The joint committee convened at 2:00 PM on May 14, 2025, to review the May 20, 2025 City Council agenda, approve consent calendar items, and consider a proposed Pay for Performance ordinance. After discussion, the committee voted 3-2 to forward the Pay for Performance item to the full City Council for its June 10, 2025, meeting. The meeting adjourned at 2:24 PM.
All right, it's two o'clock, so we're gonna call today's meeting of the rules and open government committee to order. Let's start with role, please. Candelas here. Duane. Here. Foley. Kameh. Here. Cohen? We have a quorum. All right, thank you. We have one agenda to review today. It's for our uh meeting on Tuesday, May 20th, scheduled to have a 9 30 closed session and 11 o'clock a.m. early start for regular session with an afternoon study session at 3 o'clock on San Jose wildfire planning. Consent starts on page five and continues on pages six seven eight nine. And ends on page ten. And section three, we have city council policy for seamless transition of elected offices. The community led solutions to domestic violence, but that will be moved to section four, as is shown on the draft agenda. Section five, we have bids and contracts for a major street resurfacing. And section eight, we have an amendment to Muni Code for an entertainment zone related to sporting events in 2026. We also have uh two items on land use consent to be heard immediately after regular consent, and one uh land use item, which will also be heard immediately after consent. Do we have any public comment? No public comment. All right, back to the committee, and I see Vice Mayor Foley's hand is up. Thank you. I have a couple questions about the agenda, actually. Um item number five point one, which is a report on bids and contracts. Is there any reason why we cannot move that to consent? This seems like something we approve on a regular basis, and it's under oh it's eight point eight point nine million. Yeah, that's why that's why. Yeah, it is over the threshold. I know our city manager we're trying to think through right now and possibly issue a manager's budget addendum where we do look at some of these thresholds. Okay, um, specific to the manager as well as the city attorney and possibly bring new thresholds forward so some of this can go on consent, or the city attorney has more flexibility and settlement. Uh frankly, when I when I suggested you saw the number eight ninety. I saw the 897 and I thought, why is that here? But now I see it's 8.9. We yes, so we currently have a practice of if it is uh five million and over, it's on the regular agenda. Um but there are there are definitely issues like this, or as well as some of our energy purchasing, which is gonna be well over this, but is somewhat routine in nature, absolutely. Okay, I'm I'm uh alternatively perhaps there's a procedure by which we could pre-approve the concept of certain spending for roads if we know that there's regular contracts, and then those can get put on consent when the contracts come through. Just on the think about okay, just as something to think about in the future. The other question I had is on uh the land use item 10.2, which is the uh supergraphic sign ordinance. Our agenda appears like it might move fairly quickly. Why is this scheduled not to be heard before 1.30 if council starting at 11? I believe that's when it was noticed, and because it's a land use item, we needed to keep it there. It was noticed before we decided to do an 11 a.m. start time. Okay, all right. Uh given that, then I will move the approval of the agenda. Well, I do have a question on that. Thank you for the motion and second.