A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Ramon was called to order on June 11, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 2222 Camino Ramon, Mayor Tatarka presiding.

PRESENT: Councilmembers Cambra, Dickey, Hudson, Wilson and Mayor Tatarka

ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Randall, City Attorney Tom Curry, Police Chief Brian Lindblom, Parks and Community Services Director Jeff Eorio, Planning Director Phil Wong, Engineering Services Director Joye Fukuda, District Engineer Maria Robinson, Transportation Director John Dillon, Economic Development Services Director April Gray, and City Clerk Judy Macfarlane

* * * *

Mayor Tatarka stated Council had met in closed session pursuant to Government Code §54957.6 to discuss the personnel evaluation of the City Clerk.

* * * *

Brownie Troop 605 from Montevideo Elementary School led Council, staff and those present in the audience in the pledge of allegiance.

* * * *

Mayor Tatarka presented a proclamation to the Arts Foundation logo contest winner, Mikaleagh Stewart.

Mayor Tatarka presented proclamations to Girl Scout Gold Award recipients Allison Briner, Lauren Nestler, Stacey Palshis and Megan Jimenez.

* * * *

CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

The City Clerk stated there were three openings on the Parks & Community Services Commission. Applications were received from Michelle Cowles, Robert Lang, Karen Lee, Melody Lundgren, Carol Rowley, David Sholty and Sezaneh Taherian. She stated all applicants with the exception of Mr. Lang and Ms. Taherian had been interviewed by the Council on June 4.

By Council ballot, Karen Lee, Melody Lundgren and Carol Rowley were appointed to the Parks & Community Services Commission, with terms expiring June 2006.

The City Clerk said the next appointment was the student member to the Parks & Community Services Commission. Applications were received from Larry Kwok and Lisa Mueller. The Clerk stated both applicants had been interviewed by the Council on June 4.

By Council ballot, Lisa Mueller was appointed as the student member to the Parks & Community Services Commission, for a one-year term expiring June 2003.

Dianne Schinnerer said in the past, San Ramon Planning Commissioner’s had been highly knowledgeable and skilled in the tasks of evaluating, altering, approving and/or denying projects that have kept the City free from lawsuits and have always followed the City’s developmental map and general plan. She stated upon her review of the applicants, she found many were qualified and expressed her concern for the applicants who had no background in the disciplines of planning, nor had they attended any Planning Commission meetings. She stated further that some applicants had not been involved in the General Plan Review Committee and in fact, many applicants had not even volunteered in the past for any San Ramon committee, task force or event. She urged the Council to select candidates that were best qualified for the job, not those who had made campaign contributions.

The City Clerk said there were two vacancies on the Planning Commission. She stated applications had been received from Donald Barnard, Michael DiGeronimo, Karen Lee, Jim Livingstone, Melody Lundgren, Ken Mintz, Victor Petersen, Jeff Rhoton, Harvey Riggs, and Sezaneh Taherian. The City Clerk stated all applicants had been interviewed by the Council on June 5 and requested Council remove the names of Karen Lee and Melody Lundgren from their ballot since they had been appointed to the Parks & Community Services Commission.

By Council ballot, Michael DiGeronimo and Jeff Rhoton were appointed to the Planning Commission, for terms expiring June 2006.

* * * *

Curt Kinney stated his displeasure and frustration with his numerous attempts to have an item placed on the agenda. He said he had followed the procedure as outlined under "Public Comment" on the agenda, and described the phone calls and messages he had with the City Clerk and the City Manager. Mr. Kinney said this item was regarding placing a question on the November 2002 ballot, simply asking the people if they wanted a $130 million bond measure to pay for the City Center Project.

* * * *

Approval of the minutes of the May 28, 2002 was continued to the next Council meeting.

* * * *

Cm. Dickey’s motion to approve the following Consent Calendar was seconded by Cm. Cambra and passed 5-0.

Register of demands dated May 17, 22 and June 2, 9, 2002, in the amount of $815,824.79

Authorizing the Mayor to execute contract amendment No. 1 to the agreement with Willdan for consulting civil engineering services for FY 2001/2002, extending the contract period to June 30, 2003, and increasing the contract amount by $11,300

* * * *

Mayor Tatarka called a five minute recess.

All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened.

* * * *

The District Engineer said the public hearing and adoption of Resolution No. 2002-62 were the final steps to levy the assessment on properties to fund Geologic Hazard Abatement District No. 1990-01 (GHAD). The associated costs, she said, as well as revenue from this levy, had been included in the proposed FY 2002/03 Program of Services that was going to be considered by the City Council that night. If approved, this would be the eighth year of assessments with an annual levy of $247,437 based upon 2,456 residential units at $100 per residential unit, and 57,420 sq. feet of non-residential space at $.0332 per square foot. She said the total number of units had increased from FY 2001/02 due to the addition of 425 residential units and 5,000 sq. feet of non-residential space in Gale Ranch and Windemere. She also said the proposed FY 2002/03-assessment amount had not increased from the previous fiscal year and fell within the assessment limit of $250 per residential unit and $0.10 per square foot of non-residential space.

The District Engineer presented the background of the GHAD, and stated the Finance Committee had reviewed and approved the proposed FY 2002/03 budget on May 8, 2002. She reviewed three separate activities to be accomplished in FY 2002/03; 1) the transfer of a portion of the Gale Ranch Phase I Open Space, 2) updating the GHAD Plan of Control, and 3) performance of a Reserve Fund Study. The District Engineer reviewed the attachments and said staff recommended the City Council, acting as the Board of Directors, conduct the public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 2002-62.

Mayor Tatarka asked how frequently the Reserve Fund Study was done.

The District Engineer stated this had been prepared annually, but this fiscal year it was going to be a more extensive study and it would be determined at that time if this was going to continue to be done on an annual basis.

No one spoke at the public hearing.

Cm. Dickey referred to a letter received regarding townhomes versus larger homes and paying an additional amount. She asked what can been done, if anything, to mitigate this.

