* * * *

Cm. Hudson repeated that this was the same rationale that had just been used to approve the contracts with the county for additional library hours. He said the Council had previously agreed to these contracts for turf mowing services with the contractors.

Cm. Dickey expressed a concern that there was information that had not yet been presented. She said that information could be beneficial with regard to turf mowing and asked VM Cambra when he would be presenting the information.

VM Cambra stated he anticipated receiving the information within the week.

Mayor Wilson asked if this was a time sensitive matter or could the decision could be deferred until the July 22, 2003 meeting.

Ms. Fukuda suggested if the contracts were not approved that night, the services could be extended for a one-month period by executing a City Manager approved contract in an amount not to exceed $25,000. She said this would provide turf-mowing services through the end of August.

Cm. Hudson asked if the contracts were not approved that night, would the contractors be able to rescind their offer of a 30% reduction in cost.

Ms. Fukuda said this would have to be discussed with the contractors. She said both of the contractors had reduced their staffs in anticipation of a longer-term contract with the 30% reduction.

Cm. Dickey said a decision could be made at the July 22^nd meeting at which time they should have received the information VM Cambra had spoken of.

By roll call vote, the motion to adopt Resolution No. 2003-74 and Resolution No. 2003-75 failed 2-3 (Cambra, Dickey and Tatarka dissenting).

VM Cambra’s motion to continue Item 8.6 Resolution No. 2003-74 – Authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with White Oak Landscape Inc. for Turf Mowing Services in City Parks, Area II, and Resolution No. 2003-75 – Authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with Pacheco Brothers Gardening, Inc. for Turf Mowing Services in City Parks, Area I, to the July 22, 2003 meeting was seconded by Cm. Dickey and passed 4-1 (Hudson dissenting).

* * * *

Mayor Wilson declared a 5-minute recess.

All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened.

* * * *

By consensus of the City Council, Item 9.3 – City Civic Center Concept Design Status Update was moved to Item 9.1.

David Berger, Economic Development Manager, said the purpose of the report was for the City Council to approve the proposed conceptual schematic design for the City Civic Center Project along with the documentation related to the process. He said it was recommended that the Council receive and review the conceptual design and schedule a study session in the near future for an in-depth review.

Steve Fust, Swinerton Management and Consulting provided an overview of the project and stated that the detailed cost estimate and the financing alternatives feasibility analysis would be presented later this summer.

Dan Howard, Fisher Friedman presented a slide show of the City Civic Center project.

Mayor Wilson opened public comment.

Roz Rogoff shared comments that had been made at a recent meeting in the City of Livermore where discussion was held regarding the proposed building of a performing arts theatre. She suggested that the City Council view a tape of that meeting stating she felt they would find it insightful.

By consensus of the City Council, the update was accepted as presented.

* * * *

Tom Curry, City Attorney, said the main focus of this staff report pertained to campaign finance. He stated the report provided examples of the type of contribution limitations other cities had adopted as models for deliberation. He said the process to accomplish this would be to either adopt it as an ordinance, submit to the voters, or do both. He reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of the various processes.

Cm. Dickey said she was interested in putting a cap on spending. She referred to the recent District Attorney’s race in Contra Costa County and the $25,000 spending limit. She said while the City of Concord’s had numerous regulations, there was still a candidate that spent well in excess of the limit. She said if you have an unlimited ability to spend, special interest groups could contribute which would result with having people fund raising at the expense of doing good city business. She stated that was the basis for her concern of having a limitation, and said there was an model of that in Contra Costa County.

Mr. Curry said he believed the model she was referring to was a voluntary limit. He referenced the May 21, 2003 staff report which indicated that the courts did not favorably view limitations to expenditures as there were First Amendment implications involved. He said it was his recommendation to do a contribution limitation and felt that would be the safest way to proceed. Mr. Curry said that the courts had consistently found mandatory expenditure limitations to violate the First Amendment. He also said the Council could establish a voluntary expenditure limitation that could be considered on an individual basis.

Cm. Tatarka asked how long the four cities referenced in the staff report had had their ordinances.

