Redwood City District. I also understand that the Belmont School District operates a school in our City limits. What I want, Council Member Bain, is a dialogue with the citizens on that topic, the maintenance of the fields. You are absolutely right, Dick. And to ask the people, do you want us to be looking at fields that are outside the City limits. So a dialogue with folks to find out their concerns. I want to just apologize on the ‘back room dealing’ comment. I did not intend to say that Councilman Ruskin or Councilman Hartnett were making back room dealings. It is the appearance of back room dealings. It is my frustration and the frustration of the people who are close to these negotiations that talk to me, calling me up for months, giving me updates, and asking ‘what’s going on? Why can’t we please get this moving?’ And the answer that I have, and I’m not trying to attack Mr. Everett, that, well, Mr. Everett doesn’t get along with the School District. So that’s what the problem is. That doesn’t make sense to me, and I want to find out what is going on here? It is a very frustrating process. So I would like a dialogue so we can all discuss it."

City Manager Everett said, "I just want to say I have a great relationship with Dr. Crates and Joan Smith from the two School Districts, so that is just a false statement."

Mayor Howard said, "It is unfortunate that the people who are speaking to you who happen to be in on the process don’t call Vice Mayor Ruskin or Council Member Hartnett and ask them directly, because it appears to me that the dialogue is open. We know things move slowly. That is just a fact of life when you have many parties involved. How else could we have a successful partnership if you don’t take the time to include all the shareholders and major stakeholders and get their impressions and their voices heard."

In response to Council Member Ira’s questions, Council Member Hartnett said he expected to hear something from the County in a couple of weeks. Council Member Ira said he would like to have the negotiations continue as they are right now, and "hopefully, I would like to see this come back very soon with a report. Part of the reason there are problems here, whether there was formally an offer from the County or not, it certainly became apparent from certain statements from certain people, there was certainly an informal offer out by the County that led to the confusion. I would like to move on."

Mayor Howard said she appreciated the work done in this collaboration by Council Member Hartnett and Vice Mayor Ruskin. She said, "I have no doubt that you will come back with information for us as soon as it is available, and I know it will be factual when it is brought back to us."

MEMO 6/23/98

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Discussion of the Brown Act; (205)

Council Member Hartnett said, "As you know there has been discussion in news columns with respect to the press release issued by Council Member Leipzig alleging that the Council was violating the Brown Act in the manner in which it was conducting itself in closed sessions. And I wanted to address that tonight because I want to make sure that we don’t engage in violations of the Brown Act…. I would certainly be willing to consider how we might have done so, but having only received the press release on that issue, I don’t feel fully informed. I’d like to, if I may Madame Mayor, and Council Member Leipzig would permit me to, ask whether or not Council Member Leipzig has reviewed any particular provisions of the Brown Act that we should provide attention to, so that we don’t unintentionally or otherwise transgress any such provisions…. I would like, if I can, to have Council Member Leipzig point to a particular provision of the Brown Act that he feels that he has read and feels we have perhaps transgressed."

Council Member Leipzig said, "I notice that Agenda Item Seven, this entire area is limited to fifteen minutes, and I think we have gone beyond that so I’ll make it very brief. I was not prepared to speak on this item tonight. But yes, a couple of quick areas that I think you need to look at carefully. One, the reporting out, that means, once the Council is in a legitimately closed session and we take an action, we are required by the Brown Act to announce that immediately, or as close as possible. Generally that means coming down here, we meet upstairs, in open session, with the public and press here, and announcing what decisions we have made. Number two is the area of coaching officers, Council Members and each other, by the staff, on what to say, other than process. And I understand there is a difference between preparing for potential litigation, but coaching on answers and process and what would be best is not acceptable under the Brown Act. And thirdly, very briefly, strategy. We had a session a few months back where we talked about road options on the other side of 101. It was clearly not a topic for closed session. It should have been held in this room with the charts and the graphs that we looked at which the staff presented to us, so that the people here and the press could hear and have input on what we were talking about."