The District Engineer stated the manner in which the methodology had been set up in 1995-96, was based not on the square footage of the home, but the benefit received by each property owner. It was determined that the benefit was rather equal between the two, thereby resulting with the same assessment for each homeowner, regardless of the size of the home.

Cm. Wilson’s motion to adopt Resolution No. 2002-62 was seconded by Cm. Dickey and passed 5-0.

Resolution No. 2002-62
Confirming and levying assessment for Fiscal Year 2002/03 Geological Hazard Abatement District No.1990-01 West Branch and Gale Ranch/Shapell Industries, Windemere/BLC Partners (Pursuant to the California Public Resources Code Section 26500 et. seq.)

* * * *

The City Manager stated the proposed operating budget for FY 2002/03 was approximately $62 million and to maintain current service levels, approximately $4 million of the general fund was anticipated to bring the budget into balance. He stated the Finance Committee (Cm.'s. Cambra and Wilson) had reviewed the budget in detail, however, there were two items where there was a tie vote. He identified those items:

1. The Capital Improvement Program – to include funding in an un-programmed category to expand the swim facility at the new Dougherty Valley High School. He stated this would upgrade the project to the equivalent of an aquatic center type of facility.
2. Inclusion of an Assistant City Manager position.

Cm. Wilson stated there was a third item that was a tie vote and that was the Crow Canyon Facility Improvement project.

Mayor Tatarka opened the public hearing.

Curt Kinney questioned why the Senior Center Expansion Project was not taking place until 2003/04. He said the project had been approved in last years budget and asked why it had been taken out of this budget. He questioned where in the budget did the pay-out to Herb Moniz come from and stated Council had paid him $200,000 too much. He said Mr. Moniz’s contract called for six months pay which would come to approximately $90,000 plus benefits. Instead, he continued, Council gave him a year and one-half salary and benefits and stated this could be an illegal use of city funds, especially when there was no explanation of why it was done. He continued questioning Council where in the budget was the $335,000 paid to Digiray. Mr. Kinney said three of the current Councilmembers were on the Council when it was established there was no loss of income to Digiray, the City had promised to pay the moving expenses, and Digiray had not paid any rent to the City for two years. He asked why the City Center project was being delayed and stated the Royal Vista Pool was being shut down. He said the stove and the freezer in the kitchen at the Senior Center were in major disrepair and expressed his displeasure that Council had not taken care of these items as promised. He said the Senior Foundation was not going to donate any more funds to the City until it gets its act together.

Joe Covello said he had two items; 1) part of becoming a charter city was to allow the City to ignore the public contract code limitation of $5,000 for procurement. He stated it was agreed in 1997 to raise the limit to $50,000. The second item was regarding the Assistant City Manager position. He said it was ridiculous to have so many department heads reporting to one City Manager and said he supported the idea of having an Assistant City Manager. He said it would allow the City Manager to act in the capacity of general manager and compared the management positions at DSRSD.

Paul Mitchell said he supported the budget on good faith. He questioned the amount in the City’s General Reserve Fund and asked how the drawing down of $4 million would impact the City’s reserves. He asked how this would tie into the $130 million bond issue discussion for the financing of the City Center.

Mayor Tatarka closed the public hearing.

The City Manager answered the questions from the public by stating the projected fund balance in the General Funds as of July 1^st (end of the current fiscal year) was expected to slightly exceed $33 million. He said the $4 million was an estimate - historically we had been able to cut expenses and the revenue projections were conservative, so he felt these were very realistic and conservative estimates. He said the Parks & Community Services Commission had been recommended the Senior Center Expansion Project be deferred and the Finance Committee concurred on the recommendation. He said the Parks further stated that he and the City Attorney had discussed the contract code and it would be pursued aggressively.

Mayor Tatarka said the stove for the Senior Center kitchen had been approved previously, and that it and the freezer would be taken care of. She asked for clarification on the Assistant City Manager position.

The City Manager stated he agreed with Mr. Covello’s comments with regard to the span of control. He felt the current organization with nine department heads was too many as there are issues that require the attention of the City Manager on a regular basis. He said this detracts from the Manager’s ability to be able to interact with the Council and issues in the community. He stated that he did not view this position as an obstacle between the City Manager and staff, but more as an internal facilitator, comparing it to the corporate structure having two specific roles and responsibilities, similar to a CEO and COO.

Cm. Wilson stated he respectfully disagreed. He stated that since we are recruiting for a new City Manager, he wanted to give that person the opportunity to come in and restructure. He stated the present system worked, has worked very well, and there had been enough confusion for staff at the present time. He said staff did not need the added aggravation, that they function quite well in the current situation and he did not want an additional layer for staff to deal with. He stated when the new City Manager was in place, in about 6 months time, that would be the most appropriate time to have the Assistant City Manager discussion.

Cm. Cambra stated we need to be looking toward the future as to what our City will look like in the next 5-10-20 years. He concurred with staff’s recommendation to put this in the budget giving the new City Manager the option. He said it allows some flexibility for that individual to really set up an effective government.

Cm. Wilson stated he was not opposed to having it as an option for the new City Manager’s approval.

Mayor Tatarka asked for clarification from the Finance Committee on how they specifically disagreed. She said that each item would be taken on an individual basis, with a specific Council vote on each separate item. The first item was Assistant City Manager.

Cm. Hudson said if this appointment were the option of the City Manager, he was fine with it. He said if this position of Assistant City Manager had a certain core, i.e. two or three directors that would be reporting to the assistant, and would also be acting City Manager in his absence, then that would be fine with him. He continued by saying if this position would amount to a "tent director," tenth director, he was not fine with it.

The City Manager stated that his expectation with respect to that position was that it be created in this budget and when the new City Manager came on board late this year, at that point, he would assume the Assistant City Manager position and new City Manager could bring on their own person. He stated it would be the option of the new City Manager to make that decision. He said this item was in the budget, and if it were to be removed, or altered in some way, Council would have to vote on it.

Cm. Dickey stated she was in favor of leaving this item in the budget.

Cm. Cambra also stated his approval.

Mayor Tatarka agreed that it made sense and it was the consensus of Council that this item would stay in the budget.