Mr. Curry replied most of the cities had adopted their ordinances in the late 1980’s, and they had subsequently been amended.

Cm. Tatarka said since we could not impose a campaign expenditure limitation, how had that been addressed in the other cities.

Mr. Curry said what the other cities had done consistently was regulate contributions. He said the courts had found with great consistency, imposing expenditure limitations violates the First Amendment while contribution limitation does not have that effect. He said that there were significant legal constraints in that area because of the First Amendment interpretation by the courts.

Cm. Tatarka asked which city had addressed the issue in the most detail and which model most effectively addressed Cm. Dickey’s concerns.

Mr. Curry replied that he was reluctant to recommend an expenditure limitation, although there was merit to consider something comparable to the City of Richmond. He said he did not have personal knowledge as to which ordinance would be most effective. To address Cm. Dickey’s concerns, Mr. Curry said that the courts could find your concerns valid, First Amendment rights would still need to be observed. He stated expenditure limitations were inconsistent with the First Amendment and were not lawful.

Cm. Dickey referred again to the district attorney’s race. She stated when it was discovered that both candidates had exceeded the voluntarily agreed to amount, the excess funds were returned. Cm. Dickey questioned who polices the gentlemen when there was a gentlemen’s agreement.

Mr. Curry said if there were voluntary expenditure limitations, additional reporting requirements could be established to accompany state law which would expose all costs.

Mayor Wilson opened public comment.

Dianne Schinnerer said she wished that the Council would spend this type of detail and time on the budget. She said there had always been a voluntary agreement signed and adhered to by local candidates. She asked why there had to be a change from past practice.

Roz Rogoff said an individual candidate had unlimited funding potential to contribute to their own campaign. She asked Mr. Curry if the Council took action on this issue, could it be challenged and held up in litigation past the November election.

Mr. Curry confirmed that could happen. He stated he felt that the four examples presented to Council were legally defendable.

Sam Lemon stated the only reason this was on the agenda was because Measure H had been defeated. He said that all candidates benefited in one form or fashion from business, unions and/or special interest groups.

Mayor Wilson closed public comment.

Cm. Dickey disputed Mr. Lemon’s comments regarding union contributions to campaigns.

Cm. Hudson said the discussion for terms limits and campaign contribution/expenditure limitations should be held during the Policy Committee meetings. He said policy had not been followed and requested that these items be removed from the agenda and referred to the July 17 Policy Committee meeting. He said there were far more important issues that were equally time sensitive that needed the Council’s attention.

VM Cambra stated that many issues were around before the implementation of the new policy. He said the discussion should be about the issues and not how the issues got on the agenda.

Cm. Dickey asked Mr. Curry what would the status be if these items were delayed until after July 17.

Mr. Curry said he believed that August 8 was the last date for the Council to place an item on the ballot. He said the Council could decide at its July 22 meeting whether or not to place an item on the ballot. He said that a change of term limits would require a ballot measure since it would be a charter amendment. He said campaign contributions/ expenditure limitations could be adopted by Council, it could be placed on the ballot, or a combination of both actions.

Cm. Hudson said he disagreed with VM Cambra. He said the issue pertained to Council not following its own policy and by not following the policy, it made certain issues more important than others. Cm. Hudson stated he first requested the Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) issue to be agendized last November, and it had yet to appear.

Cm. Dickey said business needed to be addressed and did not want to postpone the matter. She said each individual item would be addressed in due time and it was not a slight to anyone or any interest the order in which they appear.

Cm. Tatarka said it was her assumption that the agenda was a collaborative effort between the Mayor and the City Manager. She asked what was the scheduling for all of the proposed ballot measures.

Mr. Curry said he anticipated that on the July 22 agenda there would be staff reports for the proposed TOT measure, the proposal to amend the zoning ordinance regarding heliports, and a matter pertaining to the lighting and landscaping district. He said he was attempting to respond to Council direction and incorporate with the most significant policy issues in determining what was prepared first.

