Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20140603 Late Correspondence
From: Sent: To: Carla Morreale Tuesday, June 03, 2014 12:12 PM Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: ordinance providing for appointment of department heads with the advice and consent of the City Council Attachments: SEM_ Changes to Personnel System.DOC 01r/a Morreale, CMC1 City Clerk (;!TY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES City Clerk's Office 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Phone: (310) 544-5208 Fax: (310) 544-5291 From: Carol W. Lync.:h [mailto:CLynch@rwglaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 12:04 PM Al!CEIVEO ROM,.a.1~Uod"'4'~u.-~ AND MADE A PART OF THE COUNCIL MEETING OF·..,:i..~::.::;;..~--.--1 OFFICE CF THE CITY CLE K CARI.A MORREALE, CITY CLERK To: Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Anthony Misetich Cc: 'Jerry Duhovic'; Carolynn Petru; Carla Morreale Subject: rw: ordinance providing for appointment of department heads with the advice and c(:rnsent of the City Council Mayor Duhovic asked that I send this email to the rest of the Council Members and to Carla for distribution as late correspondence. The email contains language that other cities have enacted with regard to Council advice and consent regarding the hiring of department heads. As I noted below, these provisions establish the requirement for Council advice and consent on certain decisions by the City Manager regarding the hiring and firing of department heads but do not alter the fundamental council/manager form of government. Carol From: Carol W. Lynch Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:55 PM To: 'Jerry Duhovic' Subject: FW: ordinance providing for appointment of department heads with the advice and c0nsent of the City Council Hi Jerry: Attached is an ordinance that we prepared for the City of South El Monte. Also, from the Town of Dixon Municipal Code, under the powers of the City Manger, is the foll<Dwing paragraph: 1 • C. Removal and appoihtment of officers and employees. To appoint and remove any officers and empl'oyees of the City, except the el~cted officers and their respective staffs, subject to ratification by the City Council in the case of department he~ds. And, from the Fairfax Town Code under the Town Manager's duties: (3) Appointment and removal of certain officers. Subject to, and in accordance with, civil service and town personnel ordinances and regulatidns, to appoint, remove and demote any appointive officers and employees, except the Town Attorney; provided, however, that the appointment, removal or demotion of department heads shall require ratification by the Town Council, and provided further, that after the Town Manager has served in that position for 12 months, the Town Council may, by resolution, eliminate the requirement for such ratification and vest the power to appoint, remove or demt1>te department heads in the Town Manager, and provided further, that when required, the final vote to ratify the appointment, removal or demotion of a department head shall be done in an open session of the Town Council; Each of these approache$ leaves the Council/Manager form of government in place, which will be a plus when recruiting a new City Manager, butl still addresses your concern about the issue of Council approval of actions taken by the City Manager with respect to gp_Q_ointing or firing department heads or other employment positions specified in the ordinance. -----------------------------------------------------------....... ~--=cooc·-- Carol NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of thiis communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE AMENDING SECTIONS 2.64.010 AND 2.64.030 OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF THE UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE AND DESIGNATING THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY FOR POSITIONS OR CLASSIFICATION IN THE CITY SERVICE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Subsection (H)(7) of Section 2.64.010 of Chapter 2.64 of Title 2 of the South El Monte Municipal Code defining the unclassified service is hereby amended to read as follows: "7. City manager, assistant city manager, all heads of departments and any other position or classification so design~ted by resolution of the city council;" . . SECTION 2. Section 2.64.030 of Chapter 2·.64 of Title 2 of the South El Monte Municipal Code desig!Jating the appointing authority is amended to read as follows: "2.64.030 Appointing authority. All appointments to positions or cla~ifications in the city service shall be made by the city manager in accordance with the personnel rules. Provided, however, that all appointments to positions or classifications involving heads of dt;;partments and any other position or classification included in the unclassified service by resolution. of the city eouncil under Subsection (H)(7) of Section 2;64.010, shall be made by the city manager, subject to the consent of the city council. Such individuals shall hold office or employment at and during the pleasure of the city manager. The assistant city manager shall report to the City Manager and serve at the pleasure of the City Council. " SECTION 3. The changes adopted in this ordinance shall not apply to .any incumbent employed in the classified city service who has pas.~ed probation and received confirmation of permanent status, as provided under the personnel rules, on or before the effective date of this ordinance. All suph service shall continue in and be subject to the terms of the classified service, with the City Manager continuing to serve as the appointing authority, unless or until otherwise determined by duly constituted action of the City Council. Except as provided by a subsequent ordinance and without regard to a contrary supersession provision, this ordinance shall prevail over any contrary, limiting 770266-1 ,, or inconsistent term or provision in a resolution, salary and benefits schedule or memorandum of understanding. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of ___ , 2004. ATTEST: Kathy Gonzales, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FQRM Quinn Barrow City Attorney . ,ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES , ) S.S. CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE ) BLANCA M. FIGUEROA, MAYOR I, Kathy Gonzales City Clerk for the City of South El Monte, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance, being Ordinance No. , was duly passed and approved by the City Council of the City of South El Monte at a regular meeting of said Council held on the day of , 2004, and that said Ordinance was a;dopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: City Clerk 770266-1 June 3, 2014 Good evening Mr. Mayor and City Council, my name is Ronald Moeller. My family and I have resided in Rancho Palos Verdes for the last 38 years. I represent one of several RPV families that have addressed this Counsel on this issue, and one of many families that are concerned with the detrimental effects that the Citizens United and the McKutcheon Supreme Court Rulings are having on our country. Most RPV ~esidents are comfortable and many take for granted all the years we have had election safeguards in place that protected our community against financial interests that could have negatively affected us. With these two Supreme Court rulings decades of election finance protections have been struck down. Now unions and corporations have been granted personhood and can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, plus there have been significant increases in the amount individuals can spend. Even if peninsula residents and municipal governments could somehow stave off incursions of financially backed political decisions that harm our communities, we are still subject to potential threats beyond our control. For instance, consumers are endangered by political contributions from the food industry neutering FDA oversight of food preparation and ingredient labeling. The hydrocarbon industry continually pressures congress to relax air quality, tracking, and production standards contributing to worsening climate conditions. Corporations, unions, and individuals who are able to wield undue political influence to satisfy their own ends present a threat to all citizens. The influence of unlimited spending on elections can be remedied by an amendment to the Constitution. To date, nearly 600 municipalities and states, including California, have sent resolutions to the United States Congress supporting actions to amend the Constitution, to allow local, state, and federal government jurisdiction over the amount of money allowed in elections. Therefore, we are respectfully requesting the RPV City Council consider drafting such a resolution in support of an amendment to the Constitution specifically addressing limits to campaign financing, and making this the subject for an upcoming study-secession. Thank you. -.-. ~-lCeJVed~~ ~ 4 ~ t?tt,ar+ :Hem 3A +A,e t:ecord af ~wfk, ~ ;;,91'1 Cr7ft;0'!-ffil iifet--~ .. c~ r!tjy 'C/e.rK.... TESTIMONY AT THE JUNE 3, 2014 COUNtlL MEETING ON ITEM 3A Good evening. My name is Ken Dyda and I was on the six-member board of directors for Save Our Coastline which orchestrated the founding of this great city. I was on the original City Council and served three terms and Mayor during one of those terms. Over time I have seen the erosion of the City Council's ability to discharge its responsibility in running Rancho Palos Verdes. This was exemplified by an aborted attempt to adopt proposed Rules and Procedures which in effect would have transferred the bulk of City Council authority to the city manager and staff. That attempt met with overwhelming opposition and was revised removing the most onerous elements from the proposed Rules and Procedures. However it did not result in a clear delineation of responsibilities between the City Council and city manager and staff. Tonight the proposed changes to the municipal code are attempting to establish a clear delineation of responsibilities. Let's be very clear on the roles and responsibilities of the city manager. The International City Manager Association, in discussing the City Council city manager form of government, states 11under this form, power is concentrated in the elected Council, which hires a professional administrator to implement its policies." Tonight's proposal to update the current municipal code clearly reflects that goal and the International City Manager's Associations own policy. Item {10} states that one of the duties of the city manager is to provide staff support services for the Mayor and Council members. Our city Council made it very clear on numerous occasions that this staff support is in the form of information only and not direction. Councilmanic interference by directing any member of staff is strictly prohibited. There appears to be a constant drumbeat that the City Council's only function is to set policy. A policy is only as good as the ability of the body that sets the policy to be able to enforce the policy. Some emails received by the city claimed that section 2.0 8.001 will eviscerate transparency. There was no real transparency in the recent past. In my view transparency was just a buzzword. It took over two years to obtain legally available city records with respect to employee compensation rather than the much shorter 14 days prescribed by the California Public Records Act .. Section 2.0 8.0 70 is touted as an unfounded scare tactic that will result in a Council being involved in day-to-day operation. A councilmember requesting information that exists in the city records is not direction. Direction to staff would involve effort on the part of the staff to do more than retrieve available data. Some would say that section 2.0 8.073 borders on Council manic interference. Nowhere does it allow any member of Council to direct any member of staff rather it ensures that any councilmember can get timely available information in order to make a fully informed decision There have been various opinions among individual Council members as to the specific roles, responsibilities and procedures attendant to the city manager. The proposed revision to the municipal code before you tonight is totally authorized by state law, consistent with the International City Manager's Association guidelines for a city manager contract. It clarifies some of the misconception as to the role of the city manager and provides the city Council the tools necessary to ensure the policies it makes are being followed. The electorate has the responsibility to hold you accountable, and, therefore, to discharge that responsibility you must have the tools to hold the city manager accountable as well. Just as in the case of the Rules and Procedures effort, I urge you to continue this topic to a future date. This would allow for more community involvement and input on such a vital issue as the City Council-City Manager division of responsibility and accountability. Respectfully, Ken Dyda CfTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK JUNE 3, 2014 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. E J 3A 38 6 Description of Material Email from Janet Gunter Minor typos and revisions to Kling contract Emails from: Ann Shaw; Krista Johnson; Sharon Yarber; Bill and Sandy Patton; Thomas D. Long; Susan Wilcox; Letter from Steve Wolowicz; Email from Larry Clark sent on behalf of former Mayors: Ann Shaw, Jacki Bacharach, Douglas Hinchliffe, Melvin Hughes, Thomas Long, Stefan Wolowicz, and Larry Clark Email from Mark H. Meyerhoff Email from Public Works Director Throne ~~ Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, June 2, 2014**. W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140603 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Sent: To: Kit Fox Tuesday, June 03, 2014 8:06 AM Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: Video re LPG explosion Monday evening in Manila . ..40 injured from small leak in 5 gallon tank .... (and we are sitting on Rancho's 25 Million Gallons?) Late Correspondence for Item E Kit Fox, AICP Citl..J of Ra11cho Palos Verdes (310) .544-52'26 kitf@rpv.com From: Janet Gunter [mailto:arriane5@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 7:55 AM To: noelweiss@ca.rr.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; bonbon90731@gmail.com; jody.james@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; hanslaetz@gmail.com; jhwinkler@me.com; mandm8602@att.net; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; burling102@aol.com; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; pmwarren@cox.net; geichfamily@yahoo.com; chateau4us@att.net; hvybags@cox.net; ksmith@klct.com; igornla@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com; radlsmith@cox.net; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; miraclegirl2@verizon.net; Rafael.Moure- Eraso@csb.gov; jnm4ej@yahoo.com; don.holmstrom@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; carl.southwell@gmail.com Cc: lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; Kit Fox; Ericf.Boyd@mail.house.gov; jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov; wesling.mary@epa.gov; helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov; sally.magnani@doj.ca.gov Subject: Video re LPG explosion Monday evening in Manila . ..40 injured from small leak in 5 gallon tank .... (and we are sitting on Rancho's 25 Million Gallons?) https://anc. yahoo. com/video/40-people-h urt-lpg-blast-01023984 7. html 1 E From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hi Carla, So Kim Tuesday, June 03, 2014 11:09 AM Carla Morreale Teresa Takaoka Kling Contract Kling Consulting Agreement for 2014-15.docx There were two minor typos/changes made on the Kling contract: 1) Pg. J-6, under 'Personnel', Line 7, replace Christopher Sandoval with Hans Tolksdorf. 2) Pg. J-13, replace the name from 'Zeiser Kling Consultants' to 'Kling Consulting Group' Attached is the revised contract. Sincerely, So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv {310) 544-5228 1 ..:.; I • PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR GEOTECHNICAL CONSUL TING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this_ day of June, 2014, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Kling Consulting Group., hereinafter referred to as "CONSUL TANT". RECITALS The City wishes to use the professional services of Consultant to provide geology, soils engineering and geotechnical engineering consulting services to City on an as-needed basis; and, Consultant has represented that it has a unique and specialized knowledge and understanding of, and experience with, geotechnical engineering, soils engineering and engineering geology and is qualified to perform said services for City; and, IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing recitals and the covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE I SCOPE OF CONSULTANT'S SERVICES Consultant shall, in a professional and timely manner, perform the following services, when requested by the City, by or under the direct supervision of Consultant's licensed engineering geologist and/or soils engineer: A Field Reviews. Perform site field inspections of proposed construction as requested by the Building Official, City Engineer or other City official. Make a visual evaluation and submit a written memorandum stating findings and recommendations. Such site field inspections are typically performed during plan check to determine if soils and/or geologic reports are required. Field review of a given site shall be performed only where City has established a valid plan check, trust deposit, or other payment schedule for billirig time charges. Field review reports shall be submitted to the City no later than the following working day. B. Review Geotechnical Reports. Review the following types of soils and geology reports presented to Consultant by City: i. Soils and/or geology investigation reports performed for proposed construction in the City; ii. As-built geotechnical reports for construction, such as, for caissons, retaining walls, etc.; iii As-graded reports for grading of single lots and/or larger subdivisions in the City; iv. Other reports of inspection and testing of compacted fills that are placed in the City. -1- Review of reports of hazardous wastes or materials is outside the provisions of this agreement. Consultant shall review and evaluate reports, checking the consistency of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and ascertain whether the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code are satisfied. Consultant may also perform site field inspections, logging of borings and trenches, sampling and laboratory tests, engineering analysis, and other tasks, as Consultant deems appropriate to assist in Consultant's reviews. No later than two (2) weeks after Consultant receives a report to review, Consultant shall submit a written review letter to City stating the results of Consultant's review and Consultant's recommendations of either: • Non-approval. Consultant shall state why approval was not recommended and shall list questions to be addressed by subsequent reports. • Approval. Consultant shall recommend to City the conditions of approval of projects, issuing of permits and certifications of occupancy, as appropriate. C. Special Studies. As occasions arise, Consultant may be called upon to perform special geologic or geotechnical studies or other work requested by City. Charges shall be billed as defined under Article IV (Compensation) either to a trust deposit account or budget account, or a specific contract proposal shall be prepared and agreed to in writing by City and shall define the