June 21, 2007

City Council pushes through agenda

Downtown bars get new closing time; lobbying rules tightened;
pet adoption fairs added to city law

By Carol Rosen
Staff Writer

In stark contrast with last week’s long debates about the budget, a new soccer stadium and the possibility of rezoning industrial property in Edenvale, this week’s council meeting seemed to go much faster with some items deferred until next week and others passed quickly and unanimously.

Council members deferred several items, such as actions updating the Evergreen Development Policy, after a short discussion, and approval of municipal water system potable rates and charges to next week, the final session before the July break.

One item, the acceptance of actions related to benefit enhancements for retired police, fire and city employees was taken off the agenda at the request of the retirees. There were no indications if or when the item would be put back on.

Some items required extensive debate as council members questioned portions of the revolving door and lobbyist issues as well as changes to the animal regulations of the city’s municipal code and the execution of stock purchase investments.

New closing time
One long-awaited debate centered on keeping downtown bars, restaurants and nightclubs open until 3 a.m., although all would stop serving alcoholic beverages at 1:30 p.m. Council members are hoping the new closing time will eliminate groups of people clogging the downtown entertainment zone at the same time and allow some people to sober up before driving home.

The council approved the 90-day pilot program in hopes it will stagger the number of people leaving more than 30 clubs in the five- to 12-block entertainment zone providing a more orderly end to the evening that will hopefully result in a reduced police presence. Staff from the Department of Transportation, the Planning Department, the San Jose Police Department and the San Jose Downtown Association developed the idea, which includes a status report after 60 days.

After the initial pilot, the council could vote to continue the pilot program or make it a law. The clubs, restaurants and bars are free to choose whether to stay open, but must ask permission from the city in order to do so.

District 2 Councilmember Forrest Williams praised the contributions from the different groups, stating that the groups got together and developed a creative idea, and that possibly a “24-hour downtown is possible.”

District 6 Councilmember Pierluigi Oliverio quipped that he hoped the clubs would still be able to play “amplified music and gradually turn it down” since patrons wouldn’t be able to drink after 1:30.

"We're going to force them to play Barry Manilow's Greatest Hits 'til 2:15," said Deputy City Manager Dan McFadden bringing a chorus of ughs from the gallery.

Second budget vote
The council again discussed budget actions for the upcoming fiscal year, which received unanimous passage. However, prior to its passage, certain areas that were approved at last week’s meeting were discussed again.

Budget Director Larry Lisenbee cleared up some confusion dealing with Fire Station #2. It initially was under funded for a rebuild, he said. The plan is to come back within 60 days with various options for increasing the budget to its initial $6.74 million (from the 2005 budget) without impacting the budget that was passed last week.

The $2 million-plus that is missing will be found through one of the funding reserves without having to redo the budget, he said,

Newly installed District 4 Councilmember Kansan Chu added that he would like to see the council explore and use practical ideas from other cities and government agencies to increase revenue or decrease costs.

City Councilman Pete Constant also asked for clarification on the addition of 11 park positions and a set aside for a possible public/private arrangement.

There was some discussion about dropping park maintenance employee new hires from 11 to nine, allowing a savings of $132,000. However, Lisenbee noted that there was enough money in the fund balance to still allow a creative answer toward the public/private arrangement while allowing the city to hire the 11 park maintenance employees it will need. That sealed the deal and council members passed the budget actions unanimously.

Finally, in a unanimous vote, the full council approved the $3.2 billion budget, including $896 million for the general fund operating budget and $1.6 billion in capital spending. Balancing the budget wasn’t easy, but the $16 billion shortfall was eliminated mostly through closing vacant positions instead of taking from the operating reserves.

Stock investments
There was extensive debate about approving an economic development Catalyst Program stock purchase agreements. While some council members consider a stock purchase risky business, others suggested there was less risk than providing loans and that this method might include increased job generation as well as a decent return on investment.

However, some were concerned that there would be no access to confidential financial, strategic or operational portfolio company data other than the information provided by the Pacific Community Management, Inc. the city’s investment manager.

“This enhances what we’re doing with the revolving fund,” said Williams.

“There is an inevitable risk whenever you invest, but we are sharing that risk” with our investment partners,” said Oliverio.

