Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/08/08 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, August 8, 1995 Council Chambers 6:08 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Alevy, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Mayor Herton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Brace M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 1, 1995 (Regular Meeting of the City Cotmcil), August 1, 1995 (Joint Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency/City Council), and August 1, 1995 (Special Joint Meeting of the Redevelopmerit Agency/City Council) MSUC (Alevy/Padilla) to approve the minutes of August 1, 1995 (Regular Meeting of the City Council), August 1, 1995 (Joint Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency/City Council), and August 1, 1995 (Special Joint Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency/City Council) us presented. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Oath of Office: Martin Calve - Economic Development Commission. The oath of office was administered by City Clerk Authelet. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: none) CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no observed reportable actions taken in Closed Session on 8/1/95. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed. b. Letter requesting monetary support for the Sweet Revenge young ladies fastpitch softball team from Chula Vista to attend the national tournament being held in Stockton, California, 8/10/95 through 8/13/95. It is recommended that this request for funding be denied and that Council make an announcement that the team is soliciting funding. 6. ORDINANCE 2636 AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY REZONING THE 2.53 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FROM C-T (COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE) TO C-C-P (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN) (second readinl~ and adoption) -A zoning change for the Broadway Business Homes Project is required to change from C-T (Commercial Thoroughfare) to C-C-P (Central Commercial with Precise Plan). Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Community Development) Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 2 7. RESOLUTION 17992 APPROVING REQUEST FROM BONITA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TO CONDUCT BONITAFEST PARADE The Bonita Business and Professional Association is requesting permission to conduct the 23rd Annual Bonitafest Parade on Saturday, 9/30/95. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Parks and Recreation) 8. RESOLUTION 17993 APPROPRIATING FUNDS, WAIVING IMMATERIAL DEFECT, ACCEPTING BlDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR "LONG CANYON CHANNEL REPAIR (D97031)" - On 7/19/95, bids were received from "Long Canyon Channel Repair." The project involves the installation of rock protection, earth work, concrete paving and other miscellaneous work shown on the plans. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required. 9. RESOLUTION 17994 APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SAN DIEGO TRANSIT CORPORATION (SDTC) FOR UNIFIED TELEPHONE INFORMATION SYSTEM - The second amendment to the agreement with SDTC continues Chula Vista Transit's participation in the regional transit information service at a cost of $31,114 for fiscal year 1995/96. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 10. PUBLIC HEARING ADDENDUM TO THE 1993 UPDATE OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE, WITH NO CHANGE IN THE FEE AMOUNT - On 5/23/95, Council determined that the El Dorado office building, 315 Fourth Avenue (a facility proximate to the Civic Center and capable of meeting the City's interim office space needs) is currently available for purchase at a reasonable price. Council directed staff to pursue the City purchase of the building as part of the Civic Center DIF. The purchase is anticipated to be an interim step in the implementation of the Civic Center Master Plan and is not expected to affect the end cost of the project. The proposed addendure to the Public Facilities DIF will not impact the level of fees assessed. Staff recommends this item be continued to 8/15195. (Deputy City Manager Krempl and Senior Management Assistant Young) Continued from the meeting of 7/11/95. MS (Rindone/Alevy) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of August 15, 1995. This b~mg the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. * * * Council met in Closed Session at 6:13 p.m. to discuss Fritsch vs. the City of Chula Vista and reconvened at 7:14 p.m. * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS None submitted. Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 3 ACTION ITEMS 11. RESOLUTION 17995 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH SMITH & KEMPTON FOR ADVOCACY AND PLANNING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND THE EASTERN CHULA VISTA STRATEGIC PLAN AND APPROPRIATING $81,000 FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND - On 5/17/94, Council approved an agreement with D.J. Smith and Associates for advocacy and planning services in connection with the Transportation Development Impact Fee program. The advocacy and planning services were contracted for as a result of the recommendation of the major property owners who are responsible for the fee as they build in eastern Chula Vista. As a result of that contract, the consultant prepared an Eastern Chula Vista Strategic Plan. The developors have requested that an agreement be entered into to provide the necessary consulting services to undertake some of the next steps identified in the strategic plan. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required. Councilmember Alevy questioned if any of the work would be duplicative of work being done by the organization working in concert with the City to develop SR125. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, responded that it was not duplicative. Staff was working in conjunction with them in trying to keep certain funding from SANDAG in the area. Mayor Horton questioned what a demonstration project was. Mr. Lippitt replied that it was a federal program which was obtained by a congressman or senator for their district that did not fit into the general formula. RESOLUTION 17995 OFFERED BY MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived. Councilmember Rindone questioned if there was a time line for the performance of the thirteen subtasks prior to the payment of the twelve equal payments. Mr. Lippitt stated a monthly report of accomplishments was required but, there was no requirement that each task had to be completed by a certain date. Many of the tasks dealt with other agencies. Councilmember Rindone questioned if specific progress was not being made, or if it was felt there needed to be a change, what basis the City would be able to terminate the contract prior to the end of the twelve month period. Mr. Boogaard stated under the Termination of Agreement for Cause clause, if the City did not fred their progress satisfactory the City would have the right to terminate based on the monthly reports. For convenience the City would not have to state cause. Councilmember Rindone felt that protected the City. As a member of MTDB he had the opportunity to work with Art Bower & Assoc. and found them to be outstanding in monitoring legislation and working with the legislature. He questioned if that firm had been considered. Mr. Lippitt responded that the selection process had been two years ago and at that time an RFP had been issued and four firms were interviewed. Art Bower & Assoc. had not responded to the RFP. Councilmember Rindone stated he would support the staff recommendation, but if the City did not feel adequate progress was being made staff should be comfortable in making a recommendation to Council as it was an extremely important project. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 4 ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulle~l: none. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 12. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) a. Scheduling of meetings. Mr. Goss stated the CIP tour had been set for Saturday, September 23, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. Items for the tour were: 1) Border Environmental Commerce Alliance facility at Rohr; 2) MTDB right- of-way landscaping; and 3) the sidewalks in the area of Fourth and Orange. Councilmember Moot requested the City Manager's Office distribute a memo next week regarding the tour. Mr. Goss informed Council that in connection with the demolition of the Fuller Ford site there was a problem with asbestos in the buildings. The circumstance with the asbestos was getting worse due to vandalism which could ereate additional problems and costs if allowed to proceed. He questioned whether it could be heard as an urgency item off docket. Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager, stated it could be handled as a informational item to Council. Information had been given to their office that there had been vandalism at the site. MOTION: (Rindone) to find that the item arose after the posting of the agenda, that an urgency existed, and to agendize the item for discussion. Mr. Morris stated it could potentially be handled under the authority of the City Manager's ability to approve contracts under $25,000 but because of the sensitivity of the Council to the demolition of the Fuller Ford site staff brought it forward. It was staffs intent to proceed with a portion of that demolition related to asbestos under the authority of the City Manager to approve contracts of less than $25,000. It was something that staff would do whether or not the demolition proceeded. Councilmember Rindone felt staff needed to do their job unless there was a legal issue that needed to be addressed by Council. Mr. Bnngaard stated the item was not appropriate for Council discussion. 13. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) a. Council tour of amphitheater facilities located outside of Chula Vista. Items 13a was discussed in conjunction with Item 13b. · Kim Kilkenny, 11975 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, CA, representing Baldwin Company, distributed copies of comments councilmembers from the City of Poway received regarding their review of amphitheaters throughout California, a series of newspaper articles regarding amphitheaters throughout the United States, and the full report from the Poway councilmembers regarding the two amphitheaters they visited. He highly re, commanded that Council tour the facilities and obtain information from the cities regarding the impacts. The materials presented evidenced that there was a wealth of information regarding the operation of amphitheaters. Mayor Hormn felt it would be beneficial for Council to tour facilities or send representatives. Councilmember Padilia felt it was a good suggestion. He questioned if the list of amphitheaters in their report were all operated by MCA. Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 5 Dave Gustafson, Deputy Director of Community Development, responded they were amphitheaters in Southern California that staff felt were within a reasonable distance for Council to tour. They included amphitheaters built and operated by both groups presenting projects to the City. Councilmember Alevy supported the tour and felt it would give the Council insight prior to making any decisions. The first decision to be made by Council was whether or not the City wanted the facility and the second decision was then which proposal would be accepted. It was a choice that was key to the future, i.e. how Chula Vista was perceived and how the City was marketed. It could produce revenues to pay for social services and bring culture into the City. Councilmember Rindone concurred with the two decisions that would be before the Council. He felt a third issue would be potential revenues as a result of the project. Information should also be obtained on how the revenues went to the public agencies, in what form those revenues went to the public agencies, and if the revenues were shared with other agencies. He felt staff should obtain information from the operators of the facilities as well as the cities. Mayor Hm'ton stated Council was directing staff to move forward and contact those agencies with amphitheaters. She felt the tour should be held within the next several months and questioned if it could be done in conjunction with the CIP tour on September 23rd. Mr. Goss responded that September 23rd would be better than October or November due to the speed in which the projects were moving forward. He recommended the tour be conducted sooner than September if possible. He felt Council should talk to the city officials that had lived with the projects to fmd out what their experiences were. Councilmembers Alevy and Rindone stated they preferred a weekend if possible. Mr. Goss informed Council that both developers wanted to move ahead and break ground by the end of September. He recommended that staff contact the cities identified to see when they were available and report back to Council. Mayor Herton stated the tour would be tentatively set for Saturday, September 23rd until Council received a report back from staff. b. Direction to staff to contact those agencies within which the amphitheaters are located regarding their experience with the operators. Item 13b with discussed in conjunction with Item 13a. c. Ratification of appointments: A~ing, Commission on - Donna Daum; Cultural Arts Commission - David F. Greene; Human Relations Commission - Rafael J. Aguilar; International Friendship Commission - Betty Chou; and Mobilehome Rent Review Commission - Jeanne M. Reynolds. MSUC (Horton/Alevy) to ratify the appointments of: A~in~. Commission on - Donna Damn; Cultural Arts Commission - David F. Greene; Human Relations Commission - Rafael J. Aguilar; International Friendship Commission - Betty Chou; and Mobilehome Rent Review Commission - Jeanne M. Reynolds. d. Application of furlough to City Councilmembers. Continued from the meeting of 8/1/95. Mayor Herton stated Council had approved the furlough for staff and that it was only fair for Council to do the same. She requested Council input. Councilmember Rindone stated he agreed with the Mayor, but felt an assumption had been made in the memo, i.e. assuming that it would only apply to members that were participants. He felt it would apply to all Councilmembers. He did not know of a provision in the Charter that bifurcated Council's salary. There would be one salary that would be set, He felt there should be clarification on that issue. Council salaries and benefits were set by a ratio. It would be clear that it would applicable to all current and future Councilmembers. Candy Emerson, Director of Personnel, responded the practice for City employees was that the deduction from pay, i.e. not an alteration of pay rate that an employee received, was applied to only those employees that would actually Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 6 benefit from the retirement upgrade. Public safety, mid- and executive managers didnot have the deduction applied to their pay because they were not bene~ting from the 2% at 55 rate. The same could apply to Council, i.e. those Councilmembers (2 currently) and those in the future that were either not in the PERS system or were under a different PERS category would not necessarily have the deduction applied to them. It appeared on the pay stub as a deduction rather than a change in the rate, therefore, it would not impact the Council rate. Councilmember Rindone stated it was his understanding that it was an adjustment in the rate of pay and not just for those that chose to have a deduction which included senior management, mid-management, etc. He understood that there was an actual change in the rate of pay by the 1.92%. Ms. Emerson replied that people could not elect to participate in the furlough. The only employees exempt were public safety and mid- and executive managers, i.e. battalion chiefs that would be working through the furlough period and would not bene~t from the retirement upgrade. They would not have the 1.92% deduction. There were only a handful of individuals that would be working through the furlough period. Because they were under the 2 % at 50 system and would not benefit from the retirement upgrade, nor would the City be paying additional funds for retirement rate increases they were not included. Councilmember Rindone stated it was his understanding that with the new benefit it would be a permanent adjustment to their annual salary rate. He concurred that it was not an individual choice. Ms. Emerson responded that it was a deduction, the salary schedule that provided for rates of pay had not been modified. It would still appear as the base rate with the deduction applied. Councilmember Rindone questioned if a future Council removed the furlough if it would return to the previous pay level. Ms. Emerson replied that it was her understanding that the Council would have to remove the furlough, but also would have to take action to restore the pay deduction. Mayor Horton recommended that the item be continued for one week for further clarification. Councilmember Rindone stated he supported the application of the work furlough for the Council but he felt the adjustment in the rate of pay should be permanently reflected and not just considered as a deduction. He requested clarification regarding that issue. 