Council Member Hartnett said, "What I asked was what, if any, particular provisions of the Brown Act, which is found in the Government Code, have you read Council Member Leipzig, that serve as a foundation for your statement?"

Council Member Leipzig said, "I just answered that question. I don’t have the Code Section on the Brown Act with me. I am not prepared, I did not know this was going on the agenda. If you had called me in advance I would have been prepared. I would be happy to discuss this with you at a later time."

Council Member Hartnett asked Council Member Leipzig if he had read any legal treatises or legal consultants analyses of the Brown Act, and the scope of discussion that is allowed under the Brown Act, or the subject matters that can be discussed in closed sessions "that serve as a foundation for your statements."

Council Member Leipzig said, "Yes, I am aware of the Brown Act and its provisions. But I’m not on trial here, Counselor, so I suggest that we move on."

Council Member Hartnett said, "You made certain statements of fact in your press release, and it is apparent to me in your comments that those statements in fact have no basis. For example, in your press release you indicated that over 90% of City Council meetings held in the past seven months have been preceded by closed door meetings. And the fact is that City records absolutely, positively do not back up that statement…. In the prior seven meetings of the Council at the time that press release had been issued, six of those meetings had no closed session before the meeting. It just perplexes me that at a time when in fact, the number of Executive Sessions are decreasing, at a time when that statement of fact was simply not true, a press release is issued on such a serious matter. You issued a press release, and I think I am entitled to bring it up and question it at a Council Meeting, and I have done so. I don’t wish to further put you on the spot, you have told me you are not prepared to discuss the matter, and I accept that."

Council Member Leipzig said, "I asked the City Manager when I saw the Agenda, I actually called him on Friday, he wasn’t in. He got back to me today, and I asked how this was put on, and what was the purpose, and what was going to be happening, and he was not aware of that. If I had known Council Member Hartnett, I would have been prepared to have a little more dialogue with you. My percentages, you are absolutely correct. I looked at the wrong list prepared by the City Clerk. The first one I asked for several weeks ago actually does show an 80-90% closed session before regular meetings, and I apologize that I didn’t put in the word regular. We get into this here often, regular Council Meeting, meaning us right up here, not in study session with the Planning Commission, not in Interview Sessions for members of the Park and Rec Commission, not a session to talk about personnel issues, but a regular Council session. So I stand by my percentages."

Council Member Claire said, "The issue here is the fact that we have had one Council Member disagree with the way certain meetings are run, and in the short time period that I have been on the Council, this is a first, where a Council Member issues a press release, accusing his colleagues of being in violation of anything. I would have expected this to come forward to us under this agenda, under Matters of Council Interest, so that we as a Council as a whole could take it up and adequately address the problem. Issuing press releases before we have been given the courtesy of addressing it and before we even know what it is about, simply has not been done on this Council since I’ve been watching it… in 1978. I think that is the real issue. It is a protocol issue. I think a Council Member has the duty to the rest of his colleagues or her colleagues to discuss an issue like that at an open forum during Matters of Council Interest. That protocol was not followed and I think that is the real issue here tonight."

