Law and Legislation Committee
October 15, 2024

City of Sacramento
Law and Legislation Committee Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2024-01801 10/15/2024 Discussion Item 7.

Councilmember Proposal Request for Committee Consideration - Amend City Code Chapter

5.64 (Firearm and Ammunition Sales) and Chapter 9.32 (Weapons and Explosives) File ID: 2024-001801
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Committee to review and provide direction on the attached councilmember proposal regarding amending City Code Chapter 5.64 (Firearm and Ammunition Sales) and Chapter

9.32 (Weapons and Explosives) and take one of the following actions:
1) Pass a Motion directing the appropriate council appointive officer to commence work on the proposal and bring it back to the committee for review and consideration; 2) Pass a Motion directing the appropriate council appointive officer to commence work on the proposal with committee members and forwarding the item to the city council for consideration without further review by the committee;
3) Pass a Motion sending the matter back to the sponsoring councilmember for additional information;
4) Pass a Motion deferring the request and directing the appropriate council appointive officer to bring the proposal back to the committee at a later date; or 5) Pass a Motion denying the proposal request.

Contact: Councilmember Lisa Kaplan; Mateo Ramirez-Mercado, District Director, (916) 808-5100, [email protected]; Office of Councilmember Kaplan, District 1; Mayor Darrell Steinberg; Scott Whyte, Chief of Staff, (916) 808-5300, [email protected]; Office of the Mayor
Presenter: None, see proposal.

Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Councilmember Proposal Request Submission
3-Council Rules of Procedure
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: Councilmembers may propose an item, ordinance, program, research, or initiative for council action by submitting a written request to the City Clerk. The process modulates the agenda

File ID: 2024-01801 10/15/2024 Discussion Item 7.
requests of individual councilmembers by referring those requests to the relevant city council standing committee for review, as appropriate, and in so doing provides clear guidance to the council appointees that their work demands are serving the council as a whole. It also ensures councilmember requests are duly tracked and assigned, thus promoting transparency and accountability.

The attached proposal number 2024-011 was submitted by Councilmember Kaplan and Mayor Steinberg, was reviewed by the mayor, and is being referred to this city council standing committee for consideration.

Policy Considerations: Council Rules of Procedure, Chapter 12.

Economic Impacts: See proposal.

Environmental Considerations: This action is not a project that is subject to CEQA because it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, and it relates to government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a), (b)(2), (b)(4) and (b)(5).)
Sustainability: See proposal.

Commission/Committee Action: Committee action is required to initiate staff work on any councilmember proposal request.

Rationale for Recommendation: Committee direction will provide clear guidance to the council appointees that their work demands are serving the council as a whole and are in alignment with council priorities.

Financial Considerations: See proposal.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): See proposal.

2024-011
Councilmember Proposal Request Submission Page 1 of 8
Form Rev. 01/29/2024

COUNCILMEMBER PROPOSAL REQUEST SUBMISSION
Process as outlined in the Council Rules of Procedure, Chapter 12.

S
ubmission Date: Friday, October 4, 2024
Subj
ect: Amend City Code Chapter 5.64 (Firearm and Ammunition Sales) and Chapter 9.32 (Weapons and Explosives)
C
ouncilmember Sponsor: Councilmember Lisa Kaplan and Mayor Darrell Steinberg A
ssigned Council Staff Member: Mateo Ramirez-Mercado, D1 District Director and Scott Whyte, Chief of Staff to the Mayor
P
roposal Summary/Recommendation:

Ame
ndments to Current Code Chapter 5.64 (Firearm Ammunition Sales)

1. Prohibit the sale of firearms from home residences and home-based businesses

2. Prohibit individuals under the age of 18 from entering gun dealerships A
mendments to Current Code Chapter 9.32 (Weapons and Explosives)

1. Require gun owners to obtain and maintain liability insurance to cover losses and damages from accidental use of a firearm

2. Establish an annual gun harm reduction fee to be paid to a qualified non-profit organization each year. This would be awarded through an RFQ process and to be used for education and violence prevention measures.

Ra
tionale for Recommendation:

Every day, more than 120 Americans are killed with guns and more than 200 are shot and wounded.

Yearly, more than 500 individuals die from unintended firearm injuries. Most accidental or unintentional gun injuries and deaths can be prevented by storing firearms securely.

The effects of gun violence in America extends far beyond these casualties – g un violence shapes the lives of millions of Americans who witness it, know someone who was shot, or live in fear of the next shooting. In the United States, 59% of adults or someone they know have experienced gun violence in their lifetime.

C
alifornia has the strongest gun safety laws on the books in the United States, and many cities have found ways to strengthen their local ordinances to promote gun safety and reduce gun violence within the current federal and judicial constraints set forth in law. I n 2023, there were a total of 1,892 reported homicides in the state, a 14.2% decrease from those reported in 2022.

2024-011
Councilmember Proposal Request Submission Page 2 of 8
Form Rev. 01/29/2024
While last year Sacramento experienced a reduction in gun violence, this year homicide has experienced an approximate 30% increase. Data shows when jurisdictions implement a comprehensive set of gun safety policies, a clear pattern emerges where less gun violence is found.

Through August of 2024, the Sacramento Police Department has received 363 reports of shootings and conducted 254 arrests of individuals in possession of a firearm. While these numbers are roughly a 22% reduction compared to the statistics through August of 2023, the increase in homicides are alarming.

Compared to the 38 total homicides that took place in 2023, there have been a total of 33 homicides this year so far, with 19 of those (57%) occurring after June 1 st. The 33 this year alone surpasses the
total amount of 27 that took place during the first 9 months of 2023.

During the weekend of September 20th, 2024, there were 5 shootings that took place in a 26-hour period, resulting in 5 deaths and 3 other individuals wounded. The shootings took place in all parts of the City, with the youngest person killed being a 12-year-old boy. Furthermore, data also shows that access to a gun doubles the risk of death by homicide and triples the risk of death by suicide, especially among our youth.

Every life taken by gun violence is one too many; however, considering the recent tragic incidents, the City of Sacramento must act with urgency in updating and strengthening its local gun ordinances.

In September 2024, Governor Newsom signed a bipartisan legislative package to further reinforce California’s nation-leading gun laws. These measures include strengthening safe storage requirements, preventing gun-related hate crimes through requiring more training for law enforcement officers and courts, providing more tools to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals by restricting animal abusers and persons found incompetent to stand trial from possessing firearms, among others.

To further strengthen the City’s commitment to addressing gun violence, the proposed amendments build off of the recently adopted gun laws to include additional requirements in the City that prohibit the sale of firearms from home residences and home-based businesses, prohibit individuals under the age of 18 from entering gun dealerships, requiring gun owners to obtain and maintain liability insurance to cover losses and damages from accidental use of a firearm, and establishing an annual gun harm reduction fee to be paid to a designated non-profit organization each year to increase compliance with the requirements and best practices to be a safe gun owner.

Recommended Priority Level:
☒ 0-30 days
☐ 30-60 days
☐ Greater than 60 days

City Council Committee Review Recommended:
☐ Budget and Audit Committee (B&A)
☒ Law and Legislation Committee (L&L)
☐ Personnel and Public Employees Committee (P&PE)
☐ Racial Equity Committee (RE)
☐ City Board, Commission, or Committee Review Recommended (list advisory body(ies)):
2024-011
Councilmember Proposal Request Submission Page 3 of 8
Form Rev. 01/29/2024

Do any of the following Council Policy Considerations apply? If so, give a brief explanation:
☐ DEI:
☐ Climate Action:

2024-011
Councilmember Proposal Request Submission Page 4 of 8
Form Rev. 01/29/2024
Additional Considerations:

Attachments to Support Summary/Recommendation:

Attachment: Federal Ruling Dismissing All Claims Challenging San Jose’s Liability Insurance and Fee Requirements
• Highlighted in the attachment are summaries and justifications for the dismissal of all claims.

Justification: Prohibit the sale of firearms from home residences and home-based businesses

Neither federal nor California law prohibit gun dealers from operating out of residential homes, allowing unscrupulous gun dealers to evade detection and possibly bringing criminals and illegal activity into residential neighborhoods. Selling firearms from home residences and home-based businesses increase the risk of accidental discharges, especially in environments that may not have proper safety measures or where there are minors present.

In addition, selling firearms from home residences and home-based businesses have the potential to lack the needed regulation and oversight to ensure that mandated background checks are being conducted, audio and video protocols are being followed, and record-keeping is taking place. Lastly, it increases the potential of break-ins from criminals who may view home-based dealerships as easier targets due to limited security measures, putting the surrounding neighborhood at risk.

By prohibiting the sale of firearms from home residences and home-based businesses, the City furthers its commitment towards ensuring community safety and responsible gun ownership. A dedicated retail setting not only creates better compliance with safety measures and legal requirements, but also reduces the risks associated with home-based gun dealerships, allowing everyone to feel secure in their neighborhoods.

Justification: Prohibit individuals under the age of 18 from entering gun dealerships

Both federal and state law already impose strict regulations on the sale of firearms and ammunition.

Individuals under the age of 18 are prohibited from purchasing shotguns, rifles, and their respective ammunition, while those under 21 cannot purchase handguns or associated ammunition. This legal framework reflects a societal understanding of the responsibilities that come with firearm ownership.

Similarly, we see established age restrictions in many aspects of public life, such as bars, nightclubs, and other entertainment venues, where minors are not allowed entry until they reach the legal drinking age of 21. These regulations are in place not only to protect the health and safety of young individuals but also to maintain a responsible environment for adults.

Just as these venues recognize the potential dangers of allowing minors in environments where alcohol is present, prohibitions should be put in place to ensure that minors under the age of 18 are not allowed to enter spaces where firearms are sold and displayed. This furthers the City’s commitment to protecting our youth and emphasizing the seriousness of firearm ownership. By prohibiting entry, the risk for potential accidents and exposure without the proper supervision is reduced. 2024-011
Councilmember Proposal Request Submission Page 5 of 8
Form Rev. 01/29/2024
In addition, it also promotes responsible education where parents and legal guardians can engage youth in discussions about firearm safety, emphasizing the importance of responsible ownership and handling.

Justification: Gun Liability Insurance and Gun Harm Reduction Fee

Insurance is such a presence in our everyday lives that it's hard to imagine living without it. The first insurance company in the U.S. dates back to colonial days: the Philadelphia Contributionship, co - founded by Ben Franklin in 1752 . Throughout U.S. history, the types of insurance that companies have offered have expanded in reaction to new risks. For example, in 1897, Travelers Insurance Company sold its first auto insurance policy, and in 1919, its first aircraft liability coverage. As modern life continued to grow more complicated, new types of insurance s continued to emerge. When you drive a car, all drivers are legally required to have car insurance. For gun stores, gun store insurance is essential to cover potential liabilities arising from customer interactions and transactions. Therefore, as gun violence is an ever-increasing risk to everyday Americans, expanding the insurance requirements to require all gun owners to hold liability insurance is consistent with the principles of our Founding Fathers.

Americans are 4x more likely to die from an unintentional gun injury than any other high-income country. Furthermore, 37% of nonfatal firearm injuries are unintentional, which can be greatly reduced through using the gun harm reduction fee proceeds to increase education and responsible gun ownership.

Unintended shootings are preventable through increased education and enforcement of existing laws on the books. In America, over 4.6 million children live in homes with at least 1 unloaded, unlocked gun. In 2021, there were at least 377 unintentional shootings by children leading to 154 deaths and 242 injuries – which could have been prevented if all firearms were safely stored in a lock box as required by recently signed state legislation. Furthermore, teenagers are the most at risk for unintentional gun deaths. Parents of teens are more likely than those with younger children to store guns unlocked, loaded or both, which leads to an alarming statistic that more than 80% of teens who commit suicide use a firearm that belonged to a member of their household. By using the proceeds of the gun harm reduction fee, a non-profit can continue to educate gun owners on the requirement to store their firearms in a lock box. This alone will save lives of so many.

Frequently Asked Questions – Gun Liability Insurance
• Who is required to obtain liability insurance?
o All Sacramento residents that own or possess a firearm in the City. • When do gun owners need to purchase liability insurance? o If you own or possess a firearm, you will need to have an insurance policy in effect no later than 30 days following adoption of the ordinance. • What are the insurance requirements?
o Gun owners must have a homeowner’s, renter’s or gun liability insurance policy for their firearm(s). The insurance policy must cover losses or damages resulting from accidental use of the firearm including but not limited to death, injury, or property damage.

2024-011
Councilmember Proposal Request Submission Page 6 of 8
Form Rev. 01/29/2024
• Many people ask, does renters insurance cover guns?
o Typically, renters insurance and homeowners insurance include some coverage for firearms, but it often falls short in specific scenarios, such as intentional harm or acts of self-defense.
o To fill these gaps, firearm liability insurance and personal firearms insurance offer specialized protection. These policies cover a range of incidents, from accidental discharges to negligent storage, ensuring that you, as a responsible gun owner, are protected.
• How do I know whether my homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy satisfies the insurance requirement?
o Gun owners must comply with the insurance requirement through a homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy that covers losses or damages resulting from accidental use of a firearm. When reviewing your insurance policy or talking with your insurance agent, there are two questions you can ask to determine whether your homeowner’s or renter’s policy provides the requested coverage:
o 1) Does your policy provide liability coverage for accidents that occur in the home? Liability coverage is a common component of homeowner’s or renter’s insurance. If your policy includes this coverage, then move on to question 2 below. If it doesn’t include this coverage, then your policy does not meet the requirements of the liability insurance.
o 2) Does your policy explicitly exclude accidents that involve firearms from the liability coverage? Most policies that provide liability coverage will also list certain types of incidents that are excluded from the liability coverage. For example, a homeowner’s insurance policy may exclude any harm caused by lead paint or asbestos exposure from its liability coverage. If there is no such exclusion for accidents involving firearms, then your policy meets the liability insurance requirements; if there is an exclusion, it does not. o In summary, if the answer to Question 1 is “yes” and the answer to Question 2 is “no”, then your policy satisfies the insurance requirements.
• When and where will the insurance forms be made available? o Upon adoption by the City Council, the insurance forms will be available on the City of Sacramento website, and hard copies will be made available at City Hall and the Sacramento Police Department.
• How must gun owners provide evidence of their liability insurance? o A City of Sacramento insurance form must be kept wherever guns are stored and/or transported.
• How will the liability insurance requirement be enforced? o Any firearm discovered without an insurance attestation form will trigger a report by the police department and may result in an administrative citation. Fees start at $250.

Appeal for administrative citation(s) will be heard by the City. • Is anyone exempt from the liability insurance requirement? o Yes, the following people are exempt from the liability insurance requirement:
2024-011
Councilmember Proposal Request Submission Page 7 of 8
Form Rev. 01/29/2024
o Those persons designated as peace officers pursuant to Chapter 4.5 of Title 3 of Part 2 of the California Penal Code (§830 et seq.), including sworn peace officers, active reserve peace officers and retired peace officers. (Need to provide proof of eligibility for the exemption - show ID from issuing agency upon request; police to verify employment upon contact)
o Those persons who have a license to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 26150 or § 26155, for as long as these statutes are legally enforceable. (Need to provide proof of eligibility for the exemption – show CCW license upon request)

Frequently Asked Questions – Gun Harm Reduction Fee
• How much will the annual gun harm reduction fee be?
• The fee is tentatively set to be $25.
• Is the fee per gun or per gun owner/household?
• The fee is per gun.
• Who must pay the annual gun harm reduction fee?
• All Sacramento residents that own or possess a firearm in the City will be required to pay the fee to a non-profit designated by the City.
• Who collects the gun harm reduction fee?
• There will be a non-profit designated to collect the fee and provides services as defined in the ordinance. The non-profit has not yet been designated, however, the City will actively seek a non-profit through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process. • What will the collected gun harm reduction fees be used for? • A designated non-profit organization will use these fees to provide voluntary services to residents of the City that own or possess a firearm, to members of their household, or to those with whom they have a close familial or intimate relationship. Such expenditures may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Safe storage of gun requirements
• Suicide prevention services or programs
• Violence reduction services or programs
• Addiction intervention and substance abuse treatment
• Mental health services related to gun violence
• Firearms safety education or training
• Is anyone exempt from the requirements of the Gun Harm Reduction Fee? • The following individuals are exempt from the requirements:
• Those persons designated as peace officers pursuant to Chapter 4.5 of Title 3 of Part 2 of the California Penal Code (§830 et seq.), including sworn peace officers, active reserve peace officers and retired peace officers. (Need to provide proof of eligibility for the exemption - show ID from issuing agency upon request; police to verify employment upon contact)
• Those persons who have a license to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 26150 or § 26155, for as long as these statutes are legally enforceable. (Need to provide proof of eligibility for the exemption – show CCW license upon request)
2024-011
Councilmember Proposal Request Submission Page 8 of 8
Form Rev. 01/29/2024
• Those persons for which compliance with this Part would create a financial hardship.
• How will the Gun Harm Reduction Fee be enforced?
• When the gun harm reduction fee is paid, a receipt will be provided by the non-profit.

