Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/27/2001 BAKERSFIELD Alan T ager Sue Benham, Chair Staff: Trudy Slater David Couch Jacquie Sullivan AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Monday, August 27, 2001 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Called to order at 1:03 p.m. Members present: Councilmember Sue Benham, Chair Councilmember David Couch Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan 2. ADOPT JUNE 25, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION AND REVIEW RELATING TO LAFCO ANNEXATION PROCEDURES (INVITED GUEST: BILL TURPIN) Chairperson Sue Benham thanked Mr. Bill Turpin, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Executive Director, for being able to meet with the Committee. In response to several questions, Mr. Turpin explained the procedures used and to be implemented by LAFCo regarding the legal process to be followed relating to annexation. He handed out LAFCo Procedures, Standards and Policies for the evaluation of Proposals and indicated LAFCo would not have a policy relating to procedures to be followed in addition to the legal annexation process. ADOPTED AS SUBI~TTED ON SEPTEI, IBER 24, 2001 Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee August 27, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Turpin felt the guide City staff had worked to compile was similar to the County's and was not needed; to reproduce what the County does seems to him to be a duplication. He felt the prior proposed city guide focused on the legal as opposed to pre-legal area. He indicated he would not presume to dictate what a city does, but a simple and clarifying-document with the citizen as the audience relating to the City's pre-legal area could be very helpful. City Attorney Bart Thiltgen explained in the pre-legal area, the City could establish whatever guidelines the Council wanted. A discussion followed relating to ways to provide information to the public in inhabited areas under consideration for annexation, including conducting professional surveys geared to the population size of the annexation; prezoning; resolution of application; appropriate general plan designation; proper documentation; and pros and cons of neighborhood meetings, public meetings, and public hearings. Chairperson Benham opened questions of Mr. Turpin to the county residents attending the meeting. Statements from county residents included their desire for annexation facts in written statements identifiable as originating with the city; the separation of legal vs. pre-legal areas; notification to everyone within an inhabited annexation area; following a given policy exactly; avoiding "bundling" of annexation areas; getting a good reading of the neighborhood before moving ahead with annexation efforts; and providing a petition on de-annexation procedures. In response to Chairperson Benham's question regarding whether sending out a letter was good, it was indicated this could be good if done differently. Chairperson Benham indicated she was glad to know that what was being contemplated in the pre-legal area would not be in conflict with LAFCo. In response to a question, Mr. Turpin indicated his board could create county islands, within certain restrictions. Councilmember David Couch had several questions for staff, including: A suggestion was made that prior to a resolution of annexation being passed by the City Council a hearing be held; if that is a possibility, please tell him how many staff thinks the City should hold. Should they be in front of the City Council, in front of the Planning Commission, or a separate committee that would hold the hearing? Could an area meeting take the place of the public hearing? With regard to neighborhood meetings and public meetings, how many should be held, and how would people be notified? How do you conduct a survey, by phone, at a public meeting? How do you get an adequate sampling? He felt population size should be considered in different inhabited annexation efforts. There is a need to get the best information and noticing possible at the lowest per unit cost, while considering budgetary constraints. He wants staff to provide information in this regard. Councilmember Couch indicated he wanted to go on record in support of neighborhood meetings. He believed there were some people who do not want to speak in a large group, or who cannot attend the public meeting, or who wish to meet with him and three or four of their neighbors. He wanted to be able to respond to their requests, to have the flexibility to go and meet with them if he wanted to or if they wanted him to. He wants to retain that Councilmember ability. He also indicated his support for providing services to those individuals who desire to be annexed even when they were in a location not directly contiguous to the City (as in a county island example) so that service to those wanting to Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee August 27, 2001 Page 3 become part of the City would not be impeded .by those not wanting City services. He encouraged City staff and Mr. Turpin to work together to further this goal. Mr. Turpin indicated he would be happy to do so. In response to a question on annexation area boundaries from Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan, Mr. Turpin indicated that annexation boundaries are very important in whether a majority of residents will support an annexation effort. He explained that the way you draw the areas affects the public opinion of which voters you include. Councilmember Sullivan noted very strongly the need to honor the desires of a majority of an annexation area's residents rather than a vocal minority. Upon Councilmember Sullivan's question regarding "bundling" of annexation areas, City Attorney Thiltgen indicated that direction to staff was clear that proposed annexation areas would no longer be bundled. Audience response to Councilmember Sullivan's question regarding whether they had attended the Casa Loma annexation meeting was in the affirmative. Councilmember Sullivan reiterated her strong belief that councilmembers and city staff are by their service dedicated to being proactive City representatives and their actions should be reflective of this stance. Service should be responsive to city residents rather than responding to influences from those not wanting to be in the city. In.response to a question from Chairperson Benham, City Attorney Thiltgen indicated he would be able to provide a report back at the next committee meeting based on what Councilmember Couch had requested. Staff will put together alternatives for committee review. Chairperson Benham suggested that audience members could put in writing specific items for staff to consider prior to the next meeting which has this as an agenda item. Submissions should be presented to staff by ten days before the next meeting. The item will continue at that time with further Committee comments, questions and open discussion. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION, REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING MINUTES OF CLOSED SESSIONS City Attorney Thiltgen explained the process followed by the City Attorney's Office relative to closed sessions, such as votes and notes on actions relating to the votes. Notes are kept by the City Attorney's Office and are considered protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege. The notes are available for review by councilmembers. Councilmember Couch expressed his concerns where, in a couple of instances, over time what had been said appeared to have been forgotten. Upon Councilmember Benham's questions, City Attorney Thiltgen explained that detailed notes would be difficult without tape recordings, which would possibly be open to disclosure in case of challenges of a violation of the Brown Act, and could tend to stifle open communications. As a legal opinion, he strongly recommended against disclosing what individual councilmembers say in closed session as it puts the public agency at a Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee August 27, 2001 Page 4 disadvantage. Chairperson Benham indicated councilmembers were free to take their own notes. City Clerk Pam McCarthy handed out a survey of the process used by other cities, explaining they had 59 responses out of 100, and 19 of those kept some type of written documents. Staff was directed to return at the next meeting with additional information from ten survey size cities. The item will be placed under deferred business for the September meeting. B. DISCUSSION, REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED LEAGUE RESOLUTIONS Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater described the resolutions and recommendations from staff contained within the packet handout, explaining that final Council decision on each resolution would be presented by the City's Delegate (Mayor Harvey Hall) at the League's General Assembly Meeting at the Annual Conference September 12-15. The nine resolutions included two which directed the League to support efforts for a ballot measure protecting local revenue sources and continuing support for the return of ERAF funding to cities. One resolution proposed exclusive control of excess PERS funds to the local contracting agencies on which department heads were split on support or opposing. Councilmember Couch moved to support staff's recommendations on Resolutions 1,2, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 8 (with support for Resolution 8 based on the ballot measure proposed in Resolution 7 not passing the electorate) and oppose Resolution 5; and moved to remain neutral on Resolution 3, with direction to the Voting Delegate to pull the resolution off the League's consent calendar for separate consideration and make comment, prepared by the City Attorney, relating to concerns on the broadly worded language regarding the "exclusive use by the affected local contracting agency" relative to excess PERS investment assets. Motion was approved unanimously. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:47 p.m. Staff Attendees: Assistant City Managers John Stinson and Alan Christensen, Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater, Assistant to the City Manager Darnell Haynes, City Clerk Pam McCarthy; and Assistant City Clerk Roberta Gafford Other Attendees: Bill Turpin, Executive Director, Local Agency Formation Commission; Stuart Baugher, James Burger, Ginger Mello, Barbara Fields, Brian K. Morrow, Liz Keogh, and Becky Kaiser