scope of work and payment schedule. D. Records. All costs are to be allocated to the appropriate trust deposit, plan check number or other special fund to which they pertain. The tract, lot or parcel numbers, address or other designation to identify the project site to which the costs pertain shall be indicated on all records and documents. ARTICLE II PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES Consultant shall perform all services and duties pursuant to this Agreement in a professional and timely manner, at the direction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director of Public Works or the Directors' designee. All directives, instructions, or other communications from City to Consultant shall be through only the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director of Public Works or the Directors' designee. ARTICLE Ill TERM This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2014, and shall terminate on June 30, 2015, unless otherwise extended by the parties hereto. -2- ARTICLE IV COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES City shall pay Consultant for its professional services rendered and costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with the rates and amounts set forth in the fee and cost schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. The schedule of hourly rates shall be good through the term of this contract, pursuant to Article Ill. City may request in writing that Consultant perform additional services not covered by the specific Scope of Work set forth in this agreement, and Consultant shall perform such services and will be paid for such additional services in accordance with Consultant's schedule of hourly rates attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall submit to City, by not later than the tenth (10th) day of each month, its bill for services rendered and costs incurred during the previous month. If Consultant's bill is properly prepared and received by City by not later than the tenth (10th) day of the month, City shall pay Consultant all uncontested amounts set forth in Consultant's bill by not later than 30 days from the date that the bill was received. All other properly billed and uncontested invoices received after the 10th of the month shall be paid by City not later than forty-five ( 45) days after receipt of Consultant's bill by City. It is further agreed that the periodic billings are correct, conclusive and binding unless Consultant is notified in writing by City ten (10) days from the date of receipt of the billing of any alleged inaccuracies, discrepancies or errors in billing. All payments due Consultant shall be paid to: Kling Consulting Group, Inc. 18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250 Irvine, California 92614 In the event City fails to pay any undisputed amounts due Consultant within forty-five (45) days after invoices are received by City, then City agrees that Consultant shall have the right to consider said default a breach of this Agreement and may be terminated by Consultant without liability to Consultant upon ten (10) working days advance notice to City. ARTICLE V PERSONNEL Consultant shall provide all personnel necessary to properly perform the services and duties required under this Agreement, and shall at all times direct such personnel in the performance of such services and duties. Henry F. Kling, James M. Lancaster, Jeffery Tyson, Hans Tolksdorf, and Dante Domingo shall be principally responsible for Consultant's obligations and performance under this Agreement and shall serve as the principal liaisons between City and Consultant. Consultant shall not designate representatives or liaisons other Henry F. Kling, James M. Lancaster, Jeffery Tyson, Hans Tolksdorf, and Dante Domingo without the prior written consent of either the Director of Community Development or the Director of Public Works of City, except for temporary re-assignments in the case of vacation, illness or emergency, where consultant shall provide verbal notification to either the Director of Community Development or the Director of Public Works of City. -3- Consultant shall notify City in writing of its recommendation of the retention of any supplemental sub-consultants and the need therefor. However, City shall have the exclusive authority to determine whether such sub-consultants shall be retained pursuant to Consultant's recommendation. ARTICLE VI DUTIES OF CITY City shall provide or make available to Consultant, without charge or expense, all information, data, records, maps, reports, plans, equipment, or other material in its possession necessary for carrying out the services and duties contemplated under this Agreement. ARTICLE VII OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS City and Consultant agree that all final records, data, reports or other documentation prepared by, in response to, or as a result of the performance of this Agreement shall be the sole property of City, and are to remain confidential, and shall not be released or otherwise made available to any person, entity or organization without the express prior written approval of City. Copies of any data, records, reports or other documents held by Consultant shall be delivered to City upon demand. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant may retain one copy of each document for its records. No reports, maps or other documents produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be the subject of an application for copyright by or on the behalf of Consultant. It is agreed that all records, data, reports or other documents generated by Consultant for City can only be used for the specific location and/or specific improvement without the written consent of Consultant. ARTICLE VIII CONFLICT OF INTEREST Consultant agrees not to accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Contractor "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code Sections 1090 and 87100) in any decision made by City on any matter i"n connection with which Consultant has been retained pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant also warrants that it is not, at the time this Agreement is entered into, engaged in any employment or representation which will or may likely make Consultant "financially interested" in any decision made by City on any matter in connection with which Consultant has been retained pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICLE IX INDEMNIFICATION, HOLD HARMLESS AND DUTY TO DEFEND In connection with its professional services, CONSULTANT shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify CITY, and its officials, officers, employees, agents and independent contractors -4- serving in the role of CITY officials, and designated volunteers (collectively, "lndemnitees"), with respect to any and all claims, demands, causes of action, damages, injuries, liabilities, losses, costs or expenses, including reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs of defense (collectively, "Claims" hereinafter), including but not limited to Claims relating to death or injury to any person and injury to any property, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to in whole or in part to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT or any of its officers, employees, subcontractors, or agents in the performance of its professional services under this Agreement. All duties of CONSULTANT under this Sub-section A shall survive termination of this Agreement. ARTICLEX INSURANCE CONSUL TANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection· with the negligent performance of the work hereunder by CONSUL TANT, its agents, representatives or employees. A. General Liability CONSUL TANT shall at all times during the term of the Agreement carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect, a policy or policies of Commercial General Liability Insurance, with minimum limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate for bodily injury, death, loss or property damage arising from or pertaining to activities undertaken by CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. Said policy or policies shall be issued by an insurer admitted or authorized to do business in the State of California and rated in A.M. Best's Insurance Guide with a rating of A:Vll or better. B. Professional Liability CONSULTANT shall at all times during the term of this Agreement, carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect a policy or policies of professional liability insurance with a minimum limit of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate for errors and/or omissions of CONSUL TANT in the performance of this Agreement. Said policy or policies shall be issued by an in$urer authorized or admitted to do business in the State of California and rated in Best's Insurance Guide with a rating of A:Vll or better. If a "claims made" policy is provided, such policy shall be maintained in effect from the date of performance of work or services on the CITY's behalf until three (3) years after the date of work or services are accepted as completed. Coverage for the post-completion period may be provided by renewal or replacement of the policy for each of the three (3) years or by a three-year extended reporting period endorsement, which reinstates all limits for the extended reporting period. If any such policy and/or policies have a retroactive date, that date shall be no later than the date of first performance of work or services on behalf of the CITY. Renewal or replacement policies shall not allow for any advancement of such retroactive date. C. Automobile Liability CONSUL TANT shall at all times during the term of this Agreement obtain, maintain, and keep in full force and effect, a policy or policies of Automobile Liability Insurance, with minimum of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and occurrence and two million dollars -5- ($2,000,000) in the aggregate for bodily injuries or death of one person and five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for property damage arising from one incident. D. Worker's Compensation CONSULTANT agrees to maintain in force at all times during the performance of work under this Agreement worker's compensation insurance as required by California law. CONSULTANT shall require any subcontractor similarly to provide such compensation insurance for their respective employees. E. Notice of Cancellation (1) All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be cancelled by the insurance carrier without thirty (30) days prior written notice to CITY, or ten (10) days notice if cancellation is due to nonpayment of premium. Additionally, CONSUL TANT shall provide immediate notice to the City if it receives a cancellation or policy revision notice from the insurer. (2) CONSUL TANT agrees that it will not cancel or reduce any required insurance coverage. CONSUL TANT agrees that if it does not keep the aforesaid insurance in full force and effect, CITY may either immediately terminate this Agreement or, if insurance is available at a reasonable cost, CITY may take out the necessary insurance and pay, at CONSULTANT's expense, the premium thereon. F. Entire Policy and Certificate of Insurance At all times during the term of this Agreement, CONSUL TANT shall maintain on file with the CITY Clerk both a copy of the entire policy and a certificate of insurance showing that the aforesaid policies are in effect in the required amounts. The commercial general liability policy shall contain endorsements naming the CITY, its officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. G. Primary Coverage The insurance provided by CONSUL TANT shall be primary to any coverage available to CITY. The insurance policies (other than workers compensation and professional liability) shall include provisions for waiver of subrogation. ARTICLE XI TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated at any time, with or without cause, by either party upon sixty (60) days prior written notice. Notice shall be deemed serviced upon deposit in the United States Mail or a certified or registered letter, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the other party, or upon personal service of such notice to the other party, at the address set forth in Article XI I. In the event of termination or cancellation of the Agreement by Consultant or City, due to no fault or failure of performance by Consultant, Consultant shall be paid compensation for all services performed by Consultant, in an amount to be determined as follows: for work done in -6- accordance with all of the terms and provisions of this Agreement, Consultant shall be paid an amount equal to the amount of services performed prior to the effective date of termination or cancellation in accordance with the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; provided, in no event shall the amount of money paid under the foregoing provisions of this paragraph exceed the amount which would have been paid to consultant for the full performance of the services described in Article IV and the particular purchase order. In the event of such termination, all finished or unfinished documents, reports, charts, data, studies, surveys, in the possession of Consultant under this agreement shall be returned to City, at City's option. ARTICLE XII GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Fair Employment Practices/Equal Opportunity Acts. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Fair Employment Practices Act (California Government Code Sections 12940-48) and the applicable equal employment provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 200e-217), whichever is more restrictive. B. Non-discrimination. Consultant shall not discriminate as to race, creed, religion, gender, color or national origin in the performance of its services and duties pursuant to this Agreement, and will comply with all rules and regulations of the City relating thereto. C. Legal Action. (1) Should either party to this Agreement bring legal action against the other, the case shall be handled in Los Angeles County, California, and the party prevailing in such action shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, which shall be fixed by the judge hearing the case, and such fee shall be included in the judgment. (2) Should any legal action about a project between City and a party other than Consultant require the testimony of Consultant when there is no allegation that Consultant was negligent, City shall compensate Consultant for its testimony and preparation to testify at the hourly rates in effect at the time of such testimony. D. Compliance with Applicable Law. Consultant and City shall comply with all applicable laws, ordir:iances and codes of the Federal, State and local Governments. E. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assignable by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant may use the services of persons and entities not in its employ, when it is appropriate and customary to do so upon prior approval by City. Such persons and entities include, but are not limited to, surveyors, specialized consultants and testing laboratories. Consultant's use of others for additional services shall not be unreasonably restricted by City, provided Consultant notifies City in advance. F. Independent Consultant. Consultant is and shall at all times remain, as to City, a wholly independent Consultant. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, except as herein set forth. Consultant -7- expressly warrants not to, at any time or in any manner, represent that it, or any of its agents, servants or employees, are in any manner the agents, servants or employees of City, it being distinctly understood that Consultant is, and shall at all times remain to City, a wholly independent contractor and Consultant's obligations to City are solely such as are prescribed by this Agreement. G. Titles. That titles used in this Agreement are for general reference only and are not part of this Agreement. H. Extent of Agreement. This Agreement and Exhibit "A" represents the entire and integrated Agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, written or oral. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a subsequent written agreement signed by both parties. I. Legal Construction (1) This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of California and shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced and governed under the laws of the State of California. (2) This Agreement shall be construed without regard to the identity of the persons who drafted its various provisions. Each and every provision of this Agreement shall be construed as though each of the parties participated equally in the drafting of same, and any rule of construction that a document is to be construed against the drafting party shall not be applicable to this Agreement. (3) The article and section, captions and headings herein have been inserted for convenience only, and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of interpretation or construction. (4) Whenever in this Agreement the context may so require, each gender shall be deemed to refer to and include any other gender and the singular shall refer to and include the plural. J. Notices. All notices pertaining to this Agreement shall be in writing and addressed as follows: If to Consultant: Mr. Henry Kling President Kling Consulting Group, Inc. 18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 250 Irvine, California 92614 If to City: Joel Rojas Director of Community Development City of Rancho Palos Verdes -8- 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. KLING CONSUL TING GROUP, INC. By: (Title) Dated: By: (Title) Dated: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES By: Mayor Dated: Attest: City Clerk -9- EXHIBIT "A" FEE SCHEDULE KLING CONSUL TING GROUP Rate Personnel Classification (per hour) Principal Geologist or Engineer $165.00 Associate Geologist or Engineer $150.00 Project Engineer or Geologist $125.00 Senior Engineer or Geologist $115.00 Senior Staff Engineer or Geologist $100.00 Staff Engineer or Geologist $88.00 Supervisory Technician $105.00 Senior Technician $95.00 Field Technician $82.00 Technician Assistant $65.00 Draftsman $85.00 Administrative Support $50.00 Word Processing $58.00 From: Sent: To: Subject: Ann Shaw <anndshaw@gmail.com> Monday, June 02, 2014 5:33 PM CC; Carolynn Petru Agenda item 3A I am very concerned about these proposed changes. Over the long history of RPV we have had good councils and others which were not so capable. The best protection against the fluctuation in the ability of our elected officials is a professional and capable City Manager and staff. This has benefited our City and I am unaware of any problems which would lead you to change what has worked for almost 41 years. In fact, if you pursue this ill-advised course you will be unable to attract well-qualified city manager candidates. Please reconsider this course of action. I'll see you all tomorrow night. Ann Shaw, Former Mayor and Councilmember 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: To the RPV Councilmembers - Krista Johnson < kristamjohnson@cox.net> Monday, June 02, 2014 10:55 PM cc RE: Council meeting tomorrow to consider increasing city manager oversight -opposed by Knight, Misetich and Brooks 2.04 -2.08 Muni Code Amendments 6-3-2014.pdf We thank you and appreciate your commitment and service to the City of RPV and its residents. It has come to my attention there will be an agenda item on June 3 regarding amending the municipal code to allow additional oversight and clarification of both the City Manager position and the City Council's role. Unfortunately, my