The receipt must then be kept with the firearm and will be valid for one year. • Discovery of a firearm without a receipt may garner an administrative citation.

Mayor’s Review:

Date Reviewed:

Committee Review Required:
☐ Budget and Audit Committee (B&A)
☐ Law and Legislation Committee (L&L)
☐ Personnel and Public Employees Committee (P&PE)
☐ Racial Equity Committee
☐ City Board, Commission, or Committee Review (list advisory body(ies)):

Committee Review Exception Applies:
☐ Urgent matter that requires quick council action.
☐ A matter related to a pending council matter.
☐ A matter that on its face falls fully outside the jurisdiction of the City. ☐ A matter within the City Manager’s executive function that does not need council authorization.

Department(s) Collaboration Needed:

Mayor’s Additional Direction:

City Council Standing Committee Scheduling:

Transmitted for addition to the following agenda(s) for committee review to initiate staff work on the proposal:

Standing Committee Tentative Agenda Date
Budget and Audit Committee (B&A)
Law and Legislation Committee (L&L)
Personnel and Public Employees Committee (P&PE)
Racial Equity Committee (RE)

Proposal will also be made part of the Councilmember Proposal Tracking Log.

City Clerk’s Additional Comments:

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
United States District Court
Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN
RIGHTS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,
Defendants.

HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CITY OF SAN JOSE,
Defendant.

Case No. 22-cv-00501-BLF

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND IN PART AND WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART
[Re: ECF No. 95]

On February 8, 2022, the City of San Jose City Council voted to approve the Reduction of Gun Harm – Liability Insurance Requirement and Gun Harm Reduction Fee (the “Ordinance”), requiring San Jose gun owners to maintain gun liability insurance and pay a mandatory annual fee to a designated gun harm reduction nonprofit. This ordinance has been challenged by two sets of plaintiffs, one led by the National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. (“NAGR Plaintiffs”) and the other by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (“HJTA Plaintiffs”).

Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART and WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART.

Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 1 of 23

2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Ordinance
The San Jose Ordinance at issue here is comprised of two primary obligations: the requirement for gunowners to maintain liability insurance (the “Insurance Requirement”) and the payment of an annual fee to a nonprofit of the City’s designation (the “Fee Provision”).

The Insurance Requirement obligates San Jose residents who own or possess a firearm to obtain a homeowner’s, renter’s, or gun liability insurance policy “covering losses or damages resulting from any accidental use of the Firearm.” ECF No. 941 (“SAC”), Ex. E (“Ordinance”) §

10.32.210 (the “Insurance Requirement”). The Insurance Requirement went into effect on January 1, 2023. ECF No. 85 at 3.

The Fee Provision requires San Jose gun owners to pay an Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee (the “Fee”) to a Designated Nonprofit Organization (the “Nonprofit”), selected by the City Manager. Ordinance § 10.32.215, 10.32.235. The Ordinance did not set the Fee amount, but stated that it would be established by the City Council, and every dollar generated must be used by the Nonprofit to provide “services to residents of the City that own or possess a [f]irearm in the City, to members of their household, or to those with whom they have a close familial or intimate relationship.” Id. § 10.32.220(A). The Ordinance instructs the Nonprofit to spend the funds generated from the Fee exclusively for programs and initiatives designed to “(a) reduce the risk or likelihood of harm from the use of firearms in the City of San Jose, and (b) mitigate the risk of physical harm or financial, civil, or criminal liability that a San Jose firearm owner or her family will incur through her possession of firearms.” Id. § 10.32.220(C). Proceeds generated by the Fee may not be used for litigation, political advocacy, or lobbying activities nor may the City “specifically direct how the monies from the Gun Harm Reduction Fee are expended.” Id. §§

10.32.220(B)-(C).

1 Citations to “ECF No.” refer to entries in the docket for the consolidated case, Case No. 22-cv- 00501-BLF. Any citations to the docket for Case No. 22-cv-002365 will be referred to as “HJTA ECF No.”
Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 2 of 23

3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
In June 2022, the City Council set a placeholder Fee amount of $25 per gun-owning household with the express caveat that the Fee would not yet be enforced. SAC ¶ 31; ECF No. 78 at 2. This action did not permanently set the Fee; once the City Manager’s Office (“CMO”) has completed all necessary prerequisites to enforcing the Fee, including designating and securing a contract with a nonprofit, it will need to reappear before the City Council and ask it to vote on and approve the CMO’s authority to begin requiring Fee payment. ECF No. 78 at 2-3. When this second vote occurs, the amount could change from $25. Id. at 3.

In addition to obtaining gun liability insurance and paying the annual Fee, San Jose residents must also maintain City-designated proof of compliance. Ordinance § 10.32.230. The Ordinance sets out a limited number of exemptions from its obligations, including a “financial hardship” exemption, the criteria for which were to be promulgated by the City Manager. Id. §§

10.32.225, 10.32.235(A)(4).

Violations of the Ordinance are punishable by administrative citation with fines to be established by City Council. Id. § 10.32.240. Although the Ordinance would permit the impoundment of any non-compliant person’s firearm to the extent allowed by law (id. §

10.32.245), the City admits in its briefing that the section is inoperable because “there is currently no lawful basis to impound firearms under state or federal law.” MTD at 6. And Plaintiffs allege this lack of authority to impound. SAC ¶ 51.

The Ordinance authorizes the City Manager to promulgate certain implementing regulations, including the designation of the Nonprofit, additional guidelines on and audits of the use of the Fee, and establishing the criteria for the “financial hardship” exemption. Id. §

10.32.235. The CMO has defined the criteria for a hardship exemption. SAC, Ex. H § 4-3; ECF No. 82 at 1. The City Council and City Manager have not yet established the identity of the Nonprofit. See SAC ¶ 58. The CMO “initiated an RFI process for soliciting interest and information from nonprofit organizations regarding using the Fee’s funds to provide the programs and services contemplated by the Ordinance” but received no responses. ECF No. 85 at 2; see SAC ¶ 47. The CMO will publish a full Request for Proposals to elicit proposals from qualified nonprofit organizations. ECF No. 85 at 2; see SAC ¶ 47.

Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 3 of 23

4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
B. Procedural History

1. National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. (“NAGR”), et al.

Plaintiff National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. (“NAGR”) describes itself as a nonprofit grassroots organization dedicated to defending the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. SAC ¶ 13. Its members include San Jose residents, such as Plaintiff Mark Sikes, who legally own guns and would be subject to the Ordinance if it were to go into effect. Id. ¶¶ 13-14.

NAGR Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on January 25, 2022, the same day the City passed the first reading of the Ordinance. See ECF No. 1. NAGR Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Ordinance. ECF No. 25. Shortly thereafter, the City filed a motion to dismiss NAGR Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 36. On June 23, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n., Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), expressly rejecting the “two-step” means-end scrutiny framework that Circuit Courts of Appeals and the parties had used to analyze Second Amendment challenges. After requesting and receiving the parties’ supplemental briefings on the application of Bruen and hearing oral arguments, the Court denied NAGR Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction on August 3, 2022. ECF No. 72 (“PI Order”); see Nat’l Ass’n for Gun Rights, Inc. v.

City of San Jose, 618 F. Supp. 3d 901 (N.D. Cal. 2022).

2. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (“HJTA”), et al.

Plaintiff Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (“HJTA”) is a nonprofit public benefit corporation that engages in civil litigation to ensure constitutional taxation in California. SAC ¶

16. Plaintiffs Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. (“SVTA”) and Silicon Valley Public Accountability Foundation (“SVPAF”) are also nonprofit public benefit corporations comprised of Santa Clara County residents, seeking to reduce taxes and monitor Santa Clara County public officials, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. All three associations’ members include San Jose gun owners who would be subject to the Fee Provision. Id. ¶¶ 16-18. In addition to the associational plaintiffs, the suit is also brought by individual plaintiffs, James Barry and George Arrington (collectively with HJTA, SVTA, and SVPAF, the “HJTA Plaintiffs”), both of whom are San Jose residents who legally own firearms. Id. ¶¶ 19-20.

Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 4 of 23

5 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
On March 7, 2022, HJTA Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. HJTA ECF No. 1. The City removed the HJTA Complaint to the Northern District of California based on the First and Second Amendment claims. Id. Shortly thereafter, the Court granted the City’s motion to relate the HJTA Plaintiffs’ case with the NAGR Plaintiffs’ case. ECF No. 41; HJTA ECF No. 5. On April 22, 2022, the City moved to dismiss the HJTA Complaint on Rule 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) grounds. HJTA ECF No. 9.

3. Consolidated Case
On September 30, 2022, the Court consolidated both cases for all purposes. ECF No. 80.

The Court also issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the NAGR Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the HJTA Plaintiffs’ Complaint. ECF No. 81 (“MTD Order”); see Nat’l Ass’n for Gun Rights, Inc. v. City of San Jose, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2022 WL 4625133 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022).

On February 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a “Consolidated Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Judgment, Invalidation of §§ 10.32.215 and 10.32.230(B) of Chapter 10.32 of the Title 10 of the San Jose Municipal Code, and Nominal Damages.” See SAC.

The claims in the SAC are as follows:

Claim for Relief Requirement
Challenged
Plaintiff

1. U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment Fee Insurance NAGR

2. U.S. Constitution, First Amendment
(compelled speech and association)
Fee NAGR HJTA

3. Declaratory Judgment, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02
(derivative of Claims 1 and 2)
Fee Insurance NAGR HJTA

4. Cal. Constitution, art. I (§§ 2-3)
(compelled speech and association)
Fee HJTA

5. Cal. Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine
(based on Second Amendment rights)
Fee HJTA

6. Cal. Constitution, art. XIII C (§§ 1-2)
(special tax lacking voter approval)
Fee HJTA

7. Cal. Constitution, arts. XIII (§ 31) and XI (§ 11)
(delegation of power to tax)
Fee HJTA
SAC ¶¶ 84-127.

Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC. ECF No. 95 (“MTD”); see also ECF No. 104 (“Reply”). NAGR Plaintiffs and HJTA Plaintiffs oppose the motion. ECF Nos. 103 (“NAGR Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 5 of 23

6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
Opp.”), 102 (“HJTA Opp.”). Brady, a nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing gun violence, filed a motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae and to file an amicus brief in support of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See ECF Nos. 99 (Brady Motion for Leave), 99-1 (Brief of Brady in Support of Defendants’ MTD (“Brady Br.”)). No party has opposed the motion. The Court GRANTS Brady’s motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae and to file an amicus brief.

II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A party may challenge the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction by bringing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). “A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004).

In a facial attack, the movant asserts that the lack of subject matter jurisdiction is apparent from the face of the complaint. Id. In a factual attack, the movant disputes the truth of allegations that otherwise would give rise to federal jurisdiction. Id. “In resolving a factual attack on jurisdiction, the district court may review evidence beyond the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.” Id. “The court need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff's allegations.” Id. If the moving party presents evidence demonstrating the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the party opposing the motion must present affidavits or other evidence sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

B. Failure to State a Claim
“A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ‘tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.’” Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)). When determining whether a claim has been stated, the Court accepts as true all well-pled factual allegations and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Reese v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681, 690 (9th Cir. 2011). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 6 of 23

7 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
facially plausible when it “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. On a motion to dismiss, the Court’s review is limited to the face of the complaint and matters judicially noticeable. MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986).

In deciding whether to grant leave to amend, the Court must consider the factors set forth by the Supreme Court in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S. Ct. 227 (1962), and discussed at length by the Ninth Circuit in Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003). A district court ordinarily must grant leave to amend unless one or more of the Foman factors is present: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or dilatory motive, (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment, (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party, or (5) futility of amendment. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. “[I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Id. However, a strong showing with respect to one of the other factors may warrant denial of leave to amend. Id.

III. DISCUSSION
Defendants move to dismiss all claims. See MTD. The Court will discuss each in turn.

A. Claim 1: Second Amendment
The first claim, brought by NAGR Plaintiffs, alleges that the Insurance Requirement and Fee Provision both violate the Second Amendment . SAC ¶¶ 84-92. As to the Insurance Requirement, the City moves to dismiss the claim on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds under the Bruen framework. MTD at 10-16. As to the Fee Provision, the City moves to dismiss the claim on ripeness grounds or, in the alternative, on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds. MTD at 16-21.

1. Insurance Requirement
NAGR Plaintiffs allege that the Insurance Requirement violates the Second Amendment.

SAC ¶¶ 84-92. In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, holding that New York State’s “may-issue” licensing regime—i.e., where officials have discretion and may issue, rather than shall issue, concealed-carry licenses upon proof of proper cause—was unconstitutional. 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). In striking down the New York statute, the Supreme Court acknowledged and expressly rejected the “two-step” means- Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 7 of 23

8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
end scrutiny framework that Circuit Courts of Appeals (and the parties) have used to analyze Second Amendment challenges. See id. at 2127. In its place, Bruen pronounced a constitutional test adhering to the principles in D.C. v. Heller, that is, “a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history.” Id. at 2127 (citing D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 576-77 (2008)).

The present standard as pronounced in Bruen is as follows: “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 2129-30.

To determine whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, courts must first identify and delineate the specific course of conduct at issue, which in Bruen was “carrying handguns publicly for self-defense.” Id. at 2134. Bruen conducted a textual analysis of the words “bear” and “keep” to determine whether the conduct of publicly carrying a firearm fell within the language of the Second Amendment. Id. at 2134-35.

If the conduct at issue is covered by the text of the Second Amendment, the burden then shifts to the government to show why the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, specifically the periods closest to the adoption of the Second Amendment (1791) and the Fourteenth Amendment (1868). Id. at 2135-36. Courts need not themselves engage in “searching historical surveys” for potential regulatory analogues—they are “entitled to decide a case based on the historical record compiled by the parties.” Id. at 2130 n.6.

If the parties are able to identify instances of historical firearm regulations, courts must reason by analogy to determine whether the two regulations are “relevantly similar.” Id. at 2132 (quoting Cass R. Sunstein, On Analogical Reasoning Commentary, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 741, 773 (1993)).

Two relevant metrics for this comparison are “how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense”; in other words, “whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and whether that burden is comparably justified.” Id. at 2132-33.

With this framework in mind to evaluate the Insurance Requirement’s constitutionality under the Second Amendment, the Court turns to the parties’ arguments.

Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 8 of 23

9 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
a. Plain Text
The Court must first identify Plaintiffs’ “proposed course of conduct” and assess whether that conduct is covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2134.

Defendants argue that the Insurance Requirement does not infringe on conduct that falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment. MTD at 11-13. NAGR Plaintiffs argue that the regulated conduct is “owning or possessing firearms in the home for self-defense.” NAGR Opp. at 4. They further argue that the Insurance Requirement “impos[es] a burden on gun ownership and possession” and “seeks to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms.” Id. at 5. Defendants argue that NAGR Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim “because ‘choosing to keep and bear arms in the home’ is not a course of conduct that is affected by the Insurance Requirement.” MTD at 12. The City asserts that “[h]olding insurance for an activity is not the same as participating in that activity.” Id. at 13. Brady argues that the Insurance Requirement does not implicate the Second Amendment because the conduct at issue is “insuring liability,” which is outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Brady Br. at 11-12.

