Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/2001 BAKERSFIELD Alan T ager Sue Benham, Chair Staff: Trudy Slater David Couch Jacquie Sullivan AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMI'R'EE Regular Meeting Monday, October 22, 2001 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Called to order at 1:06 p.m. Members present: Councilmember Sue Benham, Chair Councilmember David Couch, arriving 1:14 p.m. Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan 2. ADOPT SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. REVIEW, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO SUBCOMMrI'rEE'S REVIEW OF ANNEXATION PROCEDURES Committee Member David Couch indicated the Subcommittee's "pre-application" packet/report was a good first draft and felt that unless those interested in this item had other issues with it, he didn't believe there were many things which would make it a whole lot better or different. In response to questions, it was clarified that the process called for one hearing, with scheduling first in the City Clerk's Office, then notification and publication, and then the hearing. Committee Member Couch pointed out both the hearing and the Resolution of Application would be before the City Council. Committee Member Couch mentioned the reason they used "no later than" in the notification is that if the City Clerk's Office can get them out earlier, it allows them that flexibility. The Resolution of Application is an issue separate from the "pre-application" process. Al)OPTED AS SUBHITTEI) ON NOVEI~ER 19, 2001 Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee October 22, 2001 Page 2 Committee Chair Benham recommend two changes: under"notification," open with "Once the hearing has been scheduled, written notice will be mailed," etc.; and under the hearing, rather than "a' noticed hearing, indicate "the" noticed hearing. Barbara Fowler was concerned the different hearings, including LAFCO's, would be confusing to the public. She also felt the 15 minutes per side would be inadequate to get the flavor of how people in the neighborhood really felt. She indicated she liked the idea of a card asking if residents are for, against, or have no opinion but was concerned how and for what the cards would be used. She suggested a line indicating the time by which the cards should be returned and wording to the effect that if you don't have a spoken response the City generally assumes the non-respondent would be in favor of annexation. Committee Member Couch indicated the intent of the card was to communicate with the City Council and felt the card was a non-biased way of doing that. Council would receive the basic information which it would interpret. There is not a deadline on the cards. Those received before the hearing would be given to Council as well as those received after the hearing. City Attorney Bart Thiltgen confirmed Council Member Couch's statement that the LAFCO hearing would be at least 60 to 90 days after the City's process. Becky Kaiser and Barbara Fields presented two pages of written questions and comments to the Committee. In response to a statement, City Clerk Pam McCarthy clarified the ad (Exhibit C) would indicate it was for annexation (as in Exhibit A). Committee Chair Benham requested the Subcommittee meet again to try to clarify and satisfy the points brought out. She asked that one person from those interested in annexation be included at the meeting. Committee Member Couch indicated his willingness to meet again although time constraints might prevent it from occurring before the next Legislative and Litigation Committee, although every attempt would be made. Committee Member Couch indicated his hope, since the Legislative and Litigation Committee had been reviewing this item since January 1999, that when the Subcommittee made its report that the annexation group would accept their responses and another list of questions and comments would not be forthcoming because at some point a conclusion must be reached. Becky Kaiser will be the individual who will represent the annexation group at the Subcommittee meeting. B, REVIEW, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO STREAMLINING COUNCIL MEETINGS Committee Chair Benham indicated that further review was needed of this topic although the Committee had unanimously recommended to Council the proposed changes. Committee Member Jacquie Sullivan agreed. City Attorney Thiltgen distributed the City Manager's memo of September 18 which was reviewed at the last meeting. Committee Members discussed each item in detail with' the exception of items 1, 3 and 6 which were non-controversial and were already being implemented. Item 9 was eliminated at the previous meeting. Staff was asked to identify issues included in the discussion periods as well as actions taken. Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee October 22, 2001 Page 3 Item 2. Move non-agenda related public statements to the end of the business agenda. Committee decision: Strike completely; no change recommended. Discussion: Committee Members generally disliked having to make people wait until the end of the meeting to speak, especially when they had been encouraged to come and speak on issues of importance to them. Discussion included Mayor Hall's concerns on this topic. City Attorney Thiltgen confirmed that, in relation to the question of delaying public statements after a defined time (such as 45 minutes) that the Brown Act states the public has a right to comment on an agenda item either before or during the Council agenda item is heard and to delay a portion of the public statements until after that means that this opportunity is not afforded them. It was generally agreed that the public statements were not the reason the Council meetings had been running so late. Item 4. Hold recesses to five minutes; resume the meeting promptly at that time. Committee decision: To delete from proposed Council policy; leave to the Mayor's discretion. Discussion: Emphasize that the Committee supports the idea of a five-minute recess but wanted to allow the Mayor flexibility to respond to situations which occur. Advise Mayor and Council by memo that the Committee approves the five-minute recess and that everybody is on notice that when the Mayor is ready to reconvene he will not wait for people to resume their seats. Item 5. Make certain appeals, such as abatement of nuisances, assessment appeals, etc., as administrative appeals to the City Manager, rather than to the Council by ordinance change. Committee decision: General consensus is it is worth a try. Discussion: In response to Committee Chair Benham's question on whether this would reduce Council meeting time or whether it might be considered another step in the bureaucracy, City Manager Alan Tandy responded that he felt probably half of the appeals would go away with additional understanding of why the City follows the process they do. It would also allow more time for Council to focus on the multi-million dollar items on the agenda. In response to a question from Committee Member Couch, Development Services Director Jack Hardisty responded that additional costs would not be incurred. Committee Member Sullivan emphasized she felt that with everyone, including staff, focusing on shortening the Council meetings it would happen. General consensus was it was worth a try. City Attorney Thiltgen explained this would take some time to implement as numerous provisions within the Municipal Code would need to be modified to allow for this interim appeals process. He clarified that by adopting this policy, it would allow him to move forward on making the revisions. Committee Chair Benham indicated a desire for staff to keep track of which appeals do end once they have gone through the City Manager. Item 7. Move certain kinds of workshops - perhaps such as wet waste and recycling, updates from the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and issues of that level to the Committee level, with the information being shared through the minutes with the full Council, rather than the full Council level. Committee decision: Allow Council Members, when making referrals, the opportunity to indicate whether they would like workshops at the Committee level or Council workshop level; Council to affirm Council member choice. Discussion: Committee Chair Benham expressed concerns about how these decisions would be made. Committee Member Couch felt decisions by the City Manager to move a Council-member-requested Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee October 22, 2001 Page 4 workshop to Committee level might not be well received by the proposing Council member nor the committee members to which it is sent. A conscious effort should be made by the Council member making a request for a workshop to consider whether other Council members need to have the information presented to them in Council meetings or in committee. City Manager Tandy indicated that occasionally new Council members needed to view things already seen by other Council members and consideration should be given in this type of information. Committee Member Sullivan felt the Council workshops also provided a valuable tool for informing the public as well as the Council, indicating she felt for the most part Council meetings are good the way they are. She felt, with the renewed interest, Council members and staff would be responsible and brief. Committee Member Couch indicated he liked the informal give and take settings of workshops which prompted new questions. Item 8. Move non-controversial Council Committee reports to the Consent Calendar. Committee decision: Leave as is. Discussion: Committee Chair Benham felt what might be considered non-controversial to the Council might be a concern to members of the public and, if an item is truly non-controversial, it does not take up a lot of time. She agreed with Committee Member Sullivan that everyone needed to focus on being brief. Committee Member Couch indicated that at times Council is accused of "hiding the ball" tactics and felt that others would comment that this was such a tactic. Committee Member Sullivan felt it would put staff in a bad position as they are often the ones who receive the criticism. Item 10. Have the parliamentarian (City Attorney) more actively involve himself in the meeting to call attention to violations of Robert's or Council rules. Committee decision: No change is recommended; leave as is. Discussion: Committee Chair Benham felt having a workshop on Robert's Rules is a good idea. She used, as example, having an immediate complimentary response by a Council member to a presentation or public statement when it technically should be held until Council statements. The proper response at that time the presentation is concluded could be a referral. In the example used, it would be appropriate for a staff reminder, but