Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/24/2001 BAKERSFIELD Sue Benham, Chair David Couch Jacquie Sullivan Staff: Trudy Slater AMENDED AGENDA LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITrEE MEETING of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, September 24, 2001 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AMENDED A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT AUGUST 27, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION AND REVIEW RELATING TO LAFCO ANNEXATION PROCEDURES B. DISCUSSION, REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING MINUTES OF CLOSED SESSIONS 5. NEW BUSINESS A. STREAMLINING COUNCIL MEETINGS B. REVIEW, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO AMENDMENTS TO BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.04.010 REGARDING HEARING PROCEDURES C. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION RELATING TO DRAFTING A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE FILIPINO VETERAN EQUITY BILL OF RIGHTS PER A REQUEST FROM ELENA CALAUSTRO 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT AGN010924-Rev. (amended 9-19-01; 4:00 p.m.) FILE COPY BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy, City I~lanager 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 I. AI=CO 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. Al)OPTED AS Sl]'lla~lXTt'g]) Ot,] SEPTI~IB~R 24,. ZOO] 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 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. COMMrn'EE 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 ' ~"~ ~ ~Submitted by Barbara Fowler ~ d3~ ! Re: Annexation Guidelines · ~! m ~ ~r~ ~ ~ 9/9/01 The Palm/Olive neighborhood representatives are pleased that the Legislative and Litigation Committee is considering preparing policy and procedural guidelines which would govern future City of Bakersfield annexations. The following recommendations are based on our experience with the Palm-Olive annexation and others. It should be considered a partial list, with perhaps several other suggestions to follow. We look forward to the adoption of legally binding annexation policies. · The city should recognize and respect each individual's right to choose not to be annexed. · Individuals who prefer not to affiliate with the city should never be denigrated in any way, and should be offered the same courtesy, honesty, and respect as those who favor annexation. · The city must clearly inform all those within a proposed annexation area that annexation is a protest-based process: to legally protest one must file a written protest containing specific information by a certain date with LAFCo. The city should make clear that anFone who fails to.file a written protest is assumed to favor the annexation. This information should be given at all meetings/faires/gatherings and in all written materials. · The city should inform by mail all those within the proposed annexation area that their home/neighborhood is the subject of the city's annexation interest. Notification should be by official letter on city letterhead, should include a map showing the boundaries of the proposed annexation, should detail the timeline of the process, etc., and should be done at the earliest possible opportunity. The letter should be sent in an official City of Bakersfield envelope with the words "Important Annexation Information Enclosed" or "The City of Bakersfield Wants To Annex You" on the address side. · All written materials should include the annexation name (ie: Palm/Olive) and number; city staff should always present this information when dealing with the public. · The county's "Citizens Guide to City Annexations" should be advertised and made available at City Hall and at all public meetings. · An explanation of"how the process works" should be made, with approximate timelines included. The protest hearing should be presented as the onlF time one's legal written protest is counted. The contact information for LAFCo should be printed on mailers and presented at public forums. · The city should notifiy by mail all thOse within the proposed ' annexation area of the protest hearing date, time, and location, and the significance of the hearing. Notification should use official city letterhead and envelope (see above). · The city should not "bundle" or combine non-contiguous areas for purposes of annexation. · The city should use the same standards with so-called "county islands" as it does with other residential annexation areas. · The city should not remm to attempt to annex a neighborhood until two years after either a failed annexation (where the issue went to a vote) or a terminated annexation (where the opposition was substantial enough that the city stopped the annexation attempt). · The city should not combine commercial and residential properties for the purposes of annexation. · The city should not dissect or gerrymander neighborhoods for purposes of annexation. · Written informational materials used for annexations should be fair, honest, and complete. If tax savings are promised, all additional costs/fees/permits which annexation would bring should also be presented. Annexation's effects on home businesses should be included as well as any likely costs required to avoid code enforcement penalities. · The city should declare how it would gain by annexing an area, including specifics of the tax advantages, motor vehicle in-heu monies, etc. · The city should update its "guide to Annexation" to reflect AB2838. · All inducements (ie: capital improvements) promised to those within the proposed annexation area should be fully disclosed in advance. · The city should never imply that it is the only possible provider of services. · The city should forswear the use of rigged "neighborhood meetings" and get its annexation message to the people by use oftmblic forums held at neighborhood schools, churches, halls, etc. All residents of the area should be invited. If one meeting cannot accomodate the crowd, the schedule of meetings should be presented and attendees may R.S.V.P. to the one they wish to attend. No one should learn about a meeting after-the-fact, and no one should be left out. · Information on the proposed annexation should be the same at'all venues. The city should not schedule pubhc meetings until all the facts are known and the answers to possible questions are discovered. · County representatives should be invited to attend all pubhc meetings, and be offered an opportunity to correct any misinformation which might evident and answer any questions. · The city should never conduct meetings, hearings, fakes, or other gatherings with managed guest hsts which serve to exclude residents of an annexation area. No gatherings should be "packed" with attendees not from the annexation area. No meetings should take place in the homes of city employees or former city employees. The use of city employees to advance an annexation should be disclosed and acknowledged up front; no city employee's opinion on annexation should be treated as more important or valuable than that of an ordinary citizen. · No survey by phone, in writing, or in person should be made available to city employees if the importance of that survey has not been well advertised to all other residents of the annexation area. · City employees should not be given any "inside information" which allows them greater participation in their neighborhood's annexation decision than is available to other residents. · All survey materials used to gather information about a neighborhood's interest in annexation should be confidential and allow the respondant to remain anonymous. No database shall be created with the information gathered. · The city should develop a policy of pledging a "no veto" vote on deannexation/detachment petitions. Because the petition requirements are very high, the likelihood of receiving such a petition is small. If the neighborhood is successful in presenting the required number of signatures, it means that the city may have misstated the area's interest in annexation. The city could limit the time period in which it would pledge the "no veto". · The city should make available to the residents in an annexation area the memos or reports which reflect the staffs assessment of whether neighborhood favors or opposes the annexation. · If a telephone "hotline" is used, the staffer who answers should have a fact sheet with all the pertinent information available. This same information should be available to interested parties (handed to walk- ins or mailed to residents on reques0. A staffer should be assigned this duty, and callers should not have to receive a remm phone call to get information. · All written information should look businesslike and clearly state it was produced by the city. ' '~" -:~-~': ' Handout at L&L Committee Meeting of 9-24-01 September 24, 2001 (from S. Baugher) LEGISLATION AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Dear Committee: I thank you for giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts on some of the points I feel are important to include in a "City of