HOA is having a meeting to discuss the changes on PVDE and I will be unable to attend and express my thoughts and considerations on this matter in persor:i. I will say in my experience, having specific clear duties and responsibilities provided for any employment situation gives both parties an equal ground in making sure those responsibilities and duties are carried out. It lays out and clarifies what the expectations are and the general course in accomplishing them as well as a specific way to measure results. I am in full agreement and support of what Mayor Duhovic has laid out as amendments in the municipal code and trust that all members of the council can come to a reasonable resolution that makes sure the residents are provided with the qualities they require in a City Manager and the Council can provide the appropriate guidance and oversight of the position required by their roles as council members. It is my understanding that the city attorney has reviewed these changes and did not provide any comments or concerns regarding them. It would then be prudent to move forward with the process to adopt them. For too long there has been divisiveness between the City Manager role and the Council's role. The residents are the ones who have suffered from this lack of cooperation. Many decisions throughout the years have been made without resident input or prior council knowledge because of the authority (or lack thereof) and if this continues with the new city manager, I am afraid there will be many residents who have little or no faith in our local government, which will only invite further scrutiny. We need more general oversight of our local government. Not because anything inappropriate going on at City Hall, but because we don't want anything to go on that will be perceived that way. In today's litigious environment filled with constant fraudulent and scandalous behavior of government representatives, we have been lucky. Unfortunately, things are not the same as they were when the city was incorporated 40 years ago. The level of trust we used to give to our local government to do the right thing has gone away. That sadly means more oversight today is required -it's like the kid in a classroom who ruins it for the whole class because of their bad behavior. We have been left with a broad brushstroke of bad governance nationwide and in California and we need to make sure RPV does not get caught up in it. Perception is reality for most people and the perception of City Hall isn't where it could be. These changes would be a great step in the right direction of openness and transparency. The Council's job is oversight of the City Manager, major operations and decisions regarding the City. Oversight means you question what is provided by staff, make sure you get ALL available options in any staff report, not just one or what staff wants to do because it's easier and you really don't get to just stamp ok on what is provided to you. You look at it, review and question it looking for errors, omissions, mistakes, alternatives. That is the definition of an oversight process. The council does not need to be involved in the day to day operations, but oversight of key positions, processes, projects and the City Manager is critical in making sure the residents and city all benefit from actions taken at the city and to instill and inspire trust. 1 3A- We have far too many things that need to be done in RPV to not get this right when we have the chance to update. Now is the opportunity to make the changes needed to bring more transparency and oversight to RPV. Every council member has claimed to want transparency in government, but the real question is are you willing to take the necessary actions to provide transparency for the city and its residents? Not just the words, but the actions to open up decisions at city hall. One way to gain public trust is to vote for change to the oversight structure. I would urge you to move forward with this item. Sincerely, Krista Johnson As a resident and HOA president From: Long, Thomas D. [mailto:tlong@nossaman.com] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 4:38 PM To: cc@rpy.com Cc: 'Carolynn Petru'; carlam@rpv.com Subject: Ju.ne 3rd Agenda Item for Proposed Restructuring of RPV's Government (Agenda Item No. 3A) Dear Councilrnembers, Thank you for your service to the public. I apologize in advance for the length of this e-mail. Your June 3rd agenda contains an item which proposes some significant changes to the form of the City's government that will depart from the concept that the council itself is a policy-making body much like a corporate board of directors and will render the council much more directly involved in day- to-day governance of the city. At a time when other cities have restrictions on councilmanic interference with the duties of city employees, the proposal suggests that RPV should go in the opposite direction. Before the city does so, I think there should be careful consideration. Specifically I am commenting on Mayor Duhovic's proposed amendments to Chapters 2.04 and 2.08 of the city's municipal code as set forth in his staff report for your June 3rd meeting. I arrange my comments to track the paragraphs of the code which are proposed to be amended. By copy of this to the acting city manager and the city clerk I request that these comments be included in late comments for your upcoming meeting. 2.04.001 and 2.04.005 It is worth remembering that RPV does not have a charter (as a result of a decisive vote of its citizens) and that therefore the basic structure of RPV's government is dictated by state law. The proposed amendments indicate that the council is all powerful except to the extent that it delegates responsibilities to others in 2.08. The council should consider both whether such an expansion of its power is permissible under state law and whether or not it is good policy. It is difficult for a body of 5 individuals to act as the chief executive officer of an entity rather than as a board of directors. The adoption of such an approach runs a risk of degenerating into chaos as individual 2 councilmembers each attempt to act as the chief executive officer of the city. These sections run counter to basic principles of city (and corporate) structure that the governing board is a policy-making body and day-to-day governance is left to full time professionals. 2.08.010. The proposed amendment to this section is designed to explicitly allow the council to consider factors other than professional qualifications in hiring city managers. This is a significant change in the philosophy of what the city manager's role should be. When combined with the proposed deletion of section 2.08.150 which limits termination of city managers (except for misconduct) during a 90 day period following the election of a new councilmember, it seems clear that the amendments will change the position of city manager of RPV from a professional position to a political one. This is reaffirmed by the proposed amendment deleting the limitation on hiring former councilmembers as city manager for one year present in current section 2.08.020. I agree that if this change is to be made, prospective city manager candidates should be advised of it. I am puzzled, however, as to why anyone would want to risk politicizing the city manager position. 2.08.0?0(C) The proposed amendments to this section will essentially place control of hiring and firing of exempt employees in the hands of the city council. Again, this is a significant departure from the concept that the council is a policy-making body. 2.08.0?0(J) This proposed amendment may result in the city council becoming involved in the resolution of day-to-day non-employee complaints. This is emblematic of the restructuring that will make the city council the day-to-day manager of many aspects of city governance. 2.08.080 The proposed amendment to this section is telling. As re-written the section essentially authorizes councilmanic interference. A Google search will reveal cities that have gone in the opposite direction by banning such interference (and I would also note limiting the amount of staff time individual councilmembers can consume and for what purpose without getting a majority of the council to approve-an issue which you should reconsider). 2.08.090 The proposed deletion of this section is puzzling. I would assume the council wants the departments to cooperate and staff to be able to consult the city attorney. If so, this section should not be deleted. 2.08.11 O The proposed amendment to this section essentially allows the mayor and one other member of the council to require that time be spent considering the removal of the city manager even if the majority of the council do not think a hearing is needed. I continue to believe that the council majority should control 3 the expenditure of city resources (and should answer to the public for the use of those resources). Normally governing bodies act by majority rule or even have super-majority requirements. Allowing a minority to dictate the expenditure of time and resources seems inappropriate. While I am sure that the proposed changes are well intentioned, they seem risky to me. This is the most sweeping proposal for restructuring the city's government I have seen in my 20 years of living here, including even the proposed charter. There has been little public discussion of these significant changes and why some think they are needed and what they are designed to achieve. I suspect others might share my concern that the proposed changes will politicize the city manager position and other positions on staff. There is a significant danger that the proposed changes will discourage staff from giving the council their best advice. The proposed changes also seem to increase the risk of cronyisrn. Changes in the basic structure of the city government should be carefully vetted and should enjoy a broad consensus before they are adopted. I say that having made the mistake myself of supporting a change that in many respects was less significant than what is proposed here (a city charter) without having taken sufficient steps to build public knowledge and seek a consensus. And we did a lot more to build public knowledge and a consensus on the proposed charter than has been done with these proposed changes. So don't repeat my mistake, show the greater wisdom you have by learning from the mistakes made before your time and tread carefully. Tom Long Rancho Palos Verdes 4 From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Members of the Council, sharon yarber <mo.mofyago@gmail.com> Monday, June 02, 2014 11:30 PM cc Tomorrow's agenda item 3(A) and Tom Long's commentary thereon I have read Mr. Long's comments and wish to address them in the same order as he set forth his comments: M.C. 2.04.001 and 2.04.005 -Mr. Long implies that had the City become a charter city under his proposed charter that we would not be governed by state law. Nothing could be further from the truth. The proposed charter expre$sly stated that the form of City government would be council/manager form, and that meant that had the charter passed we would have been under the identical form of government under which we now, as a general law city, operate per state law. Next, he questions whether under state law the Council is permitted to expand its powers yet he cites no authority for the proposition that these proposed revisions would result in an impermissble expansion of council power under state law. Why does he fail to cite authority for his "fear"? Because there is no authority and his fears are unfounded. Query -would our City Attorney have assisted in drafting these revisions if she felt they were clearly not permitted under state law? Of course not -she would have advised the Mayor that his efforts could not be presented for approval. Mr. Long is wrong. I also believe that his fears that the City will have 5 folks running around attempting to act as the CEO are unfounded. The Council has to act via majority and I think that is clearly set forth in the tenor and express language of the remaining provisions of the code, even as modified. M.C. 2.08.010 -Mr. Long apparently believes that the sole bases upon which a person should be selected as City Manager rest on his or her professional qualifications and demonstrated administrative abilities. While I agree that those are important qualities, one's ability to work with the residents, staff and council are also qualities that should be considered. I do agree with Mr. Long that care needs to be exercised to assure that the position does not become a political one. 2.08.030 - I agree with Mr. Long that this provision should not be deleted (he inaccurately referred to new provision 2.08.020, which is not, in my view, objectionable in any way). 2.08.150 - I disagree with Mr. Long, and this provision is appropriately revised. Anyone who runs for and is elected to office is likely one who has observed the City Manager for a significant period of time and should not be required to further observe the performance of a poorly performing, incompetent or ineffective City Manager before being permitted to remove him or her. In what other arena is a Board of Directors prohibitted from removing the CEO because a new member or members of the Board have not served on the Board for at least 90 days? If Mr. Long wants to draw the Board/CEO analogy then let him apply real life in the business world to the business of the City. 2.08.070(C) -does not place control over these employees in the hands of the Council -rather it gives the Council, at its pleasure (by majority vote), the ability and right to ratify a decision made by a CM. This does not offend me and does not portend a wholesale takeover by Council of the CM's job. The members of the Council are too busy to interfere with each and every employment decision; however, they should have the ability to reject a decision made by a CM whose decision may end up being bad and the grounds for termination "for cause", except for the fact that it will be too late to terminate him or her because they are already "gone". Had Ms. Lehr, during her lame duck period, not undertaken to hire a new Director of Public Works, which was egregious under the circumstances of her impending departure, this provision would likely not have been added. Having learned how much a CM who is on the way out the door can make a major decision that will affect the City for years to come following that departure, it was incumbent on the Council to make sure this kind of thing does not happen again. Please retain it. 1 2.08.070 (J) -again Mr. Long's concerns that Council may end up involved in matters with which he thinks they ought not is not a problem. Again, it is at the discretion of a majority of the Council to get involved. The fact the Council MAY become involved does not mean that it will become involved in micro-managing the CM. 2.08.080 - I fail to understand Mr. Long's concerns. The revision makes it clear no one Council member can commandeer the staff or make demands, but the Council, as a whole, can interfere if necessary (meaning the CM is failing in his or her responsibilities). The CM is NOT the elected official representing the residents. The Council members are, and if a majority believe that intervention is appropriate then they have a duty to the residents to intervene. 2.08.090 - I agree with Mr. Long that there is no reason for this section of the Code to be deleted. 2.08.110 -as an American that staunchly supports the right of the majority to rule, I am aware that at times the majority needs to be approached by the minority to be sure that the minority's views have been considered before final decisions are made. This provision allows either (i) the mayor and one other council member, or (ii) a majority of the council to conduct a hearing about the CM's performance. The meeting does NOT expend city resources, rather the time resources of the Council members, in determining whether to hear what the minority or majority wants to discuss and the majority can dispense with the hearing as quickly or slowly as they deems necessary. I do agree that care needs to be exercised when considering making these types of changes, and perhaps a bit of additional wordsmithing is approriate, but overall I think the job done is commendable and in keeping with the responsibilities of the elected officials to be more than mere puppets of an unelected CM. Our recent experience has taught us that greater oversight by the electeds is necessary and the fact that we are on the cusp of hiring a new CM makes this the opportune time to make long needed revisions to our MC to clarify the roles of Council and the CM before a new CM is hired. It is only fair to him or her to have a clear understanding of what is expected prior to taking the position, rather then being hired and then finding himself or herself in for a big surprise (which also potentially exposes the City to liability). Sincerely, Sharon Yarber 2 •~-"-~--~--'------------------------------------------------------------------From: Sent: To: Subject: Bill Patton <bpatton@gores.com> Tuesday, June 03, 2014 9:13 AM cc MC 2.04 & MC 2.05. Please consider this email in support of amending MC 2.04 & MC 2.05. Thanks, Bill & Sandy Bill & Sandy Patton 71 Marguerite dr RPV, CA 90275 'William <13. <Patton Cliairman et (P,0 <JJi.e Pour Star (jroup (310) 480 5130 william.patton@thefourstargroup.com www.t~fourstargroup.com 1 3A From: Sent: Long, Thomas D.