“We’ll see tangible results [with this investment] unlike our social investments, we will be investing in companies that benefit our city [with jobs and revenue] as well,” added Constant.

The motion passed 9-2, with Councilmembers San Liccardo and Dave Cortese against it.

Lobbying
Last February, the council approved Mayor Chuck Reed’s recommendation to amend the municipal code requiring elected officials to disclose meetings with lobbyists on issues before the city council. In April, it directed the city attorney’s office to deliver ethics provisions for the revolving door and lobbyist regulations so the process would be more transparent.

The council asked the city attorney to extend the revolving door prohibition from one to two years and to ban success fees, or if that’s not possible, that the fees be disclosed to the city clerk and posted on the Internet. In addition, members asked for more specific disclosures on the lobbyist reporting form for income categories and success fees and to reduce the limit of hours from 20 within a three-month period to 10 within a 12-month period and total the hours spent by people from the same organization to meet the 10-hour requirement. Developers would fit into the 10-hour threshold.

However, under the new amendments nonprofit organizations that are tax exempt under the IRS Code 501 c (3) and small business owners that haven’t made or solicited contributions, donations or expenditures over $1,000 in a city election within the past year or at the request of the mayor, a council member or an independent expenditure committee are not considered lobbyists.

Council members are still required to disclose any lobbyist contacts—legislative or administrative—usually on the dais while discussing an issue.

The council members expressed confusion about the new amendments especially when meeting with company officials, such as engineers or architects, who are not lobbying but discussing projects. In addition, more confusion stemmed from election contributions and independent expenditures.

They asked Doyle to go back and redefine consultants beyond the form 700. At that point, Cortese made an amendment that the City Attorney return with additional options besides what the council adopted at the session.

Several public speakers found the new rules “absurd.” One claimed that volunteers representing organizations may exceed the 10-hour time line, especially when the volunteer must discuss different issues. Another speaker called the rules “too strict and too narrow,” while a third complained that the paper work required for his small business could put him out of business.”

In response to a question from Williams, he said that any time his business prepares and submits anything to a council member or department, it would be considered influencing and thus lobbying. “I have to conduct quarterly unnecessary tax accounting. I would have to guess and to account for every penny. The paperwork would be a nightmare,” he said.

“I don’t mind the disclosure, we will comply as best we can,” but it is an added burden to do business with the city.”

Constant questioned how this would affect him as liaison to the Downtown Association and the Convention and Visitors Bureau. He said he finds it confusing when the city pays the Convention and Visitors Bureau to market San Jose and these entities also influence council decisions.

The measure passed with Doyle to come back within 60 days with review and analysis of the revisions.

New animal regulations
The council also took up possible changes to the municipal code’s animal regulations. The 15 amendments, which were continued from the May 1 agenda, passed 8-3 with Reed, Cortese and Oliverio against it.

The new regulations allow pet owners/guardians to permit each dog and cat [limited to three dogs and two cats] in the home to have one litter per year. Private and commercial kennels can get permits exempting them from the regulation. In addition, the new regulations allow animal shows, such as circuses, to be held two times per year per entity and permit indoor and outdoor pet fair adoptions.

Twenty members of the public commented about the new regulations, with the majority being for the provisions, especially the addition of outdoor pet adoption fairs, which could significantly decrease the number of animals euthanized each year. Some complained that there were too few or they were not advised of meetings dealing with the new regulations, others suggested the changes would be “unenforceable.”

“I support these changes, especially those allowing outdoor adoption fairs,” said Christine Benninger, president of the Silicon Valley Humane Society. The days of pet sales at flea markets are over, she added, and outdoor adoption fairs will prevent atrocities. “These proposed changes strengthen the law making San Jose a state leader in animal protection.”

The adoption fairs are important because animal rescue groups help provide homes for these unwanted animals, said Jon Cicirelli, deputy director of animal care services. Last year, he said, rescue groups saved 2,600 animals and more than 9,000 were euthanized.

Cats, he said, are the hardest. In May, animal care services took in 800 kittens, more than half of which were unweaned babies unable to survive without maternal care.

“We want to ensure that we take all the options we can to find homes for animals, but also to ensure that the outdoor adoption fairs have some sort of enforcement,” said Williams.

Reed and Cortese voted against the amendments because they both said they are concerned about enforcement.