14. COUNCIL CO]~t~!ENTS Councilmember Moot a. Consideration of a potential policy regarding staff referrals. Councilmember Moot stated Council had received a memo regarding the past practices of previous Councils. That practice was essentially consistent with his understanding and he felt the Council should reaffirm and readopt that practice. Councilmember Padilla felt the Council was currently following the policy as it dealt with Council referrals. Most of the referrals or requests for information, as a Council, had been historically made through a motion by Council. He questioned if Councilmember Moot was referring to requests for information by individual Councilmembers, as opposed to requests for information by the entire Council. Councilmember Moot responded that past practice had been that when any Councilmember wanted to request any information that required two or more hours of staff time that it be brought to the attention of the Council as a refen-al and that Council take action on it. That way everyone on the Council would know what was going on in the City. It was his understanding that it was felt the 2-3 hours was a good cut-off point for staff time requested. He felt it was a reasonable approach. Councilmember Padilia stated the time considerations, prioritizations, and administrative considerations should be considered. Council could adopt policies for the Council as a whole, but there were clear Charter regulations and Minutes August 8, 199S Page 7 legal considerations regarding the rights of individual Councilmembers to make inquiry. He would support any policy that made the Council' s collective job easier but he would not support a policy that would subvert the right of an individual Councilmember to make inquiries, especially in areas that Council had exclusive responsibility for oversight. Councilmember Moot stated it was his assumption that the policy did not apply to Council staff. It would apply only to staff under the purview of the City Manager and City Attorney. Mr. Goss stated Council staff was not an issue at that time because they did not exist. He felt the use of Council aides was in a different category and not under the policy. Councilmember Moot agreed that there were Charter functions the Council was obligated to fulfill and the Council had it's own staff and each Councilmember had a part-time staff person to fulfill those obligations. When it took time away from staff under the City Manager or City Attorney he felt Council needed to understand that staffs function was to run the City and not to necessarily respond to requests for information, other than under a formalized procedure, i.e. the referral process. Councilmember Padilla stated he did not disagree with anything Councilmember Moot was stating generally. He did not want to see a policy that would contravene an individual member's right to obtain information, even if it took some time of staff, or to ask for information directly from staff without going through Council aides because it was governed by Charter. Historically, under other circumstances, most of those types of requests had been made through the entire Council and most individual requests had been very minor. He did not want Council placed in a position of creating further confusion in thinking that the policy would cover all inquiries, under all circumstances, by all Councilmembers, because it would not. Councilmember Moot stated the policy would govern all inquiries made through the City Manager or City Attorney, or staff other than staff under Council's direction. He felt it important that if an individual Councilmember was embarking on resources of the City that exceeded the 2-3 hour cutoff, that the other members of the Council had the right to know that it was occurring and had the right to have input before it occurred. He felt the policy formalized the procedure. He had seen a few items that appeared to have taken more than three hours of staff time that did not go through Council. Mayor Horton requested that the City Attorney respond to comments made regarding the Council's right to make inquiries. Mr. Boogeard stated he had recently drafted a memo dealing with the issue which stated that even though he did not need to address the issue of the right of Council to commandeer staff time for the purpose of responding to inquiries it suggested that it was governed by certain limits of reasonableness. In a footnote to that opinion it suggested that the Council could implement the rules of reasonableness by adoption of an ordinance. Some of the limits of reason would be the amount and extent of staff time that would be consumed in responding versus the other priorities of the person's assignments. He felt a policy which stated that if the staff person's time exceeded two hours that the request would have to come from the Council would probably be in violation of the individual Councilmember's right of inquiry. To say that a Council as a whole could not give an individual the right to solicit information necessary for them to do their job was probably a violation of the Charter. However, Council could prioritize the extent to which a staff member had to respond to any councilmaine right of inquiry, i.e. if Council agreed with the question asked of staff, it could have a higher priority than if only one member of the Council had an interest in getting the information. If the information was public information staff should not deprive a Councilmember of any information the public would have complete and unlimited access to. That had to be responded to within a ten day period unless there were special circumstances under the Public Records Act. Otherwise, there would be a situation where a majority could be quelling the legitimate interests of a minority of the Council to gather information they felt necessary to do their job. Mayor HotIon questioned when it took an excessive amount of time to respond to a specific request if there should be Council action. Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 8 Mr. Boogaard responded that if the information was public information and it was important to a Councilmember to do their job he did not feel the Charter would tolerate a group of the Council telling any individual that they did not have the right to that information. It could be a basis for deprioritizing the response period but not entirely cutting it off. If it was direction, as opposed to just giving answers or information, then clearly it was the right of the Council through the Manager to direct. Councilmember Padilia clarified that there were distinctions between the types of inquiries made. Council needed to be aware when making requests collectively or individuallylthat there were impacts, they should be priorifized, and that communication lines should be kept open. He felt he knew what was generating the concern, i.e. recently he had as an individual Councilmember spent time gathering and requesting extensive staff time in gathering information for him which he felt necessary for him to perform the evaluation of one of the Council's appointed employees. He wanted Council to understand that there was a distinction in what Council's individual rights were in requesting information relating to something Council had exclusive jurisdiction over and when asking for information about something that was administered by the City Manager. A policy that was common sense and that kept the lines of communication open regarding routine requests for information was acceptable. He wanted to make it clear that no policy would serve anyone by trying to inhibit or cut off the Charter right of an individual Councilmember to gather information about an area they had exclusive jurisdiction over, i.e. the performance of Council appointed staff. It was his understanding of the City Attorney's opinion that it was Council's right to make inquiries or request information and, in some cases, to demand information that was more broad and went further in those circumstances than it would be for routine requests, i.e. regarding projects, etc. Councilmember Moot felt they had a hndamental disagreement. He felt each individual Councilmember had a right to know when an individual Councilmember, for whatever reason, was tieing up an excessive amount of staff time on a project that only one Councilmember was pursuing. He did not feel that a department could be closed down for a week because an individual Councilmember requested information, the City had to continue to conduct business. Mr. Boogaard stated the City Manager was responsible for allocating the time of the staff and it would be his responsibility/authority/duty, under the Charter, to prioritize the staff person's response to a councilmanic inquiry subject to the limits of reason, but he could not preclude a Councilmember, individually, from getting the information they desired. It would be a deprioritization based on the demands of the business of the City. Councilmember Alevy questioned whether the issue was whether or not the Council should be aware that time was being spent or that Council should vote to approve whether excessive time should be spent. Councilmember Moot responded that it was up to the wishes of the Council. He was concerned that Council be notified and have the opportunity to have input before it occurred, not after the fact. He had seen two opinions from the City Attorney's Office that he was not aware had been requested and, therefore, he had no input before the direction was given to the City Attorney to issue those opinions. He as a Councilmember, would have liked to have had input. He felt it was a basic sense of democracy, they were a Council of five and everyone should be in the process or the "loop" when an extended amount of staff time was being utilized. Whether a referral required two or three votes, he did not care. He just wanted to know about it and to make sure that it was worth investing the time. In the particular incident it was worth the time, but there should be a procedure in place to notify the Council prior to the utilization of staff time. Mr. Boogaard stated the application of the policy in the five years he had been with the City had never been applied to the City Attorney's office and he did not feel it was intended to apply to the City Attomey's office. It was his opinion that the 2-3 hour cut off time was not incorporated into the policy or ever officially adopted. He did not know what the past policy had been regarding the City Manager's response. He did not issue opinions on direction. He would issue an opinion in response to a request for an opinion if he felt it was an appropriate piece of business for his office to be engaging in based on the independent judgement that the Charter assigned the office. Councilmember Rindone felt the role of the City Attorney had to remain independent in order to have viable information on legal issues which any member individually or collectively requested. He did not feel any member of the Council wanted that practice altered. The notification t9 Council regarding inquiries could be accomplished through a memo to the rest of the Council. At no time should Council ever consider a "gag" rule when there were Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 9 Charter responsibilities which required the need for information to perform those responsibilities. Those requests for information from the City Manager's office should be brought forward to Council for