HomeMy WebLinkAbout24-City Attorney
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: JAMES F. PENMAN
City Attorney
Subject: Discuss and take possible action relative
to the proposed Charter Amendment.
Dept: CiTY ATTORNEY
Date: July 19,2001
O ,.. · ,-. , . ! ~ L
hi' 10.'. II ~ri
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None.
Recommended motion:
A. Resolution of the City of San Bernardino proposing an amendment to the Charter of said City
relating to Employment of Legal Counsel.
B. Resolution of the City of San Bernardino submitting to the electors a proposed Charter
Amendment relating to Employment of Legal Counsel; Transmission of the proposed Charter
Amendment to the Office of the City Attorney for purposes of preparation of an impartial analysis.
That said Resolutions be adopted.
L7'~
o Signature
Contact person: James F. Penman. City Attorney
Phone:
5255
All
Supporting data attached: Staff Report
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: None at this time.
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
r'1-M.Qx, ,f.I,-;)CfJ{-d'l!
13-)u,JJj-iJ dCf){-O:; '1-;;-
Agenda Item No.
24
STAFF REPORT
Council Meeting Date: July 23. 2001
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
AGENDA:
Mayor and Common Council
James F. Penman, City Attorney
July 19, 2001
Item #24
As previously indicated to this body, during our first conversation following the November
2000 Special Municipal Election, Mayor Valles advised me that she was delegating future Charter
Amendment proposals to the Office of the City Attorney.
Currently, Charter Section 241 states that the "Mayor and Common Council shall have power
and authority to employ and engage such legal counsel and services and other assistants, as may be
necessary and proJ>er for the interest and benefit of the City and the inhabitants thereof." (emphasis
supplied) The phrase "as may be necessary and proper" has been interpreted by current case law,
published Opinions of the State Attorney General, the opinions of two different San Bernardino City
Attorneys, and the opinion of Mr. Allen B. Gresham for the law firm of Gresham, Savage, Nolan &
Tilden (a copy ofMr. Gresham's opinion is attached to this staff report) to mean the same as that
contained in Section 2.20.040 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code:
"2,20.040 Retaining special counsel.
Special counsel shall be retained by the Council pursuant to Charter
Section 241 subject to the recommendation of the City Attorney that such
counsel is necessary in instances when legal specialization not possessed by
the City Attorney is required or when the City Attorney is unable or dis-
qualified from performing such legal services. Special counsel shall not be
retained when the City Attorney is willing and able to perform the legal
services as a part of the ordinary professional functions of his or her office.
The City Attorney shall advise the Mayor and Common Council as to the
experience and qualifications of attorneys considered for retention as
special counsel."
At the March 5, 2001 Mayor and Common Council meeting, after much discussion, the
Council voted 4-2 to layover for final adoption an ordinance of the City of San Bernardino repealing
Ordinance No. MC-I 091 which attempted to prevent the need to obtain City Attorney approval prior
to the retention of outside special counsel services. Council members Estrada and Schnetz voted
"no" (Council member McGinnis was absent), with Council member Estrada specifically stating that
she wanted this issue to be voted on by the people in this November election.
At the March 19,2001 Mayor and Common Council meeting, the Council voted 4-2 to adopt
the ordinance which repealed Ordinance No. MC-I091, thus retaining Chapter 2.20 in the San
Bernardino Municipal Code. Council member Schnetz was absent, but this time Council member
McGinnis joined Council member Estrada in voting "no." Again, a "no" vote means that the
individuals who voted that way did not want to retain Chapter 2.20 in the San Bernardino Municipal
Code, but instead wanted an election on the issue of the role of the City Attorney concerning
employment oflegal counsel.
At the time of the vote, I stated to the Mayor and Common Council that I was surprised by
the outcome and that I thus viewed the vote as the Council desiring to put this matter behind them.
Unfortunately, recent events which include the rather brusque treatment of Council member
Anderson's request to reconsider the illegal censuring of the City Attorney have lead me to conclude
that a majority of the Council do not wish to put the issue of employment of outside legal counsel
behind them, but rather on "hold" until after the November election when, I have no doubt, another
attempt will be made to once again repeal Chapter 2.20 in its entirety.
