A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Ramon was called to order on July 23, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Fountain Room, San Ramon Community Center, 12501 Alcosta Boulevard, 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, Transportation Director John Dillon, Acting Public Services Director Jeff Gault, Acting Administrative Services Director Janean Myers, Building and Safety Services Director Don Rhoades, and City Clerk Judy Macfarlane

* * * *

Mayor Tatarka led Council, staff and those present in the audience in the pledge of allegiance.

* * * *

The Acting Public Services Director introduced new employees Gary Arasa and Carla Guadagnolo, Maintenance Technician’s I, and Mark O’Harra, Maintenance Technician II.

The Acting Administrative Services Director introduced new employee Lisha Gillespie.

The Parks & Community Services Director introduced John Skeel, Division Manager.

Mayor Tatarka welcomed the new employees and gave them City pins.

Mayor Tatarka presented a proclamation to Bill Meine, Vice Chair, Parks & Community Services Commission, declaring July Recreation and Parks Month.

* * * *

Camille Thompson said she wanted to give her five minutes to speak to Sam Lemon.

Sam Lemon said he had a document he wanted to read on behalf of many San Ramon citizens and several speakers had allocated their five minutes to him. He first addressed the election year issue, cautioning that a ballot measure would take a lot of time and expense (approximately $50,000). He urged the Council to follow precedent of prior councils (1984-85), which had been approved by the City Attorney, and use their authority to change the election year, and when doing so, not to lengthen their terms.

Mr. Lemon addressed several financial concerns starting with the $30,000 spent on Shaping our Future and questioned what benefit the City had received for this money besides a glossy brochure. He said that Herb Moniz had been paid a "kings ransom" and that the costs surrounding his termination and recruitment of a new City Manager, would well exceed a half-million dollars. Mr. Lemon disputed the appointment of an assistant City Manager, stating at the June 25^th meeting Vice Mayor Wilson had been assured that this position would remain in the program of services for appointment at the discretion of the new City Manager. Mr. Lemon asked for a written explanation of the reasons why Turner Construction had been dismissed. He stated that two weeks would be ample time to respond. He spoke in detail about the Digiray settlement, travel expenses and the City Attorney budget overrun. Mr. Lemon stated the 2002-03 budget showed a shortfall of about $5 million and said when you add all the expenses, the City’s reserve fund had been reduced by $10 million.

Christy Winter, representing the San Ramon Chamber of Commerce, stated the business community had several concerns about the lack of consistency in the decisions that had been made by this Council. She said the major reorganization that had been announced shortly after the budget had been approved was one item in particular. Ms. Winters referred to the turbulent state of the economy and stated the last thing the business community of San Ramon needed was more upheaval, and requested Council to consider that when making substantial decisions, the way business is done.

Barry Nudelman questioned why this Council was trying to undo all of the progress the City had made since its incorporation. He expressed his concern for the use of the City’s reserve funds and identified several budget overruns. He voiced his displeasure regarding the termination contract with Herb Moniz. Mr. Nudelman questioned the terms in Jim Randall’s employment contract, requested clarification on several points and asked why the contract had not been presented to Council until now. He said there had been Brown Act violations with regard to the appointment of the City Attorney in 2001.

Mary Lou Oliver stated she always tried to come before Council in a positive, helpful fashion, however, this evening she had to be critical. She stated she felt the Council majority had spent public funds that were not authorized, grossly overspent the City Council’s budget and had shown disregard for the most rudiment basics of ethics. She stated there was suspicion of violations of the Brown Act in some of the closed meeting sessions where announcements had not been made following the meeting. The Council, assisted by the Interim City Manager, had engineered the removal of trusted city employees partially because of their loyalty to the City and destruction of city structure had begun that had taken 20 years to build. She felt mediation could have been undertaken and a settlement been reached between community groups and utilities, if either side had been willing to compromise. She stated that long term community advocates had been displaced from committees and commissions to be replaced with friends and campaign workers who have not shown a long term commitment to the success of that committee, and specifically referred to Forest Home Farms. Ms. Oliver stated that this majority had permitted the Interim City Manager to embarrass department heads publicly and in the press. She stated there was now a rift between the City and the business community who was the life blood of the city financial structure. She concluded by saying that an inexperienced Interim City Manager had been led by an inexperienced Council majority who listen only to those who agreed with them.

Don Schinnerer said as he looks at our City Council, he asks what is wrong with this governance model. He asked where was the professionalism, council responsibility, individual honesty and integrity. He questioned several episodes that had taken place since January 1; 1) why the Mayor had traveled out of state twice without prior Council approval as required by city ordinance, spending $9,000-10,000, which is not within the Council mandated guidelines for trip expenses, and billing the City for her spouses meals and lodging, 2) the Interim City Manager’s employment contract and stated the correct manner to process the contract was to obtain the Council’s approval prior to the signing of the contract, not in the reverse order, 3) when "interim" was dropped from Mr. Randall’s title of City Manager noting in April, Mr. Randall was introduced as the Interim City Manager, 4) when the 2001/2002 budget had been $4 million in the red and the 2002-2003 budget $5 million in the red, why had there not been a hiring freeze or spending cuts proposed. He questioned why the Assistant City Manager position, that had been approved for the future, had been filled immediately, and stated that since January 1, the Council majority had spent nearly $1 million buying off the previous City Manager, settling with Turner Construction, and settling the Digiray legal matter, and 5) asked how this Council could continue to move forward without clear direction from the electorate. He asked how much this Council majority would spend before going to the voters for their approval for this project. He suggested that Council pass the proposed ballot measure as recommended by Mr. Kinney. He questioned the timely and equal flow of information between Councilmembers and the Interim City Manager and stated his concern for the budget overrun with regard to the City Attorney.

Diane Schinnerer stated she and 92 other members of "Citizens for San Ramon" were appalled that over $1 million in less than six months had been spent. She stated Mayor Tatarka’s trips cost the taxpayers $10,000 and the Council had exceeded its budget by $11,000. She stated $30,000 was spent on "Shaping our Future" where nothing had been gained and $250,000 was spent to terminate the City Manager without a reason. She questioned the Mayor signing a contract making the Interim City Manager the City Manager without the prior knowledge or approval of the Council. She asked why hire a City Manager and still spend $25,000 recruiting a replacement. She questioned the hiring of an Assistant City Manager when it had been agreed at a prior council meeting not to do so until mid-year or later. She reminded the Council that Vice Mayor Wilson had specifically requested the appointment be postponed and all five Councilmembers had agreed. She outlined numerous Council expenditures such as the termination of Turner Construction and the settlement of the Digiray lawsuit and said the residents were still waiting for the reason for Turner Construction’s dismissal. Ms. Schinnerer stated the City Attorney budget was $224,000 over budget and never in the City’s history had it spent more than $156,000. She expressed her doubt that the City was embroiled in more lawsuits than usual and said it was difficult to obtain the truth from this Council. She stated the new Council majority, in six short months, had managed to waste over $1,116,000 of San Ramon citizens’ tax money. She said the City should cut back on spending, implement a hiring freeze and balance the budget.