Vice Mayor Ruskin said, "I feel a bit awkward because people who are here this evening who are perhaps not often here, might think this goes on all the time here. But this is quite rare in the sense of criticizing remarks made by fellow Council Members, and it grieves me to have to do it, especially twice in one evening, after not having had to do it essentially for two and a half years…. I was really upset by this press release. I think for an elected official there is nothing more important than your integrity and the perception of your integrity. And to have one’s integrity questioned so broadly in this way was shocking to me. It is really important to me, and I assume to every member of the Council, that we conform to every law, especially the Brown Act… Our Attorney has assured us that we are conforming properly to the Brown Act, and I have faith in his understanding of the law. I want to assure the public that the Brown Act has not been violated. Our Attorney has assured us of that and I believe that he is correct…. There are several things about Council Member Leipzig’s press release that troubles me, but I am only going to mention one. One would suppose in reading it, that over the last seven months, Council Member Leipzig had been arguing with us, persuading us, cajoling us, pleading with us to open up these meetings to the public. I can tell you that… he has never mentioned to me personally at all, that he felt that we were violating the Brown Act. What is most important I think, and what is most ironic, is that as far as I can remember, Council Member Leipzig has never raised this issue at any Council Meeting. Which means that for seven months, apparently, he has not brought his supposedly deep concerns to light. Which means again, that for seven months he has not informed the very public he says he is trying to protect. Instead, Council Member Leipzig issues a press release after seven months and impugns the integrity of the entire Council, including himself. My real concern here is that the public’s confidence may have been undermined, not by our violation of the Brown Act, I don’t believe we have, but by a press release which I consider shabby and reckless. And I really regret having to make these remarks, and I regret most of all that the press release was issued."

Council Member Ira said, "I just wanted to say that… someone told me today, I’m not a politician and maybe that’s why I don’t have as much problem taking personal offense with the press release. I have not had the luxury of being able to be paid by clients to examine the Brown Act, as my fellow Councilman, Mr. Hartnett has, and if you can find one of those clients to pay me, Jim, I’ll dig into it real deep. But, really, the reason I don’t is because, of something that was just brought up by Vice Mayor Ruskin, and that is we have a City Attorney that we are paying full time to keep us abreast of what is happening here, and really, if I felt anyone was on trial, I’d say that Dave is on trial, because that’s what we pay him for. I really don’t want to spend a whole lot more time on this at all, and my Brown Act reading has been quite limited. Two areas that I would just like to throw out, Dave, for you to look at, and get back to us. I don’t want an answer tonight. But I read today, one is, whether or not we should be asking people for their names and addresses. I read there was a section that you are not supposed to do that. I remember when we had the Meeting on the traffic tickets, the "Q" word, there was a young woman who was from L.A. who refused to give her name, and I think she said it was violating (the Brown Act.) So if you could just get back to us on that. And I think we are a little bit confused sometimes, at least I am, on when we really need to report after closed session and when we don’t. If you could just get us an answer on that, and again it doesn’t have to be tonight. I would like to push on to Item C. because that’s going to be another tough one… I remember one meeting we had which was actually during the School District negotiations meeting, we were going to hold off for a press release, but I think Matt said, ‘No’, you got to report that to the public now. And he said, isn’t that right, Mr. Attorney, and you said ‘Yes."… If you could just follow up on those. I read this briefly today and I don’t profess to be an expert in that, that’s why we pay you, to give us the expert opinion."

City Attorney Schricker said, "Madame Mayor the only problem with putting off the answer is that it leaves it in abeyance as though there may be some hesitation. I don’t want that aura to exist. With respect to reporting out with respect to existing litigation cases, the only obligation to report out is if action is taken and if that action involves a settlement in which both parties have agreed. Rarely does that happen. We take preliminary approval of settlements and then what the Brown Act provides is, if somebody inquires after it has been approved by the other side, then you respond with a report, not necessarily in open session, but to the party who inquires. So you have not violated the Brown Act with respect to reporting out. The second, with respect to the reporting out had to do with negotiations of property. You don’t have to report out the instructions you give to your negotiator. I don’t recall the specifics of the discussion that was alluded to regarding the property transfer, but if there is some action taken…. I think the only action we reported out was the instructions that were given to the negotiator. That’s what it was. I recall now. We reported that we had given instructions to the negotiator. Technically the question arises whether you actually have to report that, because in point of fact, that’s why you went into closed session in the first place. The other had to do with names and addresses. The Brown Act prohibits as a condition of attending a meeting that a person must sign their name and address. But it does not prohibit requesting a person to identify him or herself at the podium as they address the Council."

Mayor Howard thanked City Attorney Schricker for keeping the Council on the straight and narrow, and said, "You have never let us stray and I appreciate your answers."