The Supreme Court provided limited guidance on how to define the proposed course of conduct—Bruen identified the conduct at issue with New York’s statute as “carrying handguns publicly for self-defense.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct at 2134. In the Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court defined the conduct at issue here as “owning or possessing a firearm without firearm liability insurance.” PI Order at 15. But the Court noted there that it “may reevaluate this description of the proposed conduct” on a more developed record and that it would “revisit this issue as the case proceeds.” Id. at 15 n.4. The Court does so here. As Defendants note, “the closest the NAGR Plaintiffs come to pleading the required course of conduct at issue is ‘choosing to keep and bear arms in the home.’” MTD at 12 (quoting SAC ¶ 87). If that were the “course of conduct” then the Court would agree with Defendants that “‘choosing to keep and bear arms in the home’ is not a course of conduct that is affected by the Insurance requirement,” which simply requires gun owners to maintain insurance for accidental shootings. Id. The Court has gleaned more generally from the SAC the following course of conduct: “choosing to keep and bear arms at home without the burden of insuring liability for firearm-related accidents.” As noted by Brady, Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 9 of 23

10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
the purchase of insurance does not restrict firearm possession or use. See Brady Br. at 11. And the Ordinance does not condition ownership on complying with the Insurance Requirement, as non-compliance with the Ordinance can only result in an administrative citation or fine; the City has no authority to seize a person’s gun under the Ordinance’s impoundment provision. MTD at 12; SAC ¶ 51; Ordinance §§ 10.32.240, 10.32.245.

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const., Amend. II. The Court finds that the plain text of the Second Amendment does not cover the course of conduct at issue here: “choosing to keep and bear arms at home without the burden of insuring liability for firearm-related accidents.” But the Court will also address whether the Insurance Requirement is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. b. Historical Tradition
If the proposed conduct is covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the burden shifts to the City to “demonstrate[e] that [the Insurance Requirement] is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct at 2130. While the Court determines that NAGR Plaintiffs have not alleged a course of conduct that implicates the Second Amendment, the Court will address historical tradition for the sake of completeness. As discussed in the Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court finds that the City has presented a “relevantly similar” historical regulation such that NAGR Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a claim based on Bruen’s historical tradition prong.

Bruen described the analogical reasoning of the historical tradition prong as “neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check. . . . [C]ourts should not ‘uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue’ [but] analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2133 (emphasis in original). “[E]ven if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.” Id. As one example, Bruen noted that “[a]lthough the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century ‘sensitive places’ where weapons were altogether Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 10 of 23

11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions. We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were ‘sensitive places’ where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

The City has pointed to several historical analogues with varying degrees of similarity to the Insurance Requirement. See MTD at 13-16. As explained in the Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court finds that the mid-19th century surety statutes, cited by the City and discussed at length in Bruen, bear striking analogical resemblances to the Insurance Requirement. 142 S. Ct. at 2148; see MTD at 14. These statutes typically required certain individuals to post bond before carrying weapons in public if there was “reasonable cause” to fear these individuals would cause injury or breach of the peace, with the bond forfeited if the wielder did in fact injure another or breach the peace. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2148.

The history of reallocating costs of firearm-related accidents—from which the Insurance Requirement descends—can be traced back to the early American practice of imposing strict liability for such accidents. See Brady Br. at 5-6. As early as 1814, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts noted that “[i]t is immaterial . . . whether the act of the defendant [causing a firearm injury] was by his intention and purpose injurious to the plaintiff, or the mischief which ensued was accidental,” a legal principle that had “never been questioned” at the time. Cole v. Fisher, 11 Mass. (1 Tyng) 137, 138 (1814); see also Moody v. Ward, 13 Mass. (1 Tyng) 299, 301 (1816) (noting that militia commanders whose soldiers fire “guns in and near the highways on days of military musters . . . are legally responsible for all damage sustained by a citizen in consequence of such neglect.”). Strict liability for gun accidents eventually transitioned to a negligence standard in the mid-1800s, which in turn gave rise to liability insurance to “insure against the consequences of negligence.” Brady Br. at 6-8 (citing Morgan v. Cox, 22 Mo. 373, 376-77 (1856) (commenting on the transition of firearm strict liability to negligence)). However, whether the standard was strict liability or negligence, the Nation nonetheless maintained a “historical tradition” of shifting the costs of firearm accidents from the victims to the owners of the implicated firearms.

With this historical backdrop in mind, the Court considers whether 19th century surety Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 11 of 23

12 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
statutes are sufficiently analogous to the Insurance Requirement. Both regulations share similar, albeit not identical, deterrent purposes: surety laws were “intended merely for prevention” of future harm, Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2149, while the Insurance Requirement is intended to “reduce the number of gun incidents by encouraging safer behavior,” Ordinance § 10.32.200(B)(12). Both schemes also achieve their purposes through similar means, namely the threat of financial consequences (either through a peace bond or higher premiums) for individuals deemed to be high-risk (either by a judge or an underwriter). See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2151 (“[A]lthough surety statutes did not directly restrict public carry, they did provide financial incentives for responsible arms carrying.”). The Supreme Court also highlighted the fact that surety laws were not complete bans on public carry, much like the Insurance Requirement. Id. 2148 (noting that surety laws were “not bans on public carry”) (italics in original). Accordingly, the Court finds that surety laws and the Insurance Requirement share substantial overlap as to the “how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2133.

NAGR Plaintiffs argue that surety laws are distinguishable because these laws imposed a financial burden “only after an individual was reasonably accused on intending to injure another or breach the peace.” NAGR Opp. at 6-7 (emphasis in original) (quoting Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2148-49). The Court rejected this argument in its Preliminary Injunction Order, stating that while NAGR Plaintiffs have identified a fair distinction between surety laws and the Insurance Requirement, the distinction ultimately does not bear upon the metrics identified in Bruen. 142 S.

Ct at 2133 (“how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self- defense”). The Court explained that while the Insurance Requirement applies to all gun owners, the actual amount of the burden involves a risk evaluation tailored to the individual and analogous to “reasonable cause” determinations under surety statutes. See Stephen G. Gilles & Nelson Lund, Mandatory Liability Insurance for Firearm Owners: Design Choices and Second Amendment Limits, 14 Engage 18 (2013) (“Competitive pressures would lead insurance carriers to keep the premiums for low-risk gun owners low, while charging higher premiums to those who are more likely to cause injuries to other people.”). Second, the Court stated that at this stage in both the litigation and the Ordinance’s implementation, there is no evidence on how low gun liability Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 12 of 23

13 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
insurance premiums may be for low-risk gun owners.2 But see id. at 22 n.34 (estimating a baseline premium of about $20 per year for an average firearm owner). A de minimis low-risk premium could retain analogical resemblance to the de minimis (but nonetheless discernible) burdens that surety laws imposed on low-risk gun owners in the 19th century. Cf. Bruen, 142 S.

Ct. at 2149 (acknowledging that “the hypothetical possibility of posting a bond” may be a burden but “the burden these surety statutes may have had on the right to public carry was likely too insignificant”). Bruen does not demand a “historical twin,” and neither will this Court.

The Court also notes the Bruen Court’s general approval of the regulations attendant to “shall-issue” regimes. Id. at 2138 n.9 (noting with approval that “shall-issue” regimes often require licensing applicants to “undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course”); see also id. at 2162 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (noting additional “shall issue” requirements such as fingerprinting, mental health records checks, and training in laws regarding the use of force).

The City has demonstrated that the Insurance Requirement is consistent with the Nation’s historical traditions. Although the Insurance Regulation is not a “dead ringer” for 19th century surety laws, the other similarities between the two laws would render the Ordinance “analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.” Id. at 2133.
c. Conclusion
The Court will DISMISS NAGR Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim as to the Insurance Requirement for failure to state a claim. NAGR Plaintiffs already had an opportunity to amend, and the Court determines that further amendment would be futile, so this dismissal is WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

2. Fee Provision
NAGR Plaintiffs also allege that the Fee Provision violates the Second Amendment. SAC ¶¶ 84-92. Defendants argue that this claim should be dismissed because (1) it is not ripe for

2 The Insurance Requirement may not even impose any financial burden, as Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence that ordinary homeowners’ and renters’ insurance would not already satisfy the Requirement. See MTD at 10-11.

Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 13 of 23

14 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
review and (2) it fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). MTD at 16-21. The Court previously determined that NAGR Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment challenge to the Fee Provision was not ripe because the City Council had not yet confirmed the Fee’s final amount nor had the City Manager promulgated the “financial hardship” criteria by which a gun owner may be exempt from paying the Fee. PI Order at 11-12, MTD Order at 9. The preliminary Fee amount has been set. SAC ¶ 31; ECF No. 78 at 2. And the City Manager has defined the criteria for a hardship exemption.

ECF No. 82 at 1. NAGR Plaintiffs argue that the fee requirement is now ripe for review. NAGR Opp. at 8-9. And Defendants acknowledge that “because the Fee amount has at least been preliminarily set, the Fee requirement can be evaluated under the Second Amendment framework.” MTD at 19. The fact that the fee amount is subject to change does not affect ripeness. All fees are subject to change over time. If the fee is increased in the future, then Plaintiffs may have a new claim under the Second Amendment. The Court will therefore address this claim on the merits.

Defendants argue that the Fee does not violate the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen. MTD at 20-21. NAGR Plaintiffs counter that the government cannot “impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.” NAGR Opp. at 7-8 (quoting Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113 (1943)). The Supreme Court in Bruen expressly contemplated regulations that may permissibly include fee payments, so long as the fees were not so “exorbitant [so as to] deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.” Bruen, 142 S.

Ct. at 2138 n.9. The Fee amount has been set at $25. SAC ¶ 31. As Defendants argued, several courts that analyzed the constitutionality of fee requirements prior to Bruen upheld fees of amounts much larger than $25. Heller v. Dist. of Columbia, 801 F.3d 264, 278 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (upholding registration fee of $13 per firearm and $35 for fingerprinting); Kwong v. Bloomberg, 723 F.3d 160, 165-69 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2696 (2014) (upholding $340 handgun licensing fee); O’Connell v. Gross, No. 19-11654-FDS, 2020 WL 1821832, at *9 (D.

Mass. Apr. 10, 2020) (upholding $100 fee of which $25 went to licensing authority, $50 went to general fund, which allocated at least $50,000 annually to the Firearm Licensing Review Board, and $25 went to Firearms Fingerprint Identity Verification Trust Fund). The Court determines Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 14 of 23

15 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
that the Fee is constitutional. The $25 amount is by no means “exorbitant.” And the Court notes that there is a financial hardship exemption under which individual for whom compliance would create financial hardship are exempted from the Ordinance. See SAC, Ex. H § 4-3. This is not a situation where “exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.” Bruen, 142 S.

Ct. at 2138 n.9. Accordingly, the Court will DISMISS NAGR Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim as to the Fee Provision. The Court finds that amendment would be futile, so this dismissal is WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

B. Claim 2: First Amendment
The SAC’s First Amendment claim, brought by all Plaintiffs, is asserted only against the Ordinance’s Fee Provision. SAC ¶¶ 93-99. It alleges that the Ordinance, by requiring gun owners to pay the Fee to a private nonprofit organization designated by the City Manager, “forces San Jose gun owners to associate with or support that private group and to fund their message” in violation of those individuals’ First Amendment rights. Id. ¶ 96. Defendants move to dismiss this claim as unripe. MTD at 16-20.

In the Preliminary Injunction Order and Motion to Dismiss Order, the Court found that the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenges to the Fee Provision were unripe because the Court had no information as to what activities—and more critically what speech or expression, if any—the proceeds from the Fee would fund. See PI Order at 7-11; MTD Order at 7-9, 18-19. This reasoning still applies to the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim. Because the City Manager has not promulgated regulations identifying the Nonprofit’s activities, the Court cannot determine if the Fee would fund any expressive activities and thereby remains unfit for judicial determination.

Additionally, Plaintiffs still have not highlighted any hardship they would suffer from the Court withholding consideration at this time. See Wolfson, 616 F.3d at 1060; see also Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo Cnty., 863 F.3d 1144, 1154 (9th Cir. 2017).

Plaintiffs argue that the claim is ripe for review because it presents a facial challenge and there is no constitutional way to enforce the requirement, regardless of what Nonprofit is chosen.

NAGR Opp. at 8-9; HJTA Opp. at 8-9. But the Court already rejected the argument that a mandatory Fee to any nonprofit would violate the First Amendment. MTD Order at 8 (citing Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 15 of 23

16 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018)). HJTA Plaintiffs cite to Janus in support of their argument. HJTA Opp. at 9. As the Court explained in the Motion to Dismiss Order, Janus is distinguishable because there the recipient of the compulsory fees (i.e., the union) and the activities the fees would fund were known and well- defined for First Amendment scrutiny. See 138 S. Ct. at 2461 (noting that nonmembers’ agency fees paid for the “cost of collective bargaining,” as well as lobbying, social and recreational activities, advertising, membership meetings and conventions, and litigation). Here, by contrast, there are no such concrete activities that the Court can consider in applying any level of First Amendment scrutiny or the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Janus. HJTA Plaintiffs also cite to Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1994). HJTA Opp. at 8. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized that “[f]reedom of association . . . plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate.” 468 U.S. at 623. But again, there, the factual circumstances were well-defined for First Amendment scrutiny. See generally id. The Supreme Court analyzed whether application of the Minnesota Human Rights Act to United States Jaycees to require the group to accept women as members violated the male members’ freedom of association. Id. Again, here, the facts are not sufficiently concrete for the Court to apply the First Amendment.

For the reasons set forth above, the City’s motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim is GRANTED. Based on Plaintiffs’ arguments, it is quite likely they will be able to plead this First Amendment claim once the City designates the Nonprofit. “In the Ninth Circuit, it is proper to liberally allow amendment of a complaint to cure jurisdictional defects.” Nat. Res. Def. Couns. v.

Winter, No. 2:05-cv-07513-FMC-FMOx, 2008 WL 11338646, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the Court will DISMISS the SAC’s First Amendment claim for lack of ripeness with LEAVE TO AMEND.

C. Claim 3: Declaratory Judgment Relief
The SAC asserts a claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act, seeking declaratory relief “[t]o the extent that each of the claims above have not already established a remedy.” SAC ¶ 101.

The City argues that this claim is derivate of the First and Second Amendment claims, and it should therefore be dismissed on the same basis. MTD at 22. NAGR Plaintiffs argue that this Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 16 of 23

17 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
claim requests relief “to the extent that each of the claims above have not already established a remedy.” NAGR Opp. at 10. This claim is based on violations of the Second and First Amendments. SAC ¶¶ 100-02. For the same reasons as discussed for the first and second claims, above, this claim is DISMISSED. This dismissal is WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Second Amendment claim. The dismissal is WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the First Amendment claim.

D. Claim 4: California Rights of Speech and Association The fourth claim, brought by HJTA Plaintiffs, alleges violation of Sections 2 and 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. SAC ¶¶ 103-06. Section 2 of Article I provides: “A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.” Cal. Const., art. I, § 2(a). And Section 3 of Article I provides: “The people have the right to . . . assemble freely to consult for the common good.” Cal. Const., art. I, § 3. HJTA Plaintiffs allege that the Fee Provision “forces San Jose gun owners to associate or support th[e] private group [designated by the City] and to fund their message” and that this violates their rights under the California Constitution. SAC ¶ 106.

Defendants argue this claim is not ripe for review. MTD at 16-20. For the reasons discussed above with regard to Claim 2, the Court agrees. Therefore, this claim is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

E. Claim 5: Unconstitutional Condition (Second Amendment) The fifth claim, brought by HJTA Plaintiffs, is titled “Violation of Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions.” SAC ¶¶ 107-13. HJTA Plaintiffs allege that they “wish to continue exercising their rights under the United States and California [C]onstitutions to protect their property and personal safety by bearing arms” but “the Ordinance has placed a condition on the continued exercise of those rights: any gun owner who fails to pay the required fee to the designated private organization may be forced to surrender his firearms to the City. (Muni. Code §

10.32.245).” Id. ¶ 109.

Defendants argue that the claim should be dismissed because the Fee Provision does not condition the exercise of Second Amendment rights because there are no means by which a gun owner can be deprived of their firearm. MTD at 21-22. The Court previously granted the motion Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 17 of 23

18 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
to dismiss this claim, noting that the Ordinance as drafted does not “condition” the exercise of Second Amendment rights because there are no means by which a San Jose gun owner may be deprived of his or her firearm. MTD Order at 20. The Court explained that the Ordinance expressly states that its impoundment provision may only apply “[to] the extent allowed by law” (Ordinance § 10.32.245), and the City openly admits that there is no state or federal law that would presently permit impoundment. MTD Order at 20. The Court found that HJTA Plaintiffs’ allegation that “any gun owner who fails to pay the required fee to the designated private organization may be forced to surrender his firearms” was a misinterpretation of the Ordinance.