Ms. Waiters stated the report Cm. Hudson had referred to was originally agendized for the June 25 meeting of the Policy Committee (which had been cancelled). She said it had been rescheduled for the July 17 meeting.

Mayor Wilson said it was his decision that before an item be place on the City Council agenda, the item would first go through the Policy Committee, then to the City Manager. He confirmed that the City Manager and he decided upon the final agenda.

Mayor Wilson expressed his concern with campaign contribution/expenditure limitations. He stated this had not been an issue during the past 20 years and the voluntary limit had worked just fine. Mayor Wilson said there were variables that needed to be explored, such as how limitations would apply to "slates" of candidates. He said that past practice had worked just fine and saw no reason to change it.

VM Cambra asked Mr. Curry what were the limitations on individual and committee contributions. He expressed his desire to reduce them for San Ramon. He asked if the state mandated $100 limit precluded the City from implementing a lower disclosure limitation.

Mr. Curry said he could provide to Council reasonable options to consider that would lower the disclosure limits. He said if lowering the disclosure limits met reasonable criteria it would not be considered a violation of First Amendment rights.

Cm. Dickey asked what would the restrictions be pertaining to slates.

Mr. Curry explained that the courts had made distinctions between the committees that are controlled and those that are not controlled. He stated that with the not-controlled committee there were First Amendment problems with limiting their contributions. He said this was because they don’t actually make contributions; they make expenditures on behalf of or whatever. He said legally you run for council seats as an individual running for an individual seat. He continued to explain that candidates are required to have a treasurer and are required to report individually for both contributions and expenditures, so the same rules would apply and would pertain to any sort of configuration of candidates regarding limitations.

Cm. Dickey asked if two people were running on a slate, the combined money, would they be accounted for individually.

Mr. Curry reminded the Council that this discussion pertained to contribution limitations. He said it would be dependent on how the contribution had been made. He explained that if a committee was set up – not controlled by a candidate – then it may have its own receipt of contribution limitations, but it would not have expenditure limitations. If it were an informal arrangement where campaigns were legally separate even though people make joint contributions, then you would distribute it in that fashion.

Cm. Tatarka said the City of Richmond’s fair elections ordinance most closely resembled the discussion that had ensued. She said this matter was about candidates and not measures, and needed to be discussed and felt that it was appropriate to do so. She suggested that a special meeting be scheduled to address the numerous issues.

Mayor Wilson said while there had been expressed concern for candidates in the region spending in excess of $50,000, there had been candidates spending far less that were elected to office. He said this provided proof that it depends on the candidate to win an election.

Cm Hudson said it was not how much money was raised, nor about how much money you spend, it was about how much money was spent - from all sources. He said the Council should be concentrating on the items that are revenue generating instead of increasing expenditures. He said this Council needed to follow the policy that had been established. Cm. Hudson emphatically stated that there should be a recommendation for the CIP program before it was voted in because it had always been policy. He said it would be refreshing to follow policy just once.

VM Cambra said in his opinion, policies had been followed and suggested moving forward. He said while there had been extensive discussion regarding this issue, the Council had also spent a tremendous amount of time discussing the budget, and would continue to do so.

Cm. Dickey suggested making decisions versus discussing policies. She said Richmond’s ordinance was comprehensive and she would be very comfortable with presenting a comparable amendment to San Ramon’s Charter for voter approval. She said she wanted to proceed with a clear definition for candidates. She said that had even been a wish of the City Clerk that we have that ready to present to potential candidates so that they had some idea of what they can spend. Cm. Dickey said she would like to initiate a spending limit of approximately $12,000 and the gentlemen’s agreement and proceed with a resolution so that we have contribution and expenditure limitations.

Cm. Tatarka verified what was currently in place was just an agreement that is signed by candidates. She questioned if there was a specific ordinance in place.

Ms. Macfarlane stated from 1985 to 2001, for each municipal election, there had been a voluntary campaign expenditure limit and it had been established every two years. She stated that each candidate had always signed the voluntary expenditure limit and it was monitored very closely because the filings were published in the newspapers.