<tlong@nossaman.com> Tuesday, June 03, 2014 9:29 AM To: cc Subject: FW: Tomorrow's agenda item 3(A) and Tom Long's commentary thereon The comments below depart from what I actually said and what is actually being proposed. I suggest each of you look at the proposed amendments closely and think what the purpose is. This is not a debate about the city charter. The city is always subject to state law-but more so as a general law city. Some of the changes being proposed appear incompatible with a council-manager form of government. It is not surprising that some residents who distrust our government and staff and who in the past have sought special treatment for themselves would favor the proposed amendments. As Steve Wolowicz has pointed out, going in this direction is the opposite of transparency. Whether the changes are legal or not is not the only issue. The issue is the kind of behavior the changes will encourage. Councilmanic interference is an issue of degree. Please read the report Steve W. sent you from the City of Mountain View's manager. You should think long and hard about what is being proposed and why. And also ponder who is supporting the proposed changes and what their motives are. Ms. Yarber's treatment of city staff in the past has been inappropriate and unprofessional. It is a sad comment on the city if we look to her to set the standards as to how staff is to be treated. Surely the character of our council is better than that. Thomas D. Long Attorney at Law NOSSAMAN LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 34th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 tlong@nossaman.com T 213.612.7800 F 213.612.7801 D 213.612.7871 M 213.718.4484 NQSSAMAN! ur I ;~s~~~=~~c~~o E-ALERTS PLEASE NOTE: The information in this e-mail message is confidential. It may also be attorney-client privileged and/or protected from disclosure as attorney work product. If you have received this e-mail message in error or are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, nor disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in it. Please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you. From: Councilwoman Susan Brooks [mailto:subrooks08@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 11:39 PM To: Long, Thomas D. Subject: Fwd: Tomorrow's agenda item 3(A) and Tom Long's commentary thereon ----------Forwarded message ---------- From: sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11 :30 PM Subject: Tomorrow's agenda item 3(A) and Tom Long's commentary thereon To: "cc@rpv.com" <cc@rpv.com> 1 Dear Members of the Council, I have read Mr. Long's comments and wish to address them in the same order as he set forth his comments: M.C. 2.04.001 and 2.04.005 -Mr. Long implies that had the City become a charter city under his proposed charter that we would not be governed by state law. Nothing could be further from the truth. The proposed charter expressly stated that the form of City government would be council/manager form, and that meant that had the charter passed we would have been under the identical form of government under which we now, as a general law city, operate per state law. Next, he questions whether under state law the Council is permitted to expand its powers yet he cites no authority for the proposition that these proposed revisions would result in an impermissble expansion of council power under state law. Why does he fail to cite authority for his "fear"? Because there is no authority and his fears are unfounded. Query -would our City Attorney have assisted in drafting these revisions if she felt they were clearly not permitted under state law? Of course not -she would have advised the Mayor that his efforts could not be presented for approval. Mr. Long is wrong. I also believe that his fears that the City will have 5 folks running around attempting to act as the CEO are unfounded. The Council has to act via majority and I think that is clearly set forth in the tenor and express language of the remaining provisions of the code, even as modified. M.C. 2.08.010 -Mr. Long apparently believes that the sole bases upon which a person should be selected as City Manager rest on his or her professional qualifications and demonstrated administrative abilities. While I agree that those are important qualities, one's ability to work with the residents, staff and council are also qualities that should be considered. I do agree with Mr. Long that care needs to be exercised to assure that the position does not become a political one. 2.08.030 - I agree with Mr. Long that this provision should not be deleted (he inaccurately referred to new provision 2.08.020, which is not, in my view, objectionable in any way). 2.08.150 - I disagree with Mr. Long, and this provision is appropriately revised. Anyone who runs for and is elected to office is likely one who has observed the City Manager for a significant period oftime and should not be required to further observe the performance of a poorly performing, incompetent or ineffective City Manager before being permitted to remove him or her. In what other arena is a Board of Directors prohibitted from removing the CEO because a new member or members of the Board have not served on the Board for at least 90 days? If Mr. Long wants to draw the Board/CEO analogy then let him apply real life in the business world to the business of the City. 2.08.070(C) -does not place control over these employees in the hands of the Council -rather it gives the Council, at its pleasure (by majority vote), the ability and right to ratify a decision made by a CM. This does not offend me and does not portend a wholesale takeover by Council of the CM's job. The members of the Council are too busy to interfere with each and every employment decision; however, they should have the ability to reject a decision made by a CM whose decision may end up being bad and the grounds for termination "for cause", except for the fact that it will be too late to terminate him or her because they are already "gone". Had Ms. Lehr, during her lame duck period, not undertaken to hire a new Director of Public Works, which was egregious under the circumstances of her impending departure, this provision would likely not have been added. Having learned how much a CM who is on the way out the door can make a major decision that will affect the City for years to come following that departure, it was incumbent on the Council to make sure this kind of thing does not happen again. Please retain it. 2.08.070 (J) -again Mr. Long's concerns that Council may end up involved in matters with which he thinks they ought not is not a problem. Again, it is at the discretion of a majority of the Council to get involved. The fact the Council MAY become involved does not mean that it will become involved in micro-managing the CM. 2.08.080 - I fail to understand Mr. Long's concerns. The revision makes it clear no one Council member can commandeer the staff or make demands, but the Council, as a whole, can interfere if necessary (meaning the CM is failing in his or her responsibilities). The CM is NOT the elected official representing the residents. The Council members are, and if a majority believe that intervention is appropriate then they have a duty to the residents to intervene. 2.08.090 - I agree with Mr. Long that there is no reason for this section of the Code to be deleted. 2 2.08.110 -as an American that staunchly supports the right of the majority to rule, I am aware that at times the majority needs to be approached by the minority to be sure that the minority's views have been considered before final decisions are made. This provision allows either (i) the mayor and one other council member, or (ii) a majority of the council to conduct a hearing about the CM's performance. The meeting does NOT expend city resources, rather the time resources of the Council members, in determining whether to hear what the minority or majority wants to discuss and the majority can dispense with the hearing as quickly or slowly as they deems necessary. I do agree that care needs to be exercised when considering making these types of changes, and perhaps a bit of additional wordsmithing is approriate, but overall I think the job done is commendable and in keeping with the responsibilities of the elected officials to be more than mere puppets of an unelected CM. Our recent experience has taught us that greater oversight by the electeds is necessary and the fact that we are on the cusp of hiring a new CM makes this the opportune time to make long needed revisions to our MC to clarify the roles of Council and the CM before a new CM is hired. It is only fair to him or her to have a clear understanding of what is expected prior to taking the position, rather then being hired and then finding himself or herself in for a big surprise (which also potentially exposes the City to liability). Sincerely, Sharon Yarber Brooks, Councilwoman Rancho Palos Verdes, CA l310\ 541-2971 home G = .. =,,.._, ______ _ Susan Brooks, Councilwoman Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 1310) 541-2971 home G = .. ~..,------- 3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Susan GW <nasus-gw@sbcglobal.net> Tuesday, June 03, 2014 10:58 AM cc mickeyrodich@gmail.com PVP Watch Meeting This email is to advise you that Mickey Rodich has obtained the full support of the Ladera Linda HOA for the proposed changes to the 2.04 -2.08 Muni Code Amendments (6-3-14). Susan Wilcox President, LLHOA 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Steve Wolowicz <swolowicz123@gmail.com> Tuesday, June 03, 2014 8:12 AM CityClerk; CC City Council meeting 6-3-14 agenda item 3A opposition to changes code 2.04 and 2.08 6-3-14.doc; EXAMPLES MUNI CODE PROHIBITION AGAINST COUNCILMANIC INTERFERENCE.doc; SCU Relationships Between Elected Officials and Staff.mht; k. duggan report.pdf To the City Clerk and Members of the City Council: Attached is my letter along with the related information regarding Agenda item #3A for the meeting this evening. Regards, Steve Wolowicz 1 3A June 3, 2014 STEFAN WOLOWICZ Email address: swolowicz123@gmail.com Phone 310-377-7249 Email delivery Members of the City Council Rancho Palos Verdes Re: City Council Meeting June 3, 2014 Agenda item 3A Honorable Mayor and Council Members: This is to state my firm opposition to the proposed "edits to Municipal Code Chapters 2.04 and 2.08" and request the City Council reject the proposed ordinance for the following reasons: 1. Proposed Section 2.04.001 gives a chilling insight as to the extent of distrust aimed at future City Managers and all other City employees. Other than used as a scare tactic for the city manager there is no sound purpose for that sentence. 2. The proposed change to section 2.08.010 eviscerates the stated requirements and qualifications that a City Manager must be professionally qualified. This proposed change reduces the City Manager's position to that of a political appointee, could result in cronyism, and will badly damage much needed transparency. Residents will not know the standards that are to be applied to the hiring of the City Manager. 3. Elimination of section 2.08.030 will allow a sitting city councilmember to immediately be appointed to the office of the City Manager. This change combined with eliminating the stated job requirements for a city manager along with the reduced "firing period" will create an opportunity for a city council to fire and then immediately appoint a counci'lmember to the manager's position. Furthermore the changes proposed to section 2.08.160 would even permit the "hired" city councilmember, (now city manager) to continue in their outside employment. All of these proposals are wrong. 4. By eliminating virtually all of the first sentence in section 2.08.070 along with most of the other changes in this section will create a needlessly complex set of rules that will be sure to damage internal understandings, impede progress and delay effective administrative leadership. 5. The additions to section 2.08.070 are truly unclear and border on the issue of councilmanic interference. The City Manager should report to the entire City Council and not be diverted by requests and demands of individual Council Members. Page 1of3 STEFAN WOLOWICZ Email address: swolowicz123@gmail.com Phone 310-377-7249 6. The changes in section 2.08.080 are likely to have a tremendous negative impact on the City's long-standing administrative structure. Adding the word "generally" in the first sentence appears to create enormous ambiguities in the responsibilities of the city Manager. 7. It is wrong to remove the sentence "The city manager shall take his orders and instructions from the city council only sitting in a duly convened meeting of the city council and no individual councilmember shall give any orders to the city manager." This is a cornerstone issue of the City's form of municipal government that virtually all of the powers inherent within the council are present only when the council is in a formally convened meeting. 8. Section 2.08.070, paragraph (C) the added last sentence is difficult to follow. However it appears that it is proposed that the Council will be given the authority to hire or not-hire "exempt" employees. This proposal will create a tremendous problem whereby Department Heads are to be selected or demoted by council members and therefore these employees will not truly be accountable to the professional city manager. 9. The change in section 2.08.080, last sentence added, is both sad and frightening. The proposed change is not necessary and nothing is gained by threatening the city manager with "any lawful action" in the municipal code. 10. The proposed change in the last sentence in section 2.08.110 from ninety to twenty days appears to be based upon unexplained experiences. Such changes in personnel policies should be done with legal advice. 11. The proposed changes in section 2.08.080 (J) will wrongly create an administrative system whereby daily operations are subject to direct intervention by individual council members and opens the door for illegal councilmanic interference. Most of these. proposed changes are the antithesis of creating transparency, of improving controls and of maintaining the careful due process that is so important in this post-Bell era. Furthermore, the proposed changes raise concerns as to the existence of a hidden agenda to eliminate the current balance in this City's existing operating and managerial structure that has served the City well since its incorporation. Sadly, the potential for councilmanic interference has now been inferred with the proposed changes. Given the extensive proposal to weaken section 2.08.080 and to preclude exposing the City to the possibility of councilmanic interference in words or actions, I strongly suggest that the City Council reject all of these changes and preserve the existing provisions of the Municipal Code. Page 2 of 3 STEFAN WOLOWICZ Email address: swolowicz123@gmail.com Phone 310-377-7249 Accompanying this letter are ordinances prohibiting councilmanic interference adopted by the cities of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. To assist in the Council's familiarization with this issue also provided is a brief summary of the "Relationships Between Elected Officials and Staff" that appears on the website of Santa Clara University, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Also provided is a report on this topic written by Kevin Duggan the City Manager of Mountain View, California (copyrighted by the International City/County Management Association). Briefly that report details the court case of a city councilmember who was tried, convicted and removed from office for misconduct relating to councilmanic interference. These items of information may help to put this topic into prospective and motivate the Council to reject the proposed ordinance and thereby protect our city from such potential problems. Very truly yours, Stefan Wolowicz Page 3 of 3 CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA CALIFORNIA ~~~'. ... ~Q?. .. J.'..~~~.~.~!~i.~".1. .. ~9.~i".1.~~. 9-~.l.l~.C?.i.'.~.~~J~ ... i'.1~~.r.'.f~r~~.C?.~~ ........................................................... . Neither the City Council nor any of its members shall order or request the appointment of any person to an office or employment or his/her removal therefrom, by the City Manager, or by any of the department heads in the administrative service of the City. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the City Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service under the City Manager solely through the City Manager and neither the City Council nor any member shall give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately. Any City Council member violating the provisions of this section, or voting for a resolution or ordinance in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall cease to be a Council Member. (Amended by electors at an election held March 7, 2000, Charter Chapter 11 of the State Statutes of 2000) Councilmanic Interference: When a Councilmember Crosses the Line Of all the things I thought I would encounter in my career, testifying in front of a grand jury and then a superior court jury on the history and purpose of the council-manager form of government and on how a councilmember had violated it, was not one of them. This is the story of a city manager dealing with one of the most challenging professional experiences imaginable-reporting a councilmember for misconduct. Those of us who have chosen the profession of local government management recognize that establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with councilmembers can be among our most important and challenging responsibilities. However, I never anticipated that the issue of a councilmember's attempts to thwart the principles of the council-manager form would become one of the toughest episodes in my own professional life. Any of us who have been in this business for any length of time have encountered a few councilmembers who choose to "push the envelope" in influencing the administrative/management side of local government. Always, I have tried to avoid the politicization of basic local government services while understanding that councilmembers must be informed about and relate to some of the non policy aspects of governing. In most cases, we can find a reasonable balance. Evenwhen a councilmember clearly crosses over into the area of an inappropriate attempt to influence staffs administrative responsibilities, the issue can generally be resolved through the manager's diplomatic yet clear explanation of the problems being caused. Often, councilmembers do not fully understand the impact that they are having on staff and will commit themselves to taking a different approach once they do. I also believe that most of us in our profession pride ourselves on helping councilmembers succeed in their roles and "keeping them out of trouble" when necessary. This story is about what happened when the above-noted techniques did not work and a manager was faced with a tough choice between undesirable options. In this particular case, the impasse resulted in a decision by the city attorney and myself to report a councilmember's (the then-mayor's) misconduct to the district attorney. And this move eventually resulted in the councilmember's removal from office. A byproduct of the decision was an attempt by this councilmember and his attorney to put the management of the organization on trial, together with, effectively, the council-manager form of government. The Problem While issues concerning the councilmember's conduct came to a head early in his second four-year term, problems with his conduct manifested themselves earlier in his tenure. Understanding that Mountain View is in the middle of Silicon Valley but that the community's heritage is farming, it's helpful to know that the difficult councilmember came from a longtime local farming family, had longstanding ties to the community, and ran on the platform that he would be a "neighborhood cound.lmember." Though he had a rather direct interpersonal style, the first year or two of his first term were without major stumbling blocks. Then, a series of increasingly problematic behaviors brought the councilmanic interference issue to a peak during the latter part of his first term and the early part of his second term. Among the behavior patterns and actions that were problematic were: • Directly contacting staff at various levels of the organization suggesting, and sometimes demanding, that certain things be done or not done. • Displays of anger and temper directed at staff members at various levels of the organization. • Attempting to influence code enforcement activities on properties near his home, including some properties he wanted to buy for personal or family financial gain. • Communicating the clear expectation that he was entitled to rights and privileges above and apart from other residents because he was "a member of the city family." Among the incidents that got the most exposure in the press, once the grand jury had issued "accusations" in this case, were these: • A demand that the police chief be fired for not giving him advance warning of a search warrant to be served on his home as part of a criminal investigation of a family member. • An order to code enforcement staff to pursue action against a neighboring property owner whose property he wished to acquire. • Refusal to pay for the replacement of a fire hydrant destroyed by a family member, and outrage displayed when he was billed for the damage. • Numerous questionable city-charged expenses, including the purchase of a $700 tuxedo. • A confrontation with the building official, in which the councilmember demanded that a multimillion-dollar, private construction project be shut down immediately because he thought the construction crane being