Rosalind Rogoff requested that item 8.9, Ratifying the employment agreement for Jim Randall, be removed from the consent calendar and that item 12.3, Discussion of City Manager’s organization of San Ramon City Government, be moved forward to New Business.

Mayor Tatarka asked the City Attorney to address Ms. Rogoff’s request to move an item on the agenda.

The City Attorney said it was the Council’s discretion to move items on the agenda.

Greg Carr asked that all of the speakers be requested to give their name and address. Mr. Carr continued to say in the newspapers there had been an assault on what was called the majority of three on the Council and those that had expressed concern about the non-disclosure section in Herb Moniz’s contract should know that they or their mouth pieces usually request this language and he would call this yellow journalism. He expressed concern that Cm. Hudson was attending a San Ramon Political Action Committee (PAC) meeting when the rest of the Council was interviewing applicants for the City’s Housing Advisory Committee. He said all he could tell the PAC members that were assaulting the three Councilmembers was they should pay attention to the other two Councilmembers and what they were doing. He said if people were concerned about what the Mayor spent on recent trips they should go back to 1983 and add up what every Councilmember had spent and divide that amount by their number of years in office.

Melody Lundgren said one of the benefits of putting the issue of changing elections to even-numbered years was subsequent changes to this issue would also be made by the voters. She said as far as the issue of shortening the Council terms, she did not want her vote negated in any way and she had voted for some of the current Councilmembers for a specific term. She spoke about the mailer sent out from the City last fall signed by Cm. Hudson who was Mayor at the time. She said the mailer had been determined to be an infraction by the FPPC. At that time Cm. Hudson had apologized stating the City staff had not alerted him to the restrictions and he was not aware of his error. All was forgiven and it was not mentioned again. She continued to say the current oversight of the Mayor not getting Council’s approval for an out of state trip appeared to be exactly that, an oversight by everyone. She said after a review of the financial records she did not believe anything inappropriate had been done in regard to the Mayor’s trip other than not gaining prior approval.

Michelle Cowles said a few Councilmembers had been criticized recently for by-passing people for appointment to City committees and commissions and instead appointing their supporters. She asked why Cm. Hudson would choose to attend a PAC meeting instead of attending the critically important interviews for the Housing Committee. She said it was important for the Council to work to dissolve the division that was so pervasive.

Bob duPont said all of the Councilmembers have a right to a different vision concerning the issues that affect the City. He said it appeared looking from the outside that there were hidden agendas, meetings held outside of the public view and a lack of information transmitted to the public. He asked the Council to open their minds and deliberations to the public. He said the public wanted to see what the City was doing and how decisions were being made. He asked the Council to please be truthful with the public and to keep them informed, noting it was the only way the Council had of rebuilding the community’s trust in them.

Quan Li said that Falun Gong was a very powerful meditation practice that promoted good health. He gave an update of their activities and said they were involved in local communities. After discussing the persecution of Falun Gong and how it related to people in the United States, he invited everyone to come to a meditation session and experience the benefits.

Jim Monroe spoke about a previous Council meeting where many people had objected to a proposal made by a developer. He said a Councilmember who had supported the project had been asked why he had voted the way he had. The Councilmember had responded he represented over 40,000 residents of which approximately 20,000 were registered voters and he voted for what he felt was best for all of the residents not just for the people attending the meeting. Mr. Monroe urged the current Council to vote for what they felt was best for the City.

Mr. Monroe said the opinions expressed in the newspaper were only opinions, stating it was wise to know who was writing or saying things in an effort to influence public opinion. He said he had recently submitted a letter to the newspaper and was told it was too long to publish.

Kathleen Weir stated she enjoyed watching the Council working to attempt to get our City heading in a beneficial direction. She spoke against the hostile rumors about the Mayor and the negative remarks being made without obtaining facts from both sides. She specifically referenced the meeting expenses and the realignment of department leadership. She stated she actually had seen proof of these expenses and had spotted no impropriety, and in fact, the Mayor may even be owed money. She asked that expenses for all Councilmembers and the ex-City Manager for the last 10 years be made public. Ms. Weir stated she felt this realignment was the correct course of action and the City Manager should be allowed to perform his duties. She stated the City and Mayor Tatarka were taking a pro-active stance with surrounding issues such as development and traffic. She shared that she had personally known the Mayor and her family for over 20 years and they had displayed loyalty to the City, honesty, integrity and commitment to the community.

Heather Westmoreland stated she was extremely offended by Mr. Monroe’s attempt to draw an analogy between Adolf Hitler and what a group of citizens was trying to accomplish. She spoke about financial indifference or irresponsibility regarding the Mayor’s out-of-state travel at taxpayer expenses. She said Ordinance 159 specifically precluded out of state travel by City Councilmembers without prior approval from the Council. She questioned the legality of the travel and the judgment to spend taxpayer dollars in times of declining revenue. Ms. Westmoreland stated many residents in the City were deeply concerned about the utilization of the Reserve Fund and protested expenditures that were unwise, unnecessary, unethical or flat-out illegal. She stated the City Charter made it very plain that we have a City Manager form of government and the staff works for the City Manager. She reminded the Council that individually they do not give orders to the City Manager, but only the Council, acting as an entity does that. She said it was time for the San Ramon leaders to talk to each other rather than at each other. In conclusion, she stated it appeared there had been Brown Act violations, violations of the Public Records Act and a violation of the City Code.

Jim Blickenstaff said it appeared that there had been an embarrassing misunderstanding which could have been alleviated by better communication between staff and the entire Council. He said his main point that evening, beyond the airing of dirty laundry, was the recently approved project in Tassajara (Alamo Creek) that would undoubtedly lead to sprawl. He stated while the project was located in Danville, San Ramon was going to be affected not only by the ugly destruction of open space and habitat, but by the impact of traffic on Crow Canyon Road. He asked the Council to not be distracted by the current situation but to consider helping Danville to stop this project.

Yvonne Kimber stated she admired the "grace under pressure" displayed by Mayor Tatarka, and Cms. Dicky and Cambra, who had been subjected to constant negative barrage. She declared the "old guard" to be destructive not constructive, indicating they were not interested in the City of San Ramon. She stated the former City Manager had not provided adequate orientation to new Councilmembers and it was during his tenure that Mayor Tatarka took her first out-of-state trip. She found the discussion surrounding even year elections very interesting because the opposition now supported it while for 18 years they never took action. She stated when the new Council was sworn-in, a new majority spoke for and represented those who did not have an adequate voice with previous Councils. She claimed it was now that both residents and the business community were equally important. Mrs. Kimber suggested the energy used in anger would be best used working together for the benefit of San Ramon.

Victor Petersen stated it was not uncommon when submitting travel expenses for reimbursement to have your spouse or family member’s meals on the same ticket. He challenged the money spent by the previous Councils to sue the County regarding the Urban Limit Line, especially when there was not a public hearing first. He questioned the money spent on the City-wide mailing where there had been a FPPC violation by former Mayor Hudson. Regarding the reorganization, Mr. Petersen said his office had just been reorganized and it was a standard business practice. He stated that during public comment, it was not the option of the citizens when they would speak. He asked if the residents of San Ramon liked the "old way" then why did they vote for the new candidates. He said with approximately 25,000 registered voters in this city, and only a handful of people in opposition, the approval rating for them must be mighty high.