Id. (quoting HJTA ECF No. 1). The Court granted leave to amend to the extent the claim was based on the Second Amendment and without leave to amend to the extent it was based on the California Constitution. Id. at 21.

HJTA Plaintiffs add allegations in the SAC that they argue are sufficient to state a claim for unconstitutional conditions. HJTA Opp. at 10-12. HJTA Plaintiffs now allege that “City police are authorized by law to, and often do, confiscate firearms when carried or used in violation of the law,” alleging that “[i]f a student brings a firearm to school, if someone is carrying a firearm in public without a CCW permit, if someone with a CCW permit is carrying a firearm while intoxicated, if someone purchases a firearm on the street without going through a federally licensed dealer, if someone discharges a firearm in the air on New Year’s Eve, and for a host of other reasons, city police are authorized to, and often do, confiscate firearms when carried or used in violation of the law.” SAC ¶ 111. They allege that the Ordinance makes it a violation of law to own a gun unless an individual pays the Fee. Id. ¶ 112. They further allege that the Municipal Code provides as follows:

No person shall violate any pro vision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Code or of any other ordinance of the city.

Any person violating any of the provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this Code or of any city ordinance, other th an administrative provisions thereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, unless the violation of such provision is designated as an infraction or is a parking violation. The Code provisions for which a violation is an infraction are set forth in Section

1.08.020. The Code provisions for which a violation is a parking violation are set forth in Section 1.08.025.

Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 18 of 23

19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
Id. (quoting Ordinance § 1.08.010). HJTA Plaintiffs allege that, under this provision, possessing the gun without paying the fee is a misdemeanor violation of law, and City police can confiscate a gun that is kept or carried in violation of the law. Id.

Defendants argue that HJTA Plaintiffs’ new allegations are insufficient to state a claim.

MTD at 21-22. They argue that the allegation that police may confiscate firearms involved in some violations of the law is “vague and unsupported.” Id. at 21. They further assert that these “vague and speculative allegations about what the law might be or how different combinations of law and conduct could apply are insufficient to state claim under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id. at 22 (emphasis in original). Defendants also argue that because more specific provisions of law control over more general ones, the Ordinance’s provision that firearms may be “impounded” for violations of the law only if authorized by another law controls over HJTA Plaintiffs’ argument that the City may use Section 1.08.010 to override the Ordinance’s impoundment provisions. Id.

The Court agrees with Defendants. As provided above, the Ordinance expressly states that its impoundment provision may only apply “[to] the extent allowed by law.” Ordinance §

10.32.245. The City and Plaintiffs have admitted that there is no other law that would allow it.

MTD at 6; SAC ¶ 51. This specific provision governs over any more general provision, such as Ordinance § 1.08.010. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1859. Further, HJTA Plaintiffs’ new allegations that the City police confiscate guns for violations of the law are vague and insufficient to allow HJTA Plaintiffs to state a claim.

The Court has already granted leave to amend this claim, and it determines that further amendment would be futile, unless state or federal law changes such that impoundment would be possible under Ordinance § 10.32.245. The claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

F. Claim 6: State Tax Requirements
The sixth claim, brought by HJTA Plaintiffs, asserts a violation of article XIII C of the California Constitution, specifically that the Fee Provision constitutes a tax that has not been submitted to the electorate for a vote. SAC ¶¶ 114-21. The Court previously dismissed this claim with leave to amend. MTD Order at 21-22. Defendants move to dismiss this claim, arguing that Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 19 of 23

20 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
HJTA Plaintiffs bring the same claim as in the FAC, and only added the following sentence at the end: “The fee is therefore invalid.” MTD at 23. The City argues that the claim should be dismissed because (1) it has limited factual allegations, (2) the Fee is not a tax, and (3) even if the Fee was a tax, it would fall under the “specific benefits exception.” MTD at 23-24. The Court previously decided that the Fee was not a tax under Schmeer v. County of Los Angeles, 213 Cal.

App. 4th 1310, 1328-29 (2013), as modified (Mar. 11, 2013), in which the California Court of Appeal held that the language in article XIII C is “limited to charges payable to, or for the benefit of, a local government.” MTD Order at 13-15, 21-22.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that, although it has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court nonetheless has discretion to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Because the remaining state claims contain significant overlap with the other claims, the Court finds that judicial economy favors exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (noting that supplemental jurisdiction is a “doctrine of discretion” rooted in “considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants”).

HJTA Plaintiffs provide the same allegations as in their prior complaint, but they argue that the claim is adequately pled because (1) the fee is not currently being paid to a private entity, as the City has not yet designated a nonprofit; (2) Schmeer does not apply; and (3) the Court should not extend Schmeer. HJTA Opp. at 12-18.

The Court determines that, for the reasons provided in the previous Motion to Dismiss Order, the claim should be dismissed. As the Court previously explained, HJTA Plaintiffs have provided very limited factual allegations in support of this claim, see SAC ¶¶ 114-21, and thus fall short of the federal standard required by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).

HJTA Plaintiffs argue that the fee is not currently being paid to a private entity. HJTA Opp. at 13-14. They argue that the SAC alleges that a Fee of $25 was imposed for the current year Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 20 of 23

21 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
despite the fact that the Nonprofit has not been selected and that the Fee was included in the City Police Department’s annual budget. Id. at 13. But Plaintiffs allege that the Fee will be paid to a designated nonprofit organization. SAC ¶ 31. They further allege that the City is not enforcing proof of payment and that the 2022/2023 Fee “apparently will be due and payable once a nonprofit has been designated.” Id. ¶ 48. While HJTA Plaintiffs are correct that the fee is not currently being paid to a private entity, they neither allege nor argue that the fee is being paid to the City.

Therefore, the Court’s previous determination that the Fee is not a tax under Schmeer still stands because the Fee is not “payable to, or for the benefit of, a local government.” See MTD Order at 13-15, 21-22; Schmeer, 213 Cal. App. 4th at 1328-29.

The Court will GRANT the City’s motion to dismiss the sixth claim regarding a tax lacking voter approval. The Court already granted leave to amend, and HJTA Plaintiffs did not provide any new allegations. The Court determines that leave to amend would be futile. The claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

G. Claim 7: Unconstitutional Delegation of Taxing Power The final claim, brought by HJTA Plaintiffs, alleges that the City unconstitutionally delegated its municipal power to collect taxes and appropriate tax revenues by requiring the Fee be paid to the Nonprofit designated by the City Manager. SAC ¶¶ 122-27.

The Court previously determined that the claim was unripe because there is no current grant or contract with a nonprofit that the Court can evaluate to determine if the City has “surrendered or suspended” its power to tax. MTD Order at 22-23; see Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 31 (“The power to tax may not be surrendered or suspended by grant or contract.”). But the City argues that the claim is actually ripe for review. Reply at 8-9. HJTA Plaintiffs acknowledge that this claim must fail if the Court finds that the Fee is not a “tax.” HJTA Opp. at 19. And the Court has determined that the City’s fee is not a “tax” under Schmeer. This claim must therefore fail, regardless of whether the City enters any “contract or grant” with a nonprofit.

The Court will GRANT the City’s motion to dismiss the seventh claim regarding a tax lacking voter approval. Because the Court did not grant leave to amend the sixth claim, finding it would be futile for HJTA Plaintiffs to try to allege that the Fee is a tax, the Court also determines Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 21 of 23

22 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
that amending this claim would be futile. The claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

IV. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 1 is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 2 is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 3 is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Second Amendment claim, and it is dismissed WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the First Amendment claim;

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 4 is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;

5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 5 is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND;

6. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 6 is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; and

7. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 7 is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 22 of 23

23 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
NAGR Plaintiffs and HJTA Plaintiffs shall file an amended consolidated complaint within 14 days of final implementation of the Fee Provision, and shall set forth whether each claim is brought by only certain plaintiffs or all plaintiffs. The lengthy time for amendment is granted so that Plaintiffs’ claims may become ripe upon the City’s enactment of further implementing regulations as contemplated by the Ordinance’s express terms. The City of San Jose shall file a status report on the implementation of the Fee Provision in 60 days or within seven days of enactment, whichever is sooner.

Dated: July 13, 2023
______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
Case 5:22-cv-00501-BLF Document 107 Filed 07/13/23 Page 23 of 23 915 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 • [email protected] • (916) 808-7200 Council Rules of Procedure
R
esolution No. 2024-0241 Adopted on July 23, 2024

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 2 of 58 Table of Contents
Chapter 1 – Authority/Administration ........................................................................................................ 5 A. General Authorities and Applicability ......................................................................................... 5 B. General Administration .................................................................................................................. 5 C. Amendment ....................................................................................................................................... 5 D. Suspension ......................................................................................................................................... 5 E. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order .......................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 2 – Duties ........................................................................................................................................... 7 A. Duties of Members and Staff ......................................................................................................... 7 B. Duties of Mayor and Vice Mayor ................................................................................................. 7 Chapter 3 – Conduct of Members ............................................................................................................... 8 A. Norms and Expectations ................................................................................................................ 8 B. General Conduct ............................................................................................................................. 8 C. Conduct with Members .................................................................................................................. 9 D. Conduct with City Manager and Staff ...................................................................................... 10 E. Conduct with the Public .............................................................................................................. 11 F. Conduct with Other Agencies ................................................................................................... 11 G. Conduct with Boards and Commissions ................................................................................. 11 H. Conduct with the Media .............................................................................................................. 12 I. Ethical Conduct ............................................................................................................................. 12 Chapter 4 – Conduct of City Staff ............................................................................................................. 13 A. General Conduct .......................................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 5 – Conduct of the Public ........................................................................................................... 14 A. General Conduct .......................................................................................................................... 14 B. Addressing the City Council ...................................................................................................... 16 C. Electronic Devices ........................................................................................................................ 18 D. Location of Speaker ...................................................................................................................... 18 Chapter 6 – Meeting Types and Schedules .............................................................................................. 19 A. R
egular Meetings ........................................................................................................................... 19 B. Adjourned Meetings ..................................................................................................................... 19 C. Special Meetings ............................................................................................................................ 19 D. City Council Emergency Meetings ............................................................................................ 19 E. Closed Sessions ............................................................................................................................. 20 F. Public Hearings .............................................................................................................................. 21 G. Teleconference Meetings ............................................................................................................ 22 City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 3 of 58 H. Televised Meetings ........................................................................................................................ 22 Chapter 7 – Meeting Agendas .................................................................................................................... 23 A. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission ............................................................................ 23 B. Declaration of Policy .................................................................................................................... 23 C. Procedures for Submission of Reports .................................................................................... 24 D. Written Communications from the City and the Public ..................................................... 24 E. Preparation of the Agenda Packet ............................................................................................. 25 F. Distribution of the Packet ........................................................................................................... 25 G. Posting of Agenda ......................................................................................................................... 25 H. Failure to Meet Agenda Deadlines ............................................................................................ 26 I. Exceptions to the Agenda Requirement .................................................................................. 26 J. Order of Business and Types of Agenda Items ...................................................................... 26 K. Ordinances and Non-Binding Resolutions .............................................................................. 27 L. Ceremonial City Council Resolutions ...................................................................................... 29 Chapter 8 – Conduct of Meeting ............................................................................................................... 30 A. Call to Order – Presiding Officer ............................................................................................. 30 B. Roll Call/Attendance .................................................................................................................... 30 C. Order of Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 31 D. Quorum Call .................................................................................................................................. 33 E. Obtaining the Floor ...................................................................................................................... 33 F. Motions ........................................................................................................................................... 34 G. Voting ............................................................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 9 – Council Vacancies .................................................................................................................. 37 A. Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 37 Chapter 10 - Facilities ................................................................................................................................... 38 A. Meeting Locations ......................................................................................................................... 38 B. Meeting Capacity ........................................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 11 - City Council Committees and Regional Organizations ............................................... 39 A. General ............................................................................................................................................ 39 B. Council Standing Committees .................................................................................................... 39 C. Council Ad Hoc Committees .................................................................................................... 40 D. Regional Organizations ................................................................................................................ 41 Chapter 12 – Councilmember Proposal Requests ................................................................................ 42 A. General ............................................................................................................................................ 42 B. Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 42 City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 4 of 58 C. Councilmember Proposal Request Flowchart (following page) ......................................... 43 Chapter 13 – Law and Legislation Committee ....................................................................................... 45 A. Authority; Purposes...................................................................................................................... 45 B. Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 45 C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission ............................................................................ 47 Chapter 14 – Personnel and Public Employees Committee ................................................................ 48 A. Purposes .......................................................................................................................................... 48 B. Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 48 C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission ............................................................................ 48 Chapter 15 – Budget and Audit Committee ........................................................................................... 49 A. Purposes .......................................................................................................................................... 49 B. Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 49 C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission ............................................................................ 50 Chapter 16 – Racial Equity Committee .................................................................................................... 51 A. Purposes .......................................................................................................................................... 51 B. Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 51 C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission ............................................................................ 51 Chapter 17 – City Advisory Bodies........................................................................................................... 52 A. Vacancies and Appointments ...................................................................................................... 52 B. Requests for Future Agenda Items ........................................................................................... 53 C. Advisory Body Reports................................................................................................................ 53 Chapter 18 – Annual Review of City Council Appointive Officers ................................................... 55 A. Purposes .......................................................................................................................................... 55 B. Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 55 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................... 57

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 5 of 58 Chapter 1 – Authority/Administration
A. General Authorities and Applicability

1. The Charter of the City of Sacramento provides that the city council shall determine its own rules and order of business (Sacramento City Charter, § 30). These Council Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) apply when not in conflict with the Charter of the City of Sacramento, Sacramento City Code, the Constitution, or laws of the State of California, including the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code, § 54950 et seq). (Brown Act). Until such time as they are amended or new rules are adopted by resolution, these Rules govern the order and conduct of business of the city council, legislative bodies that meet concurrently with the council, council committees, and council-established boards, commissions, and committees (collectively, “legislative bodies”).

2. These rules are applicable to council-established boards, commissions, and committees, as well as to the persons sitting on those boards, commissions, and committees. Those council-established boards, commissions, and committees that are authorized to adopt rules of procedure shall adopt rules that are consistent with these Rules and may not be in conflict with the Charter of the City of Sacramento, Sacramento City Code, the Constitution, or laws of the State of California.

3. In the absence of council-adopted administrative policies, council staff shall abide by the administrative policies approved by all charter officers.

B. General Administration

1. The council shall review and revise these Rules annually, or as needed.

2. During council discussions, deliberations, and proceedings, the presiding officer has the primary responsibility to ensure that the council, staff, and members of the public adhere to these Rules.

3. Any member who thinks the Rules are being violated may make a “point of order” to call for the presiding officer to enforce the Rules.

C. Amendment
Any rule may be adopted, altered, amended, or repealed by resolution at any time by a majority vote of the council, provided that at least a 120-hour notice of such proposed rule change is given to the councilmembers.

D. Suspension

1. Any rule may be temporarily suspended by a two-thirds vote of all councilmembers present, being not less than five votes.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 6 of 58 E. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order
To the extent these Rules do not address an issue of parliamentary procedure for legislative body meetings, Rosenberg’s Rules of Order: Simple Parliamentary Procedures for the 21st Century s hall apply.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 7 of 58 Chapter 2 – Duties
A. Duties of Members and Staff

1. Members and city staff shall conduct the business of the City of Sacramento:
a. Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest is of primary concern; b. Working for the common good of the people of Sacramento; and c. Assuring fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims, and transactions coming before the council, council committees, and council-established boards, commissions, and committees.

B. Duties of Mayor and Vice Mayor

1. The mayor is:
a. The presiding officer of the city and of all meetings of the council; b. The official head of the city for performance of duties lawfully delegated to the mayor by the charter;
c. Referred to as “chair” or “chairperson” when acting as presiding officer of legislative body meetings other than the council;
d. Considered a member of the council;
e. Entitled to make and second motions on matters before the council and vote on actions, but possesses no veto power over actions of the council; f. The primary, but not the only, person responsible for interpreting the policies, programs, and needs of city government to the people; and for informing the people of any major change in policies or programs; and g. Empowered, but not exclusively empowered, to make recommendations to the council on all policies and programs that require council decisions; and to perform such other duties as prescribed by the charter.