used was unsafe and that the developer was too influential in the community. As if the actions described above were not enough, the incidents that brought the interference issue to a crisis were his demands that staff block the development of a property he wished to acquire, immediately adjacent to property already owned by his family. He made it clear that he would see to it that both the planning director and I would be fired if the project were not blocked. The conclusion that the situation was hopeless came when he asked me into his of~ce one afternoon (while serving his one-year term as mayor) and told me that conditions needed to be placed on the development of the property in question. His aims were to discourage the current owner from proceeding, to lower the value of the property, and to increase the likelihood that the property owner would be willing to sell to him! Interestingly enough, this meeting took place just four hours before my annual council performance evaluation. The implication was clear: how I responded to his demands would influence his approach to my performance evaluation. Investigation and Trial Throughout the period of this conduct, both the city attorney and I met individually with this councilmember many times in attempts to correct and modify his behavior. At first, we hoped that our efforts to inform him of the problems and likely consequences of his conduct were succeeding. In one case, when his belligerence had been directed at another council employee-the city clerk-the council was informed of his conduct and intervened to prevent a recurrence. I even used my closed-session performance evaluation meetings as opportunities to express to the council the increasing need I felt to take action over the improper conduct of a councilmember because of the impact his behavior was having on my ability to carry out my responsibilities. My goals were to modify the behavior and specifically to protect staff from his attempts to influence their work through confidential, one-on-one meetings. (I recognized the damage that would accrue to the city, the council, and the staff if the matters discussed in the private meetings had to be dealt with publicly.) When it became apparent that his inappropriate behavior was escalating, that it had crossed legal lines, and that staff could not be shielded from his conduct, the city attorney and I concurred in a decision to report the conduct to an appropriate authority, regardless of the consequences. While we understood that it was not our role to determine what should be the outcome of any investigation, we felt we were obligated to disclose that the conduct was occurring. The city attorney and I anticipated that the day might come when we could not adequately mitigate this conduct. We believed our recourse would likely be to report the conduct to the rest of the council. Because the conduct had become so severe and the legal implications so serious, however, we decided that referring the matter to the district attorney was an option that needed to be considered. One of the drawbacks of referring the matter to the council was that this move would require that accusations be made public prior to an independent investigation. Because of the "sunshine" laws in California, the council would have to consider the allegations in open session. Additionally, any such investigation begun by the council would likely have been seen as politically motivated by this councilmember and his supporters. After consulting with two other councilmembers and the vice mayor (because the councilmember in question was mayor), we decided that the city attorney would consult with the district attorney of Santa Clara County. Each councilmember, including the mayor, was notified of this referral. Based on his independent review of the facts, the district attorney chose to investigate the matter. Surprisingly, during the five-month investigation, this activity did not leak to the press. Needless to say, we found it extremely awkward working with the mayor during this period; also, many city employees had to be interviewed by a district-attorney investigator as part of the probe. While the district attorney considered filing criminal charges on a number of counts, he finally determined to charge the mayor under a little-known and rarely used provision of California state law that provides for the removal from office of an elected official for misconduct. This procedure requires that a grand jury find sufficient basis for "accusations" to be filed against the elected official, then for a superior court jury to find the elected official guilty on the same standard of proof as required for a criminal conviction (unanimous agreement "beyond a reasonable doubt"). What followed were the closed grand jury proceedings, which involved the testimony of several city employees. In my case, testimony included an extensive explanation of the council-manager form of government and its adoption in the city charter. One month later, the grand jury issued its "accusations" against the mayor for corruption and willful misconduct. The grand jury transcript also was released, detailing all the instances of misconduct. Next came a media frenzy that covered the entire San Francisco Bay area. Living through this media blitz and being personally featured in the coverage were unpleasant experiences for me and for other staff members. Anticipating the action of the grand jury, the mayor already had hired one of the most high-powered defense attorneys in Santa Clara County, who immediately began his media campaign to question the motivation of the mayor's chief accusers, namely, the city attorney and myself. The mayor also had used the period of the investigation to prepare his key supporters to take the offensive. The "spin" was that the city manager and city attorney were out to "get" the mayor for a variety of reasons, ranging from our desire to control city government to our fear for our jobs, as he claimed that he had been critical of our performance. However, no such criticism was ever evident to us, either within or outside the context of our annual performance evaluations. Of particular note was the premise of the defense attorney that, since council- manager government did not allow this councilmember to directly intervene in the organization on behalf of his constituents, he could simply ignore the city charter and its council-manager provisions in order to address citizen . . concerns. This attorney also suggested that, since some communication and contact with city staff are permitted, primarily to respond to routine inquiries, there had been no clear demarcation line to determine "councilmanic interference." Meanwhile, the mayor was able to pack one council meeting with supporters who made it clear that they felt he was being unjustly prosecuted. For the first time in my career, I had members of the public saying the city attorney and I should resign for overreacting to the mayor's behavior. Not only was it evident that the mayor was not going to resign, but also that he was going to fight the charges vigorously and accuse his accusers in the process. For a manager who prefers a low-profile approach to city management, this was quite a turn of events. What ensued was four months of media coverage leading up to the public trial. Having my own integrity and job security challenged in the media by the mayor's attorney and supporters was to me particularly frustrating. The councillor's (through the normal rotation process, he was again a councilmember at the time of the trial) legal defense strategy was to put his accusers on trial. During the lead-up to the trial, it was important to me that the matter not become too great a distraction from the organization, or a significant impediment to the work of the city. I needed to avoid appearing distracted and preoccupied if city staff were to continue to function effectively. Also, the city attorney and I had to deal with the anxiety of staff members who were subpoenaed to testify at the trial. The trial started off on a less-than-positive note, with the district attorney needing to drop three of the four accusations (counts) brought against the councilmember relating to the property conflict of interest. Bizarrely, it was determined that the defendant did not "technically" have a conflict of interest relating to his family's property (even though he and his family lived there) because it was held in trust by his father. The lone remaining count was violating the city charter by interfering with the responsibilities of the city manager. Therefore, in actuality, the council- manager form of government, and how it functioned in Mountain View, were put on trial. Testimony stretched out for more than two weeks and was covered daily in the media. To say that this was a stressful period is an understatement. Testifying on the history and purpose of C-M government was certainly one of my most interesting professional experiences. The case clearly became a testing ground for the principles and values inherent in the form. Specifically, it was a testing ground for our professional obligation to shield city staff from political interference and demands for special treatment by an elected official. The defense attorney attempted to make the case that any councilmember contact with city staff that was condoned by the city manager "opened the gates" for his client's conduct. More personally, I had the unique experience of being cross-examined about confidential memos I had submitted to the council during my own annual performance evaluation. Also, to counter misinformation from the defense, I took the unusual step of giving the district attorney my most recent performance evaluation to present to the jury! At the conclusion of the testimony, the wait for the verdict began. After almost four days of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of "guilty of misconduct in office." Newspaper editorials called the verdict a "victory for honest government" and suggested that this councilmember was lucky not to have been criminally prosecuted. Ironically, the main reason he was not being prosecuted in this way was his lack of success in getting city staff to do what he wanted. So, in effect, we had saved him from being more legally liable than he would otherwise have been. Some of his political supporters continued to defend the councilmember, claiming he had been convicted only on a "technicality." In a further attempt to make public relations points, the councilmember resigned one day before the superior court judge was scheduled to sign the removal-from-office order. The judge, however, refused to acknowledge the resignation as sufficient and issued the removal order anyway. Lessons Learned For both the city attorney and myself, opting to publicly accuse a mayor/ councilmember of misconduct was one of the hardest decisions of our professional lives. In advance, we knew that this course of action would be difficult and professionally risky. On the one hand, we felt we had no other choice consistent with our professional ethics, but, on the other hand, we realized that the consequences of our action were likely to be significant for the community and for ourselves. While this move was difficult to make, we concluded that we had to act. Although we as individuals were willing to put up with this councilmember's threats and attempts at intimidation as long as we could block his efforts, when it ultimately became evident that we could no longer fulfill our obligations to the council, staff, city charter, and community without disclosing his behavior, the appropriate course of action became inescapable (regardless of any personal consequences). We saw clearly that the staff could no longer be shielded from his conduct and that we must inform the council that one of its members was acting in a manner not consistent with their stated values, with the city charter, and, most likely, with state law. The most difficult aspect of these types of situations is determining when the problematic conduct has gotten to the point where there is no alternative besides public disclosure. Looking back on this experience, we would offer the following observations: • Recognize that it can be extremely difficult to determine when your personal intervention with a councilmember has not been sufficient to fulfill your professional and ethical obligations to your organization and community. • Don't underestimate the ability of a core group of supporters to rationalize the behavior of "their guy" and to take the offensive on his behalf. • Clearly understand at what point you must disclose illegal/unethical conduct, even though you may not play a role in determining the appropriate remedy for the conduct. • Appreciate that our ultimate responsibility as managers is not to individual councilmembers, but to the council as a whole and to the employees of the organization, the community, the ethics of our profession, and the laws governing the form of government in which we serve. • Understand that attempts to establish reasonable flexibility in setting administrative/policy boundaries can later be attacked as removing all such distinctions. • Appreciate that the value of having a strong working relationship with your city attorney cannot be minimized. • Develop a mature understanding that doing what is right will often not be easy, may subject you to personal attack, and may have negative personal and/ or professional consequences. • Recognize that, although they probably won't be as vocal as your critics, many members of your community will have increased confidence in you and in the organization for your willingness to confront unethical behavior. • Realize that acting ethically will result in a confirmation to your 9rganization's employees of your willingness to "walk the talk" in regard to principled conduct. Conclusion Fundamental to our service to our communities and our professional values is the need to consider thoughtfully when we as managers are morally, ethically, and/ or legally required to confront misconduct. While our primary goal should be to educate those we work with to prevent misconduct, this priority does not absolve us of an obligation to take more drastic action if we are unsuccessful in preventing it. Our greatest risk is the potential to rationalize that we don't really need to take action when confronted with the negative consequences of doing so. We need to reflect seriously and carefully on this point if we are to be prepared to act. As we have heard over and over recently in relation to corporate and organizational scandals, the leaders of organizations should be held accountable to answering three questions when illegality or corruption is exposed: 1. What did you know? 2. When did you know it? 3. What did you do about it? If we are to strive to be leaders of ethical organizations, we must be prepared to respond to these questions. As difficult as my experience was, it meant a chance for our organization to prove its commitment to the values we espouse. And, to say the least, it furnished some unusual and unexpected forums in which to explain the structure and value of the council-manager form of government. Kevin Duggan is city manager, Mountain View, California. Copyright© 2002 by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) From: Sent: Subject: Attachments: Search» [ ][Search»] • Ethics Home Page • About the Center • Focus Areas 0 Bioethics 0 Business Ethics 0 Camnus Ethics Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 8 Monday, June 02, 2014 5:10 PM Relationships Between Elected Officials and Staff A TTOOOll.css; A TT00012.css; A TT00013.css; A TT00014.css; A TTOOOlS.css; A TT00016.css; A TT00018.bin; A TT00019.bin 0 Character Education 0 Government Ethics 0 Internet Ethics 0 More ... • Publications o Ethics Articles o Ethics Cases o Ethical Decision Making o Videos o Ethics Blogs o Podcasts o E-letter/Subscribe • Events • Contact Us • Site Index • Relationships Between Elected Officials and Staff These materials were prepared for the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics program in Government Ethics by Senior Fellow Judy Nadler and Communications Director Miriam Schulman. The Center provides training in local government ethics for public officials. For more information, contact Judv Nadler. What is the relationshi.Q between elected officials and staff? What do these relationshins have to do with ethics? 1 What ethical dilemmas arise between elected officials and staff? Resources on relationships between elected officials and staff What is the relationship between elected officials and staff? City councilmembers, county supervisors, and other elected officials represent the citizens. Staff-such as traffic engineers, waste management specialists, budget directors, IT professionals and others-are the experts who make government run. Elected officials are responsible for setting the priorities for the municipality or other district; staff have the know-how to make those priorities into realities. The fact that the professional staff, unlike many elected officials, are not subject to term limits means that they have an institutional history, which is very beneficial in developing the concrete plans to put policy decisions into practice. They also often have advanced degrees in management, engineering, finance, and other technical areas, a knowledge base they can bring to bear in devising solutions to local problems. In many municipalities, city councilmembers are elected by wards or districts. Once invested in office, they are supposed to serve the entire city, but often they feel a special responsibility to the constituents who elected them. By contrast, ·staff are mandated to serve the needs of the municipality as a whole. In a council-manager form of government, staff report to the city manager. In a strong mayor system, staff answers to the mayor. In either case, when council makes policy decisions, it is the role of the manager or mayor to see that they are carried out by the staff. City council has no role in staff personnel issues; they hire and fire only the city attorney and city manager. As the Institute for Local Self Government explains in Everyday Ethics for Local Officials, "The manager [holds] staff accountable on the council's behalf for implementing the council's policies and directives. The entire council, in tum, holds the manager accountable for staffs overall performance." What do these relationships have to do with ethics? Many of the ethical issues that come up between elected officials and staff are best seen through the lens of virtue ethics, especially the virtue of respect. Elected officials need to show respect for the expertise of staff and avoid undercutting their efforts by ignoring the evidence-based solutions they propose. Conversely, staff need to respect the political give and take inherent in democratic government and the negotiation that is bound to be part of any council decision. These relationships also raise ethical issues when elected officials try to circumvent established procedures and priorities to gain an advantage for their friends, family, or constituents. Going over the head of the city manager to pressure a staff member for special consideration is actually illegal. As an example, here is a section from the code of the city of Sunnyvale, California, about what is called "councilmanic interference": Neither the City Council nor any member shall give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately. Typically, elected officials may make inquiries or exchange information, but they cannot issue directives. What ethical dilemmas arise between elected officials and staff? Many newly elected officials have an imperfect understanding of the division of labor between council and staff; they may act as though staff work for them as individuals and should be responsive to their individual priorities and the needs of their specific constituents. If a councilmember ran on a platform of clean streets, for example, he or she may believe that the proper course of action once elected is to meet directly with the 2 sanitation director and encourage prompt action. But the councilmember must work through the democratic process with other councilmembers to make clean streets a priority across the city. That priority would then be conveyed to the city manager, to whom the sanitation director reports. Another set of ethical dilemmas arises when council sets priorities but then ignores them. In a public meeting the council may agree on the top five goals for the year-like renovate central park, draw up plans for a teen center, etc.