Mayor Tatarka asked for each member of the Finance Committee to give their perspective on the Crow Canyon Garden facility improvements.

Cm. Cambra stated this item had been deferred prior because of some design work on the building. He said he was following the recommendation of the Parks & Community Services Commission to proceed with just the design phase and to defer construction until 2003/2004.

Cm. Wilson said this was difficult for him to go against the Parks & Community Services Commission recommendation but we were talking about $135,000 for a design in FY 2002/03 with projected construction in 2003/04. He questioned why pay for a design when there was a chance that it may not be built and the design may be out dated. He suggested that the entire design and construction costs be deferred until FY 2003/04. He said we currently had an idea of what this project may look like, however, with the economic climate being unsettled, he felt spending $135,000 on a design, with an unknown economic climate for the FY 2003/04 budget, we could wait and the design could be deferred to 2003/04.

Mayor Tatarka said this item had been programmed and unprogrammed repeatedly for many years. She felt $135,000 for a design was for a valuable part of our community. She stated many people were aware of Crow Canyon Gardens and teachers and students in the area use it. She supported leaving the $135,000 for the design in the budget.

Cm. Wilson said the design may have to be completely done over again and he felt it was a waste of money. The design may change, the foot print might change. We may decide to defer construction to another year, there could be any number of situations occur that could change the design and the $135,000 design would be wasted. He suggested the design process occur when funding for the construction was in the same fiscal year budget.

Mayor Tatarka said this was the first step that could be taken on this project.

Cm. Wilson questioned what the first step would do. He said we could do the design later when we decide if we were going to build it.

Mayor Tatarka stated she disagreed with him.

Cm. Hudson asked the Parks & Community Services Director to help clarify some issues. He stated what he was hearing was the disagreement was over the $135,000, which we can afford this year, but we cannot afford the entire amount. He asked to clarify, what was the problem with putting the entire amount in next year’s budget and coming back to start the design phase in the mid-year review.

The Parks & Community Services Director said the Commission direction was to put this project on the front burner as it had been already postponed a few times. He said personnel was currently operating out of two trailers at the site and it was the Commission’s position to follow the direction of the master plan.

Cm. Hudson asked if it was completely unreasonable to budget the $135,000 and not use it until later in the year.

The Director said we could postpone starting the project because we also have to realistically look at what next year was going to look like financially. He said he agreed with Cm. Wilson that it does not make sense to design construction documents and then shelve them indefinitely. However, he said from the Commission’s perspective, they wanted to see some progress made.

Cm. Hudson said the money could be budgeted with a notation to set aside, and delay the design until the project would be one continuous flow.

The Director requested that Council advise the Commission as to when the funds could be spent.

Cm. Wilson verified that it would come back to the Finance Committee to make that determination.

It was the consensus of Council to budget $135,000 for the design of the Crow Canyon Gardens project with a required review at mid-year by the Finance Committee before proceeding.

Cm. Hudson stated this would prevent another study until such time as we were ready to commit.

Cm. Dickey stated the design plan would not remove the trailers from the site.

Mayor Tatarka stated she was going to follow the Parks & Community Service’s Commission’s direction.

Mayor Tatarka said the next item was regarding the Dougherty Valley Swim Center.

Cm. Wilson said the City was going to subsidize the swim center in Dougherty Valley, similar to what we had done with the gymnasiums, aquatic center, and anything that we do with the San Ramon Valley Unified School District. He said it was a commitment to add additional funding so we would have the type of facilities we feel the residents in Dougherty Valley, as well as San Ramon, deserve. He said we were doing this so that we have proper facilities, whether we assign the $2 million now or later. He said we were not going to use the money until the high school is built. He stated it was his desire to have this item in the budget so the school district is aware that we were serious about this.

Cm. Cambra said his reservations surrounded weighing in on a decision before the Aquatics Facilities Needs Committee had an opportunity to make their recommendations. He was aware that this project realistically would not occur until 2006/07 and said he would have no problem deferring to Cm. Wilson on this issue.

Cm. Hudson said he agreed on this but wanted to make a point. He said when we hear the school is going to open 2005/06 or 07, we seem to forget that today this land is being graded and this school will be ready to go in 2004, it just won’t be ready to open. He spoke of the possibility that the school grounds would be ready a year ahead of time. He said if it is, we would be able to jump on the aquatic center with $1 million to start. He reminded Council of Joan Butt’s comments that we will have the facility, but it will not be ready to open.

Cm. Dickey verified that was because of the population number.

Cm. Hudson stated he was not going to say it was a definite for 2004, but if they got ahead of schedule and built the pool ahead of time, swim programs can start and we were just talking about $1 million which is one-half of what we have budgeted.

Cm. Dickey said we were talking about budgeting in good faith so the school district knows that the City is in the program with them. She said they were basically making the provision for the funding, just not spending it. She said that she did not see the reasoning for splitting and supported the budget item for 2006/07.

Cm. Hudson said he apparently did not make his point clear. He said we were budgeting $2 million in 2004 and $2 million in 2006. He said what he was suggesting was that we budget $1 million in 2004, $2 million in 2005 and $1 million in 2006. He said this would enable us to have more money for the pool (if it was built in 2004) and expressed his doubt that the gym would be ready for 2004/05.

The City Manager stated the main issue was to ensure the project was in the program. He said Cm. Hudson may be correct in the timing of the funding and suggested that each year the Council review the Capital Improvement Program, make adjustments as needed and schedule changes. He said other than the first year of the program, the remainder can be quite flexible in terms of the scheduling of projects.

It was the consensus of Council to include this item in the budget.

Cm. Hudson inquired about the Henry Ranch Project.

The City Manager stated the Henry Ranch Project was in the program with a few amendments recommended by staff.

The Acting Administrative Services Director stated at the Finance Committee meeting the issue of the repair of the soundwall along Alcosta Blvd was discussed. He stated the design work would be funded from this year’s budget, and requested the repairs in the amount of $40,000 be added to FY 2002/03.

Cm. Hudson questioned the Henry Ranch Park (CIP 5345).