2. The vice mayor and mayor pro tem shall be elected annually from among the members of the council, other than the mayor, by a majority vote at the council’s first meeting in January.
a. In the absence of the mayor from the city or a council meeting, the vice mayor shall possess all powers of the office of the mayor and be subject to all prescribed duties for that office.
b. In the absence of the mayor and vice mayor from the city or a council meeting, the mayor pro tem shall possess all powers of the office of the mayor and be subject to all prescribed duties for that office.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 8 of 58 Chapter 3 – Conduct of Members
A. Norms and Expectations

1. Members shall:
a. Put constituents first at all times;
b. Treat each other, staff, and members of the public with dignity, courtesy, and respect;
c. Value all opinions, be tolerant of new and different ideas, and encourage creativity and innovation;
d. Follow through on commitments and be accountable to each other; e. Clarify when items are discussed in confidence and maintain appropriate confidentiality;
f. Be attentive to others, limiting interruptions and distractions; g. Encourage dissent in debate while being mindful not to prolong discourse or block consensus;
h. Be candid with each other about ideas and feelings, and resolve conflicts directly; i. Keep comments clear, concise, and on-topic to maximize opportunities for all to express themselves;
j. Continuously strive to improve how members work as a team; k. Place clear and realistic demands on staff resources and time when requesting action;
l. Start and end meetings on time, work from an agenda, and be present, attentive, and prepared;
m. Present problems in a way that promotes discussion and resolution; and n. Continually work to build trust in each other.

B. General Conduct

1. Members shall:
a. Treat each other and everyone with courtesy and refrain from inappropriate behavior and derogatory comments;
b. Be fair, impartial, and unbiased when voting on quasi-judicial actions; City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 9 of 58 c. Use the speaker sequencing system to inform the presiding officer of their wish to speak and wait to be acknowledged by the presiding officer before speaking, and abide the following for orderly and courteous discussion:
(i) Members should permit the majority to express itself and fashion a result, while permitting the minority to also express itself, but not dominate the discussion, while fully participating in the process; (ii) The presiding officer may give preferential speaking order to the councilmember who represents the district of the agenda item; (iii) In the interest of time, the presiding officer may limit the time allotted to speakers, including members of the body;
(iv) Members are encouraged to hear comments from other members prior to speaking a second time; and
(v) It is usual courtesy for the presiding officer to play a less active role in the debate and discussion and to make a summary or final comments on any item.
d. Move to require the presiding officer to enforce this chapter, and the presiding officer shall do so upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present; e. Preserve order and decorum during the meeting;
f. Not delay or interrupt the proceedings or the peace of the council, nor disturb any member while speaking, by conversation or otherwise, nor disobey the orders of the council, or the presiding officer, except as otherwise herein provided;
g. Abide by the Confidential Information Policy (Resolution No. 2010-0108) prohibiting disclosure of confidential communications and authorizing public censure for failure to comply with the policy;
h. Support the laws established by the council; and
i. Abide by this chapter in conducting the business of the City of Sacramento.

C. Conduct with Members

1. Members shall:
a. Value each other’s time;
b. Attempt to build consensus on an item through an opportunity for dialogue; but when this is not possible, the majority vote shall prevail, and the majority shall show respect for the opinion of the minority;
City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 10 of 58 c. Have the right to dissent from, protest, or comment upon any action of the council;
d. Respect each other’s opportunity to speak and, if necessary, agree to disagree; e. Avoid offensive negative comments and practice civility and decorum during discussions and debate; and
f. Assist the presiding officer’s exercise of the affirmative duty to maintain order.

D. Conduct with City Manager and Staff

1. Members of the city council shall:
a. Speak to the city manager directly on issues and concerns; b. Direct the city manager to implement council’s policy decisions through the administrative functions of the city;
c. Treat staff professionally and refrain from publicly criticizing individual employees;
d. Avoid involvement in personnel issues except during council closed sessions regarding council-appointed staff, including but not limited to the city attorney, city auditor, city clerk, city manager, city treasurer, or director of the office of public safety accountability;
e. Discuss directly with the city attorney, city auditor, city clerk, city manager, city treasurer, or director of the office of public safety accountability as appropriate, any displeasure with their department or staff; and
f. Request answers to questions on council agenda items from the city attorney, city auditor, city clerk, city manager, city treasurer, or director of the office of public safety accountability, department directors, or division managers prior to the meeting whenever possible.

2. General Direction
a. Council requests that deal with policy issues and council requests that may be construed as direction must be directed to the city manager, except for general inquiries or questions, in which case the council may go to the department directors or key staff in the City Manager's Office. Members may also deal directly with the city attorney, city clerk, city treasurer, city auditor, or other staff appointed by the council.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 11 of 58 E. Conduct with the Public

1. Members shall:
a. Make the public feel welcome;
b. Be impartial, respectful, and without prejudice toward the public; c. Listen courteously and attentively to public comment; d. Not argue back and forth with members of the public; and e. Make no promises to the public on behalf of the legislative body.

F. Conduct with Other Agencies

1. Members shall:
a. Project a positive image of the city when dealing with other agencies; b. Show tolerance and respect for other agencies’ opinions and issues and, if necessary, agree to disagree;
c. Represent official policies or positions of the council when designated as delegates of a legislative body;
d. Explicitly state when their opinions and positions do not represent the legislative body when representing their individual opinions and positions, and not allow the inference that they do (see also Rule 13.A.1.c); and e. Have the ability to lobby or discuss issues that have been adopted by legislative bodies or are standing policies of the legislative bodies with other legislators, government officials, applicants, or other interested persons.

G. Conduct with Boards and Commissions

1. Councilmembers shall:
a. Treat all members of boards, commissions, and committees with appreciation and respect; and
b. Refrain from participation at board, commission, and committee meetings with the purpose of influencing the outcome of those meetings.

2. Rule 3.G.1.b does not apply to the Compensation Commission, Sacramento Ethics Commission, or Independent Redistricting Commission.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 12 of 58 H. Conduct with the Media

1. Members shall not discuss – or go "off the record" with the media to discuss – confidential or privileged information pertaining to closed sessions, or attorney- client privileged or attorney work product communications, including personnel, litigation, or real property negotiations.

2. Providing non-confidential, non-privileged background information is acceptable.

I. Ethical Conduct

1. Members shall conduct themselves in accordance with the Sacramento City Code of Ethics (Sacramento City Code § 4.02) including but not limited to:
a. Members shall comply with the citywide nepotism policy adopted or approved by city council resolution.
b. Members shall comply with the citywide whistleblower protection policy adopted or approved by city council resolution.
c. Members shall receive ethics training material, as required by Assembly Bill 1234 within 30 days of taking office and at least every two years. d. Members shall receive sexual harassment training material, as required by Assembly Bills 1825 and 1661 within 30 days of taking office and at least every two years.
e. Members shall follow the Political Reform Act and Fair Political Practices Commission regulations.
f. Members shall conduct themselves in accordance with such policies and training.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 13 of 58 Chapter 4 – Conduct of City Staff
A. General Conduct

1. Staff shall:
a. Prepare well-written staff reports and provide accompanying documents on all agenda items in accordance with the agenda format and preparation schedule; b. Be available for questions from members in accordance with the Brown Act prior to and during meetings;
c. Respond to questions from the public during meetings only when requested to do so by members or the city manager;
d. Refrain from arguing with the public or members; and e. Switch electronic equipment such as cellular telephones to silent or off mode during council meetings.

2. Staff shall remain objective on issues and not be advocates for issues unless so directed by the legislative body.

3. To the extent permitted by the Brown Act, the city manager and staff shall, as soon as possible, inform the mayor and members representing the districts affected of controversial, significant-impact issues that are coming before the legislative body.

4. The city manager shall advise management staff of potentially political or controversial issues coming before the legislative body and direct staff to be present and appropriately prepared.

5. The city manager shall make available an informational briefing for members’ staff for items affecting the city and items on, or potentially on, the council agenda. Briefings shall include necessary department staff and shall take place as soon as possible.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 14 of 58 Chapter 5 – Conduct of the Public
A. General Conduct

1. Decorum.
a. Members of the public attending council meetings shall observe the same rules and decorum applicable to the members and staff as noted in chapters 3 and 4 of these Rules.
b. No person shall engage in conduct that is intended to or is likely to provoke violent or riotous behavior, nor shall any person engage in conduct that disturbs the orderly conduct of the council meeting. Examples of disorderly conduct include:
(i) Feet-stamping.
(ii) Whistling or other abrupt noises.
(iii) Yelling or shouting or interrupting a speaker who is addressing the council.
(iv) Organized silent demonstrations and other demonstrations intended to disturb the progress of the meeting.
(v) Physically threatening conduct.
(vi) Verbal threats.
(vii) Banging, slamming, or throwing objects.
(viii) Interfering with other attendees’ ability to participate or address the council.
(ix) Entering areas of the chamber not intended for the public. (x) Incitement to commit unlawful or disturbing acts or disrupt proceedings.
(xi) Refusing to abide speaker time limits and leave the podium when directed.
(xii) Placing physical objects in a manner that creates a disturbance or disrupts proceedings.
(xiii) Interjection when not at the podium.
(xiv) Refusing to heed the presiding officer’s call for order.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 15 of 58 (xv) Approaching the podium or dais without permission of the presiding officer.
(xvi) Signs may not be mounted to any solid item that would facilitate holding or waving and may not impede the view of other attendees. c. Enforcement. In addition to the presiding officer, the decorum officer and the sergeant-at-arms shall have primary responsibility for enforcing council meeting decorum. Additionally, any member may at any time call for a point of order, to request the timely enforcement of these rules of decorum. (i) The presiding officer shall request that a person who is breaching the rules of decorum cease the conduct. If the person does not cease the conduct immediately, the presiding officer may order the person to leave the council meeting or order the sergeant-at-arms to remove the person.
(ii) The decorum officer, who shall be a council-selected person who sits on the dais, may also exercise the duties of the presiding officer in Rule 5.A.1.c.(i) above.
(iii) The sergeant-at-arms shall assist in enforcing the rules of decorum, including removing disorderly persons upon order of the presiding officer or decorum officer.
(iv) If decorum cannot be maintained in council chambers, the presiding officer may take a recess so that decorum can be established. a. If any meeting is willfully interrupted by any person or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such
meeting unfeasible and order cannot be maintained by the removal of individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting, the members of the legislative body conducting the meeting may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session. (Government Code, § 54957.9
).

The presiding officer shall direct the sergeant-at-arms to allow the following to attend the remaining session:
i. Once decorum is restored, allow all participants back into council chambers; or
ii. Once decorum is restored, allow all persons, with the exception of any individuals identified by the presiding officer or decorum officer who were willfully
interrupting the meeting or participating in the
disturbance, back into council chambers; or
City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 16 of 58 iii. Once decorum is restored, allow only credentialed
representatives of the press or other news media,
except those participating in the disturbance, back into council chambers.
(v) If it is unfeasible to continue the orderly conduct of the meeting in the council chambers the council will continue the meeting in another room at the City Hall Complex and only city staff, credentialed members of the press or other news media, except those
participating in the disturbance, will be allowed into the meeting.

2. Lobbyists shall identify themselves and the client(s), business, or organization they represent before speaking to the council (Sacramento City Code, § 2.15.160 ).

B. Addressing the City Council

1. Purpose of public comment. During regular meetings, the city provides opportunities for the public to address the council as a whole in order to listen to the public’s opinions regarding agendized items and unagendized matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. At all other (special) meetings, public comment is limited to agendized items.
a. Public comments should not be addressed to individual members nor to city officials, but rather to the council as a whole regarding city business. Comments should be directed to the council and not the audience. b. While members of the public may speak their opinions on city business, personal attacks on members and city officials, use of swear words, and signs or displays of disrespect for individuals are discouraged as they impede good communication with the council.
c. Consistent with the Brown Act
, the public comment periods on the agenda are
not intended to be “question and answer” periods or conversations with the council and city officials. The limited circumstances under which members may respond to public comments are set out in Rule 8.D.2.
d. Members of the public with questions concerning consent calendar items may contact the staff person or the member whose district is identified on the report prior to the meeting to reduce the need for discussion of consent calendar items and to better respond to the public’s questions.
e. The presiding officer may stop a member of the public whose comments are not confined to the agendized item being heard. During the public comment portion of the agenda, the presiding officer may stop a member of the public whose comments are not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city.

2. Speaker time limits. In the interest of facilitating the council’s conduct of the city’s business, the following time limits apply to members of the public (speakers) who wish to address the council during the meeting.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 17 of 58 a. Matters not on the agenda: two minutes per speaker.
b. Consent calendar items. The consent calendar is considered a single item and speakers are therefore subject to the two-minute time limit for the entire consent calendar. Consent calendar items can be pulled at a member’s request and will be considered individually, with up to two minutes of public comment per speaker.
c. Discussion calendar items: two minutes per speaker.
d. Time limits per meeting. In addition to the above time limits per item, the total amount of time any one speaker may address the legislative body at a meeting is eight minutes.
(i) Each speaker shall limit their remarks to the specified time allotment. (ii) The presiding officer shall consistently utilize the timing system, which provides speakers with notice of their remaining time to complete their comments. A countdown display of the allotted time will appear on the screen behind the dais.
(iii) In the further interest of time, speakers may be asked to limit their comments to new materials and not repeat what a prior speaker said.

Organized groups may choose a single spokesperson who may speak for the group, but with no increase in time.
(iv) Speakers shall not concede any part of their allotted time to another speaker.
(v) The presiding officer may further limit, or expand, the time allotted for public comments per speaker or in total for the orderly conduct of the meeting; such limits shall be fairly applied.

2. Speaker slips. Members of the public in chambers wishing to speak to the legislative body must submit to the city clerk a completed speaker’s slip indicating the agenda item or matters not on the agenda item that they wish to address before the item is called.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 18 of 58 C. Electronic Devices

1. Members of the public shall turn their electronic devices that are capable of emitting sound – including cellular telephones, personal data devices, digital tablets, laptop computers, etc. – to the off- or silent-mode during council meetings.

2. Cameras. Cameras and recording equipment may be used during council meetings only if:
a. The devices are silent during use;
b. The devices are used in a manner and at locations that do not impede walkways or others views of the meeting or disrupt the conduct of the meeting; c. Continual lighting may not be used with video recording; and d. Flash photography is not allowed.

D. Speaker Location and Documents

1. Members of the public shall not approach the dais without the express consent of the presiding officer or city clerk.

2. Members of the public wishing to address the legislative body must approach the podium when recognized by the presiding officer or city clerk and speak only from the podium.

3. Members of the public may make oral communications but may not display any content on the overhead screens or otherwise. Members of the public wishing to provide documents to the council shall comply with Rule 7.D.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 19 of 58 Chapter 6 – Meeting Types and Schedules
A. Regular Meetings

1. The city council shall hold regular meetings and provide the time, place, and manner of holding its meetings by annual resolution. A majority of regular council meetings must be held after 5:00 p.m. All meetings of the council must be open to the public, except as permitted by state law (Sacramento City Charter, § 31 ).

2. The city council shall generally meet on Tuesdays at either 2:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 915 I Street, First Floor, Sacramento, California, except as otherwise stipulated in the adopted meeting schedule.

3. City council standing committees shall generally meet on Tuesdays at 11:00 a.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 915 I Street, First Floor, Sacramento, California, except as otherwise stipulated in the adopted meeting schedule.

4. City boards, commissions, and committees shall hold regular meetings and provide the time, place, and manner of holding its meetings, according to the council- adopted meeting schedule. All meetings of the city’s legislative bodies must be open to the public, except as permitted by state law. The city council shall annually, and as needed, adopt a meeting schedule for all city legislative bodies.

5. City boards, commission, and committees shall generally meet at either 11:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., or 5:30 p.m. at the City Hall Complex, 915 I Street, Sacramento, California, except as otherwise stipulated in the council-adopted meeting schedule.

B. Adjourned Meetings
As permitted by law, the legislative body may adjourn any regular, adjourned regular, special, or adjourned special meeting to a time and place specified in the motion of adjournment.