Accordingly, Agenda Item #24 contains two resolutions squarely placing before the voters
in this November election the issue of the role of the City Attorney concerning employment oflega)
counsel. The Charter language proposed therein accurately reflects how current case law, published
Opinions of the State Attorney General, the opinions of two different San Bernardino City Attomeys,
and the opinion of Mr. Allen B. Gresham for the law firm of Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden, LLP
have uniformly interpreted the phrase "as may be necessary and proper." Adoption of this Charter
Amendment by the voterll wtmId preclude the future "game" of repealing Chapter 2.20 in the hopes
of hiring outside legal counsel without City Attorney approval and thus placing the burden on the
taxpayers of San Bernardino to bring a lawsuit challenging that act. Should this Charter Amendment
be approved in this November election, then only the voters can subsequently change it.
For those who voted against repealing Ordinance No. MC-I091 because they claimed that
they wanted the voters to decide this issue, now is your second chance. For those who voted to
retain Chapter 2.20 in the San Bernardino Municipal Code in the hopes of putting the issue to rest
but who now realize that another attempt to repeal Chapter 2.20 will be made after the November
election, thus shifting the burden to the taxpayers of this City to challenge the action of the Mayor
and Common Council when they hire outside legal counsel without City Attorney approval, let the
voters decide in this November election (because it seems that they will decide at some election
eventually) and, as Council member Estrada has said, "the cost wouldn't be that much more because
there is going to be an election anyway." Indeed, City Clerk Rachel Clerk estimated the cost for this
issue to be placed before the voters this November at only $5,000.
Respectfully submitted,
~
AMES F. PENMAN
City Attorney
attachment
GRESHAM, SAVAGE, NOLAN & TILDEN, LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED lJABlLITY PARlNERSlllP
LAWYERS -FOUNDED 1910
FOR nIE nRM
Allen 8. Graham
600 N. ARROWHEAD A VENUE, sum 300
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92401-1148
(909) 884-2171 ' FACSIMILE (909) 888-2120
WlLUAMOUTHJUE{III6oI941)
DONALD W. JORDAN (l907-19I9)
JOHN B. LONEItOAN (RETIRED 1976)
August 9, 2000
Mayor Judith Valles
City Attorney James F. Penman
City of San Bernardino
City Hall
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Section 241 of the City Charter
Dear Mayor Valles and Mr. Penman:
As you are aware, by his letter of July 18, 2000 the City AttOrneY requested that our law ftrm
prepare an analysis of Section 241 of the existing Charter of the City 01 Sari Bernardino.
Since the request related speciftcally to the Charter rather than Cfuipter2.20 of the Municipal
Code which deals with the engagement of "outside" counsel, it is presumed that the request relates
only to Charter authority, as opposed to the authority created by ordinance. Accordingly, this letter
directs itself exclusively to the Charter.
Section 241 states:
"The Mayor and Common Council shall have power and
authority to employ and engage such legal counsel and services and
other assistants, as may be necessary and proper for the interest and
beneftt of the City and the inhabitants thereof. "
Thus, in order to pursue an analysis of that Section, an inquiry must be made into what is
meant by "necessary and proper".
Section 55 of the Charter, in pertinent part, provides:
"
(d) The City Attorney shall be the chieflegal officer of the City; he or she
shall represent and advise the Mayor and Common Council and all City officers
in all matters of law pertaining to their offices; he or she shall represent and
appear for the City in all legal actions brought by or against the City, and
prosecute violations of City ordinances, and may prosecute violations of State
law which are misdemeanors or infractions and for which the City Attorney is
speciftcally granted the power of enforcement by State law without approval of
the District Attorney, or those violations which are drug or vice related; he or
Riverside Office. 3403 Tenlh StreeL Suite 518, Riverside, CA 92501. (909) 684-2171 . Facsimile (909) 684-2150
Victorville Office. 14350 Civic Drive, Suite 120, Victorville, CA 92392. (760) 243.2889. Facsimile (760) 243-0467
GRESHAM, SAVAGE, NOLAN & TILDEN, LLP
AUen B. Graham
Mayor Judith Valles
City Attorney James F. Penman
August 9, 2000
Page 2
she shall also act and appear as attorney for any City officer or employee who is
a party to any legal action in his or her official capacity; he or she shall attend
meetings of the City Council, draft proposed ordinances and resolutions, give
his or her advice or opinion in writing when requested to do so in writing by the
Mayor or Common Council or other City official upon any matter pertaining to
Municipal affairs; and otherwise to do and perform all services incident to his or
her position and required by statute, this Charter or general law.