The Director replied this was not something that the Finance Committee disagreed on; it was for informational purposes.

Cm. Dickey inquired about the City’s liability regarding the soundwall.

The Director replied that the areas found that needed repair were not in danger of falling over, but were displaced.

Mayor Tatarka asked if there was any damage suffered by residents.

The Director replied that if there were any damage, the residents could file a claim against the City. He said there were very few locations where the wall actually adjoins a residence.

Cm. Wilson inquired about the San Ramon Valley Blvd. Westside Landscape Project. Area controlled by the three homeowners associations. He described the unsightliness of the area and asked when the City was going to take over this project.

He replied two of the HOA’s have completed the necessary steps to work with us and the third one was in the process of amending their CC&R’s. He said once completed, the City would continue and he anticipated it would take approximately one-year to complete this process.

The Acting Director said when a new gas meter was installed at the aquatic center, there had been an error in billing for gas services that had originated about 34 months ago. He noted the City had not been billed for approximately $50,000 for the new pool. He stated this amount, plus and additional $17,000 for this fiscal year operating expenses needed to be added to the budget.

Cm. Hudson questioned the change in the Dougherty Valley Gymnasium/Teen Center (CIP9931) wording from "facility." He said we could actually do a teen center if it worked out at the gymnasium or at the pool.

Cm. Wilson said one final issue was the Senior Center Phase II Expansion Project.

The Parks Director stated the Parks & Community Services Commission had discussed proceeding with the construction documents. He said this would take an additional four months, then the project would go out to bid. He said the Commission recognizing it was a $2.4 million project and the economic situation of the City was not good and based on the current demand, they felt if conditions didn’t improve, construction could be postponed a year.

Cm. Hudson asked to clarify that the Parks Commission recommended delaying this project a year, and the Finance Committee also agreed to delay it one year. He said it would be the same design, but construction would be delayed until the mid year review.

Cm. Wilson said if the economy changes, it can be evaluated from that point.

Cm. Dickey’s motion to adopt Resolution No. 2002-60 and authorize staff to make the recommended changes was seconded by Cm.Wilson and passed 5-0.

* * * *

The City Manager said the Internal Operations Committee, composed of Cm. Dickey and Cm. Hudson, had reviewed City Council procedures to assess whether there were some opportunities to improve the flow and make the meetings move more smoothly. He said one of the recommendations regarding meeting ending times was to begin meetings at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30 p.m. and that no new item should be taken up after 10:30 p.m. with the objective that meetings should last no longer than 11:00 p.m. He said in regard to Council meeting minutes, the Committee wanted to insure that the minutes fully record the discussions that occur and that they provide a good history of the issue for future reference. After discussing the appointment of committees and commissions, the Committee recommended that the Boards and Committee appointments be staggered through the year so that there was one board or committee appointed each month with the Council conducting the interviews prior to the meeting when the appointments were made. He said the Parks and Community Services Commission and Planning Commission would be appointed in June of the even years. He also said it was recommended some changes be made in committee application forms for consistency and for eliciting additional information. The fourth recommendation was a change in the final item on the Council agenda that previously listed the Council boards and committee reports and that was changed to City Council Comments.

Cm. Dickey said the earlier start time was in consideration of staff so that they don’t have so much dead time between 5:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. and meeting attendees who have to go to work the next day. She said good decisions are not made at a late hour and she did not feel there was anything on the agenda that could not be postponed to the next agenda if the time frame gets to be unreasonable. She proposed that no new subjects be introduced after 10:30 p.m. and that the Council vote on continuing the meeting after 11:00 p.m.

Curt Kinney asked what happens to people in the audience at a Council meeting who have come for an item late on the agenda and all of the items up front take a lot of time and it is the policy not to conduct business after 11:00 p.m.

Cm. Dickey said that would be considered and that was why there would be a vote.

Diane Schinnerer said one thing that was done by previous Councils was to poll the audience as to what item they were interested in and if there were a lot of people in attendance for a particular item it was moved up on the agenda. She also said there was currently a policy on the books regarding meeting times and how a meeting could be extended by a four-fifths vote. She said she felt it was very important when people take time out of their very busy lives that their item is not continued to the next meeting.

Cm. Dickey said that was not the intention of this, this was actually to process meetings and have consideration for staff and the public and certainly nobody would be sent home without speaking.

Mary Lou Oliver said there was a resolution on the books that said that nothing new would start after 10:30 p.m. without a four-fifths vote. She said in regard to the last item on the agenda being changed to City Council Comments, it is very helpful to those who have been involved in the process on either committees or commissions to know what the City Council was going to talk about at the end of the meeting, what meetings they have attended, what comments they are going to make and especially those that are going to watch the meetings at home and get the agenda off of the internet. She said she felt it was helpful and informative to have those items listed under City Council Business at the end of the agenda because some very interesting discussions take place at that time.

Cm. Hudson said he agreed with the previous comments that recommended sticking with a procedure that was already on the books. He said the option is there to change the meeting time back to 7:30 p.m. or even to 5:30 p.m. depending on the length of the agenda but for the general term the Internal Operations Committee agreed that moving the meeting start time to 7:00 p.m. served the purpose and to not go past 11:00 p.m. was the intent. He said there was a process already in place that if the Council felt they were going to go past 11:00 p.m. they would need to open an item that they want to hear that evening before 10:30 p.m. and close it and then go back to the item currently being discussed.

Cm. Wilson said he would like to consider the issue after seeing the policy that was currently in place.

Mayor Tatarka said even when the agenda is reviewed carefully as to the timing when being drafted it was hard to judge because of the comments from the audience. She said she has seen the policy that is currently on the books and she felt the Council should adhere to that policy.

Cm. Dickey said the difference in the policy that exists today and what the Internal Operations Committee was proposing was just to start the meeting earlier.

Cm. Cambra said he was fine with the 7:00 p.m. starting time.

Cm. Wilson said he would agree with the 7:00 p.m. starting time as long as it did not take away from the Redevelopment Agency meeting.