* * * *

Cm. Hudson’s motion to approve the minutes of the May 28, 2002 meeting as amended, was seconded by Cm. Dickey and passed 5-0.

Cm. Hudson referred to page 3 of the June 12, 2002 minutes and requested a written determination to establish if the documents requested by Dennis Garrison were public records. Next, Cm. Hudson referred to the comments made by Jim Monroe (page 4), and asked the City Attorney to investigate what occupations must be restricted from applying for the Planning Commission and if there was a maximum amount of money that person was allowed to make.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2002 meeting was seconded by Vice Mayor Wilson and passed 5-0.

* * * *

CONSENT CALENDAR

Mayor Tatarka stated she had received two speaker cards requesting Item 8.9, Ratifying the agreement between the City and Jim Randall, be removed for discussion.

Cm. Hudson stated he had two questions on Items 8.1 and 8.7 and felt the questions could be answered without removing the items from the consent calendar.

Vice Mayor Wilson requested Item 8.2 be pulled for a simple question.

Mayor Tatarka stated that Items 8.1, the Register of Demands, 8.2 Resolution No. 2002-75 Authorizing the San Ramon Police Department to enforce the California Vehicle Code on private streets in the Thomas Ranch Subdivision, and 8.7 would be addressed after the consent calendar was approved and Item 8.9 Resolution No. 2002-85 Ratifying the employment agreement between the City of San Ramon and Jim Randall, would become Item 11.4 on the agenda.

Vice Mayor Wilson requested that Item 12.3 Discussion of City Manager’s reorganization of San Ramon City Government be moved to New Business, Item 11.5.

Cm. Cambra stated Item 12.3 was a discussion item between the Council and would not be voted on. In addition, he stated this item had not been duly noticed to the community to allow for public comment. He stated if Council wanted to take that direction, it needed to be moved to a future meeting.

The City Attorney said it was the discretion of Council how they wish to handle that item. While it was for discussion, he stated it had met Brown Act requirements, and he did not think there were any legal constraints on moving the item.

By roll call vote, the motion to move Item 12.3 to Item 11.5 did not pass, 2-3 (Cm.’s Cambra, Dickey and Mayor Tatarka dissenting).

Cm. Hudson directed his question on Item 8.1 to the City Manager and asked for an explanation of the $1,592 payment to ICMA for Herb Moniz’s membership renewal as noted on the expenditure approval list dated June 30, 2002.

The City Manager stated part of Mr. Moniz’s settlement agreement with the City included paying his membership to the International City Managers Association for the coming year.

Cm. Hudson referred to Item 8.7, introduction of an ordinance and asked for comments and/or confirmation on the effect this would have.

The City Manager stated there was no cost to the City for this item.

Vice Mayor Wilson inquired about item 8.2 Resolution No. 2002-75 Authorizing the San Ramon Police Department to enforce the California Vehicle Code on private streets in the Thomas Ranch subdivision and asked what the normal process was.

The Transportation Director stated during the period when the roads within the subdivision were pending acceptance as public streets, the police department was precluded from any enforcement since they were not yet public streets. To provide for enforcement, the developer petitions the City and requests the police to enforce the vehicle code on those particular streets. The Director stated this was designed to cover the interim period between when the subdivision was totally constructed and occupied and when all of the checklist items had been met, which usually takes about one year. He answered Vice Mayor Wilson’s question stating to make certain those streets were covered, the City contacts the developers and requests that they petition the City for enforcement.

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

* * * *

Finance

Register of demands dated June 30, July 7 and 14, 2002 in the amount of $ 2,246,641.62

Resolution No. 2002-75
Authorizing the San Ramon Police Department to enforce the California Vehicle Code on private streets in the Thomas Ranch subdivision

Resolution No. 2002-77
Accepting certain roadway and drainage improvements for San Ramon Valley Boulevard within the frontage of Subdivision 8185 (Toll Brothers), Subdivision 8188 (Lyon Homes) and Jehovah’s Witness Church, as complete and for maintenance

Resolution No. 2002-79
Approving the application for funds for Forest Home Farms from the California Heritage Funds Grants Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000

Resolution No. 2002-80
Authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with Bellicitti & Pellicciotti Construction Co., for construction of the volleyball courts at Country Club Elementary School (CIP 5376), in an amount not to exceed $66,055 and authorizing a budget increase of $10,000

City Manager and Designated Directorates Contract Quarterly Report –
April to June 30, 2002

Resolution No. 2002-81
Resolution of Intention to approve an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of San Ramon to provide PERS Section 21024 Military Service Credit as Public Service.

Introduction of Ordinance
To amend the contract between the City of San Ramon and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System

Resolution 2002-84
Directing Staff To Prepare A Scope of Work And Consulting Agreement With Frontier Associates For Free Green Building Program Consulting Services

Acceptance of Work
P & P Construction, Inc., for Fiscal Year 2001/2002 Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Repair Project (CIP 5359) as complete and authorization for the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder’s Office

Acceptance of Work
Bay Cities Paving and Grading, Inc. for the 2000/2001 Pavement Management Project (CIP 8147) as complete and authorization for the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder’s Office

* * * *

Mayor Tatarka declared a short recess.

All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened.

* * * *

CONSIDERATION OF BALLOT MEASURE

The City Clerk read the following language submitted by Curt Kinney for a proposed measure to be submitted to the voters on the November 2002 ballot.

Curt Kinney said $1 million had already been spent on the City Center project and all that had been accomplished was placement of buildings on 11 acres. Now he said, this Council has spent another $250,000. He stated if this project proceeds, it could exceed $250,000,000. Mr. Kinney said he felt the citizens had the right to vote whether or not they want a new library or a performing arts theater. He said it was their right to vote on whether or not to spend the next 30 years paying for this project from their tax dollars.

Cm. Dickey asked what he was basing his quoted figure of $130,000,000 on.

Mr. Kinney stated this was the price quoted by the prior consultants. He said for two years he had asked for pricing, and because he never received it, he always voted no on the project. It took over 18 months to receive pricing by the architectural group to simply layout the buildings on the property. He questioned why spend the money if you don’t know if the citizens want to spend it.

Greg Carr stated he shared Mr. Kinney’s concern regarding asking the citizens if they want to do this or not. He stated the correct procedure would be to get a plan, have public involvement in the approval of that plan, then, after the best form of financing had been determined, at that time solicit the price tag. He stated it was premature at this time since there was nothing to show except massive diagrams.

Vice Mayor Wilson agreed that it would not be practical to present this to the residents at this time and said we should wait until structures and final costs were determined.

Cm. Hudson stated he would like to verify the comment made that it would be one quarter of the cost. He felt this was impossible for them to do it for a quarter of the cost. He said if we get into the financing of this project, then study groups need to be established. He said what was being discussed that night was simply whether or not this was going to be placed on the ballot, and Council should not be debating the anticipated cost of the project.