the potential exists for Council to feel that this process might allow staff to intrude into directing or cutting off debate or foming the direction of an issue. Committee Member Sullivan indicated she had discussed this issue with the Mayor who felt this was not a good idea. She, too, felt a workshop on rules was a good idea. She also appreciates the more relaxed attitude within the Council meetings and encouraged the responsible and respectful give and take of discussion. She did not believe Council needed a policy on this. Item 11. Videotape certain workshops separate from the meeting, so City Council can individually watch them at their leisure. Committee decision: Support; staff to notify when new videos are made available. Discussion: City Manager Tandy explained this type of video workshop would be the type that staff puts on as public information/public relations material. These could also be broadcast on the government channel. Committee Chair Benham indicated that Council should be informed when such a new video was available. She did not want to be in the situation where one of her constituents saw such a video when she had not had the opportunity to see it, too. Committee Member Couch asked whether the videos could be placed on the City's website. Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen indicated this could occur and they could also be broadcast on cable when time and space was available. Committee Member Couch indicated his desire to make the policy one which would include that if the video included information Council needed prior to a vote, a workshop would be Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee October 22, 2001 Page 5 held. Assistant City Manager Christensen explained that information of that type would not be videotaped. Committee Chair Benham indicated staff should include in the agenda summary report that the Committee was encouraging Council members to try and make sure that what they were saying really needed to be said at the time it is said and to try not to repeat what another has already said. She does not believe there needs to be a Council policy on this as Council as elected officials must maintain a balance between explaining what they are doing and staying aware of time concerns. She felt a great deal can be accomplished by Council making this a conscientious effort. Committee Member Sullivan indicated the continued need for flexibility while being mindful and respectful of others. Committee Chair Benham commented that since she has been on the Council there has been a tendency for Council members to state how and why they are going to vote on an issue prior to that vote being taken and was wondering if this wasn't an area where Council could shorten its meetings. This was being recommended not as a policy change but as information for consideration. Committee Member Sullivan commented that it is up to each Council member to focus on being brief, while at the same time being able to say what he/she needed or wanted to, in order to keep meetings at an appropriate length. Committee Chair Benham asked City Attorney Thiltgen about discussions on controversial topics, and he explained that under Robert's Rules each Council member is allowed to speak twice to the motion. Technically, they are not supposed to speak until the motion is made. Technically, they are only allowed to speak twice, but once they have spoken they cannot speak again until the other Council members have had an opportunity to speak. In response to her question regarding whether this could be used as an effective tool to minimize meeting length, he indicated that the Council operates less formally than that and that relaxed communications generally assisted in getting the job done. He indicated that Robert's Rules is aimed at a large audience of 100-150 rather than a Council of seven people. However, from a streamlining standpoint, if Council wanted to enforce the Robert's Rules, Council members would need to focus on what they were going to say ahead of time as times to speak would be more limited. Writing things down before speaking is recommended in Robert's Rules. One of the reasons the agenda packet is sent out ahead of time is so that Council members can be prepared going into the meetings. Item 12. New; added: Highlight the procedure for "calling for the question" within the policy. Committee decision: Add although it is already in Robert's Rules. Discussion: Committee Member Couch asked for an explanation of the procedure for "calling for the question." City Attorney Thiltgen indicated that technically "calling the question" ends debate and an immediate vote is taken. Council has the authority to continue debate if it so states. Any Council member can call the question. In Robert's Rules, you can end up voting numerous times, including voting on the question, the motion, the most recent amendment, the next amendment and then the main motion. You allow flexibility when you have a substitute Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee October 22, 2001 Page 6 motion rather than amendments to motions, etc. Committee member Couch indicated he felt something like this should be added to the policy. City Attorney Thiltgen indicated this was already in Robert's Rules which is in the ordinance already. Committee Chair Benham suggested this be highlighted in the policy as Item 12 Committee Chair Benham suggested that red carpet presentations