Cm. Dickey said the Internal Operations Committee had agreed that if major corrections were going to be made to the Council minutes the rest of the Council should be made aware of what was being proposed and discuss it. She said if it is just too much it should be deferred for clarification with the City Clerk.

Cm. Dickey continued by saying the number of committees had increased and felt it was unwieldy to make all of the appointments in February and it had been her original suggestion to make appointments quarterly. She said it had been recommended that the appointments be made every month with interviews the first meeting of the month and appointments made at the second meeting.

Cm. Hudson said he felt the current way of handling committee appointments was the way to go. He said the Parks Commission interviews some of the committee applicants and he felt that should stay the same. He said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) had been removed from the Council’s purview and the Planning Department had been asked to set up a committee to do that. He said the major difference between the Internal Operations Committee members on this issue was whether or not the Council would interview all committee applicants. He said he liked the idea of separating the commission and committee application forms and on each one of the committee applications have an addendum to make it clear as to what the committee does. He said with Parks continuing to interview the committees as they do now and the ARB no longer under the Council’s purview, the process would work.

Cm. Dickey said there were seven committees whose appointment was made by review of the applications and she felt the application did not provide enough information to find out about the person. She said it was valuable to her to have people respond to questions in an interview. She said she felt either the Parks Commission should interview all of the committees or none of them.

Cm. Wilson said it was handled that way because it is called Parks and Community Services. He said the Arts Council, Forest Home Farms Committee, Library Committee and Senior Committee were interviewed by the Parks Commission because they all provided community services. He said it has worked in the past and it will work in the future and should remain the same.

Cm. Dickey said the Parks Commission currently makes a recommendation to Council and the Council makes the final decision and she would like to know the applicants.

Cm. Cambra said the applications need to be revised. He said it was important that each applicant have the same application form and the questions need to be more in depth and more relevant. He said he has heard from everyone that has been interviewed that they don’t like the interviews, whether it was done by the Parks Commission or the City Council. He said he did not like the way the interviews were being conducted currently because he was making a decision on a Planning Commissioner who was going to deal with planning for the City for four years and the person gets a 15 minute interview by five Councilmembers.

Cm. Wilson said when you were active in the community you know the applicants on a personal basis. He said he had been interviewed for the Parks Commission and had interviewed applicants for the Parks Commission and he did not feel it was intimidating or demeaning but found it educational. He said the system works and if it is not broken don't try to fix it. He said he felt comfortable after appointing the Parks Commissioners that they would make the right decisions and they give a different mix than if the Councilmembers chose everyone.

Cm. Dickey said the Planning Commission does not interview the Environmental Affairs Committee, the Open Space Committee or the ARB and those are all committees or boards that deal with the Planning Commission and she did not know why the Parks Commission was the only one that interviews.

Cm. Hudson said ARB was changed this year so that the Council was no longer appointing them. He said the Council takes the Parks Commission recommendations into consideration and then after reviewing the applications makes the final decision.

Cm. Dickey said she felt this was not a Parks Commission issue and she was saying the Council should see all of the applicants for each committee. She said if the applicant can take the time to fill out the application Council can take the time to meet and interview them and have interaction with them.

Cm. Wilson said he did not have a problem staggering the appointments, it was his concern that the Parks Commission continue to interview the four committees.

Mayor Tatarka said the Committee booklet contains the membership listing and the charge for each board, commission and committee. She said she would like to see the charge sent with the application so that everyone can be clear as to what the committee does. She said she had been asked why some of the committee applicants were interviewed and some were not and they felt the Council could not get to know them from an application and the interview process would help. She noted the staff report talked about improving the application by asking the Committee members what questions would be pertinent to their committee. She said the process needs to be changed so that it is more comfortable for the applicants, for staff and the Council.

Cm. Dickey said this was a work in progress and recommended trying the suggested changes to see if the system could be improved and get more people involved and give them the benefit of an interview.

Cm. Hudson said he was in favor of appointing the committees in February and March if that is what it takes and in June appoint the commissions.

It was the consensus of the Council to make the committee appointments quarterly.

Cm. Wilson said one thing that was missing on the form was the applicant’s education and occupation. He said he agreed with separate applications for the commissions and committees.

Cm. Hudson said the IO Committee was recommending the committee job description be printed on the back of the application or included with the application and the current committee members asked to submit questions they felt should be asked of the applicants for that committee.

Cm. Cambra said he wanted to make sure whatever method was chosen that it was consistent on applications picked up at the counter, on the web-site or faxed.

Mayor Tatarka confirmed it was the consensus of the Council that the application needs to be redone, an entire packet sent out whether the application is for a committee or a commission, and there will be separate forms geared specifically to each committee or commission. She said she would like the input from the existing commission and committee members as to what questions they felt were appropriate. She asked that the issue come back before Council for review.

Mayor Tatarka said she felt a more thorough application would solve the interview problem.

Cm. Dickey asked for clarification on Council’s contact with the applicant if there are questions or dialogue is desired.

Cm. Wilson said he did not have a problem with Council calling the applicant.

Cm. Cambra asked if the IO Committee had considered video taping the interviews or having interviews that were just video taped and having the Councilmembers be able to review the tapes.

Cm. Wilson said a camera video taping an interview could be intimidating.

Mayor Tatarka said she felt if the applications and the process were streamlined the Council would have a better indication of who was applying. She suggested waiting until the Council had had a chance to review the new applications and the total package to be sent to committee and commission applicants before making a decision on the interview process.

Cm. Hudson said the IO Committee had tried to clean up City Council Comments just like Public Comments to make sure the wording didn’t open up another issue with the possibility of citizens putting something on the agenda under that heading. He said he wanted to make clear that every Councilmember still had to put on an item if they want to discuss any action being taken. There are certain items that have to be on the agenda to meet the 72-hour requirement and one of those is the Mayors’ Conference agenda. He said he liked the idea of streamlining the listing of the committee meeting reports but felt it was dangerous unless City Council Comments were clarified that the Council still had the ability to add things to that section of the agenda. He said there has to be a definition of this section so that people know that these are not items on which a decision is gong to be made or a separate City Council Business listing where action could be taken after discussion.