Bakersfield Guide To The Annexation Process." I have written my thoughts as broad spectrum. I would hope that if any questions arise as to the detail thoughts behind these writings, you or staff should feel fi'ee to ask or give me a call. (Communication information on file.) All of the phases relating to the annexation process are by legal requirements. Therefore the term "pre-legal", as it relates to LAFCO's responsibilities should not be used as it connotes that the phases prior to LAFCO's phase are not legally required. There are many opportunities for the City to respond to the wishes of the citizenry during the City's consideration of annexation. There should be meetings with the citizens to determine their desires. These meetings should be general and'all citizens invited to share their points of view. This is not. to say that if a specific citizen, or small group, wishes a "one on one" meeting that they should not be satisfied. To the contrary, they should. But extreme caution should be exercised that the voice of the few not be construed to be that of the majority. There are at least 4 public hearings prior to a proposal of annexation being approved by the City Council and the filing of application for annexation to LAFCO. At any one of these public hearings, if the voice of the people is heard to be strong enough to be clearly saying, "we do not want this annexation" the annexation process could be halted. The fa'st of these public hearings is with the Board of Zoning Adjustmem. The second public hearing is the Planning Commission. The third public hearing is the City Council where the Zoning Adjustment is heard at one meeting, then again when the proposal of annexation is heard. Notification of the involved citizenry should take the same form and format for any public hearing relating to a specific area of annexation. The citizenry (registered voter and landowner) should be by written notification. The area of notification should include all registered voters and landowners within 300 feet of the area being considered for annexation. If these thoughts were developed and adhered to and the voice of the people was clearly heard to be saying "no annexation," the citizens of the City of Bakersfield could save considerable tax dollars to be used in other worthwhile ventures. Respectfully submitted, Stuart Baugher Citizen Handout at L&L Committee Meeting of 9-24-0'1 (from City Attorney's) September 21, 2001 TO: LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION COMMITTEE SUE BENHAM, Chair DAVID COUCH JACQUIE SULLIVAN FROM: BART J. THILTGEN, CITY ATTORNEY ~:~ /i:! ' · GINNY GENNARO, DEPUTY CITY ATIORNEY,~ \~'~' ~ SUBJECT: ANSWERS TO LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION QUESTIONS 'At the August 27, 2001 Legislative and Litigation Committee, Council Member Couch posed several questions of City Staff relative to "pre-legar'~ annexation procedures. Council Member Benham subsequently requested the City Attorney's Office to respond to these questions. Since the "pre-legal" questions are, by their very nature, not legal, the following responses are based primarily on the collective experience of Staff in annexation proceedings. 1. Should a hearing be held prior to a resolution of annexation being passed by the City Council? Staff does not recommend establishing a formal policy relating to pre-legal meetings, of any type. The reasons for this are many, including: (a) the people in attendance believe the meeting(s) is legal in. nature and is the same as a vote in a protest hearing generating confusion. (b) Second, pre-legal meetings historically do not gather enough people to accurately assess the sentiment of the proposed annexed area. For example, there were approximately 10 pre-legal Palm/Olive meetings with about 10- 20 people at each one. The general remarks at these meetings had Staff convinced that annexation of the area was desired. It is assumed that this term refers to the procedures adopted by the City, if any, that occur prior to the formal annexation procedures established by state law. LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION COMMITTEE September 2'1, 2001 Page 2 (c) Third, many people are too intimidated to speak at such meetings, especially if they have a view different from their neighbor(s). (d) Fourth, surveys done in the past indicate that, regardless of how professional or thorough City sponsored meetings are, a few neighbors, even with erroneous faCts, can walk door-to-door and have more weight than a City official. Past annexations involving City Council Members walking door-to-door have had similar results. 2. If this is a possibility, how many hearings should the City hold and in front of what body? Again, Staff does not recommend such hearings. However, if such hearings were deemed appropriate, Staff recommends they be held before the City Council so that: (a) The Council can have a first-hand observation of the citizens in support.of and against annexation. (b) City Council meetings provide an official record of the proceedings. (c) The environment of a City Council meeting is much more controlled, thereby eliminating safety concerns of Staff when attending hostile neighborhood meetings. 3. Could an area meeting take the place of the public hearing? Once it is determined that pre-legal .meetings are a necessary part of annexations, any combination or type. of meeting may be held. Keeping in mind, however, that the type of meeting(s) does not have a legal basis for validating the annexation procedure. 4. With regard to neighborhood meetings and public meetings, how many should be held and how would people be notified? In the past, people volunteered their houses for such get togethers. Flyers were distributed around the subject house using reasonable numbers that were anticipated to attend so as not to overwhelm the guest house. In addition, churches, community centers, parks and schools were used as LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION COMMITTEE September 21, 2001 Page 3 meeting places and notices to the surrounding areas were obtained from public tax information. Setting a specific number of meetings may not allow adequate response to unique conditions in an annexation area. 5. How does staff conduct a survey, by phone or at the public meeting? Both. At hearings, it was done by a show of hands. In some areas, questionnaires were also utilized. Flexibility must be considered here, too, based on type and size of annexation. 6.. How do you get an adequate survey sampling? You dOn't. However, statistical probabilities can be established through various methods. Out of all the Palm/Olive neighborhood meetings, an approximate (conservative) total of 150 people, attended indicating support. The approximate affected population was 3,500. Surveys and extrapolation of data therefrom are both labor and time intensive. Costs of surveys versus survey results must be considered in any survey effort. 7. Keeping in mind budgetary constraints, what is the best way to disseminate information and noticing at the lowest per unit cost? Pre-legal meetings involve an immense amount of City resources. A one- size-fits-all "cost per unit" evaluation of information dissemination versus costs is impossible to quantify due to variation in size and population of the proposed annexation combined with the unknowns of the numbers of pre- meetings deemed necessary, the types of information desired to be researched and disseminated, specific concerns within each proposed annexation area, and other issues which may apply. Additionally, the "added benefit" 'to be gained from an increased cost per unit must be weighed against competing budgetary needs of the City. If the Committee wishes to pursue this issue, we can research the costs associated with past legally required notices. Necessarily, if a different manner of disseminating information is desired, such past cost comparison may not be applicable. BJT/GG:alj cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Alan Tandy, City Manager S:\COUNClL\MEMOS\Leg&Lit. CouchQuestions.wpd B A K E R S F I E I~ D MEMORANDUM CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE September 18, 2001 TO: THE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMI'R'EE FROM: ALAN TANDY, CiTY MANAGER ~/~ "~ SUBJECT: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON REFERRAL REGARDING STREAMLINING (SHORTENING) COUNCIL MEETINGS After some staff and department head brainstorming, here are some comments and recommendations: Recommended Actions 1. Allow staff to schedule regular agenda items at the 5:15 p.m. meeting when the workload is heavy. That could include the Consent Calendar and other non-hearing items. 2. Move non-agenda related public statements to the end of the business agenda. This recognizes that those who have scheduled planned business should have time priority over walk-ins, perennials etc. 3. We have already experimented with moving the non-controversial first readings to Consent. Continue that trend. 4. Hold recesses to five minutes; resume the meeting promptly at that time. Use the timer to enforce. 