"
From the foregoing Charter description of the duties of the City Attorney, it is seen that the
person occupying that position has a great many areas of responsibility and is to act as "the chief
legal officer of the City".
As a public officer, the City Attorney is, by law, expected to properly and timely provide the
services required of the office. Indeed, it would be tantamount to a waste of taxpayer funds if.
"outside" counsel were hired to perform duties that were those which the City Attorney was
expected to discharge.
r_'.__....__..~.,
There are, however, areas of law so specialized or that require such special talents or
experience that a general legal practitioner would not be expected to provide them. Additionally,
occasions can arise where the City Attorney may, by reason of a conflict of interest, not be able to
discharge all the duties usually expected of the office. In such instances it would be appropriate for
"outside" counsel to be utilized because, without such use, the service could not otherwise be
performed.
This concept of avoidance of unnecessarY duplication of expenditures and services has long
been followed in California. However, in most of the situations where the matter has been
considered, Counties rather than cities have been involved.
In Attorney General Opinion 52-36, it was stated that:
" ... the courts have held that the board is without authority to contract with
private parties for the performance of duties which the law enjoins upon county
officers. "
Additionally, in Attorney General Opinion 49-202 it was pointed out that:
"It has been held that the supervisors have no power to employ an attorney to
conduct litigation which by law is devolved upon the district attorney, though
they may employ an attorney to assist him in such matter."
GRESHAM, SAVAGE, NOLAN & TILDEN, LLP
AIIea B. G.........
Mayor Judith Valles
City Attorney James F. Penman
August 9, 2000
Page 3
As early as 1897 the California Supreme Court held:
" ...it is clearly the intention of the law that the district attorney, and no one else,
shall be and act as the legal advisor of the board,...
The contract, then, was merely an attempt on the part of the board of
supervisors to pay special counsel by the month for performing a duty which the
law imposed on the district attorney....
...to permit compensation for them would be to override the law, and to destroy
one of the strongest safeguards cast about the expenditure of county funds. "
Merriam v. Barnum (1897) 116 Cal. 619, at 623-625.
Again, in the next year, the Supreme Court held:
"If the board of supervisors could portion out the legal business of the county as
appertaining to license matters to outside attorneys, it could likewise apportion
to such attorneys all other branches of legal business in which the county was
directly interested, and thus relieve and deprive the district attorney of the very
labors which are devolved upon him by the law, and which he was elected by
the people to perform, and which under his oath of office he is bound to
perform. The law as it is framed does not allow such a practice. It was framed
for the very purpose of preventing such a practice."
Merced County v. Cook (1898) 120 Cal. 275, at 278.
A city case did come up in 1916 when the Appellate Court stated:
"The charter having provided a city attorney upon whom the board can call
when a defense to a suit is necessary, it by implication makes it incumbent upon
the board to avail itself of his services, and it cannot ignore this provision and
employ some other attorney to render those services which it is the duty of the
city attorney to perform."
Rafael v. Bovle (1916) 31 Cal.App. 619, at 626.
Then, as recently as 1975, the Appellate Court again held that the duplication of attorney
effort applies to Charter cities because of the obligation of the city attorney to act. Montl!:omerv v.
Superior Court (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 657.
From these authorities it is our belief that since the City Attorney is someone whom the
Charter specifically directs to perform legal duties, the City Attorney is compelled to do them unless
a conflict exists or specialized experience is essential.
GRESHAM, SAVAGE, NOLAN & TILDEN, LLP
Allen B. Graham
Mayor Judith Valles
City Attorney James F. Penman
August 9, 2000
Page 4
Since the determination of a conflict or the need for specialization is something that the City
Attorney is most aware of, it seems most logical that before "outside" counsel can be engaged,
inquiry should be made of the City Attorney to determine if a conflict exists or a need for
specialization is present. If the City Attorney indicates that either of those two situations is present,
then the engagement of outside counsel would be appropriate.