Cm. Dickey said the City Council Comments section would give the Council an opportunity to speak if they had something to report on.

Mayor Tatarka said she was of the mind-set of finding another way of communicating with the public regarding the meetings attended by Councilmembers and that could be done through the web-site or some other form of communication. She suggested the Council liaisons attend the committee meetings on a quarterly basis rather than attending every meeting. She said she agreed the important meetings should be listed on the agenda and the liaison meetings reported on a quarterly basis or have a report on the web-site or find some other means to report.

Cm. Hudson said somewhere on the agenda there needs to be the ability to put an item on the agenda in case there needs to be a potential for a vote.

* * * *

Mayor Tatarka called for a five-minute recess.

All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened.

* * * *

The City Manager stated there was no staff report for this item as the interviews had been conducted on Saturday, June 8, 2002. He said the interviews had been attended by all Councilmembers, plus staff interviewers, Joye Fukuda, Jeff Eorio, Phil Wong and the City Manager. He said six teams had been interviewed for the design of the City Center Project and he stated the staff interview team had met Monday morning to discuss their response and reaction to the proposals. He stated the written materials, responses to the presentation questions and the actual presentations, in addition to the experience, team personnel, mixed use projects, understanding of the project, creativity, consensus building process and historical experience had been considered. He stated each staff team member had listed their top three selections in no particular order. He stated out of that process, two of the firms tended to drop out, (SMWM and ABA). Staff recommended to Council that they consider selecting the finalist from the four remaining firms. He stated the City Clerk had ballots prepared and asked the Council to make their selections.

Mayor Tatarka opened public comment.

Curt Kinney asked for the Council to refrain from voting to select a City Center design team until after discussion on the $130 million bond measure, that was on the agenda. He said until you do a bond measure, you don’t even know if you are going to build it until the people vote on the issue. He said $1 million had already been spent on plans and now the Council was going to hire another design team. He said he had advised them for two years not to do that until the matter was put before the voters. He stated it had not yet been determined whether or not the people of San Ramon wanted a performing arts center, a library, a children’s museum, or a City Hall. He questioned why Council would even want to select a design team because just a few minutes earlier they had debated spending $135,000 for the Crow Canyon Gardens and that was miniscule compared to what was going to be spent on the City Center project.

Joe Covello said he felt selecting a design consultant in this situation was "putting the cart before the horse." He said the City had already spent over $1 million and we have no concept of what the project was. He also said we have no concept of project delivery, the mechanism for that delivery, and the planning and management of the funding. So, he said, it seems this whole exercise is premature.

Rosalind Rogoff said she was disappointed that staff decided against ABA. She spoke of the numerous meetings she had attended where there were hundreds of people at the
Community Center where there were presentations and slides and diagrams, notes were taken and there were final results. She said ABA was there, they had been involved in the design and they had been paid a lot of money and asked why we were starting over. She said the Council got rid of Turner Construction, but why did we have to get rid of "scheme B" along with Turner Construction. She recommended rehiring the people that have already done the design work and let them finish the project.

Diane Schinnerer said when you start planning a project this massive, there has to be some institutional memories and carry overs and it appears that all of this has been lost. She said the project could stop and start over time and time again and never get a beam in the ground. She asked do we keep reinventing the wheel or do we take what has been designed already and build on it.

Mayor Tatarka complimented all of the design teams and thanked them for participating. She said this was an opportunity for the public to participate in the process by attending the meeting and watching it on television. She felt that Council had not taken a step backwards, and the design teams had been interviewed about moving forward and confirmed that they could proceed working with what had been done. She said that everyone had the opportunity to watch the design interviews and had the opportunity to observe at the same time.

Cm. Hudson said he wanted to stick with the commitment made and that was to select a design team.

Cm. Cambra said he wanted to address comments made by the public. He stated that we were "not reinventing the wheel" because the design teams stated they could build on the work that was already done and it would not be lost. He said all of the design teams had addressed the issues of funding, timing, phasing and working within the scope of their proposals. With regard to starting all over again, he stated there were some issues that had never really been addressed and one was the south side of the street. He stated that when the city offices were moved in December it was a major change in the entire plan and we could still work with that within the existing programming materials that have been provided. He felt that we would not be wasteful of the money that has already be spent. He stated his commitment that this project would be built. He did say that there were many aspects of financing for this project that needed to be explored.

By Council ballot, Fisher Friedman Associates was selected the City Center design team.

* * * *

Victor Petersen said there were a few issues to consider regarding this mater. First, was it worthy of going on the ballot. He stated the Council has the ability to put this matter on the ballot, but that it was not to be taken lightly, and it was a privilege. Next to be considered, he questioned, should this issue be decided by the voters.

He presented a graph reflecting that voter participation was three times greater in even-numbered year elections versus the current odd-numbered election years. He said the reason Council had moved the elections to odd-numbered years was to coincide with the elections for DSRSD, the school district, the fire protection district, so the cost of the elections could be shared. He reviewed the cost of running an election and pointed out the cost was calculated per registered voter not by the number of people who actually vote.

He suggested this measure be submitted to the County by July 22, 2002 to provide sufficient time for arguments. He said the question that remained was whether a term of office be could be shortened or extended. He stated that if this matter were put on the ballot, all council terms would be extended by one year, and the election for the mayor would occur in 2004. He asked that the public not be excluded from this decision making process and adding a clause that if the voters want to change this, that they (the voters) would be the only ones to reverse such a decision.

Mayor Tatarka read a letter from Scott and Charlotte Miller recommending the Council not extend the Council terms.