Council Member Bain said, "I won’t dwell on the discourtesy that has been done to this Council. All I wanted to say was to reiterate what Council Member Claire, Council Member Hartnett and Vice Mayor Ruskin said which is that since I’ve been on the Council, at none of those closed session meetings, nor at any open meetings, did I hear any objections to what we were doing, or any questions about what we were doing in regards to being in violation of the Brown Act. Those concerns were never raised, so I would submit that whoever makes allegations such as those, is also making those allegations against himself. I wonder why someone would do that. But I just wanted that to be out there to the audience, to the newspapers, and whoever might be listening, that these allegations or questions were never raised in any meeting that I attended."

Council Member Leipzig said, "Very briefly, Madame Mayor, I did raise the issue about the School District agreement and the response I believe from the City Attorney was, ‘oh, yea, I guess we better.’ It is true, Council Member Ira is correct the Council wanted to wait and issue a joint press release. I objected that that was wrong. I have spoken to the Mayor, the City Manager and the City Attorney about the number and frequency and topics in closed sessions. I don’t believe that in all fairness that I have said that we are breaking the law or I want to look into this, excuse me, I did want to look into the number, the frequency and the topics. And briefly, Vice Mayor Ruskin, you and I use to speak frequently. I called you several months ago on several topics and this is one of them. I am still waiting for that return phone call."

Vice Mayor Ruskin said, "Nonsense. That’s nonsense."

 

Mayor Howard said, "I’ll speak for myself. You have spoken to me about the number and the frequency of our Executive Sessions. At no time have you ever spoken to me about the appropriateness of any topic. The number and the frequency, yes, but you have never spoken to me about topics and your discomfort that we may be violating the Brown Act. But I can only speak for myself. Mr. Schricker or Mr. Everett?"

City Attorney Schricker said, "The complaint, that’s too strong of a term, but we did confer, I believe, on the telephone, but it had to do primarily with the number of meetings that we were requiring attendance."

City Manager Everett said, "I have had several discussions with Councilman Leipzig dealing with the number of meetings both closed and here, the number of meetings in general, the length of the meetings both in closed session and here in general, and the need for meetings both in closed session and here in general. So I have had all three of those discussions with Councilman Leipzig, but I have not had a discussion about the legality of them."

Vice Mayor Ruskin said, "I apologize, my patience is being a little tried. I regret that I answered a fellow Council Member that his statement was nonsense. But the fact is that we spoke on the phone just a few weeks ago about another subject, the beautification of El Camino." In response to Council Member Leipzig’s remarks, which were made away from the microphone, Vice Mayor Ruskin said, "Maybe it is time. This is nonsense. This is nonsense Councilman Leipzig. I’m going to stop before I say something I’ll regret."

Mayor Howard asked if anyone else had anything further to say. No one wished to speak.

Mayor Howard said, "I’d like to say this is a very unfortunate event. Councilman Leipzig did not raise this issue of illegality (nor) at any time did he make his concerns known to myself. And having addressed the City Attorney, he has stated such and the City Manager has stated such. I believe this is an attempt to make himself look more worthy in the eyes of the public by lessening the opinion of those people around him. The unfortunate result is that Council Member Leipzig not only has lessened himself in the eyes of his colleagues, but more importantly, it lessens the opinion of this City Council in the eyes of the public. Despite the fact that there is absolutely no truth to the press release that was released, which I might add, none of us were privy to before it was released. We did not have advance notice about this, and that is why it is on the agenda this evening. What has been done is contrary to everything this City Council believes in and has tried to do. This City Council has attempted to improve communications with the public. We have gone to more neighborhood meetings, we’ve been promoting business and publicizing the different activities we have had in our City. We spent a tremendous amount of time, energy and money trying to be sure we get out to the public as much as we can. We are really trying to do our very best in that area, including updating our Web Site to get as much information as possible on that Web Site for those people who cannot come to meetings such as this. Our top priority has been getting the message out to the public. To cheapen those efforts by this act of self-promotion is unacceptable. As long as I am the Mayor I don’t want to tolerate it, I won’t tolerate it. I expect that in the future, any member of this City Council that has a problem with policy or protocol will make every attempt to resolve it with open, honest dialogue, by speaking to myself, other members of the Council, the City Attorney or the City Manager. That is the way to deal with people. The people of Redwood City deserve our best efforts, and we are going to make sure that they get it. So I would now like to move on to the last item of the evening."