Mayor Tatarka stated prior to placing an advisory vote on ballot, due diligence and accuracy needed to be practiced to inform the voters as to what they are going to be voting on. She said within the agreement with the design team of Fisher Friedman, there are two specialty consultants, Saylor Consulting and Gruan and Gruan, who are cost estimating this project. Mayor Tatarka stated this was not done in the first process accurately. She said Mr. Kinney’s proposal was premature because we do not have exact figures or an exact product and we are in the process of obtaining this information. Mayor Tatarka said when the subject of financing was addressed at the design team interviews it was agreed there would be an evaluation of the work that had been done up to this point and it had to be confirmed which was a strategic operational plan. She said this was what most of the money had been spent for and therefore, they were validating that and moving forward.

Cm. Dickey clarified what we previously had was a standard operating procedure, and not a design. She stated the contract amount of $224,000 to Fisher Friedman was a design fee and the City had not had a design fee before.

Cm. Hudson made a motion to submit a measure to the voters at the November 2002 election with the proposed language received from Mr. Kinney. The motion was seconded by Cm. Cambra. The motion failed 1-4 (Cms. Cambra, Dickey, Wilson and Mayor Tatarka dissenting).

* * * *

The City Attorney said per direction from Council, he had prepared numerous ballot measure options on when the municipal election date (from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years) could become effective. He stated given the laws of mathematics, any change from odd to even-numbered years would ultimately either lengthen or shorten a term. He reviewed the various options and conclusion and stated resolutions had been prepared to take action that night if Council so desired. He said he was certain that there were other options in addition to those proposed in this staff report, which could be inserted to the ballot proposition.

Cm. Cambra asked about the cost of even-year elections versus odd-numbered year elections.

The City Attorney stated if an election is consolidated, the cost to the City would be less than if there were a stand-alone election.

The City Clerk stated if the election is consolidated the more municipalities and agencies that are on that ballot, the lower the individual cost. Currently with odd-numbered year elections, the City, being the only municipality on the ballot, bears the total cost. She stated if the City moved to even-numbered year elections, the overall cost would be less. The clerk stated the latest cost estimation from the County was $3.75 per registered voter (minimum) for a stand-alone election. She confirmed Cm. Cambra’s estimate of $75,000 - $100,000 cost for a stand-alone election in an odd numbered year. She stated the cost for even numbered year elections would be shared with the state, school district, DSRSD and the fire district, thus reducing the cost substantially.

Mayor Tatarka read e-mails received from Danny & Isabel Lau and Michael DiGeronimo. The Lau’s supported the change to even-year elections but did not support putting this on the ballot or lengthening the terms. Mr. DiGeronimo’s e-mail supported changing the election year from odd to even years with the effective date being after each incumbent’s term had expired. He did not support placing this item on the ballot.

Mayor Tatarka read the speaker card from Sally Behowick who supported moving to even numbered elections after the next election (Option D).

Scott Miller stated he supported Option D, although he did not object to the shortening of terms. He felt Option D would allow all current councilmembers to serve out their terms and suggested a variation to Option D would be to have the first term of mayor be two-years, then the second term would be one-year. He said the best way to appease both factions involved would be to select Option D so everyone on the current council could serve out their entire term.

Diane Schinnerer stated she supported Option D as the other options would be too contentious and the City should proceed with the 2003 election as people have anticipated.

Rosalind Rogoff said she was confused by the various options so she prepared a grid for comparison. She stated she had done research on the issue of changing from odd to even numbered year elections and substantiated that Cm. Hudson had been in favor of shortening terms. She questioned if Cm. Cambra would be in favor of shortening his term or if Mayor Tatarka would be in favor of shortening her term. She said she opposed Option B, although it would be the most cost effective measure, and Option C which would lengthen terms. She supported Option D, although it would be the most expensive since there would still be two stand-alone elections prior to the implementation date of 2006. Ms. Rogoff stated she wanted to have an election in an even numbered year perhaps with a governor’s race, but she would like to see local people vote who are involved, not people who are just showing up for other issues and then voting. She expressed her support for Option D.

Eric Wallis said the decision should be made by the voters and not the City Council. He reaffirmed what the City Attorney had stated earlier that there was no mathematical way to change the election year without affecting the length of someone’s term. He said the manner of change would be a balance of certain factors – and the Council last month had determined that decision should be made by the voters. He stated Option A was the most reasonable for three reasons, 1) it allowed for the direct election of a mayor in 2003, which was what the voters decided last year, 2) it treated all people who were affected by the change fairly because they all ended up serving three year terms, and 3) it allowed the Councilmembers who were up for re-election in 2003 to serve out their full terms. He said it was important to remember that each Councilmember’s term was set by the will of the people and not the divine right of kings. He said although the people of this City can set the terms at four years, like they do for governors or presidents, they also have the absolute right to change it to two years, like assembly and congresspersons. He urged the Council to let the people decide stating ultimately, the cost for elections was the voters’ money and they deserve the right to decide the issue through a ballot.

Elizabeth Monroe stated many people support the change to even-numbered year elections and also support the extension of Councilmembers terms to make this happen. She presented a petition with 156 signatures that supported placing the change of election years to even-numbered years on the November 2002 ballot, understanding that this would increase voter turnout, would be more cost effective, would extend current Councilmember terms by one year, and the first even year election would be in November 2004.

Isabel Lau presented a speaker card stating she supported Option D.

Jim Blickenstaff said he supported Option E (all of the above) and letting voters figure it out for themselves. He reminded the Council that action regarding Tassajara would have to be taken that night since Danville’s response date was before the next Council meeting.

Greg Carr stated that proceeding with Option E would be too confusing. He said he wanted to see all Councilmembers serve their full term or extending not reducing the terms. He supported Option B being placed on the November 2002 ballot.

Victor Petersen said he had proposed one option that was not about shortening or lengthening terms. He said it was impossible not to do one or the other when changing municipal elections to even-numbered years. He said other cities had extended their terms to change to even-numbered year elections by Council vote. He said this was an issue for the voters to decide and if they don’t want to extend the terms, the voters can vote this down. He requested that Council put the issue of even-numbered year elections on the ballot and do it by the method of extending everyone’s term by one year. He said with the first elected mayor on an even year ballot there would be a larger voter turnout. He said if Council did not want to place his option on the ballot, then he requested Council not place any option on the ballot. He requested the council vote "yes" or "no" on the proposal he submitted.

Mayor Tatarka closed public comment.

Cm. Dickey stated while serving on regional boards she had used that opportunity to ask Councilmembers and Mayors from communities such as Concord, Moraga, Martinez, Danville and Livermore, in addition to others, if they had the occasion, and if so, how they handled the change from odd-numbered to even-numbered year elections and if they shortened or lengthened their terms, which direction did they go. She reported every one of the cities responding stated they lengthened their terms and most accomplished this by ordinance, they did not put it to the people. She stated she was a great believer in "keep it short and simple" and that Option B is most easily understood by the electorate.

Cm. Dickey’s motion to approve Option B, Resolution No. 2002-87 Submitting a municipal code amendment to the voters at a special municipal election on November 5, 2002 was seconded by Cm. Cambra.

