HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin 11-21-03 MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2003
The Ukiah City Council met at a Special Meeting on November 21, 2003, the notice for
which had been legally noticed and posted, at 9:30 a.m. in the Civic Center Council
Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following
Councilmembers were present: Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson.
Staff present: City Manager Horsley, City Attorney Rapport, and Deputy City Clerk
Ulvila.
2. A. Consider And Adopt Revisions To Transaction And Use Tax Ordinance
City Attorney Rapport advised that upon review of the adopted language, the City
Manager requested a review of the adopted wording. The City Manager, Finance
Director, and the City Attorney determined that the wording of the Expenditure Plan
would very likely result in large reserves in funding for Public Safety without relief to the
General Fund if it was in a deficit position after achieving the desired level of public
safety services. They did not believe this result was intended by the City Council as
expressed at the November 17th City Council meeting, nor would the community want to
see other City services suffer as long as the desired level of Public Safety is adequately
funded. They felt there is an opportunity to correct it now rather than having to deal with
it later if the voters approve the Ordinance. That is why this Special Meeting was called.
He explained to Council the recommended changes to the revised version of Section
1746 that was included in the Agenda packet. He went on to discuss the sentence
containing the words "supplement" and "supplant."
City Manager Horsley advised that she met with Police Officer Randy Johnson, Ukiah
Police Association representative, and went over the changes with him.
City Attorney Rapport continued to explain why Staff made changes to the document.
He thought that Staff's concern with the language was a result of the last sentence,
which focused on the level of Public Safety services rather than the amount of money
that the section requires the City to spend on Public Safety services. In the version
contained in the Council packet, it says that the City doesn't have to maintain the level
of Public Safety services required by that section if doing so would result in a reduction
in other City services. He felt that it might be possible to maintain the level of Public
Safety services even if some of the General Fund revenues are used for other
purposes. There may be enough tax proceeds so that the level of service does not
have to be reduced in order to free up General Fund revenues for other purposes.
He referred to the informational handout given to Council earlier today and suggested
the last sentence be revised to read, "The City shall not be obligated to expend for
Public Safety services the amount of General Fund revenues required by this section in
any fiscal year in which the City Council makes the written findings and those findings
shall be based on substantial evidence that expending the mandated amount of General
Fund revenues for Public Safety services would result in a substantial detrimental
reduction..."
Special City Council Meeting
November 21,2003
Page 1 of 3
City Manager Horsley expressed concern that the City keeps its promise regarding the
level of service. She thought the level of service could stay the same because all of the
ballot measure money will go toward Public Safety services and it was only the current
General Fund revenues that the City may want to spend. She was very concerned that
the language state the level could be reduced and that is not what Council is talking
about.
City Attorney Rapport explained that when he spoke with the City Manager about this,
she wanted to make sure that training, as well as salaries, were covered, so he made
sure it was in the revised version that was distributed to Council this morning. He noted
that Councilmember Baldwin has sent an Email that makes two points, 1) the sentence
dealing with "supplement" versus "supplant" could be read to be inconsistent with the
rest of the section, and 2) if you can use General Fund revenues to meet other City
services under certain circumstances, then it's misleading in the ballot argument to say
that by law, every penny of this tax will augment the existing amount of General Fund
revenues being spent for Public Safety service. There could be circumstances where
that wouldn't be true in the future. We shouldn't say, "augment", but probably say, "By
law, every penny of the tax must be spent on Public Safety services."
Discussion followed with regard to the recommended changes to the Ordinance
Mayor Larson expressed concern with future City Councils. He noted that he was
happy with the original amendment #4 as was satisfied that it covered everything. He
was satisfied that the proposed changes do not weaken the resolve of the Council.
City Attorney Rapport noted that he would prepare an Impartial Analysis for each
ballot measure and it can't be longer than 500 words. It was felt that the issue concerns
the level of service.
Councilmember Smith was of the opinion that at the last meeting, Council was close
to adopting alternative #4. He felt that the latest revisions address this concerns.
Councilmember Rodin discussed Councilmember Baldwin's recommendations. It was
her opinion that the language in that sentence should be deleted from the document.
City Attorney Rapport explained that he agreed with Councilmember Baldwin in that if
that sentence were included, it would create an ambiguity. A statement that the tax
proceeds can only be used to supplement and not supplant, suggests that you should
never reduce the amount of General Fund revenues the City is spending for Public
Safety because of the tax proceeds. However, Council acknowledges that there could
be circumstances where that would occur. He felt that the easiest thing to do would be
to take it out because it doesn't add anything to the rest of the section if everyone is
clear as to it's intent.
Fire Chief Latipow advised that the some verbiage is important to personnel in both
the Fire and Police Departments. He felt that the findings were very strong and that it
embodied everything that was presented at that previous meeting. He discussed retired
Police Officer's benefits.
Special City Council Meeting
November 21,2003
Page 2 of 3
Councilmember Andersen was of the opinion that leaving the "supplement" and not
"supplant" language in the document is fine because the last two sentences of that
section provide the outlet. If there is extra money from the sales tax, it seems logical
that a finding of fact could be made that the extra money should go to supplement those
other areas that are decreasing because the General Fund revenue is increasing for the
Police and Fire Departments. He disagreed that we should take it out.
City Attorney Rapport advised that Councilmember Andersen is basically correct in
that the last two sentences provide an out. However, he could see an argument and
that's why he called it an ambiguity. He advised that the rules of statutory construction
say that whenever possible, you give every word in the statute some meaning.
He recommended to add another "except as otherwise provided herein" in front of the
"proceeds shall not be used" section. It was his opinion that it would be preferable to
include that preface so that there would be no question that those last two sentences
apply to both statements.
In conclusion, he stated that the red lined portion of Section 1746 of the Ordinance
should read, "Except as otherwise provided herein, the proceeds shall be used to
supplement and supplant General Fund revenues budgeted for public safety services.
Except as otherwise provided herein, the amount of general fund revenues budgeted in
any future fiscal year will be $ The final version would be the version that was
given to Council this morning with the addition of "except as otherwise provided herein".
Everything else would remain that same as stated in that version.
M/S Smith/Andersen approving revisions adopted Ordinance No. 1050, Transaction
and Use Tax Ordinance, that was adopted at the November 17th City Council meeting,
and approving the revised form, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES:
Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Baldwin.
3. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:09 a.m.
Marie Ulvila, Deputy City Clerk
Special City Council Meeting
November 21,2003
Page 3 of 3