MEMO 6/23/98

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Discussion of the Council Legislative Committee's Role; (205)

Council Member Claire said, "Madame Mayor, if I had known these other items were on the agenda tonight I probably would not have put it on the agenda…. I am bringing this to your attention tonight because of the meeting that was held approximately two weeks ago on June 8, 1998. It was at the tail end of the meeting when most people had left, when we were going to discuss staff recommendation on some legislative matters that potentially could have pulled $3 million away from the City of Redwood City… That would be equal to thirty less police officers on the street from where we are right now. It was a very important matter to us. It got put on the agenda by staff. Mayor Howard at a meeting on May 18, 1998 basically asked the Legislative Committee to recommend action on the issue at a future Council Meeting. I would have expected it to come to us from the Legislative Committee. Let me back up. Before I took my one-year vacation from this Council, it was standard operating procedure that the Legislative Committee would review all California League of Cities legislative reports, and make recommendations about those reports to us so that we could take action. When we took action, the Mayor was then instructed to write a letter to each of our Legislators indicating what action we took and whether or not we supported or did not support legislative ongoings in Sacramento and particular bills. In addition to that, the Legislative Committee was charged with taking on other legislative duties assigned to it by the Mayor and/or the majority of the Council. That’s the way it went for years.

"Bob Bury, former Mayor Bob Bury, use to be the Chairman of that Legislative Committee and he dutifully went through that process and reported to us about once very two or three months... We either accepted his recommendations, modified them, or we didn’t accept them. But at least it was reported to us. The fact that this had been given to the Legislative Committee for review by the Mayor indicates to me that the protocol of this Council is that this Legislative Committee would in turn bring that back to us with a recommendation, either to accept it or not accept it, or no recommendation whatsoever. That did not happen. Council Member Ira who was on the Legislative Committee explained to us that this particular item had become a partisan battle in the State Capitol

between Governor Wilson and the Republican Party and the Democratic Party on the other side of the aisle.... I accepted Councilman Ira’s suggestion that that is why no recommendation came forward from the Legislative Committee. That’s fine. I have no problem with that.

"What caught my attention, however, is that Councilman Leipzig, and I am sorry that I have to say this, expressed his displeasure that this item was scheduled on the Council agenda at all, after the Legislative Committee chose not to consider it. That is an absolute violation of this Council’s protocol. No Chairperson of any Committee has the authority to censor information that comes to us, especially legislative information. Councilman Leipzig also went on to say that he was interested in how that got on our agenda, and he was going to have to talk with the City Attorney, who was not there that night, about why it got there. That is unacceptable. I just do not feel that any Chairperson of any Committee, again, has the right to censor what we see. We make non-partisan decisions up here. We look at all legislative actions at the State Capitol and we make decisions, or should be making decisions on a non-partisan basis.

"I don’t have any faith in Council Member Leipzig’s ability to divorce himself from partisan politics, but I will live with that. He can in fact, review an item in the Legislative Committee and voice his particular opinion on it. I welcome that dialogue. I would never deny him that right. What I object to is that he took it upon himself to prevent this item to reach our agenda by not bringing it forward. That is a major violation of Council protocol. I would suggest that... the City Council appoint an Ad Hoc Committee which does not include anyone that is currently serving on the Legislative Committee to review exactly what the Legislative Committee should be doing, and get it down in black and white, and make it a Council policy. We have a lot of things that we do here on the Council that are not in black and white; it is just assumed that these activities would take place. We have in the past stated policy. One in particular I brought forward was a policy on how we could use Letterhead and what we could use it for. I would suggest that the Council at a future meeting establish that committee so that we could review the procedures of the Legislative Committee, what they should be reviewing and what they should not be reviewing, and make it very clear that no Chairperson of any Committee has the authority to censor material that is brought before us."