Cm. Hudson said he wanted to clarify what Cm. Dickey had stated. He said the decision to change election years and lengthen terms had been made by the respective Council’s and not by a vote of the people. He said the City of San Ramon had done the same thing when changing election years only they chose to shorten their terms. He said the precedent had been set by the City to shorten terms. He said the most cost-effective measure would be to put the election for Mayor from the three council seats on the ballot in November 2002. He stated none of the options incorporated the shortening of any Council seat. He stated at the last meeting he had specifically asked for an amendment that would allow the people to decide whether or not they wanted to shorten the three Councilmembers terms including the elected mayor. He said he had also left a voice mail that past week, so he presented his own amendment.

Cm. Hudson distributed a copy of his proposed amendment to each Councilmember and expressed his desire for it to be considered and voted on. He stated this would be an amendment to even year ballot measures, and would apply to Options A - D. Cm. Hudson’s amendment said:

The municipal election scheduled for November 2003 will be changed to the first Tuesday in March 2003. The first mayor of San Ramon will have a term of one year and nine months and all mayors thereafter will have two years.

He stated that this year’s March election for the General Plan was very successful with a 77% voter response, but in this option, the people would be given the choice of shortening the terms of the Mayor and two Councilmembers. He requested that this amendment also be included regardless of how the vote goes.

Mayor Tatarka requested the City Attorney to comment on this amendment.

The City Attorney stated he was not certain where Cm. Hudson wanted the amendment to appear. He said to take the current section of the municipal code which sets the election for November of odd-numbered years and using that as the base, craft language that would make the changes.

Cm. Hudson asked for this to be an amendment to any of the measures that were chosen for the citizens to change their municipal election schedule from November 2003 to the first Tuesday in March 2003, and it would read the first Mayor of San Ramon would have a term of one year nine months and all Mayors thereafter would have two year terms. He said it would apply to any of the options that won and people would vote "yes" or "no".

Cm. Dickey said when the elected mayor initiative was passed, it was passed with a term of two years. She asked the City Attorney if we were required to hold to that.

The City Attorney stated there can be an alteration to that term under the context of changing an election date from odd to even numbered years and it that would be consistent with the Charter.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to amend Cm. Dickey’s motion to adopt Resolution No. 2002-87 and include, "The municipal election scheduled for November 2003 will be changed to the first Tuesday in March 2003. The first Mayor of San Ramon will have a term of one year and nine months and all mayors thereafter will have two year terms" was seconded by Vice Mayor Wilson.

Cm. Wilson asked for clarification on adopting the amendment, whether it was odd or even years, and said the Council should be in agreement they should try for even years. He asked the City Clerk the cost of placing the question on the ballot.

The Clerk confirmed there would be a cost, however because it would be shared with the state, county and other municipalities, it would not be as great as if this was a stand-alone election.

Cm. Wilson said since the Council was in agreement that we should move to even numbered year elections, an ordinance should be passed and save the cost of an election.

Cm. Dickey stated at the last meeting it was approved (4-1) to have this issue decided by the voters.

Cm. Wilson stated he voted for it, therefore, he could bring the matter up for discussion again. He stated it should not go on the ballot because the Council was not in agreement.

Cm. Hudson said he would second that if it were a motion.

Cm. Cambra said the issue needed to be addressed here instead of going back to square one.

Cm. Wilson made a motion to not place going from odd to even-numbered years on the ballot and the City Council take the initiative to approve an amendment, to go to even year elections and save money.

Cm. Hudson stated he would second the motion if the election were to be in 2002.

Cm. Cambra stated in this City there are people that feel odd numbered year elections are okay and they appreciate the opportunity for their vote to be heard. He stated that if Council changed the election year by ordinance, it could be overturned by ordinance at some time in the future. He stated he was not willing to go down that road again. He stated he was in favor of making certain the voters of San Ramon make the decision.

Mayor Tatarka called for a roll call vote on Vice Mayor Wilson’s motion.

Vice Mayor Wilson’s motion failed on a 2-3 vote (Cms. Cambra, Dickey and Mayor Tatarka dissenting).

Cm. Hudson repeated his amendment and stated if Option B passed, it would have no affect whatsoever.

Cm. Cambra cited the increased costs of $75,000-100,000 to add an additional election in 2003. With all the talk of budgetary constraints, he felt many people would be seriously concerned about that. He stated that if Option B were chosen, there is no election in 2003 to amend.

Cm. Wilson said it was imperative motions be seconded to ensure discussion.

Cm. Hudson said if you put Option B on before there is an election in 2003 and it passed, it would be a mute point. He said that was what Eric Wallis had spoken about, giving people options in an election. He said the difference between putting this measure on the ballot and adding an amendment to it, was very little and only allowed for one option when there were many people against that option, and others that had presented five different options. He said if there were an election in 2003, it would cost the City more money, but if this proposal failed, there was going to be an election in 2003 anyway.

Cm. Dickey asked if Option B failed and we had the election in November 2003, then why would we want to incur costs for another election in March 2003.

Cm. Hudson stated that would not be the case; with the proposed amendment, you would move the November election to March.

Cm. Dickey stated that it would still have to be paid for.

Mayor Tatarka asked for the City Attorney’s interpretation of this amendment.

The City Attorney stated if the Council decided to put Option B on the ballot, and it failed, then the Council would have to decide on whether to put another measure on the ballot or directly change the municipal code in whatever fashion they wished. The Council had a couple of options regarding what to put on the ballot. If Council decides to do nothing, then the elections would continue in odd-numbered years. The Council still had power, however, to amend the municipal code by ordinance to select election dates. He continued by stating if Option B was what Council puts on the ballot, and that fails, then the next election would be in November 2003, unless other action was taken. He stated that action could include Cm. Hudson’s suggestion or any of the other options.

Cm. Hudson said the question that was being asked was if there were a difference in cost between having an election in November or March, not would there be an election in November and March. He said common sense says the cost depends on how many measures are on the ballot.

Mayor Tatarka stated it was underdetermined what the cost would be.

Cm. Cambra stated he felt moving the election to March 2003 would have a disastrously low voter turnout. He felt this was not relative to moving toward even numbered year elections. He said it was unclear if this was truly an amendment or another separate and distinct option. He said if you amend whatever option was picked, and it failed, then the amendment failed too.

Cm. Hudson said no, it would be two separate votes.

Cm. Cambra stated then it would not be an amendment, it would be a different issue.

Cm. Hudson rebutted, stating no, it would be two separate votes.

Mayor Tatarka called for a roll call vote for the motion made by Cm. Hudson to add an amendment to each of the options.

The motion failed 1-4 (Cm. Cambra, Dickey, Wilson and Mayor Tatarka dissenting).

Cm. Dickey repeated her motion to adopt Resolution No. 2002-87 Option B, and Mayor Tatarka called for a roll call vote.

The motion to adopt Resolution 2002-87 passed 3-2 (Cms. Hudson and Wilson dissenting).

Resolution No. 2002-87
Submitting a municipal code amendment to the voters at a special municipal election on November 5, 2002

* * * *

Esther Lucas, Division Manager, Recreation Services, reviewed the grants that had been funded through the Community Service Grant Program for FY 2001-2002. She said a requirement of receiving funds required the recipient to provide a mid-year and year-end report outlining the use of the funding, the impact the project had had within the San Ramon community, the number of residents served and performance measures indicating the outcome and benefits to the San Ramon community. She requested Council review and accept the reports.

