HomeMy WebLinkAboutReview of Potential City Charter Provisions - Presented by C Revisions t® the City Charter
Jennifer McGrath
April 20, 2009
Brief History
o First Charter Election 5/3/37
• Amended five times
® New Charter adopted 2/10/66
® Amended eight times
— 1990 Charter Section 612
— 2002 Charter Section 617
® Last Charter Review Commission 1978
/ 0 J
1
Amendment Process
® Ballot measure proposed by City Council
® Initiative by the people
® Charter Review Commission
1. Technical Amendments
® Amend to reflect current elections process
(Section 300)
® Amend to reflect current technology (Section
303(b), 304(c), and 310)
® Delete reference to reimbursements (Section
302)
® Delete reference to Assistant City Administrator
(Section 402)
• Modify fiscal year (Section 600)
2
2e Substantive Amendments for
consideration
® Measure C
® Public Works Contracting
® Finance
Section 612 ® Measure
® Determine when CEQA is required
® Specify amenities that are not covered
® Increase dollar cap and add CPI
3
Public works Contracts and
Funding
® Section 614 - Contracts
— Increase dollar cap
— Include CPI adjustment
® Section 617 — Infrastructure Fund
— Comply with current financial policy
— Clarify calculation methodology
— Identify appropriate reviewing body
Finance
® Section 602 — Reduce circulation of
budget from 60 to 30 days
® Section 605 — Permit capital improvement
appropriations to be carried forward
4
3. Additional Amendments for
consideration
• City Manager
• Appointed Department Heads
• Real Estate Transfer Tax
• Term limits
• Salaries/benefits of elected officials
• Department responsibilities
• Nepotism policy
• Qualifications for Office
Reconvened Action
• Direct staff to prepare ballot language for
the Technical Amendments
• Create council sub-committee to review
the Substantive Amendments and
determine if a Charter Review Commission
should be established
5
Lugar, Robin
From: Bohr, Keith
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:52 PM
To: Mark Bixby
Cc: CITY COUNCIL; McGrath, Jennifer; city.clerk@surfcity-hb.org; Dan Kalmick; Larry K. Gallup;
Annie Burris; Julie Bixby
Subject: Re: charter reform study session followup
Interesting stuff thanks Mark.
Sent from my iPhone
Thank you,
Keith Bohr
714-315-2143
On Apr 20, 2009, at 9:59 PM, "Mark Bixby" <mark@bixby.org> wrote:
> Hi city council, city attorney, and city clerk (Cc: Julie Bixby, Larry
> Gallup, Dan Kalmick, Annie Burris [OC Register] ) ,
> I've been doing lots of research tonight after the charter reform
> study session and I've uncovered a number of important things you
> should all be aware of that are at odds with what was said during the
> study session.
> First, the 1978 charter "amendment" was functionally a full charter
> replacement. The 1976 charter it replaced had 15 articles; the 1978
> charter had just 8 articles. The 1978 charter election was ordered by
> city council Resolution #4603 which had a gut-everything-but-a-
> few-sections first measure and then several secondary measures for the
> more controversial items (elected vs. appointed city attorney, city
> clerk, city treasurer, etc) . That first measure reads:
> "Shall the existing charter, with the exception of the provisions
> mentioned in Propositions B through F on this ballot, of the City of
> Huntington Beach be repealed and in place thereof shall the proposed
> charter provisions approved by the City Council on January 30, 1978,
> be adopted?"
> That "exception" clause may have been a finessing way of avoiding full
> charter repeal, allowing you to claim you were just doing a monster
> 99% amendment. County election results show that this main measure
> passed by 24,220 yes votes to 15, 847 no votes.
> There was a Charter Review *Committee* responsible for the initial
> work on the 1978 charter. Its members were all *appointed* by the
> city council at the September 13, 1976 meeting (yes, astute readers,
> the city was already starting on the next round of charter changes
> prior to the November 2, 1976 election which also voted on some
> charter amendments) . It took me LOTS of tedious SIRE searching to
> backtrack all the way to that appointment date. I can supply you with
> megabytes of minutes (and much more) upon request for every city
> council meeting that referenced this incarnation of the charter review
> committee.
> So this historical record conflicts with two things Jennifer said at
> the study session -- 1) that the 1978 election was just a routine
> charter amendment (with the most recent full replacement being back in
> 1966) and 2) that whole charters can only be proposed by elected
> charter commissions. ` /
> I did some reading in the CA Gov Code re that latter item. Sections
> 34450-34457 lay out the whole complicated 15-member charter
> commission election scenario as accurately explained by Jennifer. But
> then section
> 34458 says:
> "34458. As an alternative to the procedure provided for in Sections
> 34450 to 34457, inclusive, the governing body of any city or city and
> county, on its own motion may propose or cause to be proposed, amend
> or cause to be amended, or repeal or cause to be repealed, a charter
> and may submit the proposal for the adoption, or the amendments or
> repeal thereof, to the voters at either a special election called for
> that purpose or at any established municipal election date or at any
> established election date pursuant to Section 1000 of the Elections
> Code, provided there are at least 88 days before the election."
> So the city council appears to have the ability to propose an entirely
> new charter (rather then piecemeal amendments) without
> having to go through the overhead of an elected charter commission.
> Why the Gov Code first says you have to follow the high-overhead
> elected charter commission process and then in the next section says
> you can ignore all that is beyond me. Gotta love Sacramento!
> But wait, there's more. Elections Code Section 9255 (a) (1) says:
> 119255. (a) The following city or city and county charter proposals
> shall he submitted to the voters at either a special election called
> for that purpose, at any established municipal election date, or at
> any established election date pursuant to Section 1000, provided that
> there are at least 88 days before the election:
> (1) A charter proposed by a charter commission, whether elected or
> appointed by a governing body. A charter commission may also submit a
> charter pursuant to Section 34455 of the Government Code. "
> So a charter commission may also be appointed rather than elected.
> Thus it appears to me that the charter revision *committee* that the
> council agreed tonight to appoint has the power to submit an entirely
> new from-scratch charter without having to chunk it up into separate
> amendments.
> I do not claim to be an attorney. But these code sections are written
> in plain English that seems easy to understand. Jennifer, if my
> analysis is incorrect, can you please set me straight by providing the
> appropriate code and/or case law references?
> But if my analysis IS correct, I would like to see this new committee
> tasked with a full comprehensive rewrite of the charter.
> Thanks. . .
> mark@bixby.org Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve expensive
> California electrons. . .
2