Insofar as the selection of "outside" counsel is concerned, reference should again be made to
Article 55 and its recitation of the duties of the City Attorney. There it is seen that the City Attorney
is to ".. . advise the Mayor and Common Council and all City officers in all matters of law pertaining
to their offices;... " .
From the quoted language it is noted that the City Attorney is to "advise" the Mayor and
Common Council on matters of law which would appear to include evaluation and selection of
"outside" counsel. Certainly, it is to be expected that, as an attorney, the City Attorney would be
aware of the expertise and reputations of attorneys that might be needed by the City. The City
Attorney can also be expected to be conversant with fee ranges and other aspects of compensation.
Accordingly, practicality would appear to indicate that the City Attorney should be directly involved
with, and an active participant in, the selection, and terms of engagement, of "outside" counsel.
~~~
Allen B. Gresham for
GRESHAM, SA V AGE,
NOLAN & TILDEN, LLP
ABG:tdg
It is proposed that Section 241 of the Charter of the City of San Bernardino be amended by
adding the following opening phrase (in bold type) so that the entire Section would now read as
follows:
Section 241. Employment of Legal Counsel. Upon the recommendation,
and with the written consent, of the City Attorney, the Mayor and Common
Council shall have power and authority to employ and engage such legal
counsel and services and other assistants, as may be necessary and proper for
the interest and benefit of the City and the inhabitants thereof.
'-.
c
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
,- 27
--
28
~,@~ll
1
2
3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PROPOSING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF SAID CITY RELATING TO
EMPLOYMENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL
4 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
SECTION 1. Recitals.
(a) In accordance with the Constitution of the State of California, the City of San
Bernardino, a municipal corporation, has adopted a Charter.
(b) The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino desire to submit to
the electors the Charter Amendment set forth below in bold type in this resolution.
SECTION 2. Submittal to Electors. The following proposed amendment set forth in bold
type to the Charter of the City of San Bernardino is submitted to the qualified electors of the City
of San Bernardino for their approval or rejection at the consolidated municipal election to be held
on Tuesday, November 6, 2001.
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT NO.
It is proposed that Section 241 of the Charter of the City of San Bernardino be amended by
adding the additional opening phrase in bold type so that the entire Section would now read as
follows:
Section 241. Employment of Legal Counsel. Upon the
recommendation, and with the written consent, of the City
Attorney, the Mayor and Common Council shall have power and
authority to employ and engage such legal counsel and services and
other assistants, as may be necessary and proper for the interest and
benefit of the City and the inhabitants thereof.
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
I
6 thereof, held on the day of
7 COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES NAYS
8 ESTRADA
9 LIEN
10 MCGINNIS
II SCHNETZ
12 SUAREZ
13 ANDERSON
14 MCCAMMACK
C
15
16
17
/"
'-
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-- 27
.
"-'
28
I
2
3
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PROPOSING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF SAID CITY RELATING TO
EMPLOYMENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL
4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
5 Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meetin
, 200 1, by the following vote, to wit
ABSTAIN ABSENT
CITY CLERK
The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this
day of
, 2001.
JUDITH V ALLES, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form and
legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
By: L f-. f~
o /
2
~(Q)~V
1
RESOLUTION NO,
'- 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SUBMITTING TO THE
ELECTORS A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT OF
3 LEGAL COUNSEL; TRANSl\.fiSSION OF THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR PURPOSES OF PREPARATION OF AN IMPARTIAL
4 ANALYSIS.
5 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
6 SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
7 SECTION 1. Recital.
8
A.