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. If the action must eventually go to Council, add the City Manager step as a way of reducing the number that eventually go. 6. Eliminate the procedural steps that have to take place that are now needed to hold hearings after 11:00 p.m.. (Separately referred to Committee). LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Streamlining at Council Meetings September 18, 2001 Page Two 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. 8. Move non-controversial Council Committee reports to the Consent Calendar. 9. Start the workshops at 4:30 p.m., rather than 5:15 p.m. 10. Have the Parliamentarian (City Attorney) more actively involve himself in the meeting to call attention to violations of the Roberts or Council rules. 11. Videotape certain workshops separate from the meeting, so City Council can individually watch them at their leisure. Suggestions from Councilmember Hanson See attached. Suggestions to Consider - Not Recommended 1. Meet more often and limit time to 10:00 or 11:00 p.m., with unaddressed items carried over to next agenda. 2. Schedule General Plan Amendments at special quarterly meetings and start those meetings earlier. 3. Adopt a limitation of the number of times a Councilmember may speak on a given item. (NOTE: Robert's Rules now limits to two). Provide for a super-majority vote of the Council to suspend this rule under special circumstances. 4. Adopt a specific time when the Council must adjourn the meeting, with a carryover to the next meeting of items which had not been considered. Provide for a super-majority vote of the Council to continue consideration of items that evening. 5. Have Workshop items on another day or at lunchtime. 6. Rather than making an oral report by staff during Reports, provide the Council a written report. 7. Schedule a "Special Meeting" to conduct the quarterly GPA hearings. A "Special Meeting" for this limited purpose could be held on Wednesday of the off-week between two regular Council Meetings. Also, in the event a Joint RDA/Council Meeting is required, similarly schedule a "Special Meeting" for Wednesday of the off-week between regular Council Meetings. LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Streamlining at Council Meetings September~18, 2001 ·. Page Three. 8. As an alternative to # 7. above, split the Council Meeting into two, with Hearings on one night and the rest of the meeting on another night. This would necessarily require two Public Statements periods (Brown Act). 9. An individual may appear before the Council's Open Forum no more than four times per year and no more than once in a three month period. AT:rks Attachment Streamlining City Council Meetings Suggestions from Councilmember Hanson: · Request that Councilmembers make their closing statements and referrals on major issues only. Most referrals can be discussed with staff prior to Council meetings. Requests (in most cases) should be handled on a one-on-one basis with staff. · Regarding zoning issues, etc.: Much of this dialogue and planning can, and should be, completed outside meetings. A review of the intended ordinance is in order at the Council meeting. Mediate issues prior to our meetings. · We are the Board of Directors for the City. As such, management reports to us. Alan Tandy is the CEO. If you believe in our senior people, we shouldn't be micro-managing. Allow them to do their job. We need to set the rules, not physically run the City from Chambers. Handout at L&L Committee Meeting of 9-24-01 (from City Clerk's) CITY CLERK SURVEY RE: STREAMLINING MEETINGS A survey of City Clerk's through the League of California Cities "ListServe" was conducted on 9/6/01. The following, information was requested: 1. At what time do you start your meetings? 2. Do you meet weekly or bi-monthly? 3. Do you have time limits for sections OTHER THAN public statements? 4. Do you have a set order for your agenda or the flexibility to move sections /items around? 5. Please provide any other suggestions you may have regarding streamlining Council meetings. Fifty (50) Cities responded to the Survey. The following is a cross section of the information provided: · Most cities meet 2 x's per month. · Some cities reported bi-monthly meetings for regular business with an additional meeting per month for WOrkshops and Reports · 6 Cities Reported meeting weekly (Fresno, Riverside, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Burbank, Chula Vista, Carlsbad and Oxnard) · Average' time for meetings to begin was 6:30 pm. However, some started, as early as 9:00 am (Fresno);. others at 3:30 or 4:00 for Workshops · Set an established time to end' meetings. Many had 11:00 pm - 1.2:00 am deadlines · Business not completed is carried over to the next meeting or call for an additional meeting before the next scheduled meeting · Place as much business on the Consent Calendar as possible · Place a 60 minute time limit for Council discussion on Hearing Items Limit Public Statement portion to 30 minutes · Use a timer for recess :pmc ADMINISTRATIVE" 'REPORT  G DATE: September 5, 2001 ~ SECTION: Consent ~ ITEM: .~ Calendar TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Bart J. Thiltgen, City Attorney DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE: August 24, 2001 CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: Amendment of Bakersfield Municipal Code section 2.04.010 related to hearing proCedure at Council Meetings RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends referral to Legislative and Litigation Committee. BACKGROUND: During the City Council meeting of August 22, 2001, the Council and Mayor were required by Bakersfield Municipal Code to perform some procedural steps which were time-consuming, confusing and potentially viewed by the public to be superfluous. These procedural steps included: 1 ) at about 10:00 p.m., the Council was required to decide whether to continue to conduct the public hearings during that Council meeting or continue the hearings to the next Council meeting; and 2) shortly before 11:00 p.m., the Mayor was required to call, open and continue to later in the meeting each remaining public hearing. Since the procedure dealt with public hearings associated with General Plan Amendments, the Code requirements potentially could have caused a delay for all the proposed amendments, even if some of the public hearings had been completed. There may be policy reasons for the Council to require some, if not all, of these Code procedural requirements. However, it is suggested that the Council review these requirements to determine if the Code could be amended to expedite the conduct of the meetings, eliminate the confusion and avoid potential detrimental impacts. Several alternatives are apparent (e.g., retain Code as it currently exists, eliminate requirements entirely, modify the specific time criteria, eliminate the second procedural step, etc.). It is recommended this issue be referred to the Legislative and Litigation Committee to review ali the alternatives and the attendant impacts of each. S:\COUNCILV~dm Ins~rg Procedure Rv w to Leg&Ut.wpd BJT:laa SE09CAI.CC August 24, 2001.10:21am 2.04.010 Chapter 2.04 2.04.040 Agend~ A. There shall prepared an agenda for each COUNCIL MEETINGS meeting of the city council which agenda shall be in accordance with the order of business. Sections: B. The preparation of the agenda and its distribution 2.04.010 Time and place, shall be as directed by the council. (Ord. 3735 § 1 (pan), 2.04.020 Authority and purpose. 1996: prior code § 2.08.030) 2.04.030 Parliamentary law. 2.04.040 Agenda. 2.04.050 Duties of presiding officer. 2.04.050 Duties of presiding officer. The duties of the presiding officer shall be: 2.04.060 Sergeant at arms. A. To open the session at the time at which the 2.04.070 Order of bnsiness, body is to meet by taking the chair and calling the mem- 2.04.080 Consent calendar, bers to order; 2.04.100 Public statements. B. To announce the business before the body in the 2.04.110 Hearings. order in which it is to be acted upon; 2.04.120 Rules of debate. C. To recognize the members entitled to the floor;, 2.04.130 Members may fde protests D. To state and put to vote all questions which are against council action, regularly moved or which necessarily arise in the course 2.04.140 Persons authorized to be within of the proceedings, and to announce the result of the rail vote; 2.04.150 Ordinances, resolutions, motions E. To preserve order and decorum; and contracts. F. To restra/n the members and the public when 2.04.170 Adjournment. engaged in debate within the rules of order and decorum; G. To decide all points of order, subject to appeal, 2.04.010 Time and place, unless when in doubt the presiding officer prefers to The regular meetings of the city council shall -be held submit the question to the decision of the body; at seven p.m. in the council chambers of City Hall, 1501 H. To enforce all laws and regulations applicable to Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, on such days as are set the council sessions; annually by resolution of the city council. Workshop I. Generally to guide and direct the proceedings of meetings and closed sessions, as authorized by the Ralph the body, subject to the .control and will of the body; M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.), J. To carry out any other duties as specified .in the may be held at five fifteen p.m. as part of any regular or city Charter. (Ord. 3735 § 1 (pan), 1996: prior code special meeting of the council, provided the same appear § 2.08.040) on the agenda for such meeting. (Ord. 3735 § 1 (pan), 1996: Ord. 3137 § l, 1988: Ord. 3072 § l, 1986: Ord. 2.04.060 Sergeant at arms. 2778 § l, 1982: Ord 2623 § l, 1981: prior code § A. There shall be a sergeant at arms, who shall be 2.04.010) a uniformed member of the police department. B. The sergeant at arms shall be in attendance at all 2.04.020 Authority and purpose, regular sessions, and shall, under the direction of the These rules of procedure are adopted pursuant to presiding officer, maintain order on the floor of the authority of the Constitution of the state and Section 19 Council Chambers. (Ord. 3735 § 1 (part), 1996: prior of the Charter of the city for the purpose of pwmoting code § 2.08.050) uniformity, clarity and efficiency in the dispatch of public business. (Ord. 3735 § 1 (pan), 1996: prior code § 2.04.070 Order of business. 