Debbie Roof, representing the Rainbow Project at Twin Creeks Elementary School, presented an overview of agency relationships, key players and elements, students served, services provided at Twin Creeks, and the financial status of the program.

David Macko representing the Tassajara 4-H Club, thanked the City for the grant which provided start-up funds for the Contra Costa Youth Fair. He stated that due to the fact that the Contra Costa County Fair had been rescheduled, it conflicted with finals week at San Ramon Valley Schools. To enable participation for the youth in a "fair like atmosphere", the funds assisted in providing for the continued success of the youth fair.

By consensus, the Council accepted the report.

* * * *

Cm. Dickey’s motion to continue the meeting past 11:00 P. M., pursuant to Resolution No. 2002-64, was seconded Vice-Mayor Wilson and passed 5-0.

* * * *

Esther Lucas, Division Manager, Recreation Services, reviewed the City Council adopted process for a "Community Service Program funding" process. She said twenty-one grant applications had been received, and the Ad Hoc Committee had made recommendations that were reviewed and approved by the Finance Committee.

Ms. Lucas introduced and thanked the members of the Ad Hoc Committee; Elizabeth Monroe, Nancy Thompson, Robert Patrino, Murray Iskin, Marcy Hansen, Thomas Duffy, Cliff Garrett, and Michael Geib.

The Division Manager recapped the recommendations for the disbursement of $100,000 and requested Council adopt Resolution No. 2002-78 authorizing the Community Service Grant Program Recommendations for FY 2002/03.

The Division Manager responded to Mayor Tatarka’s inquiry stating the total amount of requests received was $218,400.65.

Sheila D’Amico, representing the Museum of the San Ramon Valley, thanked Council for the grant received in FY 2001-02 that enabled the exhibit "The Sword and the Cross". She expressed her disappointment that funding for FY 2002/03 had not been approved. She reminded everyone that even though the museum was located in Danville, it represented the entire San Ramon Valley.

Kathy Rood representing the Contra Costa ChildCare Council reviewed the projects they were able to complete from the funding received in FY2001-02. She expressed her disappointment that the funding request was cut in half, and requested the Council to reconsider funding the balance of the request, and outlined many reasons supporting the request.

Cm Dickey asked the Finance Committee if the $100,000 for grant funds was a firm figure.

Vice Mayor Wilson recommended Council approve the funding as presented, and additional requests could be submitted and considered at a later date.

Cm. Cambra said last year’s funding was $115,000 and that there would be sufficient flexibility to be able to accommodate requests as necessary. He said it had been agreed to stay as close as possible to the $100,000 that had been allocated.

Cm. Hudson said while there were many deserving groups, and specifically spoke of the Odyssey of the Mind, he agreed with the Finance Committee’s recommendation to approve the funding per Resolution No. 2002-78.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to adopt Resolution No. 2002-78 Accepting the Community Service Grant Program Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 was seconded by Cm. Dickey and passed 5-0.

Resolution No. 2002-78
Accepting the Community Service Grant Program Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2002-2003

The Council thanked the Ad Hoc Committee members for their efforts.

* * * *

The City Manager requested Council adopt Resolution No. 2002-90 Ratifying Mayor Tatarka’s out-of-state travel to meetings of the United States Conference of Mayors.

Cm. Hudson’s motion to continue the meeting for an additional 30 minutes was seconded by Cm. Dickey passed 5-0.

Mayor Tatarka read an e-mail from Harvey Riggs stating we should not continue bailouts for ignorance of policy and procedures. He asked that this item be pulled until a complete and satisfactory explanation was provided to the citizens for failure to follow policy.

Bob Patrino said he was personally embarrassed by this issue and felt it was either the height of arrogance, the epitome of ignorance, or both. He stated the two highest-ranking officials in the City should study the code and be aware of its contents and that not being aware is not an acceptable explanation for this action. It is not appropriate to ratify after the fact any action that is contrary or illegal based on existing code. He suggested modifying the code, but not ignoring it. It was his opinion that it was not whether the trips were justified or if it was city business, but it was the fact that it was illegal because it was not approved prior to the trip being taken. He reminded Council of their discussion of the Tri-Valley Convention and Visitor’s Bureau that we should provide fiscal accountability and oversight for that organization to feel comfortable giving them City money. He asked who was going to provide oversight so the residents would feel comfortable for their use of the citizen’s money. Mr. Patrino said there should be an independent, full audit of every City Council expense report for the last three years, minimum, and suggested this be done by the District Attorney’s office so any criminal activity uncovered would be prosecuted.

Diane Schinnerer stated that our public officials are elected to use good judgment, use tax dollars prudently and to have the integrity to do the right thing without being told. She said out-of-state travel was not necessary for the good of San Ramon. She said the City belonged to the League of California Cities that provides all the training opportunities we need. According to Ordinance 159, permission must be secured in advance from the Council for out of state travel and that did not occur. Additionally, it appeared the City had paid for dues twice to the U.S. Mayors Conference for a total of $3,619 in only 6 months. She stated that San Ramon had never joined the U.S. Mayors Conference because it was for major cities with very different problems from smaller cities like San Ramon. She said the City should not continue with the U.S. Mayors Conference.

Rosalind Rogoff said she had read Ordinance 159 and found where it stated out-of-state travel must be approved by Council except when the activity is sponsored by the League of California Cities. Ms. Rogoff said that when Mayor Tatarka announced at a Council meeting that she was going to attend the Mayors’ Conference, no one had objected and said she needed prior approval. She stated she did not understand what the fuss was about over the per diem.

Curt Kinney submitted a speaker card stating that staff could not recommend approval of this item as it was illegal.

Greg Carr said if the City was going to judge one Councilmember, then we should go back to 1983 and judge all of the Councilmembers. He said the only issue here was a lack of knowledge of the ordinances. He said this needed to be put into context of what was going on and that sometimes-lay politicians don’t know every law. He stated that they all rely upon the staff, City Attorney and/or City Manager to advise them. He suggested that this be treated as a good learning exercise for past, present and future Councilmembers.

Cm Dickey said when she and Cm. Cambra first were elected, they met with each department in the City for a review of their functions. She stated at no time did the ex-City Manager mention a travel policy and when she traveled out-of-town last December, no one advised her of a City travel policy. She stated Mayor Tatarka’s trip had been approved by Mr. Moniz, and had there been a problem, he should have alerted her.

She compared the benefits from Mayor Tatarka’s experiences to the payment of $2,200 in a grant for Boy Scouts to build park benches at Crow Canyon Institute. She stated the true cost of the trip was not $10,000 and that New York City and Washington D.C. were two of the most expensive cities. I think when you look at what Mayor Tatarka has done and the benefit she has had for our City and the cost benefit of going to these conferences and if you are willing to pay $2,200 in a grant to have a boy scout build benches out at Crow Canyon Institute and Mayor Tatarka's reimbursed expenses for her trip to Washington and New York are little over $2,000 – I would like you all to know just how much it cost the City - it wasn’t $10,000 – it was two – and I don’t think you find anymore expensive cities to visit than New York and Washington D.C.