might be held at 5:15 p.m. rather than at the 7:00 p.m. Council meetings in order to shorten COuncil meetings. Committee Member Sullivan indicated that public recognitions were very important and having the presentations during the regular Council meetings was especially important to those honored, their family, and friends. The Mayor liked having them during the meeting, also. She was sure he would focus on making them brief and spacing them out. She is strongly in favor of keeping it just the way it is. Committee Member Sullivan suggested consideration could be given to limiting the number of presentations per meeting, and Committee Member Couch suggested holding the amount of time for each presentation to a certain limit, indicating he felt the Mayor would make efforts to keep presentations brief. Committee Chair Benham suggested not having presentations at meetings having General Plan Amendments on the agenda. City Clerk McCarthy indicated she had talked with the Mayor who was going to try to limit presentations to no more than two per meeting unless it was time sensitive. The Committee reviewed the Mayor's recommendations contained within his October 17, 2001 memo to the Committee. Committee members generally felt that limiting adjournment to 11:00-11:30 p.m. could impact those individuals who had been waiting to speak on an issue, thereby causing them to need to return for another meeting if their issue was not discussed before the allowed time. It could also cause future agendas to be backlogged by the issues held over. On the issue of limiting Council discussion to no longer than 60 minutes per item, City Attorney Thiltgen explained that under Robert's Rules the Council technically has 70 minutes (10 minutes per Council member). He clarified that on speaking to the motion twice, a Council member had 10 minutes each of the two times. Responses to questions asked were also included in the 10-minute time frame. Technically, the Council member is asking the question through the Chair and the Chair has control of the meeting rather than the Council member. In responding to Committee Chair Benham's question, City Attorney Thiltgen suggested that, since the Mayor's memo was directed to the Committee, she might consider responding directly to the Council rather than going directly to the Mayor, with which she concurred. 5. NEW BUSINESS REVIEW, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO PROPOSED FIREWORKS ORDINANCE CHANGES Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen explained the need for the proposed changes, indicating issues had arisen relating to distance requirements, the definition of a non-profit, instances of more than one permit per non-profit, filing of unauthorized permit applications, Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee October 22, 2001 Page 7 and others. He mentioned staff met with fireworks vendors and felt they were in general agreement with what is proposed. City Treasurer Bill Descary explained the changes in more detail. The City had 50 perpetual fireworks permits (prior to basing the number of fireworks stands on population at the rate of I per 4,000). The new ones are "raffled" (drawn) by lot. County Fireworks stands which come in through annexation are granted a perpetual permit. The proposed change in the application filing time to March 1 through March 31 allows more time for successful drawing applicants to obtain a good location (suggested by a vendor). Another change requires plot plans to be approved by the Fire Department and the traffic authority. Distances between stands is changed from 600 to 400 feet. If two applicants apply for the same location, a simple drawing is held to establish priority. The issue of canopies (freestanding and connected) was discussed at length. Director of Environmental Services Ralph Huey indicated a number of inspections were completed on each fireworks stand for conformance with regulations. Discussion was generated from fireworks permit holders relating to the need for canopies to shelter staff and customers from the Bakersfield heat. It was indicated that costs for inspecting such canopies was not a major concern. Staff was concerned regarding safety aspects including site line visibility, flame retardant properties, and the loss of canopy flame retardant properties over time. Other staff issues included canopies with signs and the taking up of parking spaces. Committee Chair Benham asked if the canopies could be included in the site plan and certification process. Staff was directed to try to accommodate concerns expressed by the audience and report back at the next Committee meeting. She indicated a desire for a closed Committee session on a lawsuit relating to unauthorized permit applications. 6. COMMrn'EE COMMENTS None. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Staff Attendees: City Manager Alan Tandy, Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen, Assistant to the City Manager Darnell Haynes, Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater, City Clerk Pam McCarthy; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Deputy City Attorney Michael AIIford; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; City Treasurer Bill Descary; Director of Environmental Services Ralph Huey Other Attendees: Cheryl Nelson, Ray Allen, Stuart Baugher, Bill Brimmer, Louis Linney, Bill Baumgarner, Joe Elkins, Barbara Fields, Becky Kaiser, Barbara Fowler (L011022.MIN)