2.08.010) A. At the time set for regular meeting of the city *' council, the members of the legislative body and the 2.04.030 Parliamentary 'law. adminislrative staff shall take their regular stations in the Except as provided in this chapter, the city Charter, or council chambers, and the business of the council shall council policy, parliamentary law as set forth in Robert's be taken up for consideration and disposition in the Rules of Order, current edition, shall govern. (Ord. 3735 following order: § 1 (part), 1996: Ord. 3594 § 1, 1994: prior code § 1. Invocation; 2.08.020) 2. Pledge of Allegiance; 34 (~... 2.04.070 3. Roll call; speaker's card provided by the city clerk and shall list 4. Closed session action; their name and the topic they wish to address. Comments 5. Presentations; by the public during the public statements portion of the 6. Public statements; agenda are limited to three minutes for each person, with 7. Appointments; a total of fifteen minutes in favor of any one subject and 8. Consent calendar; a total of fifteen minutes in opposition of any one subject. 9. Hearings; B. No person shall address the council until recog- 10. Reports; nized by the mayor or presiding officer. Counciknembers 11. Deferred business; who wish to allow a member of the audience to speak at 12. New business; times other than the public statements portion of the 13. Council statements; agenda or after a public hearing has been closed may do 14. Adjournment. so with the permission of the presiding officer. Persons B. Changes in the order of business at the noticed desiring to comment on a matter on the agenda not set meeting can be accomplished by five affirmative votes for public hearing may speak during the public statements of the council. (Ord. 3735 § I (pan), 1996: Ord. 3514 § portion of the agenda or with the permission of the pre- 1, 1993: Ord. 3423 § 1, 1991: Ord. 3229 § 1, 1989: Ord. siding officer speak at the time that matter is called on 3130 § 1, 1988: Ord. 3127 § 1, 1987: Ord. 3064 § 1, the agenda. 1986: Ord. 2893 § 1, 1984: prior code § 2.08.060) C. Any person addressing the council making slan- derous or defamatory remarks may forthwith be barred 2.04.080 Consent calendar, by the presiding officer from speaking further before the A. The consent calendar is comprised of one or council during that meeting. more items of routine nature which may be approved at D. Persons given permission to address the council one time 'by affu-mative roll 'call vote. shall advance to the rostrum, state their name, whom they B. Any councilmember may remove any item or are representing if they represent other persons, the sub- items from the Consent calendar to be voted upon sepa- ject matter they wish to discuss. Unless otherwise deter- rately from all other items on said consent calendar, mined by the council, the presiding officer shall deter- C. Any councilmember may declare a conffict of mine whether the subject matter is within the subject interest, indicate the Cause of the conflict and request-the matter jurisdiction of the city council and the time al- city clerk to record their abstention from the vote on any lowed for presentation. item or items on the consent calendar. That E. All remarks shall be addressed to the council as councilmember's vote on the consent calendar shall be a body and not to any member thereof. No question shall recorded only for those items for which that be asked a councilmember of a member of the adminis- councilmember did not declare a conflict and the city tration or legal staff, except through the presiding officer. clerk shall record the abstention of the remaining issues. (Ord. 3735 § 1 (pan), 1996: Ord. 3064 § 2, 1986: prior D. The minutes of the previous council meeting, code § 2.08.080) which shall be action-style minutes, may be approved as part of the consent calendar. Meetings shall also .be-re- 2.04.110 Hearings. corded on audio tape, which shall be preserved by the A. Hearings. Scheduled hearings on zoning matters, city clerk in perpetuity. (Ord. 3735 § 1 (pan), 1996: Ord. annexations, public improvement districts, appeals, and 3421 § 3, 1991: prior code § 2.08.062) other hearings are to be conducted in the following order. 1. Presentation by opponents, limited to fifteen 2.04.100 Public statements, minutes; provided, however, additional time may be A. Any person may address the council on any item granted by the presiding officer; of interest to the public, that is within the subject matter 2. Presentation by proponents, with the time limits jurisdiction of the city council during the public statement specified in subdivision 1 of this subsection, and such portion of the meeting, provided however, persons wish- equivalent additional time as may have been granted lng to address the council regarding a matter set for opponents; public heating at that meeting shall make their comments 3. Where a hearing is the result of an appeal, the during the l~ublic hearing on that matter. Persons desiring order of presentation shall be reversed and the appellant to speak during thepublic statement portion of the meet- shall proceed first; the time limits provisions of subdivi- lng or on any matter on the agenda not set for public sion 1 of this subsection shall apply; hearing shall fill out and return to the city clerk, the 2.04.110 4. Summation by both sides limited to five minutes D. Privilege of Closing Debate. The councilmember each; provided, however, both sides may be granted moving the adoption of an ordinance or resolution shall /'~ additional time by the presiding officer; have the privilege of closing the debate. ~. ' 5. The public hearing is closed by the presiding E. Remarks of Mayor. The mayor may express officer, views on any subject for consideration by the council and 6. Council discussion and council decision; may file any written recommendations with the clerk. 7. Whenever a scheduled hearing or hearings have (Ord. 3735 § 1 (part), 1996: Ord. 3421 §§ 1, 4, 1991: not commenced prior to 10:00 p.m., the council shall prior code § 2.08.110) decide whether to continue such matter(s) to the next regular meeting of the council or to proceed that evening 2.04.130 Members may f'fle protests against with such matter(s); provided, however, no hearing shall council action. be commenced after 11:00 p.m. As to any hearing not Any member may state the re~son for dissent from or commenced prior to 11:00 p.m., the presiding officer protest against any action of the council. (Ord. 3735 § I shall open such hearing and continue the matter to the (part), 1996: Ord. 3421 § 2, 1991: prior code § 2.08.111) next regular meeting of the council. Each hearing so continued shall be placed on the agenda for such next 2.04.140 Persons authorized to be within regular meeting above any other hearing scheduled for rail. such meeting. , · No person, except city officials, their representatives, B. Spokesperson for Group of Persons. In order to and representatives of news gathering agencies, shall be expedite matters and avoid repetitious presentations, permitted within the rail in front of the Council Chamber whether any group of persons wishes to address the without the express consent of the council. (Ord. 3735 § council on the same subject matter, it shall be proper for 1 (pan), 1996: Prior code § 2.08.112) the presiding officer to request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group to address the council, and in the 2.04.150 Ordinances, resolufions~ motions event additional matters are to be presented at the time and contracts. by any other member-having like views as the group, to A. Preparation of Ordinances. All ordinances shall limit the number of such persons addressing the council be prepared 'by the city attorney. No ordinance shall be and limit the