MEMO 6/23/98

Council Member Ira said, "Since you didn’t give me my handbook on what to do on the Legislative Committee, I don’t know that it is going to be that hard to do. It is actually early tonight. We could actually (establish) this now. I don’t know what you really want. Of course the biggest problem is that there is so much in (the League Bulletin.) We have exceeded our fifteen minutes tonight, but how much time do we really want to devote to that, how much of a recap. We get a recap from the League every week in our packet. Which ones really affect the City? I was telling Ed today, there is a bill… AB 644 that I have personally written probably at least six, seven, eight letters to different legislators and to the Governor regarding that. How far do we want to stretch, how much it affects the City and how much it doesn’t affect the City…. I never really new how much you wanted and how much the Council really wanted to see. Was the League’s recap enough for you?"

Council Member Claire said, "I think the problem, Council Member Ira, was that you didn’t get a handbook, because there isn’t one. And that is the issue I wish to address, so that we can in fact put a Committee like the Legislative Committee that is pretty much a creature of the City Council, we can put what we want in that handbook so that all Legislative Committee Members understand what it is they are to do and what it is they are not to do. I think that needs to be worked out on a Subcommittee and brought back to this Council at a different time, so we can review it and put it in place, and move on from there. But I don’t want to lose sight of the fact that I still believe it is the responsibility of the Chairman of that Committee to bring, especially something that was assigned to it by the Mayor, to bring that issue back to us. And that did not happen in this case. It is very unfortunate."

MEMO 6/23/98

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. STAFF REPORTS

None

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. CLOSED SESSION

None

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Howard asked that the Council send speedy get well wishes, good thoughts and prayers to Art Balsamo, Council Volunteer Extraordinare, who is home recuperating after surgery last week.

Mayor Howard also thanked Alexandra Tabova for attending the meeting, and apologized for the solemnity of the Meeting.

M/S: LEIPZIG/BAIN TO ADJOURN TO 7:00 P.M., MONDAY, JUNE 29, 1998, TO A REGULAR ADJOURNED COUNCIL MEETING, TO BE FOLLOWED BY A COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ON THE PROPOSED 1998/99 BUDGET

CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE AND MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:57 P.M.

Arlyn C. Jorgenson

City Clerk

 

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

MEETING CONCURRENTLY WITH THE

REDWOOD CITY COUNCIL

7:35 P.M.

JUNE 22, 1998

 

*ATTENTION, SPEAKERS - see footnote following Agenda items*

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

1. PUBLIC COMMENT

This agenda category is limited to 15 minutes to be allocated as determined by the Mayor/ Chairperson. If you wish to address the Council/Agency Board of Directors, please complete a speaker's card and give it to Art Balsamo, Council/Redevelopment Agency Volunteer. If your subject is not on the agenda, the Mayor/Chairperson will recognize you at this time.

 

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A. Approve the Minutes of the June 8, 1998 Concurrent Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting as submitted;

3. GENERAL

A. CONCURRENT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CONTINUED FROM JUNE 8, 1998 on the Proposed Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 2; on the Proposed Implementation Plan Amendment for Redevelopment Project No. 2

The complete text of the proposed amendment is on file in the City Clerk Department.

MOTION: Continue the Concurrent Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting to 7:35 p.m., Monday, September 28, 1998 in the City Hall Council Chamber.

 

4 CLOSED SESSION

None scheduled.