Mayor Wilson clarified that the average amount had been $12,000. He said San Ramon had a policy that had worked, had never been violated, and said he did not want to increase expenditures especially when the budget had not been passed.

Cm. Tatarka said there had to be a purpose established for why we are doing this and then move forward with it. She said Richmond clearly identified the reasons for its fair election ordinance and suggested San Ramon align with what other cities had done and use that as a guide.

Cm. Dickey asked what would be the amount for this year’s limit.

Mayor Wilson replied that it would be approximately $13,000. He said he did not like comparing San Ramon to other cities, and there had not been any deviations from the gentlemen’s agreement. He said the press closely monitors candidate’s finances and questioned why it was being presumed there was going to be dishonesty.

VM Cambra suggested perhaps this should be handled by ordinance versus by ballot measure.

Cm. Dickey said she did not feel that it was necessary to put the matter on the ballot. She suggested doing an ordinance similar to Richmond’s. She expressed her desire to implement this ordinance to be effective for the candidates on July 14.

Cm. Dickey’s motion to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance similar to the City of Richmond’s was seconded by VM Cambra and passed 3-2 (Hudson and Wilson dissenting).

* * * *

Mr. Curry said pursuant to Council direction, he had prepared examples for Council’s consideration for potential adoption of term limits. He identified two types of concerns, if the Council wished to establish term limits and should term limitations of Councilmembers to be the same as the Mayor’s in the number of terms or the number of years.

Cm. Tatarka asked if there were any Contra Costa County cities that had term limits.

Mr. Curry replied that there were none.

VM Cambra corrected Mr. Curry stating that San Ramon was the only city, with a term limit for Mayor.

Mayor Wilson opened public comment.

Dianne Schinnerer said it would cost $6,250 to put this issue on the ballot and said it was not prudent to do so while there was a huge budget deficit. She stated there were more important issues that needed to be addressed by the City Council.

Sam Lemon asked what would be the worst thing that could happen if no action was taken on this issue. He said this should just be left alone.

Roz Rogoff said the playing field would be leveled if the term limits were taken off for Mayor. She suggested the most cost effective way to establish this would be to have one initiative on the ballot that would include eliminating term limits for Mayor, changing the first term to three years and changing to even-year elections.

Mayor Wilson closed public comment.

VM Cambra said he was attempting to create consistency by having term limits for both the Mayor and Councilmembers.

Cm Hudson said the people voted for a complete package for a directly elected mayor and term limits. He said to have uniformity throughout the county-the single issue of term limits for the Mayor was put on the ballot.

Cm. Dickey said putting this matter on the ballot would create an additional expense. She said there should be consistency with terms limit for the mayor and for Councilmembers, and the Charter should be amended to establish two (2) four-year terms for Councilmembers.

Cm. Tatarka said she was not in favor of term limits and did not want to put it on the ballot. She said there were several other very important matters to go before the voters and this was not one of them.

Mayor Wilson stated he had always been against term limits and said the power of the voters was the most effective tool.

It was the consensus of the City Council to table this item.

* * * *

Ms. Waiters said staff was requesting approval of Resolution No. 2003-70 that established the master fee schedule. She stated if adopted, the new fees would become effective September 8, 2003.

Mayor Wilson opened public comment.

Diane Schinnerer stated her objection to the increase in the price of the agenda packets. She also stated that changing election laws so close to the candidate-filing period beginning on July 14 was a very serious issue.

VM Cambra confirmed that the complete agenda packet was available for public viewing at the library, Community Center, Senior Center and at City Hall.

Ms. Macfarlane said the Clerk’s department was working on making the packet available on-line.

Roz Rogoff asked if the newspapers were charged for their copy of the agenda packet.

Ms. Macfarlane confirmed that the newspapers were being assessed the same charges for agenda packets as individual citizens.

Mayor Wilson closed public comment.

Cm. Tatarka asked the City Manager to confirm the revenue impact the proposed fee increases would have on the General Fund. She specifically inquired if the advertising rates were included in the projected increase of revenue. She also asked if a revenue projection per department was available.