Resolution No.
has been adopted by the Mayor and Common Council
9 of the City of San Bernardino on the date of
,submitting to the electors of the
10 City of San Bernardino a proposed Charter Amendment, a copy of which is attached hereto as
11 Exhibit A and is hereby incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
12 SECTION 2. ReQllest for Consolidation of Elections. Pursuant to Section 10400 of the
13 Elections Code, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino have previously
14 requested by Resolution No. 2001-130 that the Board of Supervisors of the County of San
C 15 Bernardino consolidate the City's primary election with the election to be held on Tuesday,
16 November 6,2001.
17 SECTION 3. Measure. The measure to be voted on at the consolidated primary election
18 as it is to appear on the ballot shall be as follows:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 The measure shall be designated on the ballot by a letter printed on the left margin of the
MEASURE
. Approve a Charter Amendment to
specifically state that the recommendation and written For the Amendment
consent of the City Attorney is required before the Mayor
and Common Council can employ and engage legal counsel Against the Amendment
and the services of such other assistants.
26 square containing the description of the measure as provided in the Elections Code of the State of
27 California.
C 28 II I
HTC/js [4CHARTER.RES]
I
I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SUBMITTING TO THE
ELECTORS A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT OF
'- 2 LEGAL COUNSEL; TRANSMISSION OF THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO THE
OFFlCE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR PURPOSES OF PREPARATION OF AN IMPARTIAL
3 ANALYSIS
-
'-
".-
'-"
4 SECTION 4. Canvass of Returns. Pursuant to Resolution No. 2001-130, the Registrar
5 of Voters of the County of San Bernardino has been authorized to canvass the returns of the
6 consolidated primary election and to conduct the consolidated primary election in all respects as
7 if there were only one election with only one form of ballot. Results of said municipal election
8 shall be certified to the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino.
9 SECTION 5. Notice of Election. The City Clerk is hereby directed to publish a notice
10 of the municipal election which shall contain the following:
II
12
A.
B.
The date of the election and the hours the polls will be open.
That the last day for receipt of primary arguments for or against the measure has
13 been established as 5:00 p.m. on August 17, 2001 in the City Clerk's Office, Second Floor, City
14 Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California.
15
C.
That the last day for receipt of rebuttal arguments is 5:00 p.m. on August 24, 2001
16 in the City Clerk's office at the above location.
17 The City Clerk is directed to accept arguments and arrange for sample ballots, which shall
18 also include the text of the proposed Charter Amendment, in accordance with the Elections Code.
19 This notice may be combined with a notice of any other municipal election to be held on
20 the same date.
21 SECTION 6. Conduct of Election. Pursuant to Resolution No. 2001-130, the consolidated
22 primary election shall be held in such precincts and at such polling places as shall be determined
23 by the Registrar of Voters of the County of San Bernardino. The Board of Supervisors of the
24 County of San Bernardino has been requested to issue instructions to the Registrar of Voters to
25 take all steps necessary for the holding of Ihe consolidated election. The Mayor has been
26 authorized to execute a contract for the services necessary for conducting said municipal election.
27 / / /
28 / / I
HTC/js [4CHARTER.RESI
2
I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SUBMITTING TO THE
ELECTORS A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT OF
'- 2 LEGAL COUNSEL; TRANSMISSION OF THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY FOR PURPOSES OF PREPARATION OF AN IMPARTIAL
3 ANALYSIS
-
"
'-
-,
i
'-
4 SECTION 7. Filin~ of Resolution. The City Clerk of the City of San Bernardino is
5 directed to ftle a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors of the County of
6 San Bernardino.
7 SECTION 8. Transmission of Proposed Charter Amendment. Pursuant to the State of
8 California Elections Code, the City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of the Charter
9 Ballot Measure, and all other necessary documents, to the Office of the City Attorney for purposes
10 of preparation of an Impartial Analysis.
II III
12 III
13 III
14 III
15 III
16 III
17 III
18 III
19 III
20 III
21 III
22 III
23 III
24 III
25 III
26 III
27 III
28 III
HTC/js [4CHARTER.RES] 3
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SUBMITTING TO THE
ELECTORS A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT OF
'- 2 LEGAL COUNSEL; TRANSMISSION OF THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY FOR PURPOSES OF PREPARATION OF AN IMPARTIAL
3 ANALYSIS
9 LIEN'
10 MCGINNIS
II SCHNETZ
12 SUAREZ
13 ANDERSON
14 MCCAMMACK
C 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
,r-- 28
.\",..,
4 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
5 Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meetin
6 thereof, held on the
7 COUNCIL MEMBERS:
8 ESTRADA
day of
AYES
NAYS
,2001, by the following vote, to wit
ABSTAIN ABSENT
CITY CLERK
The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this
day of
, 2001.