 

5. ADJOURNMENT

MOTION TO ADJOURN THE CONCURRENT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO 7:35 P.M., MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1998

 

SPEAKERS, ATTENTION: Speaker’s cards are located in the Council Chamber lobby. If you wish to speak, please complete the card and give it to Art Balsamo, Council/Redevelopment Agency Volunteer. The Mayor/Chairperson will recognize you at the appropriate time when your item is under consideration by the Council/Redevelopment Agency Board. If your item is not on the agenda, the Mayor/Chairperson will recognize you during the Public Comment portion of the Concurrent Council/Redevelopment Agency Board meeting.

SPECIAL MEETING

JUNE 22, 1998

 

CALL TO ORDER - 7:47 p.m., Mayor Howard presiding

ROLL CALL

Directors present: Bain, Claire, Hartnett, Ira, Ruskin, Leipzig and Chairperson Howard

Directors absent None

Staff Present: City Manager Everett, City Attorney Schricker, City Clerk Jorgenson, Public Works Services Director Ingram and Superintendent Rosas, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Superintendent Centeno and Supervisors Gibbons and Gonzalez, Community Development Director Nelson, Engineering and Construction Manager Patterson, Community Development Supervisor Jones-Thomas, Economic Development Specialist Michael Cady, Police Officer Granado,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. PUBLIC COMMENT - None

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. GENERAL

A. Approve a Certificate of Completion for the residential portion of City Center Plaza - Mezes Court Associates; accept and approve the Citibank and Union Bank loan documents and Subordination Agreements; and authorize the Executive Director to execute all documents pertaining hereto; (100)

STAFF REPORT: Debbi Jones-Thomas, Community Development Services Supervisor, June 22, 1998

Community Development Services Supervisor Jones-Thomas presented the Staff Report and said Mezes Court Associates, the umbrella organization of the Residential Housing Coalition, was requesting a Certificate of Completion for the residential portion of City Center Plaza. She said the approval of the Certificate would allow the developers to take out their construction financing and obtain their permanent financing for the project.

Community Development Services Supervisor Jones-Thomas said, "On Saturday, Housing Secretary Cuomo announced at the National Conference of Mayors that Redwood City had won the John J. Gunther Award for City Center Plaza." She said this award is a ‘best practices award’, and it signified that Redwood City was one of the few cities in the country that is engaging in innovative partnerships with the federal government to meet affordable housing needs.

1) M/S: RUSKIN/HARTNETT. TITLE READ.

RESOLUTION NO. RD98-09 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBORDINATION AGREEMENTS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IN FAVOR OF CITIBANK AND UNION BANK RELINQUISHING PRIORITY OF OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING COVENANT - MAIN/MIDDLEFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

ADOPTED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Fiscal Year 1997/98 Budget Revisions; (404)

STAFF REPORT: Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Church, June 22, 1998

City Manager Everett presented the staff report and said this proposal was in response to two projects about to begin: the Downtown Cinema Project and the Broadway Sidewalks Project. He said these were new proposals that were not included in this year's Budget and had no appropriated funds in this fiscal year. City Manager Everett said if the projects move forward the funds would be rolled over into the next fiscal . City Manager Everett said, "We wanted to, at the close of this year, since we have started the process of looking at RFPs, etc., set-up the appropriation limits. That is basically the $2 million that was negotiated by the Council and the School District. About $1.2 million will come from fund balances, $800,000 will come from Agency Bond funds, and the Bond funds will contribute $80,000 for the Broadway sidewalks."

1) M/S: CLAIRE/RUSKIN. TITLE READ.

RESOLUTION NO. RD 98-10 OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY AMENDING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997-98;

ADOPTED BY UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 CLOSED SESSION

None scheduled.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. ADJOURNMENT

M/S: BAIN/IRA TO ADJOURN THE MEETING

CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE AND MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:52 P.M.

Arlyn C. Jorgenson

Redevelopment Agency

Secretary

 

City of Redwood City | City Council | Minutes Archive

Copyright © 1998. The City of Redwood City. All rights reserved.