C. Special Meetings

1. The mayor or a majority of the members of the City Council may direct the city clerk to call a special meeting by providing notice 24-hours in advance of the meeting to the mayor, to all members, and to all media outlets and persons having requested in writing notification of such meetings pursuant to state law.

2. Whenever practicable, special meetings must take place in the council chamber and be video streamed live and recorded for viewing later.

D. City Council Emergency Meetings

1. In the case of an emergency situation involving matters upon which prompt action is necessary due to the disruption or threatened disruption of public facilities or services, the City Council may hold an emergency meeting without complying with either the 120-hour (regular meeting) or 24-hour (special meeting) notice and City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 20 of 58 posting requirements but shall otherwise comply with the Sacramento City Code §

4.04 and Brown Act procedures generally stated below.

2. Each local newspaper of general circulation and radio or television station that has requested notice of emergency meetings pursuant to the Brown Act shall be notified by the City Clerk, or designee thereof, at least one hour prior to the emergency meeting, or in the case of a dire emergency, at or near the time that the presiding officer or designee notifies the members of the emergency meeting.

3. This notice shall be given by telephone call or text message to the numbers provided in the most recent request for notification.

4. In the event that telephone services are not functioning, the notice requirements of this section are deemed waived, and the legislative body, or designee of the legislative body, shall notify those newspapers, radio stations, or television stations of the emergency meeting, the purpose of the meeting, and any action taken at the meeting as soon after the meeting as possible.

5. During an emergency meeting, the legislative body may meet in closed session pursuant to the Brown Act
if agreed to by a two-thirds vote of the members
present, being not less than five votes of the council.

6. All special meeting requirements in the Brown Act are applicable to an emergency meeting, except for the 24-hour notice and posting requirement.

7. The minutes of an emergency meeting; a list of persons who the presiding officer of the legislative body, or designee of the council, notified or attempted to notify; a copy of the roll call vote; and any actions taken at the meeting, shall be posted for a minimum of ten days in a public place as soon after the meeting as possible.

E. Closed Sessions

1. Closed sessions generally shall be special meetings held immediately prior to regular meetings.

2. In accordance with the Brown Act
, the public may speak regarding any closed
session item prior to the closed session.

3. All closed session information, verbal or written, is privileged and confidential and shall not be shared with any person not at the closed session. Any member sharing information in violation of this rule may be subject to censure by the council consistent with the council’s confidentiality policy then in effect.

4. The city attorney shall report out in public session any reportable actions that were taken by council and the vote on such actions in accordance with the Brown Act .

5. For closed sessions related to appointive-officer performance evaluations and compensation, see Chapter 18.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 21 of 58 F. Public Hearings

1. The city clerk shall set council hearing dates and notify the council via the preliminary draft agenda on all matters that require a notice and public hearing before the council, such as matters received from the planning division and appeals to the council.

2. Public hearings will not be withdrawn or continued without the full knowledge and concurrence of the councilmembers within whose districts/jurisdiction the issue resides.

3. The council may refuse to grant a continuance of any hearing unless there is a valid legal reason why the hearing must be continued.

4. Continuances.
a. Any person (applicant, appellant, or designated representative) scheduled for a public hearing before the legislative body:
(i) May obtain one continuance for a period not to exceed the second regular meeting after the original scheduled hearing date, as a matter of right, without personally appearing on the scheduled hearing date, provided a written request for the continuance must be delivered to the city clerk by noon on the day prior to the scheduled public hearing. Any person who has once obtained a continuance by any procedure may not obtain a subsequent continuance under this Rule

6.F.4.a(i).
(ii) Who wants to obtain a continuance of the hearing beyond the second regular meeting after the original scheduled hearing date, or who has not notified the city clerk as provided in Rule 6.F.4.a(i), may obtain a continuance only by appearing before the legislative body at the time the original hearing is scheduled and requesting a continuance. This continuance is not a matter of right and will not be granted unless the legislative body is satisfied that good cause exists for the continuance and that a substantial number of people will not be inconvenienced by such continuance.
(iii) Who has once obtained a continuance of a hearing either by notice to the city clerk under Rule 6.F.4.a(i) or by personal appearance under Rule 6.F.4.a(ii) may obtain a further continuance only by appearing before the legislative body at the scheduled hearing and satisfying the legislative body that extraordinary circumstances exist that would justify this second continuance.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 22 of 58 (iv) Who has twice obtained a continuance of a hearing may obtain an additional continuance only by appearing before the legislative body at the scheduled hearing and satisfying the legislative body that a miscarriage of justice would result from the refusal of the legislative body to grant a continuance.
b. City staff may obtain a continuance based on the need of the originating department or on behalf of a member. Department staff may request, via the city clerk, as many continuances as needed to complete and ready the project or appeal for the hearing process; however, staff may not serve as a requestor on behalf of an applicant or appellant.
c. Any organized group of residents or neighborhood associations not recognized as an applicant or appellant may contact their councilmember and request a continuance as needed to complete and ready the project or appeal for the hearing process. The member, in their sole discretion, may request the legislative body approve the continuance for good cause.
d. At the meeting when the hearing is scheduled, but before the hearing starts, any member may request the council approve a continuance.
e. Disputes regarding the length of a continuance will be decided by the council at the scheduled hearing if city staff or the city clerk cannot obtain mutual agreement between the parties beforehand.

G. Teleconference Meetings
a. Members of the City Council may participate via a teleconference platform only in accordance with the Brown Act
.

H. Televised Meetings
a. City Council meetings held in the council chambers are generally telecast via local television and available live via video streaming on the city’s official website and recorded for viewing later.
b. Standing committee and city established board, committee, and commission meetings held in the council chambers or historic hearing room are available live via video streaming on the city’s official website
and recorded for viewing later.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 23 of 58 Chapter 7 – Meeting Agendas
A. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission

1. The city manager and city clerk shall develop the agenda for council meetings in consultation with the mayor and/or vice mayor, with the exception of agenda items involving the compensation of charter officers or any personnel that report to the council, which may only be brought forward with the initial approval of the mayor, or recommendation by a majority of the Personnel and Public Employees (P&PE) Committee.

2. Charter officers, the director of the office of public safety accountability, and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency executive director may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.

3. Department directors, subject to the discretion of the city manager, may submit staff reports, including oral reports, to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.

4. Outside agencies and advisory bodies, and city boards, committees, and commissions may submit agenda items in accordance with the following:
a. Items must be sponsored for agenda placement by the mayor, charter officers, or department staff; and
a. All agenda items must be submitted in accordance with the agenda packet submission and preparation requirements.

5. Prior to an agenda item being brought to the city council, it should be brought to any relevant city board, committee, or commission and the staff report should include the board, committee, or commission recommendation.

B. Declaration of Policy

1. No ordinance, resolution, motion, or item of business may be introduced or acted upon at a meeting of a legislative body of the city without it appearing on a duly noticed and posted agenda in accordance with Sacramento City Code § 4.04 and the
Brown Act. Exceptions to this rule are limited to those provided by state law.

2. No ordinance, resolution, motion, or item of business will be considered that:
a. Does not affect the conduct of the business of the City of Sacramento or its powers or duties as a municipal corporation, or
b. Supports or disapproves of any legislation or action (i) Of the State of California;
(ii) Of the President or Congress of the United States; or City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 24 of 58 (iii) Before any officer or agency of the state or nation, unless the proposed legislation or action, if adopted, will affect the conduct of the municipal business or the powers or duties of the City of Sacramento or its officers or employees.
c. Rule 7.B.2 may be invoked only before public comment or council deliberation on the matter and by five affirmative votes on the question: “Shall the council consider this matter?”
C. Procedures for Submission of Reports

1. A written staff report should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the agenda review procedure and reviewed by the relevant departments including but not limited to finance, city manager, and city attorney.

2. Continued items do not require a new report if there are no changes other than the agenda date. If there is any other change, a new report meeting all applicable requirements must be submitted.

3. Staff reports should include sufficient information for members of the council and the public to understand the action being considered, including any board, commission, or committee recommendation, and the appropriate legislative history.

D. Written Communications from the City and the Public

1. The city clerk shall manage communications to members regarding meeting topics to ensure compliance with the Brown Act
.
a. Except for records exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Government Code, § 54957.5, subd. (b)) and otherwise by law, agendas and any other writings distributed to all or a majority of the members of a legislative body for discussion or consideration at a public meeting are disclosable to the public and shall be made available upon request without delay. b. Materials distributed to the members during the meeting shall be available for viewing by the public during the meeting if the materials were prepared by the city or a member, or at the conclusion of the meeting if prepared by another person (Government Code, § 54957.5
, subd. (b)).

2. Interested parties or their authorized representatives may address the council by written communications regarding agenda items.
a. Written communications received by the city clerk will be delivered to members as soon as possible or at the city council meeting if related to an item on that meeting agenda.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 25 of 58 b. Members of the public may submit comments via the agenda “e-comment” function on the city’s website. E-comments can be submitted and viewed on the city’s website agenda page once an agenda is posted and until adjournment of that meeting. The full e-comment package will be available in the city’s online records library after the conclusion of a meeting.
c. Documents (20 copies recommended) that members of the public submit to the legislative body at the meeting shall be given directly to the city clerk for distribution and shall not be given directly to the members. The documents will be made available to the public.

E. Preparation of the Agenda Packet

1. No later than 120-hours prior to each regularly scheduled meeting, the city clerk shall finalize the agenda packet.

2. Agenda Packet Contents.
a. The agenda packet will include the agenda, the staff reports, draft resolutions and ordinances, contracts, and other attachments. Items noted as “To Be Delivered” on the agenda will be delivered and published to the city’s website upon receipt
by the city clerk. No item is required to be considered by the legislative body if the applicable written material is not delivered to the members before the meeting and made available to the public at the same time. b. Corrections or supplements to a staff report or other written materials already included in the agenda packet may be delivered separately. c. All agreements on the agenda must be available for review by the council and the public prior to the meeting, or at the meeting location during the meeting, unless determined otherwise by the city attorney.
d. Unless waived by a two-thirds vote of council, all city labor agreements and all agreements greater than $1,000,000 must be posted on the city’s website and be made available to the public at least ten days prior to council action as required by Sacramento City Code section 4.04.020
.

F. Distribution of the Packet

1. The city clerk shall make available the agenda packet to the councilmembers and post it to the website no later than 120 hours prior to a regularly scheduled meeting.

G. Posting of Agenda

1. The city clerk shall post the agenda of each regular meeting of the legislative body at least 120-hours in advance of the meeting in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public, as required by the Brown Act.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 26 of 58

2. The city clerk shall maintain an affidavit indicating the location, date, and time of posting each agenda.

3. If technical difficulties occur, the agenda and reports will be published on the city’s website
as soon as those difficulties are resolved.

H. Failure to Meet Agenda Deadlines

1. The city clerk shall not, without the concurrence of the city manager and city attorney, accept any agenda item or revised agenda item after the deadlines established and noted in these Rules.

2. Any agenda items or revised agenda items will be reviewed by relevant departments as identified by the agenda workflow approval process.

I. Exceptions to the Agenda Requirement

1. Matters not included on the published agenda may be discussed and acted upon by the legislative body only in the following situations:
a. At a meeting during which a majority of the members determine in open session that the matter in question constitutes an “emergency" ( Government Code, §
54956.5); or
b. Upon a determination by two-thirds of the members, or if less than two-thirds are present by unanimous vote of the members present, that:
(i) There is a need to take immediate action; and
(ii) The need for action came to the attention of the city after the agenda had been posted.

J. Order of Business and Types of Agenda Items
The order of business should be carried out as listed on the agenda in the order as set out below; however, the presiding officer may reorder the items at the meeting, unless members object. Members may request items be reordered by motion.

1. Closed Session: confidential discussions with the legislative body as permitted by the Brown Act.

2. Special Presentations/General Communications: the presentation and receipt of ceremonial resolutions and recognitions not requiring formal legislative body action.

Special presentations are limited to two per meeting and no more than five minutes each.

3. Consent Calendar: considered one item, consisting of matters routine in nature and not likely to be subject to debate or inquiry by the members or the public; typically adopted in one motion.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 27 of 58

4. Public Hearings: duly noticed hearings as mandated by local, state, or federal law, providing an opportunity for public review and comment of a proposed action by the council.

5. Discussion Calendar: non-routine items requiring an oral presentation and discussion before action is taken.

6. Information Items: items when staff is required by federal or state law or city code to inform council of an issue when authority has been delegated to a person, position, board, or commission.

7. Council Comments – Ideas, Questions, and AB1234 Reports:
a. Brief oral or written reports summarizing meeting or conference attendance at city expense, as required by Assembly Bill 1234 (Government Code, § 53232.3 );
b. Requests for the city manager or staff to report on various issues; c. Requests to place items on a future council meeting agenda; d. Requests to refer preparation or review of non-binding resolutions or ordinances to the Law and Legislation Committee; and
e. Reports on district and citywide activities or news.

8. City Manager’s Report
a. Brief oral report from the City Manager or designee.

9. Public Comment-Matters Not on the Agenda: oral communications from the audience regarding matters not on the agenda but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city.

K. Ordinances and Non-Binding Resolutions

1. Ordinance and non-binding resolution preparation must be referred to the Law and Legislation Committee (L&L) before coming to council, as described in Rule 13.

However, ceremonial city council resolutions (see Rule 7.L, below) need not be referred to the Law and Legislation Committee.

2. Ordinances on the agenda may be passed for publication or adopted in accordance with the procedures in Sacramento City Charter § 32
.

3. Ordinance changes during the review and adoption process. a. The text of an ordinance as approved by the L&L Committee, receiving the necessary votes to bring the matter to council under Rule 13, must be the text that is included in the published agenda as pass-for-publication.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 28 of 58 b. If an ordinance is brought to council under Rule 13, the text of the ordinance brought to council must be the same text as was submitted to the L&L Committee.
c. The text of an ordinance passed for publication must be the text that is included in the published agenda for the meeting at which the adoption of the ordinance is discussed.
d. Notwithstanding subsections a, b, and c, typographical and clerical errors may be corrected at any time during the ordinance review and adoption process. e. If a member intends to make a substantive (i.e., anything not typographical or clerical) change to an ordinance after it is included in a published agenda, at or before the time the ordinance adoption item is called on the agenda, the member shall distribute sufficient written copies of the proposed change so that all other members, the charter officers, relevant city staff, and the public audience have copies.
f. If the legislative body’s motion to adopt a resolution or ordinance includes a change to the resolution or ordinance text from that published in the agenda, prior to the vote the city clerk shall repeat verbatim the proposed change or otherwise indicate the change is reflected in the circulated written copy of the change.
g. Ordinances bypassing the pass-for-publication requirement under Sacramento City Charter § 32 are subject to this Rule 7.K.3, as applicable.

4. Except as set forth in section (a) below, council can consider adoption of non- binding resolutions. Non-binding resolutions are those within which the council declares its position and opinions on an issue, policy, or other matter that falls outside of the jurisdiction of the city and the council lacks legal authority to establish or regulate. The council may act on such a non-binding resolution if it determines that the matter is of such importance that the council should make the symbolic gesture of adopting a resolution declarative of council’s position. a. The city council shall not act or take a position on matters concerning foreign policy, except upon a 2/3 vote of the Council determining that those matters directly affect the City of Sacramento.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 29 of 58 L. Ceremonial City Council Resolutions

1. A ceremonial city council resolution is non-binding and has no authority. a. The city council may recognize and celebrate community members, organizations, and events for their contributions to the City of Sacramento and raise awareness surrounding important issues that affect the greater community. b. Ceremonial city council resolutions are not intended for political, commercial, or narrow individual purposes, and should be consistent with the overall policies of the city council. These resolutions shall not inhibit, benefit, or promote religious activities, shall be non-discriminatory, and may not promote political advocacy activities.

2. Requests for ceremonial city council resolutions should be directed to the city clerk, who will work in collaboration with the mayor to finalize language and schedule for presentation at an upcoming city council meeting.

(i) A ceremonial city council resolution is the highest council honor reserved for individuals and organizations who have made extraordinary, lasting, or significant contributions to the City of Sacramento and its residents and who should be held in high esteem.