Mary Lou Oliver said when she was a councilmember, she was the one most affected by the change in election years. She reviewed the history of the City’s first election and said the purpose of changing from even-numbered years to odd was to coordinate all of the municipal elections, DSRSD, the fire district, and the school district. She said the only way to accomplish this task without extending the terms was to shorten the terms not once, but twice. She said at the original incorporation, five people were elected, the first two high vote-getters got the full four year terms, the other three received two year terms and she was one of the three. She said to ensure not to shorten or extend a term over one year, the next terms were also shortened. She said the precedent had been set and contrary to what Victor Petersen expressed, this procedure was not done illegally and she did not think it would be illegal today. She also expressed her belief that the City Charter allows for the setting of an election date and it could be set for this year. She endorsed moving the election to even numbered years and said it was a long time in coming. She agreed with Mr. Petersen that this change was necessary to increase voter turnout. She stated that she did not feel this was a matter to be put to the voters. She observed that Cm. Dickey would be immediately affected because she has the shortened term. She said the precedent was there and the public understood the need to change from odd numbered year to even numbered year elections. She said she respects the public’s voice being heard with their overwhelming endorsement of the directly elected mayor measure and the Charter Amendment reads "at the first election where three councilmembers seats are up" will be the mayoral election and that could be this November.

Rosalind Rogoff read from the California Elections Code which stated it was illegal to shorten a term if you are on a school board, but not if you are on a city council. She stated she felt the Council and most people were in favor of the proposed change and commented on the percentages of voter turnout. She said she agreed with Mary Lou Oliver’s recommendation to change our elections to even numbered years.

Pat Boom said it was amazing how many people were agreeing with Victor Petersen, and it was wonderful because it was an idea that was supported by the people, the community and the Council. She said it would be appropriate to change the City elections to even-numbered years to have a higher voter turnout. She said that since this Council had been elected to make the best decisions for the entire City, it would be very appropriate to adopt an ordinance to do just that, for the November 2002 election. It would also be very appropriate for this to be done sooner rather than later and by reducing the terms it would show the residents of San Ramon how important it was to increase voter turnout. She said Council was elected for a four year or two year term, not for a five year or a three year term. She hoped more trust would be engendered in the people of San Ramon by adopting this ordinance sooner (November 2002) rather than later.

Michael DiGeronimo stated there were good arguments supporting both sides on whether or not to put this issue on the ballot, and questioned if higher voter turnout gives you the same number of quality voters who are more informed. He stated he thought the election code Rosalind Rogoff quoted earlier had been over-ruled and that the City Attorney should review it and advise the Council. He said the appearance of propriety regarding the extension of terms would not be right and felt that it was unfair to shorten the terms, and suggested that a future date be selected for the adjustment of term length. He said he did not feel it was worth the time and expense to place this matter on the ballot.

Joe Covello stated the directly elected mayor issue only appeared on the ballot because of past Council behavior and absence of an equitable alternative. He said during his four terms on DSRSD, this matter came up and there was legislative permission to change the community services district to even numbered years to coincide with national and gubernatorial elections. He said, at that time, he voted against it and would do so again today because a special district going into national elections was like getting thrown into a pond of piranhas because the district elections become consumed by the big ticket items. He did say, however, he felt that municipal elections should be held in even numbered years because of all of the attention and publicity they get. He stated that Council needed to make the decision themselves and he did not support the extension of terms.

Dianne Schinnerer agreed with Victor Peterson’s suggestion to move the City’s elections to even numbered years. She said she did not support extending Council terms and suggested whether it goes on the ballot or by decision of Council, it could be placed on the November 2002 ballot, as a caveat that this would take place after the election of November 2003. She said people voted overwhelmingly for the elected mayor and they were looking forward to that date. She stated that this item takes place in November 2004, which would result in shortening Cm. Hudson and Cambra’s terms, then you would go the 2006 which would shorten the other two councilmembers terms by one year as well.

Sam Lemon spoke of the dismal 23% turnout at the last election. He said if you believe a high number voter turnout is good, and you believe that moving to an even numbered year is the way you go about achieving it, then this seems to be a no-brainer. He said he did not believe this was a ballot measure. He said the election year had been changed once before for a good and sufficient reason by a council and the council could change it now for a good reason. He stated he did not believe the city should be held hostage two years unnecessarily and the people would not be inconvenienced by this change. As public minded citizens he did not think that was too great a price to pay when the beneficiary would be the City. He said this should be done in 2002 and not as a ballot measure.

Melody Lundgren stated that she, her husband and neighbor Rene Waterson, thought even numbered year elections were a very good thing. She said she did not feel it was a violation of the trust of the people and she understood why they felt the change needed to be made.

Curt Kinney said is was time for even numbered year elections and that many precincts had much less turnout than the overall City average of 23%. He said terms need to be shortened, not extended and encouraged the Council to make that decision and not go to a ballot.

Mayor Tatarka requested clarification from the City Attorney.

The City Attorney stated that being a charter city means that all of the election code sections don’t have to apply to what is done and that included the sections referred by Ms. Rogoff. He said those sections refer to a Freeholder’s charter, but that would be granting permission to consolidate which was much different from what the Council had been asked to do. He stated that consolidation is different than changing an election date. He said in effect any date could be selected to have a municipal election. He requested the opportunity to research the issue whether specifying actual terms for members prohibits the lengthening or shortening of terms. He stated the Council could take this action or place it on the ballot as the charter states clearly it was allowed select an election date. He said the way the Council could get around the Charter, (with regards to terms) was to submit a charter amendment to the voters.

Cm. Hudson said last year when the initiative for a directly elected mayor was put before the Council, the Council did not say "no" but felt it did have a few flaws. He said the Council wanted to work together with the interested community to define the job description for the mayor and if that had happened maybe the solicitation of signatures would not have been necessary. He said there was no opposition to this, but the continuing issue from year-to-year was that the change should have come from the people. He said that it appeared everyone was in agreement that elections should be in even numbered years and it was just a matter of how it should be handled. He said he disagreed with Victor Petersen that the voters had voted overwhelming to select a mayor at our next municipal election. He said he did not want to change the vote for mayor to any other date than November 2003. He said if this matter was placed on a ballot, then the three seats should be on the ballot at the same time. He spoke against having an election without having the position of mayor on the ballot at the same time. He said he had no problem shorting terms a year, but had a real problem dragging this out and having to explain why.

Cm. Wilson said regardless of what action Council takes he was opposed to lengthening anyone’s term.