JUDITH V ALLES, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form and
legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN
City Attorney
HTC/js [4CHARTER.RES]
4
.
** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT **
RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM TRACKING FORM
Meeting Date (Date Adopted): 'l';;l~-Ol Item #
Vote: Ayes '2.., l\- fj Nays?,
Change to motion to amend original documents:
[) L\ A Resolution # 200 \ - 2.L\ \
Abstain .&- Absent I
0f6 2CXJ \- 2. 4; '2-
Reso. # On Attachments: ~ Contract term: -
Note on Resolution of Attachment stored separately: =--
Direct City Clerk to (circle I): PUBLISH, POST, RECORD WICOUNTY
Date Sent to Mayor: CZ' :J 5 -0 1
Date of Mayor's Signature: I'd Co-ol
Date ofClerklCDC Signature: 1- d(.,~
Date Memol
Si nature:
See Attached:
See Attached:
See ached:
60 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 30th day:
90 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 45th day:
Request for Council Action & Staff Report Attached:
Updated Prior Resolutions (Other Than Below):
Updated CITY Personnel Folders (6413, 6429, 6433, 10584, 10585, 12634):
Updated CDC Personnel Folders (5557):
Updated Traffic Folders (3985, 8234, 655, 92-389):
Copies Distributed to:
City Attorney ,/ Code Compliance
Dev. Services
Parks & Rec.
Police
Water
Public Services
Notes:
fCJik1{t~~~ ns~)
NulVVoid After: -
By: -
Reso. Log Updated: ../"
Seal Impressed: ~
Date Returned: -
Yes ,/ No By
Yes No ..L.. By
Yes No -L By
Yes No ~ By
Yes No ,/ By
EDA
Finance
MIS
Others:
BEFORE FILING, REVIEW FORM TO ENSURE ANY NOTATIONS MADE HERE ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE
YEARLY RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGICAL LOG FOR FUTURE REFERENCE (Contract Term, etc.)
Ready to File: 1b:L-
Date: 1(- 3C'.'() \
Revised 0] 112/0 I
** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT **
RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM TRACKING FORM
Meeting Date (Date Adopted): '1-73--c:, \ Item # 2",\.()
Vote: Ayes L\ .1\-, Nays 2, Abstain
Change to motion to amend original documents:
Resolution # LCD \ -"71j 2-
...e- Absent \
SEE 2Cl<J \- Z4. ,
Reso. # On Attachments:,/' Contract term:
Note on Resolution of Attachment stored separately: -==-
Direct City Clerk to (circle I): PUBLISH, POST, RECORD WICOUNTY
NulVVoid After: -
By: L. 1~2bc.....
Date Sent to Mayor: '1- ~5'0 I
Date of Mayor's Signature: I-,)b- 01
Date ofClerklCDC Signature: /-d6-<:'\
Reso. Log Updated: .-/
Seal Impressed: ,./
Date MemolLetter en
60 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 30th day:
90 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 45th day:
See Attached:
See Attached:
Date Returned:
Request for Council Action & Staff Report Attached:
Updated Prior Resolutions (Other Than Below):
Updated CITY Personnel Folders (6413, 6429, 6433, 10584, 10585, 12634):
Updated CDC Personnel Folders (5557):
Updated Traffic Folders (3985, 8234, 655, 92-389):
Yes ..L.. No By
Yes No Y' By
Yes No v By
-
Yes No v By
Yes N07 By
Copies Distributed to:
City Attorney ./
Parks & Rec.
Code Compliance
Dev. Services
EDA
Finance
Others: CDu n "'l
MIS
(I~. \c..tJ2::r)
Police Public Services
Water
Notes:
~D
BEFORE FILING, REVIEW FORM TO ENSURE ANY NOTATIONS MADE HERE ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE
YEARLY RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGICAL LOG FOR FUTURE REFERENCE (Contract Term. etc.)
Ready to File: ..ffi:I::..-
Date: "1-')G-<l1
Revised 0 1/12/0 1