(ii) This type of recognition should be awarded to City of Sacramento residents, organizations, businesses, dignitaries, and other similar entities who have made significant contributions to the community; non-profit corporations, sports teams, or individuals who have won state, regional, or national titles; acts of heroism, including those as defined by police, fire, and other public safety departments; and individuals deserving exceptional commendation for their contribution to the City as a whole and its residents.

(iii) An Obituary Resolution may be issued to the family in honor of a deceased community member in memoriam of an individual who has made a significant contribution to the City of Sacramento and is generally presented in the community and not at a city council meeting.

3. Individual councilmembers may also create and present ceremonial council-district recognitions in their specific community. An individual councilmember recognition may be issued to individuals, organizations, or groups who have made significant contributions within a specific council district or districts or in support of programs or organizations of interest to the residents of the district.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 30 of 58 Chapter 8 – Conduct of Meeting
A. Call to Order – Presiding Officer

1. The mayor, or in the mayor’s absence the vice mayor, shall take the chair at the hour appointed for the meeting and shall immediately call the meeting of the council to order.

2. In the absence of the mayor and vice mayor, the mayor pro tem shall preside over the meeting.

3. Upon the arrival of the mayor, the vice mayor shall immediately relinquish the chair at the conclusion of the business then before the council.

4. For council standing committees the chair shall call to order and preside over the meeting. In the absence of the chair, the vice chair shall perform the duties and obligations of the chair.

5. For all other city established legislative bodies the chair shall call to order and preside over the meeting. In the absence of the chair, the vice chair shall perform the duties and obligations of the chair. In the absence of chair and vice chair, the city clerk shall call the meeting to order, and a temporary chairperson shall be elected from among the members present. Upon arrival of the chair or vice chair, the temporary chairperson shall relinquish the position upon conclusion of the item then before the legislative body.

B. Roll Call/Attendance

1. A majority of the members of the council then in office constitutes a quorum (Sacramento City Charter § 30
).

2. A majority of members of the council established legislative body constitutes a quorum.

3. Before the legislative body proceeds with the business before it, the city clerk shall note the members present for the minutes. The late arrival and early departure of members will be entered into the action minutes.

4. A councilmember is considered present at a meeting if the member is either physically in the council chamber or is participating in the meeting through teleconference in accordance with the Brown Act
. Meeting attendance of the mayor
or councilmembers through teleconference is permitted only in extraordinary circumstances.

5. Members must be physically present at the council chamber dais or teleconference location to vote. Proxy or absentee voting is not permitted.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 31 of 58 C. Order of Discussion
The order of business must be carried out as listed on the agenda as set out below; however, the presiding officer may reorder the items at the meeting, unless members object. Members may request items be reordered by motion.

1. Consent calendar, and any items removed for discussion. a. Mayor, members, or charter officers may request that any matter be removed from the consent calendar and a separate vote taken.
b. All matters remaining on the consent calendar shall be approved by a single action, such single action to have the legal effect of individual action on each matter.
c. If consent calendar items are removed, they shall be discussed immediately after adoption of the balance of the consent calendar.

2. Public Hearings
a. The order of public hearings will generally be as follows:
(i) Open the public hearing.
(ii) Member report of ex parte communications.
(iii) Staff comments, information, and reports, followed by member questions.
(iv) Proponent, if applicable, speaks, followed by member questions. (v) Opponent, if applicable, speaks, followed by member questions. (vi) If the public hearing is on an appeal that does not require council de novo review, then the appellant (opponent) speaks before the applicant (proponent) in accordance with the allotted time. (vii) Public comments.
(viii) If the public hearing is a de novo review appeal, the applicant speaks in rebuttal, but if not a de novo review appeal, the appellant speaks in rebuttal.
(ix) Closure of public comment period.
(x) Further member discussion.
(xi) Motion to close public hearing and take action.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 32 of 58 b. The presiding officer may direct speakers to avoid repetition in order to permit maximum information to be provided the legislative body within the time allotted for the hearing.
c. The appellant and applicant shall be allocated sufficient time to address the legislative body. However, reasonable time limits on persons addressing the legislative body, including applicants, proponents, and opponents may be imposed if necessary for the orderly conduct of the hearing and the limits are fairly applied.

3. Discussion Calendar
a. The order of discussion after introduction of an item will generally be as follows:
(i) Staff comments, information, and reports, followed by questions from the members.
(ii) Public comments and information, followed by questions from the members.
(iii) Member discussion, motion, and action.
b. Once the item is placed before the council for discussion, motion, or action, no member of staff or the public is allowed to address the council without the consent of the mayor or members.

4. Council Comments – Ideas, Questions, and AB1234 Reports a. Brief oral or written reports summarizing meeting or conference attendance at city expense, as required by Assembly Bill 1234 (Government Code, § 53232.3 );
b. Requests for the city manager or staff to report on various issues; c. Requests to place items on a future council meeting agenda; or d. Reports on district and citywide activities or news.

5. City Manager’s Report
a. Brief oral report from the City Manager or their designee.

6. Public Comment for Matters Not on the Agenda
a. As required by the Brown Act, a portion of each council meeting agenda will provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the council on any agendized item, including closed session and consent calendar items. Regular meeting agendas also will provide for public comment on any unagendized matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 33 of 58 b. In response to public comment on unagendized items, the members may individually:
(i) Briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by members of the public;
(ii) Ask questions for clarification;
(iii) Provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information or response;
(iv) Request staff to report to the council at a subsequent meeting; or (v) Request staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda as needed.

D. Quorum Call

1. During the course of the meeting, should the presiding officer note a quorum is lacking, the presiding officer shall call this fact to the attention of the city clerk.

2. The presiding officer then shall issue a quorum call. If a quorum has not been restored within two minutes of a quorum call, the presiding officer may declare a recess for a reasonable period of time in order to reestablish a quorum.

3. If no quorum is reestablished within a reasonable time, the presiding officer shall adjourn the meeting.

4. Continuation of a council meeting extending past 9:30 p.m. requires a majority vote of the councilmembers present.

5. Continuation of a Planning and Design Commission or Preservation Commission meeting extending past 9:30 p.m. requires a majority vote of the commissioners present.

6. A meeting of any other city established legislative body shall automatically adjourn after two hours, unless extended by a 2/3 vote of the members present; but in no case shall an advisory body meeting exceed three hours.

E. Obtaining the Floor

1. Any member wishing to speak must first obtain the floor by being recognized by the presiding officer. The presiding officer shall recognize any member who seeks the floor when appropriately entitled to do so.

2. With the concurrence of the presiding officer, a member holding the floor may address a question to another member and that member may respond while the floor is still held by the member asking the question. A member may opt not to answer a question while another member has the floor.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 34 of 58 F. Motions

1. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order: Simple Parliamentary Procedures for the 21st Century governs the management of motions.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 35 of 58 G. Voting

1. Requirements for Action.
a. Unless a higher vote is required by the city charter, the city code, or otherwise by law, the affirmative votes of at least five members of the council shall be required:
(i) For the council to take action on an item of business; (ii) To pass any ordinance, resolution, or motion; or
(iii) To make or approve any order for the payment of money requiring council approval.
b. Any ordinance declared by the council to be necessary as an emergency measure and containing a statement of the facts constituting such emergency as provided in the city charter may be introduced and adopted at the same meeting if passed by at least six affirmative votes (Sacramento City Charter, § 32 ).

2. Voting Disqualification.
a. A member shall not vote upon a matter if the member is disqualified from voting on that matter due to a conflict of interest. Nor shall any member vote on a quasi-judicial matter if the member is biased regarding that matter. b. A member shall openly state an abstention due to a conflict of interest or bias. A member shall only abstain when there is an actual (or reasonably perceived) financial conflict of interest or bias, and the member is prohibited from voting on the item.
c. A member who is abstaining due to a financial conflict of interest shall publicly identify the financial interest in detail sufficient to be understood by the public, except that disclosure of the exact street address of a residence is not required. d. Under SB 1439, an officer who is abstaining (Government Code, § 84308, the “Levine Act”) shall disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding. Under SB 1439, an officer of an agency shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use the officer’s official position to influence the decision in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use pending before the agency if the officer has willfully or knowingly received a contribution in an amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) within the preceding 12 months from a party or a party’s agent, or from any participant or a participant’s agent if the officer knows or has reason to know that the participant has a financial interest in the decision.
e. As to any other conflict of interest, the member's determination may be accompanied by an oral or written disclosure of the conflict of interest.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 36 of 58 f. A member who is disqualified by a conflict of interest in any matter shall not remain on the dais during the discussion and shall not vote on that matter.

However, the member may remain on the dais for Consent Calendar items if the member states the abstention from the vote due to the described conflict of interest before the Consent Calendar is voted on in one motion.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 37 of 58 Chapter 9 – Council Vacancies
A. Procedures

1. As provided in the Sacramento City Charter, absence from five consecutive regular meetings of the council, unless excused by resolution of the council, operates to vacate the seat of the mayor or councilmember so absent. (Sacramento City Charter, §§ 28 and 46.)

2. A vacancy in the office of councilmember or mayor shall be filled by special election called by the council as provided in Sacramento City Charter § 154, unless the vacancy occurs within one year of the next general election at which that office would normally be filled, in which case the vacancy shall be filled by appointment.

The city clerk shall take the necessary actions to accomplish the recruitment and appointment of candidates as provided in
Sacramento City Code § 1.14.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 38 of 58 Chapter 10 - Facilities
A. Meeting Locations

1. Whenever practical, legislative body meetings shall be held at the City Hall Complex, located at 915 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 to facilitate video streaming to the city’s website and archiving for future access.

B. Meeting Capacity

1. Council chamber and historic hearing room attendance is limited to the posted seating capacity. The maximum occupancy of council chambers is 230 and historic hearing room is 70. The city manager shall appropriately regulate entrance to the council chamber when the council chamber capacity is likely to be exceeded. When legislative bodies are in session, members of the public shall not remain standing in the seating area or aisles of the council chamber. Sitting on the floor is not permitted. The sergeant-at-arms shall enforce this chapter.

2. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, meeting locations are accessible to the public. If a member of the public needs special assistance, a disability-related modification or accommodation, agenda materials in an alternative format, or auxiliary aids to participate in this meeting, they should contact the Office of the City Clerk at 916-808-7200 or [email protected] as soon as possible. Providing at least 72 hours' notice will help ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 39 of 58 Chapter 11 - City Council Committees and Regional Organizations A. General

1. The mayor shall make all appointments to council standing committees, subject to the approval of the council. The mayor shall make all appointments to council ad hoc committees.

2. A standing committee is a permanent committee of the council established to consider subjects of a particular class, with regularly scheduled meeting dates and times.

3. An ad hoc committee is a temporary committee of the council established for a special purpose and of limited duration.

4. Standing and ad hoc committees have fact-finding, informative, and recommendatory powers only, and such other powers delegated by the council.

5. The council intends that council committees, to the extent possible, conduct a full hearing on any matter referred to that committee before the committee refers the matter back to the council.

6. The city clerk shall maintain and keep on file a list of the standing committees, ad hoc committees, regional organizations, and joint powers agencies to which councilmembers are appointed.

B. Council Standing Committees

1. General Guidelines
a. Standing committee appointments shall be made by the mayor each at the beginning of each calendar year or as necessary.
b. Standing committees shall meet at the city hall complex. c. Standing committees are subject to the Brown Act
and the Sacramento Sunshine
Ordinance (Sacramento City Code § 4.04). Standing committee agendas shall be prepared, posted, and distributed in accordance with the Brown Act and the Sacramento Sunshine Ordinance (Sacramento City Code Chapter 4.04), stating the time and place of the meeting and the subject matters to be discussed. d. A councilmember who is not a member of the standing committee may attend a standing committee meeting, provided the member attends only as an observer, does not testify or otherwise participate in any discussion, and sits amongst the public.
e. Except as provided in subsection f, all items on a standing committee’s agenda must first be referred to the committee by the council for review, with a recommendation returned to the council within 120 days, subject to the exceptions set forth below or as otherwise modified by the council.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 40 of 58 f. With approval of the city clerk, city manager, or committee chair, an item may be sent directly to a standing committee without council referral. If a matter is so referred to a standing committee, the committee agenda must note that fact on the face of the agenda and the committee chair shall notify the council. Such referrals are not required to be forwarded to the council unless council action is recommended by the standing committee.
g. The city clerk shall assign staff to assist the committee chair with the operation of the committee.

C. Council Ad Hoc Committees

1. Establishment.
a. The mayor or a majority of the council may request the creation of an ad hoc committee.
b. The city manager or a department director, together with the city attorney, shall work with the appropriate supporting department(s) and determine the scope and approximate duration the ad hoc committee.
c. The department director shall submit a request to the mayor, with a copy to the city clerk, requesting the creation of and appointment of up to four members to an ad hoc committee.

2. Scheduling Ad Hoc Committee Meetings.
a. Once an ad hoc committee has been established, the city clerk shall schedule the first meeting. Once confirmed, the city clerk shall notify the members, mayor’s office, city manager (or designee), and the city attorney (or designee) of the meeting details. A regular meeting calendar will be established and adopted by the ad hoc committee.
b. A councilmember who is not a member of the ad hoc committee may attend an ad hoc committee meeting, provided the member attends only as an observer, does not testify or otherwise participate in any discussion, and sits amongst the public.
c. Ad hoc committees are subject to the Brown Act
and the Sacramento Sunshine
Ordinance (Sacramento City Code § 4.04).

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 41 of 58

3. Dissolution
a. Once an ad hoc committee has completed its task, the supporting department shall submit a report to the mayor, with a copy to the city clerk, stating completion of the ad hoc committee tasks and request the dissolution of the ad hoc committee.
b. An ad hoc committee is automatically dissolved one year after its first meeting, unless it is dissolved earlier under Rule 12.C.3.a.
c. The city clerk will provide a periodic report to council announcing the dissolution of ad hoc committees.

D. Regional Organizations
The mayor shall appoint council representatives to regional organizations and joint powers agencies listed in the documents maintained by the city clerk, subject to council approval. Appointments shall be made at the beginning of each calendar year or as necessary.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 42 of 58 Chapter 12 – Councilmember Proposal Requests
A. General

1. This chapter outlines the process for councilmembers to propose an idea for council action. It modulates the agenda requests of individual councilmembers by referring those requests to the relevant city council standing committee for review, as appropriate, and in so doing provides clear guidance to the council appointees that their work demands are serving the council as a whole. It also ensures councilmember requests are duly tracked and assigned, thus promoting transparency and accountability.

B. Procedures

1. Councilmember proposal requests must be submitted in writing to the city clerk.

The proposal must include a brief summary and background, identify the applicable strategic plan/priority, estimate any budget adjustment or impact, and include additional information sufficient for committee deliberation.

2. The mayor, in consultation with the city manager, city attorney, and city clerk, shall review all requests and will assign each proposal to a committee based on committee jurisdiction, unless an exception applies.
a. Exceptions:
i. Urgent matter that requires quick council action;
ii. A matter related to a pending council matter;
iii. A matter that on its face falls fully outside the jurisdiction of the City;
iv. A matter within the City Manager’s executive function that does not need council authorization; or
v. A matter that should receive a city-established board, commission, or committee input before going to a city council standing committee.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 43 of 58

3. Standing committees shall review each proposal and vote whether to approve staff work.
a. If the proposal receives threshold committee support to work on the proposal (i.e., a vote of 4/0, 3/1, or 2/1), staff work commences. b. If the proposal receives a 2/2 vote, within 30 days thereafter the city councilmember who initiated the proposal may ask that the city council vote on a non-debatable motion to reconsider, which motion will be placed on the next available city council agenda. If the motion receives five or more “aye” votes, the item will be resubmitted to the committee.

If the motion fails, the proposal concludes. The non-debatable motion to consider may only be considered once. Once a proposal concludes, it cannot be reconsidered sooner than 12 months.
c. If the proposal does not receive sufficient committee support (i.e., a 0/4, 1/3, or 1/2 vote) for further work on the proposal, the proposal concludes.

4. If directed by the standing committee to commence work, staff will bring back to the committee a report for its consideration.
a. If the proposal receives a vote of 4/0, 3/1, or 2/1, the proposal advances to the city council with a committee recommendation.
b. If the proposal receives a 2/2 vote, within 30 days thereafter the city councilmember who initiated the proposal may ask that the city council vote on a non-debatable motion to reconsider, which motion will be placed on the next available city council agenda. If the motion receives five or more “aye” votes, the item will be resubmitted to the committee.