consideration, but he did not feel there had been a conflict in that area. Councilmember Padilla stated the Council and the City Manager had been apprised of his previous inquiries at each step, of whom the request was made, and the amount of time taken. He had contacted the staff and they had the duty to notify the City Manager. Information requests he had made of the City Attorney had been in the form of asking a question and if it was in the Attomey's judgement that it was something of legitimate impact and required an opinion he had done so. Councilmember Moot felt the policy should include the City Attomey's office. He had seen opinions issued that he as a Councilmember and lawyer would have liked to have given direction to the City Att~mey's office in terms of things to look into. If he was the only one that cared or felt that way, so be it. Mayor Hotton stated it would not hurt if an inquiry was made that a memo be sent to the Council regarding the request and from whom. Councilmember Padilla felt that was common courtesy. Councilmember Alevy stated if the City Attorney was asked by a member of the Council or staff to issue an opimon he could inform the Council of the source of the question. He felt that in looking at the policy it was established when members of the Council did not have part-time aides and felt that should also be addressed. He assumed the policy referred to staff other than Council staff. MOTION: (Moot) adopt the past practices/policy as stated in the staff memorandum, i.e. to refer requests for information which required the allocation of two or more hours of staff lime be a formal motion and majority vote of the Council. He would accept a vote by two members of the Council. Councilmember Padilia felt that had been done in the past and was currently being done. He also felt the reason for concern was recent events of the last several months. Unless Council was prepared to put in the policy specific language that made the distinction that the policy would not serve as a "gag" rule or an ability of the majority of the Council to limit the request of any individual Councilmember from information they were entitled to as elected officials and was consistent with the law he could not support it. Mayor Horton did not feel the intent was to place a "gag" order on any Councilmember. From her understanding it was the manner in which the process had been conducted that was the root cause of the discussion. Councilmember Padilia stated he would be prepared to discuss that at any time. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Alevy, agreed to by the Maker of the Motion) that the policy be adopted with the change that it not be adopted with any intent to restrict any Councilmember from the rights they had of inquiry as a Councilmember and that at least one other member of the Council support the request. Councilmember Rindone stated any time a Councilmember had an inquiry of staff and the employee felt the request inappropriate, they should not respond to the request and then it would have to be brought to Council for further direction. To forestall any member to be able to perform his/her function legally would not be appropriate. He agreed with Councilmember Alevy's recommendation regarding notification through a memo, but did not feel any change from that was in order at the present time. CouncilmemberMootstateddhesuppertedCouncilmemberAlevy'samendment. He did not feel the majority should ever override the will of the minority. It was an issue of everyone being notified on what was going on in the City at the time it was occurring. Councilmember Padilla questioned if Councilmember Moot was referring only to notification. Minutes August 8, 1995 Page 10 Councilmember Moot stated if a member wanted the City Attorney's opinion and the response could not be made within 2-3 hours it should be agendized under that member's comments to notify Council that they wanted a referral regarding a specific item. Then if another Councilmember agreed with the request it would be done. Councilmember Padilla questioned how that was different than the current process. Members had morn power and latitude to request information to evaluate the performance of someone appointed by the Council than on items such as City projects, etc. Councilmember Moot stated he had read two memos on issues that Council had not referred and it was a matter of everyone knowing the policy and the procedure. If a particular Councilmember wanted the City Manager or a member of his staff to spend 5-6 hours researching an item it should be brought to the Council for a referral. If a second Councilmember agreed it would go forward. Mayor Horton stated she was not prepared to vote on the item and requested that the item be tabled. Councilmember Moot stated that was acceptable. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 9:00 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on August 15, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. CLOSED SESSION Council met in Closed Session at 8:28 p.m. to discuss solid waste issues and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. 15. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 ® Fritsch vs. the City of Chula Vista. · Chula Vista and nine other cities vs. the County of San Diego regarding solid waste issues (trash litigation). * Chammas vs. the City of Chula Vista. 2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 · Metro Sewer Adjustment Billing (water reclamation and expansion costs) and EPA lawsuit. 16. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 · Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Llnrepresented. 17. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed Session. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk by: Vicki C. Soderquist, CMC, Deput~Clerk