Ms. Waiters replied that with the new master fee schedule, an increase in the amount of $728,000 was anticipated and confirmed that the advertising rates had been factored into that figure. She said the report had a combined total for all departments.

Cm. Tatarka stated she wanted a sense of direction with regard to the advertising costs in the activities guide. She said she wanted to know if the cost of the guide would be covered by the advertising costs.

The Parks and Community Services Director, stated during FY 2002-03 revenue of $12,000 had been generated from advertising. He said it was anticipated for FY 2003/04 that $20,000 would be collected for the brochure and that represented approximately one-half of the production cost for the brochure.

Ms. Waiters stated staff would not be pursuing an increase in advertising so not to detract from the main focus of the activities guide.

Mayor Wilson expressed his concern this publication remain an activities guide and not an advertising supplement.

Cm Tatarka agreed that she wanted the same format to be followed as well. She expressed concern about communicating with the residents outside of the activity guide and wanted staff to provide a sense of direction where this was going.

Ms. Waiters stated one of the first activities for the proposed administrative analyst position was to work with media relations. She expressed her goal to create a city newsletter separate from the activity guide and it was her goal to accomplish this before the end of FY 2003-04.

VM Cambra said the Finance Committee had extensively reviewed the proposed fee resolution and expressed confidence that due diligence had been exercised by staff.

VM Cambra’s motion to adopt Resolution No. 2003-70 was seconded by Cm. Dickey.

Cm. Hudson said the press should not be charged for the agenda packet since they provide a valuable service to the community. He said the agenda packet should be as readily available as possible.

Mayor Wilson stated the packet would be on the Internet soon and a hard copy of the packet was available for public viewing at four locations throughout the City.

Mr. Curry advised that the Brown Act required that all materials provided to Council be made available for public inspection. He said the fee assessed was for physical possession of the packet, and the City was lawfully allowed to charge for the complete packet. Mr. Curry stated there was no charge for viewing the packet.

Ms. Waiters said there were three complete agenda packets at the back of the Chamber for public viewing. She confirmed that the complete agenda packet was available at four locations and staff was currently working on on-line viewing as well. She said the fee could be amended if the Council so desired.

Mayor Wilson said this would be a matter for the Policy Committee to explore.

Cm. Tatarka asked Ms. Macfarlane how many packets were prepared for the public and how many requests to view the packet.

Ms. Macfarlane stated approximately five packets were made, and there had been very few requests to view the counter copy. She said occasionally there are inquiries about specific staff reports.

Cm. Tatarka encouraged making the packet available on-line said she did not feel the increase in fee would create a hardship

Mayor Wilson asked for a roll call vote.

The motion to adopt Resolution No. 2003-70 passed 5-0.

* * * *

Cm. Tatarka stressed the importance of all Councilmembers attending the meeting on July 12^th with the Board of Supervisors regarding Measure C.

Cm. Dickey reported that she attended an CCCTA Operations and Scheduling meeting and said there had been a recommendation that the only bus route through San Ramon be eliminated. She stated the survey promised had not been conducted. She said the next meeting would be on July 17 and encouraged interested parties to show their support.

Cm. Hudson said when the budget and ballot measures had been resolved, he suggested a workshop or study session be conducted with Transportation, CCCTA, CCTA and, TVTC, to establish the direction and priorities.

Cm. Hudson referred to the registration fee questioned earlier and asked VM Cambra if he was planning on attending if the budget had not passed.

VM Cambra stated it was a League of California Cities study session regarding redevelopment issues.

Cm. Tatarka said that there had been a workshop with the Transportation Advisory Committee over a week ago.

Cm. Dickey said nothing had been voted on as of yet. She said she was requesting vocal support during deliberations.

Mayor Wilson thanked the staff for their efforts for the 4^th of July events.

Mayor Wilson requested the Policy Committee work with the City Manager for the recruitment of a new City Attorney.

* * * *

There being no further business to come before the City, the meeting was adjourned.

Signed:

H. Abram Wilson, Mayor
Judy Macfarlane, City Clerk
APPROVED August 12, 2003