Cm. Hudson said when discussion opened on this issue, he expected Mayor Tatarka to recuse herself. He said he felt he had to recuse himself and that the Council does not have expense accounts. He questioned the staff report that stated the final expense report had yet to be submitted and then it stated funds for these trips were included in the approved FY2001-02 budget. Cm. Hudson requested proof of where Council approved out-of-state travel, this year or last year. He stated until he had such proof, he would recuse himself from anything to do with the discussion.

Mayor Tatarka asked the City Attorney if there was anything illegal with this.

The City Attorney stated there was a violation of the City’s municipal code and felt the Council had the power to ratify and thereby make it lawful.

Cm. Dickey’s motion to adopt Resolution No. 2002-90 was seconded by Cm. Cambra.

The City Attorney answered Vice Mayor Wilson’s concern if the adoption of Resolution No. 2002-90 would bring the action into compliance.

Vice Mayor Wilson requested the Internal Operations Committee perform a review of the City’s code to apprise the entire Council of specific codes that pertain to Council specifically. He said he was concerned that Councilmembers had not been made aware of the ordinance and did not believe there was intentional malice.

Mayor Tatarka indicated the resolution specifically directed City staff to review the current travel policies and to make any necessary recommendations for amendments to the Internal Operations Committee.

The motion to adopt Resolution No. 2002-90 passed 4-0-1 (Cm. Hudson abstaining).

* * * *

It was consensus of Council to continue the meeting for an additional 30 minutes.

* * * *

Diane Schinnerer said the minutes of March 26, 2002 Council meeting clearly stated Council, in closed session, had selected Jim Randall as the Interim City Manager effective April 1, 2002. She questioned the contract that Mayor Tatarka had signed making Mr. Randall the City Manager while two Councilmembers had never seen the contract. She said in the minutes of the March 26, 2002 meeting, there had not been any direction to the City Attorney to prepare an employment agreement. She stated by law, this action must take place in public. Ms. Schinnerer referred to the staff report that indicated it was during the closed session discussion that Council had authorized the execution of the employment agreement and pointed out the contract was signed on May 20, 2002. She stated now that it was two months later, the Mayor had not consulted with or shown the contract to two Councilmembers. She questioned when did the Interim City Manager become City Manager. Furthermore, she stated the increase of $46,000 in his salary was a gift of public funds and suggested the Council deny the contract and present an acceptable one to all Councilmembers for the Interim City Manager.

Sam Lemon directed his question to the City Attorney and asked if there was a difference between an Interim City Manager and a City Manager.

The City Attorney stated he did not believe the terms had any legal significance, but may have significance in management.

Mr. Lemon asked how did Mr. Randall get from being an Interim City Manager to being a City Manager and stated it had to take a conscious act by somebody at sometime to do that. He inquired how that occurred and what particular meaning did that action have.

Cm. Cambra stated he was not the expert, however, he ventured a guess that the person who runs a city in an administrator fashion in our form of government is City Manager. He said there is no particular title specifically stating Interim City Manager and the term interim denotes not a title but a time frame, such as temporary or in-between some other function taking place. He stated Mr. Randall is serving in the function of City Manager and an additional title added to it does not make much difference.

Mr. Lemon stated he understood but it took a conscious act to discontinue the term interim. He said he still wanted clarification on how the name changed. He said he did not qualify as one of the "old guard" as he had lived here in San Ramon for only five years but it did not take long to become concerned over irresponsible decisions.

Greg Carr questioned why it took so long for this contract to be finalized. He suggested that contracts be executed in a more expeditious manner. He expressed his support for the appointment of Jim Randall.

Rosalind Rogoff asked why Cm. Hudson and Vice Mayor Wilson did not know about the contract and expressed her concern that only some of the Councilmembers were aware of it. She said she did not like the fact that there was a contract that had been drawn up and two of our Councilmembers did not know about it or find out about it until Diane Schinnerer requested to see it. She stated there was government business going on that was not out in the open.

Jim Monroe said the language in the contract should read "City Manager for an interim period of time". He said because the term is for nine months, it makes it an interim position, but the title is City Manager.

Mayor Tatarka asked the City Attorney to recap the steps in preparation of this contract.

The City Attorney stated he was asked to review a contract and approve it as to form. He stated he was not in the closed session when Mr. Randall was appointed. He said the reason the contract had not come back before the Council was an error and that was the reason it was coming back now to make certain the public has knowledge of the contract and for Council to publicly approve it. He apologized for not following the normal procedure.

Mayor Tatarka inquired about the actual procedure where all of the Councilmembers would see this contract.

The City Attorney stated they would have seen it if it had been brought back on an earlier agenda, closer to when the appointment was made in closed session. He stated it was a requirement to approve this contract in an open session.

Vice Mayor Wilson said until this contract was ratified, he did not consider the contract legal. He stated he voted for Mr. Randall to be Interim City Manager, not City Manager. It was imperative that the contract come back to Council to address any issues they may or may not have. He said he found out about the contract from his neighbor, and felt the contract should read Interim City Manager, as that was what he had voted on. He targeted supplemental benefits of $600 per month car allowance, and asked if Mr. Randall would still be eligible at the end of the nine months.

The City Attorney stated the term of the contract was for nine months and at that time, the contract ceases.

Cm. Cambra asked Vice Mayor Wilson who specifically called him and inquired about the contract.

The City Manager stated in early May, Taunya English had contacted him directly inquiring about the status of the contract.

Cm. Hudson said we had an agreement with an Interim City Manager. If he wants to call himself City Manager, fine, but the contract that was being voted on that night was for an Interim City Manager. He questioned the contract language in #8 Other Terms and Conditions of Employment, and said the contract lacked all five signatures of the Council as had been the prior practice.

The City Attorney stated to establish a binding contract, you need the Council to affirmatively vote to approve the contract and that vote could authorize any number of signatures to sign. He stated he was unaware that past practice had all five councilmembers signatures, but traditionally, contracts were signed by the Mayor. He stated that the correct procedure would have had the contract presented to Council prior to the Mayor signing.

Mayor Tatarka stated that the contract had been given to her for signature prior to approval from Council inadvertently.

Vice Mayor Wilson said all of the recent contracts between Council and the City Manager and City Attorney had been ratified by the Council.

The City Attorney stated the contract between his firm and the Council had been approved by the full Council and signed by the Mayor in July 2001.

Cm. Cambra’s motion to adopt Resolution No. 2002-85 Ratifying the employment agreement between the City of San Ramon and Jim Randall was seconded by Cm. Dickey.

Cm. Cambra said he had not been informed that there was a contract either.

Cm. Dickey stated she was also unaware of a contract.

Cm. Cambra asked Mr. Randall to clarify three points; 1) there were no changes to the written document to what was proposed to the council back in March, 2) all Councilmembers had been informed at that point in time what was to be in the contract, and 3) all Councilmembers were in agreement at that point in time.

Vice Mayor Wilson stated one of the agreements made in closed session was Interim City Manager and not City Manager.

The City Manager stated he really didn’t care about the title, and the term defines the fact that it was interim.

The motion to adopt Resolution 2002-85 passed 3-2 (Cm. Hudson and Vice Mayor Wilson dissenting).