-but during course of the year, individual councilmembers come up with separate projects and introduce them without regard to what the majority of the council decided. This puts a lot of pressure on city staff, when they have been given their marching orders on the top priorities, and they are now being diverted from accomplishing them. Sometimes elected officials have their own staffs, and may ask their own transportation or sanitation expert to study a problem and make proposals. When the elected officials either on their own or though council or mayoral staff conduct their own research, they are not only duplicating the work of the technical staff and therefore wasting time and money, but they are also undercutting the authority and marginalizing the recommendations of the professional staff, who work for the entire city and not for any individual elected official. It is also demoralizing to staff when they come up with a clear, technical report with an evidence-based proposal, which is then thrown out the window because there are 100 people in the audience or 100 names on a petition asking for something else. Traffic calming is a common area of contention, where, for example residents of a senior citizens housing complex may be agitating for a stoplight so that they can cross the street safely. But city staff may have evidence that a stoplight at that intersection will create more problems than it solves. John Nalbandian, who has studied public administration as a professor at University of Kansas and also served as a city commissioner, points out, however, that such problems do not necessarily have a right answer. "From the engineer's perspective," he writes, "I suspect that there is a right answer to the problem, and the engineer might ask, 'Will the council have the political courage to accept it?' But, as an elected official, I do not see the right answer. I see a very complicated set of forces and a problem infused with choices about values symbolized by a decision about a traffic light." Resources on Relationships Between Elected Officials and Staff Cases on Relationships Between Elected Officials and Staff The Mayor and the Manager The Councilmember and the Manager All Cases on Government Ethics Articles About Government Ethics on This Web Site Articles About Ethical Decision Making on This Web Site Links to Other Sites About Relationships Between Elected Officials and Staff Introduction to Government Ethics Homepage 3 July 2006 ···'Printer-Friendly Page Return to Web format New Materials· • Spending on the Cloud Ethical ramifications of monetizing information • Our Growing Fiscal Addiction Do students care too much about money? • A Global Ethic Moving from principles to action Center News • Levy Ethics Challenge Help the Ethics Center meet our fundraising goal • Last Chance: Free Online Courses Business Ethics MOOCs open until June 30 • Ethics App A new pocket assistant for making ethical decisions • New Government Ethics Director The Center welcomes Hana Callaghan • More News » • Follow us on m lB n r.a • • Ethics Home • Campus Map • About the Center • Site Index The views expressed on this site are the author's. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics does not advocate particular positions but seeks to encourage dialogue on the ethical dimensions of current issues. The Center welcomes comments and alternative points of view. 4 • Contact Us • © 2014 Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 3ST. h HS1. 5 SUNNYVALE MUNICIPAL CODE Section 807. Prohibition Against Council manic Interference. Neither the City Council nor any of its members shall order or request directly or indirectly the appointment of any person to an office or employment or his/her removal therefrom, by the City Manager, or by any of the department heads in the administrative service of the City. Neither the City Council nor any member shall give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately. The City Council and its members shall deal with officers and employees in the administrative service under the jurisdiction of the City Manager solely through the City Manager except: (1) For a specific question from a member of the Council concerning a matter either pending before the Council or which the member intends to present to the Council, and which can be answered by furnishing routine information immediately available from the records of the officer or employee to whom it is directed, and which does not require the officer or employee either to discuss or express any opinion concerning any existing or proposed policy of the Council or the City Manager; or (2) In connection with an investigation into the affairs of the City or the conduct of any City department or office which the City Council by the affirmative vote of at least four of its members has undertaken. In order to conduct such an investigation, the Council may do any of the following: (a) Instruct or grant permission to any one or more of its members to discuss with an officer or employee any matters which the member or members to whom permission is granted or who are so instructed believe to be pertinent or relevant to the subject of the investigation; (b) Subpoena witnesses; ( c) Administer oaths; ( d) Take testimony; or ( e) Require the production of evidence. Any City Councilmember violating the provisions of this section, or voting for a resolution or ordinance in violation of this section, shall be guilty of wilful misconduct in office and shall be removed from office pursuant to procedures set forth under general law. (Amended effective July 8, 1968, December 31, 1975 and December 21, 1976) From: Sent: 11,_ _;_ Larry Clark <forelc@cox.net> Tuesday, June 03, 2014 2:30 PM To: Subject: CC; cityclerk@RPV.com; citymanager@RPV.com; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> Fw: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council June 3, 2014 Agenda Item 3A Importance: High June 3, 2014 Urgent Email delivery to Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re: City Council Meeting June 3, 2014 Agenda item 3A Honorable Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of the seven m retired former Rancho Palos Verdes Mayors identified below, this email letter is provided you to convey the complete and total opposition to the proposed "edits to Municipal Code Chapters 2.04 and 2.08" contained in agenda 3A Memorandum dated June 3,2014, from Mayor Duhovic, and importantly, request the City Council vote to reject all proposed ordinance changes at the conclusion of tonight's public hearing on this agenda item. These proposed changes would if enacted represent a drastic and fundamentally injurious change in the form of city government (City Council-City Manager) that has served our community extremely well over the 41 years of city incorporation. Further, the proposed changes raise substantial serious legal issues and the potential of future ethical issues and problems in the functioning of city government if enacted. It is noted that they have not be subject to Staff analysis nor to comprehensive legal review by the City Attorney. Moreover, these proposed changes would formally introduce to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes the extreme likelihood of 'Councilmatic' interference with the functioning of day-to-day city government in our community. Please refer to and review some of the detailed issues and problems with proposed Municipal Code Chapters 2.04 (City Council) and 2.08 (City Manager) proposed 'edits' contained in former Mayor Long's and Wolowicz's emails and letters of opposition dated June 1 and June 3 respectively. Finally, having served in elected leadership positions of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and it's community spanning all five (5) decades of incorporation, we respectively ask you to formally by voted action tonight reject all proposed changes to Municipal Code Chapters 2.04 (City Council) and 2.08 (City Manager). 1 Jlr Signed & Sent with consent of: Mayor (ret.) Ann Shaw Mayor (ret.) Jacki Bacharach Mayor (ret.) Douglas Hinchliffe Mayor (ret.) Melvin Hughes Mayor (ret.) Thomas Long Mayor (ret.) Stefan Wolowicz Mayor (ret.) Larry Clark 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Council members: Mark H. Meyerhoff <mmeyerhoff@lcwlegal.com> Tuesday, June 03, 2014 2:40 PM cc Dennis Mclean; Carolynn Petru Anonymous fraud, waste and abuse hotline Item 3B on tonight's agenda under regular business concerns implementation of an anonymous waste, fraud and abuse hotline. The agenda packet contains a memorandum from me starting at page 3B-11 that is labeled as confidential and attorney-client privileged. The memorandum does not contain any attorney-client privileged or confidential information and the designation of the document as attorney-client privileged and confidential was mistakenly left on the document by staff. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone This email message has been delivered safely and archived on line by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com 1 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Michael Throne Tuesday, June 03, 2014 11:56 AM cc Carolynn Petru; Carla Morreale; Nicole Jules CC Correspondence re PVDE Trees Dear Mayor Duhovi·c and members of the City Council: As you might be aware, the work to rehabilitate PVDE is underway. Part of the work involved in the project is the widening in some areas for the installation of roadway shoulders. In some locations, however, there is the need to remove existing vegetation including street trees to accommodate shoulders: The plans call for replacement of the removed trees with 36" box-size. Recently, Public Works has been meeting with residents and the neighborhood associations as part of our construction outreach program, and many people have expressed the desire to keep the trees and not follow through with the shoulder widening. The planned resurfacing, sidewalk and drainage improvements, signing and striping will remain as designed as those items do not impact the roadside trees. As the City Council approved the plans at the time of construction contract award, Public Works will be bringing to your next regularly scheduled meeting revised plans for your approval that will indicate the sections of PVDE where the shoulder will not be constructed. Thank you for your time and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact Deputy Director Jules or me. Regards, Michael Throne, PE Director of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275 310 544-5252 1 6. CfTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK JUNE 2, 2014 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached .are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, June 3, 2014 City Council meeting: Item No. E H 3A 4 6 Respectfully submitted, Description of Materials Emails from: Ronald H. Conrow Jr.; John Larson of Councilman Buscaino's Office Emails from: Bill Simpson; Sunshine; Response from City Clerk Morreale to Mayor Duhovic and Councilmembers Emails from: Tom Long; Sharon Yarber; Chip and Pat Zelt; Marsha and Ron Surina; Bob and Sandie Nelson; Bob Murray (Bob Murray and Associates); Ellen November Job Specifications -Council Liaison FY 13/14 Capital Improvements Program Update from Director Throne ~s~ Carla Morreale W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140603 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc May 23, 2014 Honorable Janice Hahn Member of Congress 44th District, California Washington, DC Office 404 Cannon House Office Building· Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congresswoman Hahn, City of Rancho Palos Veraee MAY 2 9 2014 ('' ... tty Manager's Office We are disturbed by the letter you wrote on May 20, 2014 to the· City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) Council in support of a resolution regarding the liquefied petroleum gas storage facility owned by Rancho LPG Holdings LLC in San Pedro, California. Consistent with past correspondence from your office, this letter contains several mischaracterizations and inaccuracies regarding the facility. Below are some specific areas of inaccuracies and/or mischaracterizations from your letter: • Proposed Resolution. As clearly stated in an e-mail from RPV Councilwoman Susan Brooks to your Legislative Director Justin Vogt dated May 21, 2014, it appears "vou were greatly misled to the intent of this matter". The RPV website posting for the May 20, 2014 Council meeting is clear that the matter was to be part of several issues for a Study Session and made no mention of a Resolution. For the record, the primary purpose of the Study Session is to provide an opportunity for the Council members to interact freely and informally, ask questions and discuss policy items that are listed on the agenda for that specific Study Session. The City Council will also provide direction to Staff regarding upcoming agenda items and tentative agendas, including prioritization of agenda items that are listed on the agenda for that specific study session. No action shall be taken· during any Study Session unless the agenda so provides. After almost two hours of discussion, the RPV Council voted to have RPV Mayor Jerry Duhovic meet with CD15 Councilman Joe Buscaino to assess the situation and report back to the Council. I was in attendance at this meeting and concur with Councilwoman Brook's statement that no resolution was proposed against the Rancho facility. • RPV Jurisdiction. As mentioned by Councilwoman Brooks, RPV is not part of the City of Los Angeles and thus has no jurisdiction over the Rancho Facility. Therefore, your request that RPV take the lead on the Rancho issue is puzzling given your long history regarding the Los Angeles political structure. Furthermore, the Rancho facility presents no threat to health, welfare, property, and safety of the citizens of RPV. As mentioned in our August 26, 2013 letter to you, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has vetted Rancho's "worst case" release scenario· contained in our Risk Management Plan (RMP) per federal regulation 40CFR68 as being "to the letter of the law". While it is not our intention to marginalize any potential offsite impacts, Rancho's EPA vetted "worst case" scenario of 0.5 miles at 1.0 psi overpressure to endpoint does not impact any part of RPV and has less potential 1 £. for damage than the "worst case" scenarios of other facilities Jn the immediate vicinity. Rancho's RMP is on file for public review at the LAFD/CUPA office in downtown Los Angeles. • EPA letter to Rancho. It is essential to understand that whilE! the EPA did issue the Rancho LPG facility a "show cause" letter in March 2013 and identified several issues in question. The issues brought forward by the EPA are not categorized as violations. but as merely allegations requiring additional information from the company before a final determination is made. While it is Rancho's ambition to have no issues with any regulatory agency, it is important to note the allegations are "civil administrative;" and no criminal, negligence, or judicial issues are under review by the EPA. By no means should Rancho LPG's willingness to address issues raised by the EPA be construed as an admission that we did not fulfill any regulatory obligation(s). Your statement that of the EPA's decision to sue Rancho for repeated violations is inconsistent with the content of the EPA "show cause" letter. While it is possible~ that Rancho could be fined by the EPA should some of the allegations become violations by consent, nowhere in the letter does the EPA threaten to sue Rancho! Finally, Rancho has not received any prior notifications of violations from any federal agency. Therefore, your comment that Rancho has incurred repeated violations from the EPA is inaccurate and is not supported by that federal regulatory agency. • Rancho Accountability to Agencies. In 1977, Governor Jerry Brown commissioned the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to lead a local and state multi-agency safety investigation on the Petrolane (Rancho) Facility to determine its potential safety hazard to the surrounding area. In September 1977, the CPUC issued a comprehensive report which clearly conveyed no findings indicating the facility was unsafe or should be shutdown. The 1977 CPUC Report is a matter of public record. In May 2011, the Los Angeles City Attorney commissioned a multi-agency strike force to conduct a comprehensive and unannounced inspection of the Rancho Facility. No violations were found by the strike force. Subsequent to the inspection, the City Attorney issued a letter dated September 22, 2011 to pro-bono attorney Anthony Patchett responding to San Pedro activist allegations against the facility. ln the letter, the City Attorney references the strike force inspection and states "the facility is in compliance based upon findings of this inspection". On October 4, 2011, the California State Attorney General issued a letter in support of the findings by the Los Angeles City Attorney office. Moreover, the State Attorney General declared, "the facility appears to have passed all Inspections and is complying with air, hazardous materials, fire, and health and safety requirements promulgated by local, state, and federal governments". Additionally, the State Attorney General stated, "there appear to be a number of safety measures at the facility to protect against a cataclysmic event" as portrayed by the activists. Finally, on February 14, 2014, the California State Fire Marshall (CSFM) Tonya Hoover responded to inquiries from California State Senator Ted Lieu concerning the safety of the Rancho tanks. The CSFM stated, "An Inspection of these systems was conducted by the CSFM in March 2012. No safety Issues or violations were found". The evidence is dear concerning agency oversight as well as Rancho's accountability and compliance with local, state, and federal facility regulations and laws. Sinct~ 2010, the Rancho facility has been inspected approximately 48-times by local, state, and federal regulators. Despite this number of inspections, Rancho's cooperation and compliance can be cor1firmed by the respective agencies. Therefore, your remarks concerning Rancho's lack of accountability to agencies and being a potential safety hazard are not supported by the facts. 