time for each person. (ord. 3735 § 1 (part), prepared for presentation to the council unless ordered by ( 1996: Ord. 3224 § 1, 1989: Ord. 3064 § 3, 1986: prior a majority vote of the council, or requested in writing by \ ~ code § 2.08.090) any member of the council, the presiding officer or the city manager, or prepared by the city attorney on her or 2.04.120 Rules of debate, his own initiative. A. Presiding Officer May Debate and Vote. In the B. Prior Approval By Administrative Staff. All absence of the mayor, the vice-mayor or such other ordinances, resolutions and contract documents shall, member of the council as may be presiding may move, before presentation to the council, have been approved as second and debate from the chair, subject only to Such to form and legality by the city attorney or authorized limitations of debate as are.i~y these rules imposed on ail representative, and shall have been examined and ap- members and shall not be deprived of any of the fights proved for the administration by the city manager or and privileges as a councilmember by reason of their authorized representative, where there are substantive acting as the presiding officer, matters of administration involved. B. Getting the Floor--Improper References To Be C. Introduction For Passage or Approval. Ordinanc- Avoided. Every member desiring to speak shall address es, resolutions, and other matters or subjects requiring the chair, and upon recognition by the presiding officer, action by the council must be introduced and sponsored shall discuss only the question under debate, avoiding all by a member of the council, except that the mayor, city personalities and indecorous language, manager, or city attorney may present ordinances, resolu~ C. Interruptions. A member, once recognized, shall fions, and other matters or subjects to the councils and not be interrupted when speaking unless called to order, any councilmember may assume sponsorship thereof by or as otherwise provided in this section. If a member, moving that such ordinances, resolutions, matters or while speaking, is called to order, said member shall subjects be adopted; otherwise they shall not be consid- cease speaking until the question of order is determined, ered. and, if in order, shall be permitted to proceed. 2.04.150 D. All ordinances, except emergency ordinances as set forth in Sections 23 and 24 of the Charier, shah be placed on a city council agenda for first reading at least one week prior to adoption, and shall not require reading nor ~other action, and such listing on the agenda alone shall be deemed to constitute first reading. Minor alter- ations, but not changes in substance, may be made by council action or staff recommeDd~on between said initial publication and adoption. (Ord. 3735 § 1, 1996: Ord. 3577 § 1, 1994: Ord. 3422 § 1, 1991: prior code § 2.08.113) 2.04A70 Adjournment. A motion to adjourn shall always be in order and decided without debate. (Ord. 3735 § 1 (part), 1996: prior code § 2.08.115) To; Editorial Bakersfield Californian PO bOx 440 Bakersfield, Ca From. Ellen Calaustro 4721 Columbus St. "D" Bakersfield, Ga 93306 In a stron.g support of the Filipino International Legal Defense & Educational Fund Foundation, Inc. petition to Presi- dent Bush & the Us Congress to repeal the 1946 R~cission Acts,. Assemblyman Jay La Suer(R-La Mesa)i~mediately i~troduce'd Assembl.-y Joint Resolution #20,which memorializes the President and the Congress of United States to act favorably on legi~slation per- taining to granting full benefits to all World War Filipino Ve- terans of the U.S. Armed /Forces.This legislation is long over- due. Ail other national- even foreigners- who served in the Ar- med Forces during WW 11 have been recognized and granted full rights and benefits, but the Filipinos who actually'were American nationals were a~C stiil denied recognition and singled out for exclusion. This treatment is unfair and discriminatory. The Filipino soldiers comprised over 70 percent of General Mc- Arthu~ forces in the Philippines, which was a U,S. possession at that time.Thousands and thousands of Filipinos amd Americans .'~ied fighting for.fr~edo~ anC d~mo~racy. '' - - These Filipino Veterans risked their lives, left their families, endured pain and suffering. It's time that we rectify this injus ._ tice and the benefits they desk. rye, ~. The' Treaty of Paris which ended' the SpaniSh 'American War on December 10,1898, the Philippines-'b'~'~ame a territorial possesion and colony of the United State,from Spain. The Filipinos Were U.S. nationals)and had full control o~er the Philippines and its inter- nal affairs, and as such ,''the Filipinos were subject to and en- ~titled their fundamental rights under th~ consttition of Un- hired States of America. In the battlefields of Bataan & Corregidor, the Filipinos soldiers had proven in the whole world their courage, valor and heroism in the defense of democrac~and the United Staes. Their .. loyalty and supreme sacifice in defending the United State s Page two as a mother country ,fought the Japanese Imperial Army side by side with American soldiers during World War 11, under the Ame- flag and under the direction and control of the United States military leaders in pursuant to President Roosevelt's July 26, 1941 Military Order for over three years of WAR unti.1 the Philipr p~ne Liberation, and the acceptance of surrender by Japan cn September 2,1945,by General Douglas McArthur. During the infanous "death march",1800 Americans soldiers and 29,180 Filipinos died and the survivors were tortured. The significant of the 1946 /Rescission Acts is anjust and unlawful discrim.nation against the Filipino Wor~ War 11 vete- rans by denying them '.eligibility for equal benefits adminstered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Fmt the past sixty yaars the United States government has yet t0 restore the rights,pri- vileges and benefit~uaranteed, then taken away fro~.~ the Filipino World War 11 Veterans. In spite of the various events and diffe- rences between the Philippines and United States, the Filipinos remai'n the strongest ally and loyal frien~of the Americans in Asia,and the sincere attempt by the U.S. Congress~o' correct the wrong done to the Filipino wwllVeterans will be appreciated in order for them to live with decency,dignity and honor. The H.R. 491 known as the "Filipino Veterans Equity Act" sponsored by Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman & co-sposored by Con- gressman Bob Filner on Febr.~ary 7,2001 and s-1042 know~ Filipino Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2001,sposored by Senator Daniel K. Imouye on June 14,2001 at the 107th Congress restore full veterans status and full benefitsto Filipino WW 11 veterans will comDletely resolve the claim issue in the spirit of true ,judtice .and fairness;. Ia .~ehalf of my Filipino Vet. erans ~i r~,zs~tfu~.i~ uYg~ ~nd pray that.the President an'd Congress of UNited States during the 107th Congress take immediate action necessary to "REPEAL THE 1946 RESCISSION ACTS and honor the United States economic,finan cial and moral obligation,and commmitment to justice to restore these Filipino WWll veterans full U.S. veterans status with equal and full military benefits, directs th~ Secretary of the Army is- sue a certificate of service to every Filipino World War 11 vete- rans deemed by the Secretary who served under the U.S. Armed ~For- ces'·Thank you very much. Ellen Calaustro Direc~RFilipino WWll ,. ~ --'~ Handout at L&L Committee , .~ Meeting of 9-24-01 (from City Clerk's) CLOSED SESSION MINUTE BOOKS SURVEY CUPERTINO - Minutes contain: · those present · subject matter and background · decisions made · identification of any handouts Minutes are stored in a folder in a locked drawer in Clerk's Office and can only be viewed by those attending the meeting. EUREKA - (Sent example) Minutes contain: · subject matter · motion, who made the motion, and the vote results · the announcement that was made in open session Minutes are stored in a locked file cabinet and' made available only to the legislative body. FRESNO - (Sent examples) Minutes contain: · Meeting start and adjourn time · those present · subject matter · highlights discussions or presentations by staff · motion, who made the motion, and the vote results Minutes are presented to City Attorney who maintains the typed Minutes and City Clerk notes. GRASS VALLEY - · Clerk attends and takes notes only when directed (usually personnel matters) · Clerk types up a summary which is placed in employee confidential file · Only formal action taken is reported in open session LODI - (Sent example) Record is in "Report Form" and contains: · Meeting start and adjourn time · those present · agenda item description · motion and voting results · Closed Session Report available to the public at the discretion of City Attorney Clerk maintains Reports in a file folder. Page 2 NAPA - Minutes contain: · brief summary of labor negotiations · exact settlement before Council at the time for litigation · motion, who made the motion and vote results Clerk maintains minute book PARADISE - Minutes contain: those present · subjects discussed direction given to staff · Clerk signs and maintains the minutes Clerk stores Minutes in a locked fire-safe file. SAN CLEMENTE - Minutes are kept in the form of notes which contain: · meeting start and adjoum time · those present · subject matter and staff member presenting briefing · only council direction or motions are noted Notes are kept in longhand and filed in a confidential folder in the Clerk's vault. VICTORVILLE - (sent example) "Report Form" · subject matter · council direction or motions are noted · vote results · Report Form is completed by City Attorney Clerk takes thorough shorthand notes. Transcribed only at the request of Council or Manager Confidential files are maintained for five years, pursuant to records retention schedule. WHITTIER - (sent example) Minutes contain: · meeting start and adjourn time · those present · approval of previous closed session minutes · subject matter and paragraph regarding presentation or briefing · council direction or action · signature of Clerk Minutes are maintained in locked file cabinet in Records Center. S:bMISC\Gafford~minute books 10 cities.wpd CONFIDENTIAL CLOSED SESSION ACTION JULY 20, 1999 EUREKA CITY COUNCIL/EUREKA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - PENDING LITIGATION Name of case: City of Eureka v. Eureka Hotel Company - Case No. DR980235 California Govt. Code Section 54956.9 On a Motion/Second by ARKLEY/HUNTER MEEKS, unanimous yes vote, Council authorized the City Attorney to float rubber duckies in the bay until the cows come home. Upon reconvening to Open Session, the following announcement was made: "The City Council met in closed session to discuss pending litigation in the case of the City of Eureka v. Eureka Hotel Company, Superior Court Case No. DR980235. This closed session was held pursuant to California Govt. Code Section 54956.9. In closed session the Council voted unanimously to have the City Attomey continue on the track that we're on and hopefully bring it to a successful conclusion." i'R°be~ta Gafferd - duplicate January 2001 .wpd Page Fresno, California January 8,2001 The Council of the City of Fresno, Califomia, met in Special Closed Session in Room 2125, City Hall, at the hour of 12:03 p.m. Present were Councilmembers Boyajian, Castillo, Duncan, Ronquillo, and Council President Perea. Also present were Mayor Autry, City Attorney Montoy, Interim City Manager Souza, City Clerk Klisch, and involved staff. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL CO 'UNSEL - DECIDING WHETHER TO INITIATE LITIGATION CITY OF FRESNO V. City Attorney Montoy began with an overview of the Closed Session process and advised of the confidentiality aspect. She continued and reviewed the background of the issue at hand including an explanation of the --- agreement between ....... , and clarified specifics for the Council. Council President Perea reviewed specifics of the meeting held on 1/5/01 with the ...................... and representatives from ..................... Mayor Autry provided his perspective of the recent meeting and on the positive collaborative impact of the meeting. Development Director Yovino submitted and reviewed a map of the proposed sphere lines for .... and the City of Fresno, attached, and began a comprehensive review of the Draft Agreement points, also attached. Extensive discussion ensued regarding specific terminology involving "must," "shall," and "will," and continued with a thorough discussion of each of the proposed deal points. Ms. Montoy noted Item 3 necessitates extensive discussions, with concurrence by Interim City Manager Souza. Mr. Souza clarified and elaborated upon the issue of economic equity. Discussion continued on the issue of potential construction of a new State Center Community College to be located on .......... , but to be called ....... . Mayor Autry advised of recent discussions with the Building Industry Association, and of his intent to approach the Council regarding an in. crease in Urban Growth Management fees and increased permit fees. Discussion continued. Mr. Yovino recommended the term "significant" be defined in the General Plan, and list it as a policy. He continued with a review of the proposals, and responded to Council questions. Ms. Montoy submitted and reviewed available options. On motion of Councilmember Ronquillo, seconded by Councilmember Boyajian, duly carried, RESOLVED, Option 1 a through 1 d hereby approved, by the following vote: Ayes : Boyajian, Castillo, Duncan, Ronquillo, Perea Noes : None Absent: Calhoun, Quintero ADJOUR31'MENT at 1:08 p.m. i '.Rob~t;' Gafford - duplicate January 2001.wpd ...... ' ...... ~' . iSage 2 1 Fresno, California January 9, 2001 The Council of the City of Fresno, California, met in Closed Session in Room 2125, City Hall, at the hour of 2:58 p.m. Present were Councilmembers Boyajian, Calhoun, Castillo, Duncan, Quintero, and Council President Perea. Councilmember Ronquillo arrived shortly into the meeting. Also present were City Attorney Montoy, Interim City Manager Souza, City Clerk Klisch, and involved staff. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION ....... V. CITY OF FRESNO, ET AL. Reviewed by Deputy City Attorney Schnitzer who advised of a settlement demand in the amount of $ ..... , as well as a demand to be allowed ........ . She continued with a review of the legal analysis. Councilmember Ronquillo arrived at 3:01 p.m. Ms. Schnitzer responded to Council questions. Discussion ensued regarding the claimant's involvement in a prior case involving ........... . On motion of Councilmember Ronquillo, seconded by Councilmember Boyajian, duly carded, RESOLVED, Option 1 on the above hereby approved, by the following vote: Ayes : Boyajian, Calhoun, Castillo, Duncan, Quintero, Ronquillo, Perea Noes : None Absent: None ANTICIPATED LITIGATION CLAIM OF CHANTHVY ......... CLAIM OF DOUANGMALY ......... CLAIM OF MANICHANH ...... Reviewed by Deputy City Attorney Turtle, who briefly explained the claims process. On motion of Councilmember Boyajian, seconded by Councilmember Duncan, duly carried, RESOLVED, Option 1 hereby approved, by the following vote: Ayes : Boyajian, Calhoun, Castillo, Duncan, Quintero, Ronquillo, Perea Noes : None Absent: None CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR · Rob~rt~.'Gafford - duplicate January 2001.wpd ' ".. '. '.. h' .'...Page.3 I Labor Relations Manager Aguiniga reviewed the background of the negotiations, noted all four issues had been resolved, reviewed the cost breakdown and percentage impact, and requested Council direction to remain firm with the offers, and responded to Council questions. Discussion ensued regarding the issue of forced overtime, with Mr. Aguiniga providing a comprehensive overview of the issue. Councilmember Quintero expressed his concems regarding the City's proposals, with extensive discussion continuing. On motion of Councilmember Duncan, seconded by Councilmember Calhoun, duly carried, RESOLVED, staff directed to stay with the current City proposal as amended to allow staff the flexibility to give and take without going higher on the table, by the following vote: Ayes : Boyajian, Calhoun, Castillo, Duncan, Quintero, Ronquillo, Perea Noes : None Absent: None (another labor union) Briefly reviewed by Labor Relations Manager Aguiniga. Extensive discussion ensued regarding asterisked employees not being required to work extra shifts. Assistant City Attorney Kern noted the request would leave the City open to grievance, and explained. Negotiator Gargiulo advised of the lack of specifics being provided regarding past practice, with discussion continuing. On motion of Councilmember Ronquillo, seconded by Councilmember Duncan, duly carried, RESOLVED, staff recommendation hereby approved, with staff to look into the administrative leave component, by the following vote: Ayes : Boyajian, Calhoun, Castillo, Duncan, Quintero, Ronquillo, Perea Noes : None Absent: None ADJOURNMENT at 4:09 p.m. !'Bobe'rta Gafford- duplicate January2001.wpd ' 'i Page ~l Fresno, California January 30, 2001 The Council of the City of Fresno, California, met in Closed Session in Room 2125, City Hall, at the hour of 3:39 p.m. Present were Councilmembers Boyajian, Calhoun, Castillo, Duncan, Quintero, Ronquillo, and Council President Perea. Also present were City Attorney Montoy, Interim City Manager Souza, City Clerk Klisch, and involved staff. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION ..... . V. CITY OF FRESNO, ET AL. City Attorney Montoy introduced the above and provided the background for the newly-elected Councilmembers. Contract Counsel .......... provided information regarding costs to date and the need for an excess carrier for the case, and continued with an explanation of the types of ........... and how they would impact the involved case. - ...... continued and stated he felt there would be a ..... chance the City would prevail, should the case proceed to trial, adding it was difficult to predict. He stated if the City would lose, a reasonable verdict would be between $ ..... and $ .... , plus attorney fees, and explained . - ..... continued and advised he had been working on a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, and explained. Discussion ensued. - ....... , Contract Counsel, elaborated upon the issue of "impact" case, and Councilmember Ronquillo advised of his reasons for opposing the original development project. Ms. Montoy summarized, reiterated it was a difficult case with the potential for ........ , with discussion continuing. Councilmember Quintero briefly left the meeting at 4:09 p.m. On motion of Councilmember Boyajian, seconded by Councilmember Ronquillo, duly carried, RESOLVED, Option 3 hereby approved, by the following vote:. Ayes : Boyajian, Calhoun, Castillo, Duncan, Ronquillo, Perea Noes : None Absent: Quintero ANTICIPATED LITIGATION CLAIM OF ............. Briefly reviewed by Deputy City Attorney Schneitzer. Councilmember Quintero returned to the meeting at 4:10 p.m. On motion of Councilmember Calhoun, seconded by Councilmember Boyajian, duly carried, RESOLVED, Option 1 on the above hereby approved, by the following vote: [ Roberta Gafford - duplicate January 2001.wpd ." .. ' ' Page 5 1 Ayes · Boyajian, Calhoun, Castillo, Duncan, Quintero, Ronquillo, Perea Noes · None Absent' None EXISTING LITIGATION ...... V. CITY OF FRESNO Briefly reviewed by Assistant City Attorney Kern. On motion of CounCilmember Ronquillo, seconded by Councilmember Boyajian, duly carried, RESOLVED, Option 1 on the above hereby approved, by the following vote: Ayes : Boyajian, Calhoun, Castillo, Duncan, Quintero, Ronquillo, Perea Noes : None Absent: None CITY OF FRESNO V. , AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE Reviewed by Deputy City Attorney Slater. Information only. No action taken or required. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Labor Relations Manager Aguiniga advised all open items for .... had tentative agreement, and submitted and reviewed information thereon, attached. A motion to approve the agreement, and to include the agreement into the pending study currently in process regarding the ........... agreement was discussed. Councilmember Ronquillo briefly left the meeting at 4:28 p.m. and retumed at 4:29 p.m. Administration Department Director Gargiulo responded to Council questions regarding funding the proposed salary increases. Councilmember Duncan expressed concern regarding taking action without knowing the source of funding.. Councilmember Calhoun concurred, with discussion ensuing. City Attorney Montoy suggested the proposal be taken to the .... membership, but not brought before the Council in open session for final adoption prior to the issue involving ......... . A motion of Councilmember Ronquillo, seconded by Councilmember Quintero, to approve the proposed agreement with ..... , with the agreement to be included in the .... study, failed adoption by the following vote: Ayes · Quintero, Ronquillo, Perea Noes ' Boyajian, Calhoun, Castillo, Duncan ['Rober{a Gafford - duPlicate January 2001.wpd .. ', ii, ' ........ . '. Page 6 i Absent: None On motion of Councilmember Duncan, seconded by Councilmember Castillo, duly carried, RESOLVED, the issues, of ......... hereby laid over one week, pending receipt of the necessary information, by the following vote: Ayes · Boyajian, Calhoun Castillo, Duncan, Quintero, Ronquillo, Perea Noes ' None Absent: None ADJOURNMENT at 4:48 p.m. R~.G..afford - Closed SessiOn Report 06-20-01 .doc ....... ' ........................... pag,e .1;/ Lodi City Council CLOSED SESSION REPORT Date: June 20, 2001 Time Council adjourned to Closed Session: 5:37 p.m. Present: Council Members HOward, Land, Pennino, Nakanishi Absent: Council Member Hitchcock (arrived at 5:45 p.m.) Also present: City Manager Flynn, City Attorney Hays, City Clerk Blackston, Janet Keeter, Rad Bartlam, Hans Hansen, and Tony Goehring. Closed Session Items: a) Prospective acquisition of real property located at 541 E. Locust Street, Lodi, California (APN 043-202-14); the negotiating parties are .City of Lodi and Robert and Helen Perlegos; Government Code {}54956.8 b) Prospective listing for sale of 17.85-acre City industrial property on Guild Avenue; the negotiating parties are the City of Lodi and unknown future purchasers; price and terms as directed by City Council; Government Code §54956.8 c) Consider lease of City-owned commercial property at 50 N. Sacramento Street; negotiating parties are City of Lodi and Atlas Properties, Inc., of Stockton; Government Code {}54956.8 NOTE: Council Member Hitchcock arrived at 5:45 p.m. Council Member attendance and votinq record: Item C-2 a) Name . ..' ' :~:: Present.. ~i-:~,Yes.:,~ -~. ,'..,,~ , · · ".' ",,~,..No-~,~.,' ,~,. :;AbStairiii~::,~: Alan S. Nakanishi X X Phillip A. Pennino X X Susan Hitchcock (second) X X Emily Howard X X Keith Land (motion) X X Voting Tally 5 0 ITEM C-2 a): MOTION to direct staff to obtain an appraisal for property located at 541 E. Locust Street, Lodi, (APN 043-202-14); and make a fair market value offer to the property owners for acquisition. Page 1 of 2 r '[ Ro~ert~. Gafford- Closed SeSsiOn Report 06-20-0!.doc. ' ' ... Page 2 i NOTE: Hans Hansen left at 5:53 p.m. /! Item C-2 b) Name ~:. i-i: .~,..~ i.i,'~: ? 4.,~., '~ ~-,:,:. ~ "?.i.i~ ~,.~7~i~;~ i~!¥!,!i. .:~! pr. es~nt'?i~ ~:i???,ye§',i?i?:,i ?~,:~.~=:~-,.'-~'~.~ ¢',', '~-,~-~, Alan S. Nakanishi X X Phillip A. Pennino (second) X X Susan Hitchcock X X Emily Howard X X Keith Land (motion) X X Voting Tally 5 0 ITEM C-2 b): MOTION to direct staff to place the 17.85-acre City industrial property on Guild Avenue on the market for sale. ~ Item C-2 c) : Name/~ ~.? i~ :!2~'~::~: :..:;, ~. ~';..: :..,.i .. ~!:r~! :*:::.,:ii!:i??i ?~.!,;Pre~n~7,~:~i. ?: !%yes?,~!.iL: ..~.¥..~ o ~;~i~? i!~b~ih?~? . Alan S. Nakanishi X X · Phillip A. Pennino (motion) X X Susan Hitchcock X X Emily Howard (second) X X Keith Land X X Voting Tally 5 0 : ITEM C-2 c): MOTION to direct staff to develop a Request for Proposal for a master lease for City-owned commercial property at 50 N. Sacramento Street for 1'1,500 sq. ft., with option of an additional 2,000 sq. ft; Council to review contract and provide input for tenant selection, performance milestones and parameters. Closed session ended at 6:32 p.m. Page 2 of 2 Sen$.B.y:~ CITY OF VICTORVILLE; 760 245 7243; Sop-7.01 4:43PM; Page 2/2 Office of the Cl. Attorney } ~, ~2e" 14343 Ci~c Drive Hcn~ R. l~aft- Ci~ ~ttotney ~)~ ~O: Box 5001 CLOSED SESSION REPORT Date of Close. Sos?.ion Name of ca~¢ anc~ coup1 no. (if applicable) NOT A PUBLIC RECORD until the information ............................................................. in Ibis box is completed, signed, by an authroized representative of the Cily Altorr~ey'$ Office and stamped in the space below, Action(s) laken D~te li[~.qallon concluded: ~ouncil Members present (line 6ut'~bsenlees) and rn,,ir voles Net Name Aye No ' Abstain Partlclpa~lng C D E F Non-Disclosure Recommended? ,H ....... If yes, ael~ct on~ et' the following: I i" '!Di3clo~ure would ~.terfl~re wil, h service of proca'~'< Votin~ To~l), ! .-~;'Disclosure would impair ability 'Add tJonal Noles or comments: ' Approved by: Name Date Title ~ob~a.Gaftord- CSMinutessSample.doc · r., .... 'Pace.r1 I Whittier City Council Closed Session August 14, 2001 Page 1 MINUTES WHITTLER CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION August 14, 2001 CONFIDENTIAL The Whittier City Council met in Closed Session during the Regular Meeting held August 14, 2001. Mayor Zolnekoff convened the Closed Session at 8:47 p.m. in the Committee Room of City Hall, 13230 Penn Street, Whittier. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Greg Nordbak, Council Member Owen Newcomer, Council Member Robert L. Henderson, Council Member David O. Butler, Mayor Pro Tern Allan P. Zolnekoff, Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHER OFFICIALS PRESENT: Douglas C. Chotkevys, Assistant City Manager Richard D. Jones, City Attorney Kathryn A. Marshall, City Clerk-Treasurer Fred W. Weiner, Human Resources Director Kirk Trost, Special Counsel (in 8:57 p.m.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was mOved by Mayor Pro Tem Butler, seconded by Council Member Nordbak and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the Closed Session held July 24, 2001. DISCUSSION: Closed Session discussion was held pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 to meet with City Negotiator Douglas Chotkevys regarding property negotiations with Union Pacific Railroad relating to price and terms of payment for acquisition of Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way; and pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, labor negotiations between City negotiator Fred Weiner and unrepresented employees. Labor Ne.qotiations - Unrepresented Employees PARAGRAPH ON STAFF OR ATTORNEY PRESENTATION OF ITEM UNDER DISCUSSION. Whittier City Council Closed Session August 14, 2001 Page 2 PARAGRAPH REFLECTING CITY COUNCIL ACTION, CONCURRENCE, OR DIRECTION. Mr. Weiner left the meeting at 8:57 p.m. and Mr. Trost joined the meeting. Property Neqotiations - Union Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way PARAGRAPH ON STAFF OR ATrORNEY PRESENTATION OF ITEM' UNDER DISCUSSION. PARAGRAPH REFLECTING CITY COUNCIL ACTION, CONCURRENCE, OR DIRECTION. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Zolnekoff adjourned the Closed Session at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submi~ed, Kathryn A. Marshall City Clerk-Treasurer Handout at L&L Committee Meeting of 9-24-01 (from City Manager's) D R A F T 9-24-01 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD RECOMMENDING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FULL AND SERIOUS CONSIDERATION OF PETITION OF THE FILIPINO INTERNATIONAL LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND-FOUNDATION, INC. SEEKING BENEFITS FOR FILIPINO NATIONALS WHO FOUGHT ALONGSIDE AMERICAN TROOPS DURING WORLD WAR II WHEREAS, the Cit~ has received from a Bakersfield resident a request for support of the Filipino International Legal Defense and Educational Fund Foundation, Inc.'s petition to President Bush and Congress to repeal-the 1946 Recision Acts, and WHEREAS, legislative actions are being taken at both the State (A JR 20) and Federal (H.R. 491 and S. 1042) levels to review the issue of military service and veterans' benefits for Filipino nationals who fought alongside American troops in the Phillipines during World War II, and WHEREAS,-acts of heroism, courage and sacrifice by the people of the Philippines on freedom's behalf during World War II are well documented. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Bakersfield that the federal government is hereby encouraged to give full and serious consideration of of Petition of the Filipino International Legal Defense and Education FundFoundation, Inc. relative to the merits and justice of granting benefits for Filipino nationals fighting alongside American troops during World War II. This resolution shall be forwarded to California State and Federal Legislators representing Bakersfield. .......... o0o .......... Page 1 of 2 "FILIPINO WW II VETERANS TASK FORCE" PETITION "TO RECTIFY INJUSTICES SUFFERED BY FILIPINO VETERANS WHO SERVED UNDER THE U.S. ARMED FORCES IN WORLD WAR II" ~ionirs (P~l as of Augu~ I0 yet~r~n Or~anizatigc~ WE. The Fdlptno I~lem~l L~al ~fen~ & E~uc=tionnl Fund Foundation, lac - Fili~no (F1LDEF), its ~r; and su~Aet~ and G~l.Univirs~*l, I~.: in coltaboration and ioget~er w~h the ~ollowing v.teranJ and their relalives, ore,nlm:tons in~ conce;~ Amnrican Ex-POWs is Capt. ~ose ~n'lu~is, u;;~,~ ~e~. ~,li~(xn,a Dec~/ 10. 1ill, ~e Ph~hp~nes bec~e a terr~o~ pos~s~cn nnd colony of ~ Unitea Los ~e~. C~ifo~ia S~tes ~ Spain. T~t ~ a ~nciple ot In~ational law. the 'Filipinos were ~l~d States J¢~ R. ~sera. C~ai~an a.:,,~ u c, ~ , .n. :~ nationals and the Un,ad ~tate~ had ~ll c0n~r~ over the P~Jlip~ and its ~ern~ affait~ All Aeeneo Alumni At,~f:ri~:lr~ Ex-POW~ i~ as suc~,, the ;ilipmcs ~rt S~ct to ~d ent~ed to ~e~r I~ent~l rights un,er the S. Cd;i~or'n,n Chapter Constit~lon o~ lhe U~ed St~e~ The Philippine gover~ent h~d no ~nclion in ~ers or Alliance granted ~s inde~nden~ ~ ~uly 4, 1~: a~ J~e Curtey. Cmdr American Legion, THAT. On July2~,1~l.U.S.p~s~denlFranklinO. R~leveltasC~n~er.in~ie~or Atenee ~eManlla Post 27 ~e A~ Forces of the ~st~ St~es ie~u~ a .MJI~a~ ~er aaa invok~ ~is ~wers and L=n; ~e.~c~. Cntl'~ia C ailed, ordered .and in4d~d leto the se~ice of the Unit~ States A~ed Forc~ in the Far Unlverslt~ Alumni Mlnila F ~st 4~ 4 THAT. I~ the ~tieflelds of ~3an and Co.egiS, t~e F~ipino so~iers had proven ia the L~ ~gN~. Car~f~m~ who~ wo~d ~ir courage, v~cr aaa heroi~ ~ defense of d~cracy a~ the Un~ State~ comolMe ~mation of So~st A~ia. ~ t~ese delays, gave ~e U~t~ Slates atnple t~e Los ~geies, C&i~o~ia Baton n:Co~l~r to ~pare far ~s count~ afl--ts: ~ 8u~ivo,s & Thej~ Familic~ THAT, The Filipino ~Mrs in Iheir .loyalty and supr~ ~cH~ce in ~efending ~ Unhid Jo..p, ~.,~.~. ~, ~n~ c;,~. sol~ier~ ~uHr. g Wor~ Wu II un~et the ~ric~n Flag, and under the ~i~ction lad control of ~ Unit~ Slates ~l~a~ le~s pursuant to Pretidenl Roose~rs ~ly 26, 1~1 MiliMry O~abled American Or~tr for ~ ~ree yearl ot war. ~bl the Phil~ne la, anon, and the ~:eptan~ o[ Veteeant, Ch~tey 17 su~ender by Japan on Se~emb~ ~ 1~45 ~7 General Doughs MacA~ur: Lon~ 8eacq. Calilcrnia Carcanmadcarlan gul.o G. gai~quln. Cmcr THAT, On April t, 1342 ~taan had fal~, and on May 7, I~2. Co~egidor su,r~dered to AsJoclation USA Filipiflo War Vile. ~ Japane~ I~etial Forc~. Cudng the inf~cus "death march" 1,800 ~rzcans and refls af Wasklngtoe 29,180 F~li~nas d~ and ~e ~u~Nors w~e t~r~; and T HAT. Gen. Macasm Staled ~t the ~lclpaUon of the FiifFinos in the war ~a~e~ it Club Tlrlakenilfl of ~uii~. m=ncg P~n[ by SO ~ys. saving the Un~ea $tMu $1S,300,000,000 ~d thousand of ~ricar, live~: and California Filipino War Vete~fl L0~.~;e~s. Calfo,~ ~eafffe, ~,.hiefit~n (P~C ~'~ ~&}. ~a~n al ~ G.I, ~ll of R~ht~ sign~ by Prts~de~l Roosevelt on June 22. Rdn~ Re~ P. Supnm. C~r 1~, to C~nsate the ~es of breve ~ coura~ous solders w~hc~ r~ara tO .Race, Confederation of Fili~iea World -War II C~ar, lex, or Natleallity ~htlng In ~a bat-fie ~nd ~r the ~eHca~ flag. This law Behelanes US~ & Veterans Federation offer~ h~e loan a~ ~tlon b~*s to vet~ans; and Canada (CONBUSAC) of ~an Diego ~Uht~ THAT, The ~d F~ces Volunta~ Recrui~nt Am of lg4~, P~[c Law 7~-1~ enacted m ~t~er. ll45, au~ed rKrui~eflt of 50,~0 "New Phiappine Scouts" in anticipl~oe of ~e, C ~d,e~. Pr~ ~e need for ~ ~cu~l f~c*~; ~d Coafederatlofl of HoHIage Socle~ - THAT, In f le~ to Ge~al ~r Bradley, ~en Ad~flis~ator of V~era~ Affairs on Associations Lt. Col. LIo~ Mills Feb~ 12, ~S. P~t ~ S Trot acknowl~ged the~ contributions as Chapter I "st~gglea and sacrifi~ of the her~c l~ions of the Philippine fighting men during ~g ~ach. Cel~qia the war", e~ T HAT. The Yetersnm Aclmimtlratto~ Qlffc~aL~ cc~t~ertd thdt ~ili~no ~ita~ ~micm ~t Lc~ ~.. c~t~,,~ "...shall NOT ~ ~d to have ~ln ~ve ~lit~, ~Yal, or at ~lct ~ot ~e ~ur~oses ~,~ 'Per R. Se..n,,¢ B Cl~e the ~ond Supp~ent~l Surplus A~ro~l~s Ra~s~ Act was ~s~d ~ahng thai Fllipiflo. Americaa P ~1 c rFP Toma~ Claualo se~ice in the New ~lllppl~ Sco~lwas ~OT ae~d U.S. ~uta.~ ~lc.. Obvicu~y these ReM Estate L~e~m R~cis~nn Acts exc~e Filip~no s~d~l ~ the ~11 ~nefi~ o~ the G.L ~11 et Rights of Lo~ Angele~ P~t USA already ~ctea which provides ~ full ra~e of c~p~llan; and cc,ge ~..i.~ C~r THAT. ~e ~:tssion Act in ~s le~is~'e ~sto~ w~s I dell~rlte action oi the United Veterans of status, ~ile the 11~,0~0 fore~n Soldiers ~ ~i o~er U.~. a[lt~ coun.~ ~o were America, Inc. s~lafl~ Indu¢~ to the ~tct of ~ U.S. ~d Forces d~ring ~M War 11 were gfante~ Filiptne GommunJt~ of Wa.h~ng[~ ~C full U.S. veterans s~t.s a~ ~ul ~ne~s; ~ Carson (FCC) ~~V ~ Vet~ans THAT, There Jre appro~tely 4~,O0O Ft~ino ;of~hts w~o f~ght ~ World W~r II flllplao American ~t the United ~tates, pred~mantly in California. ~e r~lni~ ~,0~ i~e ~ re~id~ in (LACFAEA) Ri~a AJca,az the Philip~nes. Only !.1~ am receiving VA cad--alien. The nu~f of ~ll~ World War cu~-~,j:-~¢~[g,~.,,. II referent is pr~ected to decrea~ signifi~t~ over the ~zt ten y~. Iff 201~, ~e tota~ ~IT Tau Epallan u~.~;:F THAT, T~se sumi~r,g Filipino World-War II veterans a~ ~y Ill, fl~lally ~sfltut., fraternity N. taleel. L &meat. aging fast ~ dying, b~ ~and p~ ~ ~gn~y a~ ho~r. In ~t decade or so, ' 'x*~=E~'~e~"a ~aJ~ ~1 ~ve ,th~ ~ ~tition ~el. T~rl~e, "T~ J~ of the Na;~al Chai~e~cn THAT, The ~t~e and sign~cant ~ of~e 1~ Resci~on A~s ,s In unj~t, Mation~ federation Man~el V~ Aquae imm~l and malapai d~natl~ again~ the Filipi~ W~ War Il retains by of Filipino American u~e~o~ y. ~..... ~ylng ~em eligibility ~ equal ~nefi~ ~nlst~ by the Oe~nt of Veterans Al~cia~ons ~.,~ o. At.,. to. (N.aFFAA) r.,,.,.., THAT, For the pa~ sixty years, ~ Unit~ St~et gev~n~nt hax yet to ~e~ote the Wa%hin~on DC zreaam. U. heat rfghis, pr~vx~l and b~e~ts ~an~, then taken away ff~ FJlJ~o W~',4 War II 8,nJ.G,i~ :... ~ veterans; and .~.e,,,,. THAT, The loyalty, gallant~ a~ ~nfices of the Fil~no-Wm~ War II veterans who Phlllpplae Engineers Inamc Cim~ren~e 'fOUght for d~tacy and frazee i~ ~e U~. ~,d Forces ~ese~. t~i~ ~ over~ue A Scientist of Rellellfle I. nil4.I the Unit~ 5lJteS. the Filipinos r~ain the ~angest ally and loyal f~ed of ~e ~ricans m c~.~ Asia, and the sinc~ a~t by ~ U.S. C~m~ to c~ect ~ ~eeg da~ to ~e 'Fiimno The First-United Y/~tld War II ve~raRs ~11 N app~at~, in ~er I~ them to live ~h decency, d~ni~ .:.,,~.. T~AT. T~ ~.~. 41~. k~o~ 11 t~e "FJlipl~o Veterl~l Eq~l~ Act" sponsor~ by Lce~o=~, ~ih,:,:i~ Reticle. A. JAceke ~e~j~ A. Odin and c~nsored by Co~fll~n ~b Filmer ~ ~e~ 7, 2~1 and Ro~n~$~est~.Pretid6m Uanl'Ilnt'' fill veterans atatus and nil bene~ to Filipino Weald'War II veterans Callforn~ ~'.etnll.b t~ will complet~y resolve the claims issue in the spi~t et true justice and W~.N~. W¢lffld e ~ ' ;~ee,a ' MIIIIII~ fairness; and ~e/endre T. Newda/~ (Add.anal lint :~,~.. ~ NOW THErEFOrE, The undemJgned res.~c~ully urge and ,,...,- -,.,~ prny that the President and Congress of the United States du~ng doric L. metal the 107~ Congress take im~diate action necessa~ ate repeal Co~cem~ G~izen~ the t 946 Rescission Acts', and honor the United States' v.,.... P~2o13