Ratifying the employment agreement between the City of San Ramon and Jim Randall

* * * *

It was consensus of Council to continue the meeting an additional 30 minutes.

* * * *

Cm. Dickey’s nomination to appoint Cm. Cambra as the City of San Ramon’s voting delegate to the October League of California Cities meeting was seconded by Mayor Tatarka passed 4-0-1 (Cm. Cambra abstaining).

* * * *

Mayor Tatarka stated the August Mayors’ Conference would be held in Martinez.

* * * *

Vice Mayor Wilson requested that the reorganization not occur on August 5 as proposed. He stated he wished to discuss some of his concerns with the City Manager.

The City Manager said he would like to discuss the reorganization with Vice Mayor Wilson, but it was his desire to proceed with the reorganization on August 5.

Cm. Hudson challenged the statement in the reorganization memo that said he provided suggestions and input had been from all Councilmembers and inquired specifically, what input he had personally provided. He asked for a matrix outlining the suggestions made by each individual Councilmember. He said he wanted to be included in Mr. Wilson’s meeting with the City Manager.

The City Manager stated he had encouraged input throughout the process and would continue to doing so.

Bob duPont stated he did not feel reorganization should be made by an Interim City Manager. He reminded the new members of the Council how difficult it had been for them with their new vision and trying to make a change to an existing system. He stated it made no sense at all to have an interim administrator redesign the structure of an organization and drop it into the lap of a permanent new hire. He said this new organization is flawed because it puts an Assistant City Manager between this position and the other management in the organization. He expressed his concerns for combining several very important departments under one manager, and said this would deteriorate services and urged that reorganization not take place.

Rosalind Rogoff asked why fix something that was not broken. She said it looked suspicious that two department managers had retired, two more had been demoted, and stated they did not deserve to be demoted. She said the task of reorganization should be given to the new City Manager not the Interim City Manager. She questioned the City staff employee moral.

Mickey Mergy submitted a speaker card stating support of the reorganization.

Greg Carr said it was obvious that the majority of the Council felt it was necessary to reorganize. He observed that the agenda had been rife with problems and stated if you had a City Manager more focused to assist the Council it would provide a better government. He said it was not up to the public to dictate how the city offices were organized in detail, but the Council and the City Manager.

Diane Schinnerer said her main concern with the proposed reorganization was there was no indication of the management style of the new City Manager and this may not be the way the new City Manager would want to operate. She said it was not a wise move to make. She stated when the budget was approved, all five Councilmembers agreed to put money in the budget for an Assistant City Manager only if it happened late in the fiscal year and only if the new City Manager deemed it necessary. She stated the City Clerk, according to the city charter, is hired and fired by the City Council, and it did not indicate so on the organization chart. She questioned the park development being moved into development services and said she did not like the title "leisure services".

Mayor Tatarka read a letter received from Michael DiGeronimo who did not support the proposed reorganization. He stated this should be postponed until a new City Manager was hired.

The City Manager stated the Assistant City Manager was not a barrier between the departments and the City Manager but a facilitator in helping to get the day-to-day jobs accomplished. He stated parks development had always been in engineering as they draw the designs and manage the contracts. He offered reassurance that the parks department would continue to be involved with the planning of parks and monitoring of the construction contracts. He stated that after meeting with the Parks & Community Services Department, he had been convinced to not change the name at this time, and was open to suggestions. The City Manager stated he was in the unique position to make the changes now, the current structure was very difficult to manage, and he felt this was the most workable model. He stated the new City Manager may need to make some adjustments, and it would be much less disruptive then as opposed to now. He announced John Dillon would be the new Economic Development Manager, reporting to the City Manager’s office, and he had asked Phil Wong to remain as the Planning Division Manager. With respect to the City Clerk, he stated it was requested by Council for him to present an ordinance that would move the supervision of the Clerk to the City Manager.

Cm. Hudson stated it was his impression that this item would be pulled pending a meeting between Mr. Randall, Vice Mayor Wilson and himself.

Vice Mayor Wilson stated he was not opposed to change but did not feel the City was in need of reorganization. He said when a new City Manager was in position that person would know what changes were necessary, and it was presumptuous that Mr. Randall’s style would work with a new City Manager. He felt when changes were made the person making said changes should be in position to follow through on their implementation. He stated Parks & Community Services was the correct name and did not support changing it. He said the current management structure works, and when the new City Manager is in position, he vowed his support for changes proposed at that time. He said the time of this reorganization was wrong and this was not fair to the residents or staff.

Cm. Cambra said there were too many departments reporting to the City Manager under the current organizational structure. He stated this was a complete reorganization without anyone losing his or her job. He stated he did not agree with all of the proposed changes but it was specifically outlined in the City Charter that this was the responsibility of the City Manager, and stated his support.

The City Manager said he would meet with Cm. Hudson and Vice Mayor Wilson, but his intention was to proceed on August 5. He said if something from that meeting convinces him otherwise, he would postpone the reorganization.

Vice Mayor Wilson stated he hoped Cm. Cambra would fully support the new City Manager.

Cm. Cambra stated that he would.

Mayor Tatarka stated that it was a 5-0 decision by Council to appoint Jim Randall as the new City Manager. At that time, she stated, Mr. Randall had informed Council of his plan for reorganization. She reviewed the job functions and inter-working between the City Manager, Council and staff. She stated this was the decision of the City Manager and she had totally stayed out of discussions.

Vice Mayor Wilson said he had opposed the reorganization the night of Jim Randall’s appointment.

Cm. Hudson stated the only motion that this City, the only statements other than these mitigations that the City sent to the County was a motion that Mr. Raab made asking "do you support any housing in Alamo Creek?" And the vote was 3-0-2, two actually abstained and there were actually three "no" votes which meant "yes" ( a little convoluted). The point being is the City of San Ramon voted for no housing out there, this editorial goes on to state that acknowledging that there would be some development in the area I asked my fellow board members to consider other designs of the project that would be less devastating to the environment and that would provide an unique compact, pedestrian friendly mixed-use smart growth project that more affordable housing be integrated into the neighborhood, goes on to say that she even showed photos. The point he wanted to make is if this City is going to be used by our Supervisor he expected at least one public hearing by this Council before she claims the City of San Ramon supports higher density in Alamo Creek especially after we had voted publicly for no housing. He stated he wanted to know how we got the City of San Ramon supporting her version of Alamo Creek when in fact we voted against all housing out there. He stated that he did not need it that night but would like to get some responses particularly if staff felt the City had been ignored.

Mayor Tatarka requested that a meeting between the Aqua Bears and the residents be arranged.

Unrecognizable statements made from the audience.

Mayor Tatarka said it was getting a little out of control. It was 1:00 a.m. and said she wanted them to be able to talk with the City Manager as well as Mr. Hudson and would arrange a meeting to get some clarifications to some issues, and would attend that meeting because she wanted to understand what was happening.

Unrecognizable statements made from the audience.

* * * *

There being no further business to come before the City, the meeting was adjourned at 1:00 A.M.

Signed:

Nancy Tatarka, Mayor
Judy Macfarlane, City Clerk