If the motion fails, the proposal concludes. The non-debatable motion to consider may only be considered once. Once a proposal concludes, it cannot be reconsidered sooner than 12 months.
c. If the proposal does not receive sufficient committee support (i.e., a 0/4, 1/3, or 1/2 vote) to advance to the city council, the proposal concludes and cannot be reconsidered sooner than 12 months.

C. Councilmember Proposal Request Flowchart (following page)

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 44 of 58

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 45 of 58 Chapter 13 – Law and Legislation Committee
A. Authority; Purposes

1. Authority to Represent City Positions.
a. The Law and Legislation (L&L) Committee has the authority to take positions on behalf of the city on state and federal legislation as outlined in the city’s legislative platform.
b. The mayor or the chair of the L&L Committee has the authority to take positions, consistent with the adopted legislative platform, on behalf of the city when the need to react quickly does not allow for a matter to be considered by the L&L Committee.
c. Except as provided in subsections a and b, no person or committee has authority to represent the council on policy matters, unless that authority has been granted by the council or the information is limited to a factually accurate statement of the council’s publicly-adopted position.

2. Purposes. The purposes of the L&L Committee are to consider, evaluate, conduct fact-finding, and recommend to council positions on proposed city ordinances and non-binding resolutions.

B. Procedures

1. Ordinances and Non-Binding Resolutions.
a. Origination.
(i) Requests to prepare, amend, draft, or process ordinances and non- binding resolutions shall be made in one of the following ways:
(A) In writing to the city clerk; or
(B) By the city manager or other city staff.
(ii) All non-binding resolution requests must be referred to the L&L Committee. Except as provided in subsection b below, all ordinance requests must be referred to the L&L Committee.
(iii) The requesting member(s), city manager, or staff is considered the sponsor. City staff shall work directly with the sponsor in developing the proposed ordinance language.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 46 of 58 b. Ordinances not requiring L&L Committee review prior to council review and adoption are those that are:
(i) Deemed urgent by the mayor or city manager;
(ii) Voted on by the majority of council to bypass the L&L Committee; (iii) Voted on by the majority of the L&L Committee to go to council without full L&L Committee review;
(iv) Zoning code amendments for specific development projects; (v) Listings on, or deletions from, the Sacramento register under Sacramento City Code chapter 17.604, article II;
(vi) Adopting property-related fees or fee increases that require public notice before the Utilities Rate Advisory Commission;
(vii) Authorizing the execution of a development agreement; (viii) Establishing or adjusting parking meter rates
(ix) The biennial update for campaign contribution limits, as required by Sacramento City Code section 2.13.120; or
(x) Levying a special tax on land within a community facilities district. (xi) Those reviewed by the P&PE Committee related to a city advisory body’s creating authority.
c. After passing the threshold vote required by the councilmember proposal request flowchart in Chapter 12, ordinances and non-binding resolutions referred to the L&L Committee shall be placed on the legislation log, with new items placed at the end of the log, to establish a priority order; provided, the L&L Committee or council may reorder the priority.
d. The log will be scheduled for the consent agenda at every L&L Committee meeting. Any committee member may pull an item from consent for discussion. e. Items on the log may be removed at the request of the sponsor. Staff shall note the removal request on the log and remove the item after the log has been approved by the committee.
f. The process for advancing an item to the city council is outlined in Chapter 12.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 47 of 58 C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission

1. The city manager and city clerk shall develop the agenda for the L&L Committee meetings in consultation with the chair of the committee. a. The chair shall have the right to make recommendations to the committee on matters of policy and programs that require committee decisions. b. Charter officers, the director of the office of public safety accountability, and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency executive director may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.
c. Department directors, subject to the discretion of the city manager, may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 48 of 58 Chapter 14 – Personnel and Public Employees Committee
A. Purposes
The purposes of the Personnel and Public Employees (P&PE) Committee are to:

1. Review applications received for membership to various city boards, commissions, and committees;

2. Conduct interviews for such membership appointment;

3. Make recommendations to the mayor concerning such appointments;

4. Review advisory body reports and recommendations, as provided in Rule 17.C;

5. Review ordinances related to an advisory body’s creating authority prior to council review and adoption;

6. Lead the recruitment process for council-appointed officers; and

7. Develop and lead annual performance metrics and evaluations for council-appointed officers, as provided in Rule 18.

B. Procedures

1. Applications for seats on city boards, commissions, and committees will be reviewed by the P&PE Committee.

2. The P&PE Committee shall conduct interviews of qualified applicants.

3. Recommendations by the P&PE Committee shall be submitted to the city clerk for distribution to the mayor to consider appointment.

4. After the mayor’s appointment, the city clerk shall submit a report for a council agenda requesting confirmation of the mayor’s appointment.

C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission

1. The city manager and city clerk shall develop the agenda for the P&PE Committee meetings in consultation with the chair of the committee. a. The chair shall have the right to make recommendations to the committee on matters of policy and programs that require committee decisions. b. Charter officers, the director of the office of public safety accountability, and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency executive director may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.
c. Department directors, subject to the discretion of the city manager, may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 49 of 58 Chapter 15 – Budget and Audit Committee
A. Purposes
The purposes of the Budget and Audit Committee (B&A) are to:

1. Assist the council in overseeing and supervising the city auditor;

2. Assist the council in evaluating the proposed budget, including a mid-year report, and any amendments thereto;

3. Assist the council in understanding the budget impacts resulting from council’s actions; and

4. Assist the council in reviewing and evaluating the Innovation and Growth Fund.

5. Assist the council in enhancing the city’s ability to:
a. Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of city operations; b. Improve the city’s fiscal operations;
c. Adopt and adhere to a balanced budget; and
d. Comply with city policies, procedures, and regulatory requirements.

6. Review councilmember proposals for funding allocations that fall outside of the budget process.

B. Procedures

1. The B&A Committee shall receive, review, and forward to the council as appropriate, reports, recommendations, and updates from the city auditor.

2. The B&A Committee shall receive and review the proposed budget and any material amendments thereto.

3. The B&A Committee shall receive and review any key budget policy issues, including but not limited to, Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) results, use of any year-end surplus, the mid-year report, budget priorities, use of unanticipated revenue, or proposed budget issues such as fee increases, prior to bringing forward to council.

4. The B&A Committee may:
a. Receive, review, and forward to the council, when relevant to city audits, any reports from the city treasurer, the department of finance, other city offices, or external auditors;
City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 50 of 58 b. Receive, review, and forward to the city council any reports and recommendations from the economic development department or city manager regarding the Innovation and Growth Fund; and
c. Propose that the council adopt ordinances, resolutions, or take other actions, provided that such ordinances, resolutions, or actions are within the jurisdiction of the B&A Committee.

5. The process for advancing an item to the city council is outlined in Chapter 12.

C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission

1. The city manager, city auditor, and city clerk shall develop the agenda for the B&A Committee meetings in consultation with the chair of the committee. a. The chair shall have the right to make recommendations to the committee on matters of policy and programs that require committee decisions. b. Charter officers, the director of the office of public safety accountability, and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency executive director may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.
c. Department directors, subject to the discretion of the city manager, may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 51 of 58 Chapter 16 – Racial Equity Committee
A. Purposes
The purposes of the Racial Equity Committee are to:

1. Help the council align its advancement of racial equity in city decision-making with the impacts resulting from city policy, budget, and service-delivery decisions;

2. Provide a space to help coordinate the various city racial equity initiatives, efforts, metrics, and best practices into a holistic citywide informed approach (rather than a case-by-case approach); and

3. Increase engagement, transparency, and accountability for the City’s ongoing racial equity work.

B. Procedures

1. The Racial Equity Committee shall receive, review, and forward to the council as appropriate, reports, recommendations, policy proposals, and updates regarding racial equity issues. Review and approval of ordinances and adoption of positions on state and federal legislation shall be undertaken by the Law and Legislation Committee, unless an ordinance or legislation is referred directly to the Racial Equity Committee by the council.

2. The process for advancing an item to the city council is outlined in Chapter 12.

C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission

1. The city manager and city clerk shall develop the agenda for the Racial Equity Committee meetings in consultation with the chair of the committee. a. The chair shall have the right to make recommendations to the committee on matters of policy and programs that require committee decisions. b. Charter officers, the director of the office of public safety accountability, and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency executive director may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.
c. Department directors, subject to the discretion of the city manager, may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 52 of 58 Chapter 17 – City Advisory Bodies
A. Vacancies and Appointments

1. When any vacancy occurs on a board, commission, or committee (advisory body) the city clerk shall announce that vacancy pursuant to the standard outreach procedures. The city clerk’s office maintains the board and commission files and performs all clerical and administrative support tasks related to the application process.

2. At the close of the application period, all applications received for the vacancy are referred by the city clerk to the appropriate nominating body or person for review and recommendation.

3. If the recommending body is the Personnel and Public Employees Committee (P&PE) the applicant will be invited to interview in person before P&PE at the next available meeting. Following review and recommendation by P&PE, the city clerk shall forward to the mayor for review.

4. If the recommending body is a councilmember, following review, the member shall send the board and commission recommendation(s) to the city clerk who will forward to the mayor for review.

5. After reviewing the submitted recommendation(s) made by P&PE or a member, the mayor shall direct the city clerk to prepare a staff report with the mayor’s appointment to fill the vacancy at the next council meeting. Concurrence in an appointment for a seat on a city board, commission or committee shall be by vote of the city council.

6. If the council does not approve the appointment, then the mayor shall make another appointment, and at the soonest regular meeting following the meeting at which the subsequent appointment was made, the council shall vote whether to confirm the new appointment.

7. This procedure shall be followed until an appointment has been approved by the council. No request by a member to delay the appointment or approval will be allowed unless approved by a majority vote of the council.

8. At the direction of the council, all vacancies, application periods, and close of application periods for boards and commissions shall be monitored and maintained by the city clerk.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 53 of 58

9. In making nominations and appointments to city boards and commissions, the mayor, P&PE Committee, and members should consider persons of various ethnicities, ages, genders, education, and occupational experience as reflected in the general population of the city; and should, as appropriate for the vacancy, consider persons from all districts of the city.

B. Requests for Future Agenda Items

1. Members may submit items under the purview of the advisory body for inclusion on a future agenda by orally making the request under Ideas, Comments, and Questions.
a. The department staff shall add a member’s requests to a chronologically-ordered log that contains all pending requests, i.e., those not having been heard as an agenda item or not otherwise having been removed from the log. b. The log shall appear on the Consent Calendar of each regular meeting and include estimated agenda date or disposition.

C. Advisory Body Reports

1. Advisory body recommendations and reports to the city council shall follow the procedure set forth in this Rule 17.C.

2. Annual report preparation.
a. Each advisory body shall provide an annual report for review by the Personnel and Public Employees (P&PE) Committee.
b. The annual report shall be provided in a format established by the city clerk and should include highlights and accomplishments from the prior year’s work; proposed projects, priorities, and recommendations for the upcoming year; and any other information required of the advisory body according to the Sacramento City Code.
c. The city clerk shall manage an advisory body annual report calendar so that city staff can gather input to prepare a proposed report to the advisory body in a timely manner.
d. Each advisory body must approve its annual report before presentation to the P&PE Committee. When presenting proposed reports to advisory bodies, staff should include information on the feasibility of any recommendations therein.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 54 of 58

3. Review by P&PE Committee.
a. Annual reports approved by advisory bodies shall be placed on an upcoming P&PE Committee meeting agenda.
a. The city clerk shall act as a liaison and collaborate with city staff to collect any additional information that may be helpful to the committee’s evaluation of advisory body annual reports.
b. The P&PE Committee shall review advisory body annual reports and give staff direction on those reports’ stated projects, priorities, and recommendations.

Before forwarding the report to the city council, the committee may request supplemental information from staff or the advisory body.

4. Other recommendations. If an advisory body has recommendations outside the annual review process, the city clerk shall coordinate with the advisory body to have those recommendations brought before the P&PE Committee, which may consider and act on those recommendations in the same way it does advisory body annual reports.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 55 of 58 Chapter 18 – Annual Review of City Council Appointive Officers A. Purposes

1. The city council is committed to performing regular annual reviews of its appointive officers, which include the following positions: city attorney, city auditor, city clerk, city manager, city treasurer, director of the office of public safety accountability, and executive director of the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. These positions report directly to the city council.

2. Clear communication and performance metrics are at the core of the work of the council and the city. To evaluate council appointive officers on a consistent basis, the P&PE Committee will assume the role and responsibility of developing and leading annual performance metrics and evaluations.

B. Procedures

1. With direction from the P&PE Committee, the city clerk shall coordinate and schedule appointive officer annual reviews.

2. Annually, appointive officers shall present their annual report, including past year accomplishments and strategic goals and objectives for the upcoming year, to the P&PE Committee. Once approved by the P&PE Committee the report will be forwarded to the city council for approval.

3. Performance Evaluations: The city council shall meet in closed session to conduct a performance evaluation of an appointive officer.
a. T he city council may hold closed sessions during a regular or special meeting to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of an appointive officer or to hear complaints or charges brought against the appointive officer by another person or employee unless the appointive officer requests a public session (Government Code § 54957 (b)).
b. As a condition to holding a closed session on specific complaints or charges brought against an appointive officer by another person or employee, the appointive officer shall be given written notice of his or her right to have the complaints or charges heard in an open session rather than a closed session, which notice shall be delivered to the appointive officer personally or by mail at least 24 hours before the time for holding the session. c. The city council also may exclude from the public or closed meeting, during the examination of a witness, any or all other witnesses in the matter being investigated by the city council.
d. Closed sessions held pursuant to this rule shall not include discussion or action on proposed compensation except for a reduction of compensation that results from the imposition of discipline.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 56 of 58

4. Salary and Benefit Negotiations: The city council may meet in closed session with the city’s designated representative to discuss salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of an appointive officer. (Government Code § 54957.6)
a. The agenda for a closed session under this rule must identify the city’s designated representatives. Unless specifically directed otherwise by the mayor, the designated representatives shall be personnel from the Human Resources Department.
b. Closed sessions of the city council under this rule shall be for the purpose of reviewing its position and instructing the designated representatives. c. Closed sessions held pursuant to this rule shall not include final action on the proposed compensation or benefits.

5. Final approval of compensation adjustments, by resolution or contract, shall be made at an open meeting of the city council. See Rule 7.A.1 for agendizing such an item.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 57 of 58 Glossary
Decorum Officer
The decorum officer is a council-selected person who sits on the dais and has responsibility for enforcing council meeting decorum.
et seq
et seq means “and the following one or ones”.

Ex Parte Communications
An ex parte communication is a written or oral communication between a decisionmaker and an interested person concerning any issue in a formal proceeding, other than procedural matters that does not occur in a public forum established in the proceeding or on the record of the proceeding.

Members shall disclose the substance of all ex parte communications at the beginning of a public hearing for any item brought before the legislative body for hearing, consideration, or action.

Non-Binding Resolution
A non-binding resolution is a resolution in which the council declares its position and opinions on an issue, policy, or other matter that the council lacks legal authority to establish or regulate, but that the council determines is of such importance that the council should make the symbolic gesture of adopting a resolution declarative of council’s position.

Presiding Officer
The Presiding Officer is the person who presides over a meeting and is charged with maintaining order and decorum, recognizing members to speak, and interpreting the rules, practices, and precedents. In the city council the presiding officer is the Mayor. In advisory bodies established by the city council the presiding officer is the Chair. In the absence of Mayor or Chair, the Vice Mayor or Vice Chair shall preside.

Quasi-judicial
Quasi-judicial action means any council action that implicates constitutionally protected property or liberty interests, such as issuance or denial of discretionary land use permits, subdivision maps, business licenses, and other similar action in which a property interest is at stake and the council is charged with applying legal standards to a specific factual situation.

Sergeant-at-Arms
The sergeant-at-arms is the principal law enforcement official of the legislative body and is charged with maintaining security within the chamber (meeting location) and surrounding areas. The sergeant-at-arms also enforces protocol and ensures public decorum is followed as noted in the body’s rules of procedure.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 58 of 58 Teleconference
A meeting conducted among participants in different locations via telecommunications equipment such as telephones, computers, or other devices.