Mayor Tatarka stated that lengthening and shortening of terms was an issue for all Councilmembers and expressed her desire to give the City Attorney the opportunity to research the issue.

The City Attorney stated he would be ready to advise Council at its next meeting on the legal issues. He said if directed by the Council, he could draft some options and have the documents ready for action that night, depending on what Council decided. He clarified that it would have to be filed with the County by August 9^th to be on the November 2002 ballot.

Cm. Hudson asked if the Council would have an ordinance to vote on at the next meeting.

The City Attorney stated there could be a couple of things, depending on the direction of Council. He said the legal issue was whether or not to change the election date, which would necessarily extend or shorten the term violates the charter. He said if that is the case, he recommended proceeding with a charter amendment to change the election date. If the conclusion is it does not violate the charter, then the Council would have three options; 1) adopt an ordinance to change the election date; 2) submit the question to the voters; and 3) do nothing.

The City Attorney said he would try to have the documentation for those decisions available at the next meeting to provide the opportunity for Council to make a decision and implement it that night.

Cm. Dickey supported Victor Petersen’s concern about waiting until the final date of August 9^th, as that would not allow the opportunity for preparation of "pro and con" statements to the issue.

The City Attorney stated what had to be into the County by August 9^th was the resolution to call the election and stating the question, and there was a separate time table for the supporting matters.

The City Clerk confirmed that August 9^th was the final date to submit the resolution to the County and there would be a separate time table for the filing of arguments and rebuttals.

Mayor Tatarka confirmed that if the July 9^th Council meeting were cancelled, there would still be sufficient time for this resolution to be submitted.

The City Attorney said that was correct and it would also allow the Council to explore other alternatives. He said action would not have to be taken at the next meeting, however, he felt there would be enough information exploring numerous options at the next meeting.

Mayor Tatarka stated she would like to have more citizens weighing in on this issue and wanted to have this item return at the next Council meeting. She stated her puzzlement as to why the change of election date had not occurred many years ago and wondered why there had been a sudden interest.

It was consensus of Council to have the City Attorney prepare various documentation to be reviewed at the next Council meeting.

* * * *

Curt Kinney said about ten-years ago the leaders of San Ramon took the first steps for the creation of a City Center. He said there had been wide support among community leaders and citizens. He stated that after many surveys, studies, reports, etc., and the expenditure of almost $1 million, San Ramon still did not have a City Center, nor a specific plan for one. He said what needed to happen was a determination of what to build, the elements, current estimates, and stated the estimated capital costs would be $130 million. He said the issue of "what" to build should be set aside to determine how the City would pay for such a project. He stated that the largest single capital project the City had had to date was $20 million, and this project was many times in excess of that amount. He said there were two ways to finance a project as large as this proposed City Center; 1) sell COP’s and use the funds to build the project, and 2) finance the project with a bond issue which would require 2/3 voter approval since it is a property tax. Both of these financing approaches would require paybacks from taxes imposed on citizens, he said. Mr. Kinney said there was a difference between the two option; , the COP approach would not require a vote of the citizens, the other does. He said he strongly advocated a bond issue so that the citizens would not be imposed with a tax burden, without a vote. He asked for Council input on this issue and said it was time dependent with regards to placing this issue on the November 2002 ballot.

Joseph Covello said he doubted there had been a coherent plan laid out such that anybody could proceed with planning, design, and mechanism for product delivery or funding of the City Center project. He said putting a bond issue to the voters was premature. While the facility would not be obtained "for free," he stated you don’t ask the residents to vote on something when they don’t have a clue as to what the program is, the phasing is, and in essence, not really knowing what they are voting on. He said when there was no scope of the project, no basis for coming up with a price tag, and no knowing any of the costs, how can you ask the voters to pay for it. He suggested the Council not spend time on this issue. Mr. Covello stated as vice chair of the Charter City Commission, the four-year terms were literal, they were not specific, that it was generic, and the intent of the commission was clear that you had to define some term as one, two or three, it did not matter.

Mr. Kinney stated in response to Mr. Covello, that it took a few years of exercises for designing this thing. It was designed, we got costs, we know it was going to cost $130 million, the projects that will be identified, and that came from your city manager, he gave estimated figures for various components of the program, so it would be pointed out in the initiative what the citizens would be voting on. He said this was something that needed to get put out there.

Cm. Hudson said it was after 12 o’clock and expressed his doubts that any decision would be made. He said financing is always going to be part of the issue and was hoping that it would be discussed. He wanted dialogues to open up to find how this City Center would actually get put in the ground. He said he was concerned about ballot measures coming up for school district, East Bay Regional Park other groups that could be competing for funding with San Ramon. He said he wanted to see a study session, re-compile the numbers of what this project could potentially cost.

Cm. Dickey agreed with Mr. Covello and said a bond issue questions on the ballot was very premature. She said at this point in time, the City had not investigated any public-private partnerships, we don’t now how this project is going to be phased, don’t know what project is going to be first, and thought it would be remiss to put the entire project before the voters as that is not how it is going to be developed.

Cm. Cambra stated he was going to disagree with Cm. Dickey on the basis of her analysis as it only takes into account the $130 million question on the ballot. He said if people want to vote generically, and if people want to tax themselves for a Civic Center, you can do that. He said he was not adverse to the residents voting on this, he was adverse for residents being taxed on this. He said there were other options for the financing and expressed his desire he did not want the residents taxed.

Cm. Dickey stated that none of the Council were interested in taxing the residents, and said it was premature to put $130 million question before them.

* * * *

Cm. Dickey spoke about the Teen Jobs Program through the Community and Youth Resource Program. She also stated the Aquatic Facilities Needs Committee had met on May 9^th and will be meeting the 2^nd & 4^th Thursday of each month, 4:30 P. M., at the San Ramon Olympic Pool.

Cm. Cambra requested at the next meeting, Council vote on Mr. Kinney’s bond measure.

* * * *

There being no further business to come before the City, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 A.M.

Signed:

Nancy Tatarka, Mayor
Judy Macfarlane, City Clerk