2 Moving forward, it is important to note that Rancho will continui~ to cooperate with lawmakers and regulators to ensure the facility remains compliant and safe. We k>ok forward to working closely with Councilman Joe Buscaino in the implementation of his Public Safety Committee Motion to monitor and report on all hazardous facilities within CDlS and to make inspection information about these facilities readily available to the general public. Likewise, we support President Barack Obama's Executive Order 13650, entitled Improving Chemical facility Safety and Security whic:h directs the federal Government to improve operational coordination with state and local partners; improve Federal agency coordination and Information sharing; modernize policies, regulations, and standards; and work with stakeholders to identify best practices. Both of these measures are intended to improve chemical facility safety and to protect the public, which in turn safeguards the safety of our workforce. Rancho LPG and its International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 26 workforce take pride in its safety record. The facility has experienced no major incidents, releases or accidents in the facility's 39- year operating history. Rancho LPG maintains a robust program of mechanical integrity and inspection to ensure all vessels, tanks, piping and infrastructure is maintained in accordance with applicable regulations. Rancho LPG performs regular, planned maintenance at the facility to ensure all components remain in compliance with regulatory and company standards. Rancho is committed to being a strong business and ~oclal partner in the San Pedro community. Since Rancho purchased this facility in November 2008, it has endeavored to maintain an open, honest, and productive dialogue with the community. We remain committed to operating the facility in a prudent and responsible manner which safeguards our workforce and the community. We hope this information underscores the inaccuracies from the· May 20, 2014 correspondence. In recent months several key lawmakers including State Senator Ted Lieu, Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, and the District Director for Congressman Henry Waxman have taken the time to visit Rancho and discover the facts about the facility. Since Rancho acquired the facility in November 2008, we have made numerous offers for you to meet with us and tour the facility. While one staff member has visited the facility, we are disappointed that you have never toured the facility and yet continue to write unfavorable letters containing inaccurate information about Rancho. We encourage your staff to contact us prior to your next visit to San Pedro and request a tour to discover the facts about the facility first hand. Respectfully yours, ;e.~ Ronald H. Conrow Jr. Western District Manager Plains/Rancho LPG 19430 Beech Avenue Shafter, CA 93263 Office: 661-368-7917 cc: Congressman Jeff Denham Councilman Joe Buscaino Deputy LA Mayor Doane Liu Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Late Correspondence for Item E. Kit Pox, AICP Cih.J of Ra.11ch0Pa.los Verdes (310) 544-5226 kit£@rpv.com From: Carolynn Petru Kit Fox Monday, June 02, 2014 8:03 AM Teresa Takaoka FW: Tank Safety Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 6:07 PM To: Kit Fox Subject: FW: Tank Safety Hi Kit- FYI CP From: John Larson [mailto:john.larson@lacity.org] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 4:44 PM To: Jerry Duhovic; Carolynn Petru Subject: Tank Safety Dear Mr Mayor As noted during our brief conversation during the Memorial Day event at the Battleship IOWA, please note the following motions by Councilman Buscaino. Special Public Safety Committee and CLA Report CalARP Program Public Website As I mentioned, the website had its demo for industry this past Thursday. We expect it to be previewed for our Public Safety Committee on June 13. I will let you know the exact date once it is scheduled. In the meantime, if you have any questions on efforts we have taken to address residential concerns about storage tank safety, please let me know. Respectfully, E John Larson, MPS I Legislative Deputy I Councilman Joe Buscaino 15th Council District I City of Los Angeles I 213.473.7015 www.LA15th.com I Facebook I Twitter I YouTube 0 From: Sent: To: Subject: rc3dflyer@cox.net Friday, May 30, 2014 7:25 PM cc City Manager How about hiring from within? I think Caroline would make a great city manager. -Bill Simpson 1 H· Teresa Takaoka From: Sent: To: Sean Robinson Monday, June 02, 2014 2:26 PM Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: June 3, 2014 City Council Consent Calendar Item H. City Manager Recruitment - From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 1:30 PM To: jduhovic@hotmail.com; jim_knight@juno.com; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; mizie@cox.net; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net> Cc: Carolynn Petru; Sean Robinson; anndshaw@msn.com; cprotem73@verizon.net Subject: June 3, 2014 City Council Consent Calendar Item H. City Manager Recruitment - MEMO FROM: SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties. RE: June 3, 2014 City Council Consent Calendar Item H. City Manager Recruitment-Public Outreach Take a step back. You are being manipulated. The question is whether or not you like it. Our new City Manager needs to be willing to stand up for the best interests of the residents and property owners in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes jurisdiction. You did not vote for the following (in red). Now is your chance to step up and say what you think your constituents expect you to do with this community. I hope that means you will give us a fair chance at registering our positions. In May of2007, the City Council adopted a resolution endorsing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which urged the enactment of policies and programs to meet or exceed the target of reducing global warming pollution levels to 7% below 1990 levels (Kyoto Protocol) by 2012. As part of the City's effort to accomplish this goal, the City joined the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). The City works closely with the South Bay Environmental Services Center (SBESC) to accomplish reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, promote sustainable development and create plans that embody the City's efforts. Do note that you have approved an update to our "Housing Element" which is ICLEI boilerplate. You are being asked to use the Delphi Technique in order to convince your constituents that they have participated in the decision to pursue "sustainable development" in RPV. Personally, I think that will lead to changes in the goals and policies in our General Plan which are far away from what our Founding Fathers intended. 1 H. Do not approve Item H. Send Mr. Bob Murray back to his word processor to come up with an outreach approach which will not simply "rubber stamp" the ICLEI objectives. 2 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jerry, Carla Morreale Monday, June 02, 2014 11:16 AM Jerry Duhovic; Jerry Duhovic CC; Carolynn Petru Previous City Managers Per your request, please see the information below regarding the tenure of the three previous City Managers: Paul Bussey -6/18/1990 - 7 /1/1998 Les Evans -6/3/1998 -12/31/2006 Paul Bussey (Interim City Manager) -1/4/2007 -3/16/2007 Carolyn Lehr -3/12/.2007 -6/30/2014 I am copying the full Council, as this appears to be applicable to an item on tomorrow night's agenda -to keep everyone in the loop. Please do not reply all. Thank you, Carla Carla Morreale, CMC, City Clerk CfTYOF City Clerk's Office 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. RANCHO PALOS Vt:RDES Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Phone: (310) 544-5208 Fax: (310) 544-5291 1 ff. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Councilmembers, Long, Thomas D. <tlong@nossaman.com> Saturday, May 31, 2014 4:38 PM cc Carolynn Petru; Carla Morreale June 3rd Agenda Item for Proposed Restructuring of RPV's Government (Agenda Item No. 3A) Thank you for your service to the public. I apologize in advance for the length of this e- mail. Your June 3rd agenda contains an item which proposes some significant changes to the form of the City's government that will depart from the concept that the council itself is a policy-making body much like a corporate board of directors and will render the council much more directly involved in day-to-day governance of the city. At a time when other cities have restrictions on councilmanic interference with the duties of city employees, the proposal suggests that RPV should go in the opposite direction. Before the city does so, I think there should be careful consideration. Specifically I am commenting on Mayor Duhovic's proposed amendments to Chapters 2.04 and 2.08 of the city's municipal code as set forth in his staff report for your June 3rd meeting. I arrange my comments to track the paragraphs of the code which are proposed to be amended. By copy of this to the acting city manager and the city clerk I request that these comments be included in late comments for your upcoming meeting. · 2.04.001 and 2.04.005 It is worth remembering that RPV does not have a charter (as a result of a decisive vote of its citizens) and that therefore the basic structure of RPV's government is dictated by state law. The proposed amendments indicate that the council is all powerful except to the extent that it delegates responsibilities to others in 2.08. The council should consider both whether such an expansion of its power is permissible under state law and whether or not it is good policy. It is difficult for a body of 5 individuals to act as the chief executive officer of an entity rather than as a board of directors. The adoption of such an approach runs a risk of degenerating into chaos as individual councilmembers each attempt to act as the chief executive officer of the city. These sections run counter to basic principles of city (and corporate) structure that the governing board is a policy-making body and day-to-day governance is left to full time professionals. 2.08.010. The proposed amendment to this section is designed to explicitly allow the council to consider factors other than professional qualifications in hiring city managers. This is a significant change in the philosophy of what the city manager's role should be. When combined with the proposed deletion of section 2.08.150 which 1 limits termination of city managers (except for misconduct) during a 90 day period following the election of a new councilmember, it seems clear that the amendments will change the position of city manager of RPV from a professional position to a political one. This is reaffirmed by the proposed amendment deleting the limitation on hiring former councilmembers as city manager for one year present in current section 2.08.020. I agree that if this change is to be made, prospective city manager candidates should be advised of it. I am puzzled, however, as to why anyone would want to risk politicizing the city manager position. 2.08.0?0(C) The proposed amendments to this section will essentially.place control of hiring and firing of exempt employees in the hands of the city council. Again, this is a significant departure from the concept that the council is a policy-making body. 2.08.0?0(J) This proposed amendment may result in the city council becoming involved in the. resolution of day-to-day non-employee complaints. This is emblematic of the restructuring that will make the city council the day-to-day manager of many aspects of city governance. 2.08.080 The proposed amendment to this section is telling. As re-written the section essentially authorizes councilmanic interference. A Google search will reveal cities that have gone in the opposite direction by banning such interference (and I would also note limiting the amount of staff time individual councilmembers can consume and for what purpose without getting a majority of the council to approve-an issue which you should reconsider). 2.08.090 The proposed deletion of this section is puzzling. I would assume the council wants the departments to cooperate and staff to be able to consult the city attorney. If so, this section should not be deleted. 2.08.110 The proposed amendment to this section essentially allows the mayor and one other member of the council to require that time be spent considering the removal of the city manager even if the majority of the council do not think a hearing is needed. I continue to believe that the council majority should control the expenditure of city resources (and should answer to the public for the use of those resources). Normally governing bodies act by majority rule or even have super- majority requirements. Allowing a minority to dictate the expenditure of time and resources seems inappropriate. While I am sure that the proposed changes are well intentioned, they seem risky to me. This is the most sweeping proposal for restructuring the city's government I have seen in my 20 years of living here, including even the proposed charter. There has been little public discussion of these significant changes and why some think they are needed and what they are designed to achieve. I suspect others might share my concern that the proposed changes will politicize the city manager position and other 2 positions on staff. There is a significar)t danger that the proposed changes will discourage staff from giving the council their best advice. The proposed changes also seem to increase the risk of cronyism. Changes in the basic structure of the city government should be carefully vetted and should enjoy a broad consensus before they are adopted. I say that having made the mistake myself of supporting a change that in many respects was less significant than what is proposed here (a city charter) without having taken sufficient steps to build public knowledge and seek a consensus. And we did a lot more to build public knowledge and a consensus on the proposed charter than has been done with these proposed changes. So don't repeat my mistake, show the greater wisdom you have by learning from the mistakes made before your time and tread carefully. Tom Long Rancho Palos Verdes 3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Members of the Council, sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com> Sunday, June 01, 2014 8:01 PM cc Amendments to MC 2.04 and 2.08 I support the revisions proposed by Mayor Duhovic to the descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of the City Council and the City Manager. The revisions simply clarify the roles and responsibilities, and eliminate the opportunity for confusion or misunderstanding, The City Manager has always reported to the Council, taken direction from the Council as the policy making body, and serves at the pleasure of the Council. Please pass this measure on Tuesday. Sharon Yarber 1 3A From: Sent: To: Subject: Chip Zelt <chipzelt@gmail.com> Monday, June 02, 2014 10:43 AM cc Fwd: Against Municipal Code Changes Dear Mayor and Council members: We do not support Mayor Duhovic's proposed changes to the Municipal Code regarding the City Manager's position, and ask that you reject his proposal. Sincerely, Chip & Pat Zelt 4100 Sea Horse Lane RPV, CA 90275 1 3A- From: Sent: To: Subject: To Those Who Can Help: Marsha & Ron Surina <R.Surina@cox.net> Monday, June 02, 2014 10:41 AM cc My opinion Regarding the proposed amendments to the city council and city manager positions: please keep the municipal code as is. We are residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and appreciate your listening to our opinions and acting in the interest of the residents. Marsha and Ron Surina 1 3A From: Sent: Nelsongang < nelsongang@aol.com> Monday, June 02, 2014 11:38 AM To: cc Subject: CC Mtng 6/3: Regular Business 3A: Muni Code Amend: Comment City Council Meeting June 3, 2014; Regular Business item 3A; 'Proposed Municipal Code Amendments to Chapt 2.04 and 2.08 to Clearly Define the Duties of the City Council and CityManager. Bob wrote and signed as a private citizen and not as a member of our Planning Commission. Sandie as president of Sea Bluff HOA. 1. We would ask the Mayor to limit all speakers to our usual 3 minutes, and not repeat the 35 minutes we recently experienced from an ex-councilperson. Attorneys are brilliant at raising one point and managing to attach numerous side points that go on forever. As they will never tell you, they are also used to briefly summarizing their thoughts in front of judges. 3 minutes, please, no matter how much they tell you, if they are not heard in toto, again the world will be flat and RPV is doomed! 2. This action reminds us of that period in American history where John Dickinson and Benj. Franklin's Articles of Confederation were found to be weak and a stronger central government formed under our US Constitution. Our nation fixed its nagging problems. 3. Our city has adopted 'transparency' as a way of life. This is a dramatic change from what was, especially in what is available to our citizens regarding the internal workings of their city government. It eliminates RPV's nagging problems. 4. Therefore, with this increased visibility, to us it makes sense to define who will be responsible for what. The Council does 'x,' the City Manager 'y.' The checks and balances are .... No more of this 'We didn't have to tell you ... ' No more perpetual debate over performance reports. No more animosity between Council and City Manager. No more nods, nudges, winks and smiles over important matters. 5. A job is either done or fails -that's the business world. RPV needs to come into the business world. Defined responsibilities, defined expectations, defined schedules for accomplishing duties, defined non-performance penalties. That's the business world, that should be RPV. Our country did this as we went from our Articles of Confederation to our US Constitution. RPV can do it, too! 6. Which gets me to the question of who was the first president of the United States? Wasn't George Washington! Under the Constitution, yes, but before that came ... John Hanson? 7. And all of us, your public, appreciate the time and effort you are putting forward on these absolutely critical clarifications, raising the curtain on who comes to bat when, who was running to second and who fell down on the base path. No more 'student body right.' · 8. Thanks -sorry we can't be there to cheer you on as you take this important step for all of us. B Bob Nelson, Board Member, Sea Bluff HOA Sandie Nelson, President of Sea Bluff HOA 1 From: Sent: To: Carolynn Petru Monday, June 02, 2014 11:32 AM cc Subject: Fwd: Proposed Municipal Code Amendments imageOOljpg Attachments: Dear Mayor & City Council - Please see the message below from Bob Murray regarding Item No. 3A on tomorrow night's agenda. CP Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Bob Murray <bmurray@bobmurrayassoc.com> Date: June 2, 2014 at 8:56:41 AM PDT To: 'Carolynn Petru' <Carolynn@rpv.com> Subject: RE: Proposed Municipal Code Amendments Reply-To: <bmurray@bobmurrayassoc.com> Hi Carolynn, I spoke to Councilwoman Brooks on Friday; she asked that I review the ordinance as proposed and discuss the impacts that would result were the City Council to adopt the ordinance. Please forward my comments to each member of the City Council. The changes outlined in the ordinance, if adopted, would result in a form of government most often referred to as "City Administrator." This title reflects the appointment authority of the administrator as outlined in the proposed ordinance. As I explained in my comments previously, such a change in appointing authority of this position may change the dynamics of the search in terms of the types of individuals who may or may not apply. Generally, the main consideration will be the potential candidate's commitment to the traditional structure of the Council Manager form of government. I am prepared to move forward with the search once the Council has reviewed the proposed ordinance and decided on any changes to be made. I am not recommending a course of action regarding the ordinance, as I recognize that it is a Council policy matter. I have reserved the dates that have been proposed for the community meetings. Please let me .know if I may be of further assistance. Best Regards, Bob Bob Murray President 1 10-------- 1677 Eureka Road, Suite 202 Roseville, CA 95661 W: (916) 784-9080 F: (916) 784-1985 This electronic mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged or otheiwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this correspondence, please contact via telephone or electronic mail the sender, and delete this message and any attachments from your files. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to copy this correspondence or attachment, or disclose the contents to any other person. Jl Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: Carolynn Petru [mailto:Carolynn@rpv.!:Qm] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 10:41 AM To: Bob Murray Cc: Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>; Susan Brooks Subject: Proposed Municipal Code Amendments Hi Bob- Councilwoman Brooks requested that I email the attached staff report to you regarding an item on the June 3rd City Council agenda. She would like to call you later to discuss it prior to the meeting. Thank you, Carolynn Carolynn Petru Acting City Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5203 (direct) (310) 544-5291 (fax) carolynn@rpy.com www .palosvcrdcs.corn/ rpv 2 From: Sent: Ellen November <ellen.november@gmail.com> Monday, June 02, 2014 2:20 PM To: cc Subject: I support of amending MC 2.04 & MC 2.05. Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged I support of amending MC 2.04 & MC 2.05. Ellen November www.ellennovember.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/ enovember mobile: 310-384-6912 1 3A City of Rancho Palos Verdes May 2014 CLASS NO: XXXX COUNCIL LIAISON DEFINITION Under general direction of the City Manager, the Council Liaison assists elected officials in managing a variety of community outreach functions, including: receiving and resolving constituent complaints I concerns and requests for information; researching and analyzing policy issues; and, coordinating special even.ts, projects, and programs. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS This is a highly technical class within the administrative analyst series responsible for performing varied and complex professional and confidential administrative work in support of City Council members. This position is designated as a confidential, exempt, at-will employee. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES The duties listed below are examples of the work typically performed by employees in this class. An employee may not be assigned all duties listed and may be assigned duties that are not listed below. The essential functions of the Council Liaison may vary depending upon assignment, and may include: coordinating responses I actions related to constituent inquiries/ complaints I concerns; working with City departments to resolve issues; developing reports and providing information related to status requests; analyzing items and staff recommendations regarding agenda items; making recommendations; conducting research and providing information to officials; serving as Council office liaison; interacting with a variety of high-level individuals, internally and within the community, to provide information, disseminate departmental information, and assist in resolving administrative issues. Organizing and coordinating staffing for various community events and programs; developing and maintaining media contacts; promoting the City's programs and services; writing press releases; writing talking points and speeches; developing and coordinating newsletter articles; working with staff to coordinate activities related to Council issues; researching and responding to resident or constituent inquiries or complaints, and coordinating interdepartmental action; preparing official correspondence on behalf of Council members. Preparing recommendations for the improvement of communication between Council and Commissions, Committees, departments, other agencies, the public, and the business community; working with the City Manager and departments on administrative issues. Developing plans and programs. May make oral presentations to the City Council, commissions, and committees, as well as City staff and community groups and organizations. May serve on or as staff to inter-departmental committees. May represent the City Manager and I or City Council, as assigned. Performing such additional tasks and duties as assigned by the City Manager or City Council. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of: Applicable State, Federal, and local ordinances, codes, laws, rules and regulations, and legislative issues. Public administration principles and practices. Policy analysis techniques and processes. Research and analytical methods. Methods of report presentation. Office management practices, procedures, and safety. Organizational theory, cost analysis, and project management techniques. Basic principles governing human resources management and customer service. Correct English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation. Skill in: Preparing clear and concise reports, correspondence, and other written materials. Conflict resolution, using tact, discretion, initiative, and independent judgment within established guidelines. Analyzing and resolving office administrative situations and problems. Researching, compiling, and summarizing a variety of informational and statistical data and materials. Organizing work, setting priorities, meeting critical deadlines, and following up on assignments with a minimum of direction. Applying logical thinking to solve problems or accomplish tasks; understanding, interpreting, and communicating complicated policies, procedures, and protocols. Effectively use automated systems, including personal computers and office I specialized financial software packages. Use of common office software including Microsoft Office. Organizing and preparing clear and concise reports in a non-bureaucratic style. Providing outstanding customer satisfaction (internally and externally). Techniques used in effective interpersonal communication. Ability to: Prepare logical and objective memoranda, staff reports, studies, and correspondence. Analyze, interpret, and present data and information in understandable and usable formats. Perform a wide variety of administrative analysis work. Perform independent field and I or documentary research. Establish and maintain effective and professional relationships with co-workers, the public, and various governmental agency and private organization representatives. Prepare and present oral and written reports to elected officials, other groups and organizations, and City staff. Operate a personal computer with competent skill in word processing and spreadsheet applications. Apply general mathematical principles, including decimals and percentages, and interpret statistical reports and I or formulation and equation data. Evaluate data and information using established criteria in order to determine consequences and to identify and select alternatives. Classify, compute, tabulate, and categorize data. Comprehend and utilize a variety of advisory and design data and information such as budgets, staff reports, contracts, agreements, operating manuals, ordinances, legal documents, professional journals and bulletins. Work in a team environment. Communicate ideas and concepts effectively. Read, comprehend, interpret, and apply laws, ordinances, codes, specifications, policies, and regulations in the preparation of written reports and in oral communications with the public, and other employees of the City. Establish and maintain effective and professional relationships with the public, departmental clients, professionals in other jurisdictions, co-workers, and other City staff. Deliver prepared oral presentations to governmental bodies and public groups, and respond appropriately to questions. Satisfactorily perform required duties; communicate effectively in writing and orally; reason logically and creatively; demonstrate initiative; work independently and on project matrix teams; legally operate a motor vehicle in the State of California. EXPERIENCE: The City uses the experience and education described below as general guidelines to evaluate compliance with the qualifications described above. Comparable experience and education is acceptable for meeting the position's minimum qualifications. Specified licenses, certificates, and registrations must be held and maintained. Education and Experience: Bachelor's degree in Business Administration, Public Administration, Political Science, Mass Communication, or Journalism, or a closely related field from an accredited college or university is required. Master's degree in Business Administration or Public Administration is highly desirable. Three years of increasingly responsible experience in performing community liaison and administrative functions for a public office or government agency. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Licenses. Certificates. and Registrations: Possession of a current valid Class C California Driver's License. PHYSICAL DEMANDS Strength, dexterity, coordination and vision to use a keyboard and video display terminal for long periods of time. Hearing and speaking ability to communicate clearly on the telephone and at a public counter. Dexterity and coordination to handle files and single pieces of paper; occasional lifting of objects weighing up to 25 lbs. such as files, stacks of papers, reference and other materials. Moving from place to place within an office; some reaching for items above and below desk level. WORKING CONDITIONS Generally clean work environment with limited exposure to conditions such as dust, fumes, odors, or noise. Video display terminal is used on a daily basis. Periodic contact with angry and upset individuals, frequent interruptions of planned work activities by telephone calls, office visitors and response to unplanned events. SELECTION PROCESS The selection process may include one or more of the following: application review and evaluation, performance test, written test, and/or oral interview examination. Questions asked during the selection process are based on the knowledge and abilities required to successfully perform the job. If you have a disability that requires accommodation during the selection process, please notify Human Resources at least 24 hours prior to the first phase of the selection process. The successful candidate will be required to take and pass a post-offer medical examination, including drug screening, by a City physician to ensure their· physical suitability to perform assigned duties. In addition, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes conducts a thorough background investigation prior to appointment. This recruitment will establish an eligibility list that may be used to fill future vacancies in this classification. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is an Equal Opportunity Employer. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities and encourages both prospective and current employees to discuss potential accommodations with the employer. This classification specification does not constitute an employment agreement between the City and employee. It is subject to change by the City, with the approval of Human Resources, as the needs of the City and requirements change. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Michael Throne Friday, May 30, 2014 2:33 PM cc Carla Morreale; Carolynn Petru; Nicole Jules; Ron Dragoo; Siamak Motahari Late Correspondence -FY13/14 CIP Update 20140603 Current CIP Update Rev O.pdf Dear Mayor Duhovic and members of the City Council: Attached please find a progress update of significant projects from your fiscal year 13/14 capital improvement program. As always, please feel free to contact me, Ms Jules, Mr Dragoo or Mr Motahari if you have any questions. Regards, Michael Throne, PE Director of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275 310 544-5252 1 le. FY 13/14 Capital Improvement Program Project Update June 3, 2014 Public Works Department Public Buildings June 3, 2014 Public Works Department FY13/14 CIP Project Update June 3, 2014 1 Abalone Cove Shoreline Park Restroom and Parking Lot Improvements • Improve Restroom Building • Install Automated Gates with Electronic Pay Station • Construct ADA Parking Spaces • Install Screening Fences Around Equipment • $529,490 Budget • ConstruC::tion Begins June 2 • Completion September 2014 " . . . . . ·, I • ..,._.. .--!. • ADA Transition Plan Implementation -Phase 1 • Eliminate Potential Safety Hazard and Severe Barriers to Access • Hesse Park • Ladera Linda Community Center (Playgrounds Only) • Point Vicente Interpretive Center • Ryan Park • $400,000 Budget • Design Completed • Construction Begins August • Completion November 2014 FY13/14 CIP Project Update June 3, 2014 2 Park Sites June 3, 2014 Public Works Department Abalone Cove Shoreline Park Improvement • Improve Access and Recreational and Educational Experience Consistent with General Plan Land Use • $665,176 Budget Includes $332,588 State Grant • Construction Begins June 9 •Completion mid-September 2014 FY13/14 CIP Project Update June 3, 2014 3 Ryan Park Southern Entrance Realignment and Parking Lot Expansion • Realign Southern Entrance for Safer Access • Add 32 Parking Spaces to Upper Parking Lot • $799,935 Budget • Construction Begins mid-June • Completion October 2014 Trails June 3, 2014 FY13/14 CIP Project Update Public Works Department June 3, 2014 4 RPV California Coastal Trail • Improved 2.5 miles of Coastline Trail • $629,041 Budget Included $500,000 State Grant • Completed January 8, 2014 Salvation Army Trail Improvement • Close Trail Gap Between Upper Point Vicente Property and Salvation Army Property Along Peninsula Pointe Neighborhood • $247,985 Budget • Construction Begins June 23 •Completion October 2014 FY13/14 CIP Project Update June 3, 2014 5 Storm Water System June 3, 2014 Public Works Department San Ramon Canyon Flood Reduction Project • Construct 4,000-ft Storm Drain from San Ramon Canyon to Beach, Protects PVDE, Prevents 25th St Flooding Caused by RPV Canyon Runoff • $19,300,000 Budget • Construction Began April 2013 • "'90% Complete • Completion June 2014 FY13/14 CIP Project Update June 3, 2014 6 Catch Basin Filtration • Retrofit in 5-years All Machado Lake Watershed Catch Basins • $73,000 Budget • Retrofits Began 2010 • Complete Retrofit of Final 40 Catch Basins Summer 2014 (1-yr Early) • Requires Ongoing Maintenance, Cleaning Marguerite Open Channel • Study Feasibility to Improve Drainage Under Several Streets • $400,000 Budget • Study Began January 2014 • Completion June 2014 • Design Scheduled FY 2014-15 FY13/14 CIP Project Update June 3, 2014 7 Master Plan of Drainage • Update Master Plan for Drainage System Including • GIS Interface • Prioritized Project List • Valuation Schedule • $550,000 Budget • Completed Hydraulic Model • Field Verification Underway • Began November 2013 • Draft Scheduled December 2014 Paintbrush Canyon Drainage Study • Develop Hydrology for Future Improvements • $60,000 Budget • Expanded to Project Study Report to Identify Project Alternatives, Environmental and Geotechnical Considerations • Incorporates Data From Master Plan of Drainage • PSR Commences FY 16/17 FY13/14 GIP Project Update June 3, 2014 8 PVDS (East of Barkentine) • Study Feasibility to Improve Drainage Under Several Streets • $446,000 Budget • Study Began January 2014 • Completion June 2014 • Design Scheduled for FY 2014-15 Storm Drain Lining • Install Corrugated Metal Pipe Liners Citywide • $329,000 Budget • Project Funds Carried Forward to FY 2015-16 for Larger Lining Project FY13/14 CIP Project Update June 3, 2014 9 Sanitary Sewer System June 3, 2014 Sewer Capacity Projects • Analyze Need to Increase Capacity at 5 Locations • If Additional Capacity is Required, Design and Construct Capacity lmprovement(s) • $1,852,000 Budget • Design 10% Complete • Complete Design September 2014 • Complete Construction Spring 2015 FY13/14 CIP Project Update June 3, 2014 Public Works Department 10 Right of Way and Traffic Control Devices June 3, 2014 Public Works Department FY12-13 Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project -Areas 1 and SB • Repair Concrete Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter, Asphalt • Install ADA-compliant Curb Ramps • Resurface Streets • Update Signage and Striping • $1,600,000 Budget • Design Underway • Construction Planned End of Summer/Early Fall 2014 PAI.OS \'f.MDES PR \\l:~T FY13/14 CIP Project Update .\KP.Al June 3, 2014 11 FY13-14 Residential Streets Rehabilitation Project -Area 9 • Repair Concrete Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter, Asphalt • Install ADA-compliant Curb Ramps • Resurface Streets • Update Signage and Striping • $1,900,000 Budget • Design Underway • Construction Planned End of Summer/Early Fall 2014 PAI.OS VY.ROE.~ DR \\'>;ST Blackhorse Road CDBG ADA Improvements • Construct ADA Compliant Bus Stop with New Sidewalk, Stability Wall, Landscaping • $38,000 Budget • Construction Underway •Completion June 2014 FY13/14 CIP Project Update June 3, 2014 12 Hawthorne Blvd Pedestrian Linkage • Install Sidewalk from Crest Rd to PVDW with ADA- compliant Access Ramps • Install Drought-tolerant Landscaping with Drip Irrigation • $1,300,000 Budget • Design Completed • Construction Begins August 2014 Subject to Federal Authorization Hawthorne Blvd Traffic Signal Synchronization • Interconnect 8 Traffic Signals Along Hawthorne Blvd Using Fiber Optic Cabling • Install Pedestrian Countdown Signals • $800,000 Budget • Design Completed • Construction Begins August 2014 Subject to Federal Authorization FY13/14 CIP Project Update June 3, 2014 13 Palos Verdes Drive East Roadway Resurfacing • Repair Storm Drains • Clear Vegetation as Necessary to Improve Safety and Visibility • Resurface and Repair Asphalt • Update Signing and Striping • $3,200,000 Budget • Construction Underway • Completion September 2014 Palos Verdes Drive East Bronco-Headland Safety Improvements • Install Safety Improvements • Median Barrier • Advanced High-visibility Warning Devices • New Guardrails • Equestrian Crossing • Trail Improvements • $542,000 Budget • Design Commences Fall 2014 FY13/14 CIP Project Update June 3, 2014 14 Palos Verdes Drive South Bike Lanes • Install 5-ft minimum Bike Lanes on Each Side of PVDS • Modify Medians • Refresh Landscaping • $788,000 Budget • Design Commences Winter 2014 Palos Verdes Drive West Median Beautification • Improve Pedestrian Walking Trail • Install Drought-tolerant Landscaping with Drip Irrigation • $450,000 Budget • Design Completed • Construction Begins July 2014 Contingent on Utility Vault Upgrades FY13/14 CIP Project Update Project Limits: 2,400 ft West of Schooner Drive to Conqueror Drive June 3, 2014 15 Palos Verdes Drive South Landslide June 3, 2014 Dewatering Wells • Install 2 New Dewatering Wells • First Well Not Productive -New Site Located by ACLAD • $170,000 Budget • Construction of First Well 30% Complete • Construction of Second Well Begins June 2014 FY13/14 CIP Project Update June 3, 2014 Public Works Department 16 PVDS East End Realignment • Eliminate Sharp Curves • $530,000 Budget •Design 80% Complete • Construction Begins August • Complete Construction October 2014 For More Project Information • Visit Our Webpage http://palosver des.com/r pv/p ublicworks/ • Email Us PublicWorks@rpv.com • Find Us IJ City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA • Telephone Us 310 544-5252 FY13/14 CIP Project Update June 3, 2014 17