Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-21 Packet - Special CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Adiourned Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 August 21, 2006 6:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a courL The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered, if you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Review and Possible Direction on Airport Commission Application Process - McCowen b. Discussion and Possible Direction on Residency Requirement and Appointment Process for City Boards and Commissions - McCowen c. Discussion and Possible Adoption of Ordinance Amending Ukiah Political Reform Act d. Discussion of Succession Planning 6. ADJOURNMENT Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda. Dated this 17~h day of August, 2006. Gall Petersen, City Clerk AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Item No: 4a Date: August 21, 2006 SUBJECT: REVIEW AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION ON AIRPORT COMMISSION APPLICANTS PROCESS - MCCOWEN Councilmember McCowen has requested the City Council review the practice of referring applications for the Airport Commission to the Commission itself for formal recommendation prior to City Council action. Refer to Councilmember McCowen's email dated August 10, 2006 (Attachment 1 ). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and possible action on Airport Commission applicants process. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: John McCowen, Councilmember Prepared by: Sue Goodrick, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachment(s): 1 - Email dated August 10, 2006 from Councilmember McCowen requesting review of Airport Commission Applicants. APPROVED BY: ~'¢~_~.~ Candace Horsley, City anager Agenda Item No.: 4a Attachment 1 From: John McCowen [mailto:mccowen@pacific.net] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:52 PM To: Candace Horsley Cc: Sue Goodrick Subject: Review of Airport Commission Applicants Review of Airport Commission Applicants Questions have been raised about the recent practice of referring applications for the Airport Commission to the Commission itself for a formal recommendation prior to City Council action. In reflecting on this practice, I have come to question the necessity of having a formalized recommendation process, particularly for this commission and no other. It is the responsibility of applicants to adequately state their interest and qualifications on the application, and it is the responsibility of the Council to evaluate the applications. Applicants are also usually afforded the opportunity to be interviewed by the Council. The present system creates the potential for awkward moments in cases where commissioners are asked to evaluate the application of an incumbent with whom they serve. Discontinuing the process of a formal referral and recommendation will not preclude individual commissioners, or even the Commission as a whole, from offering their opinion, recommendation or endorsement to the City Council. John McCowen AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Item No 4b Date: AuRust 21, 2006 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION ON RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT AND APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS - MCCOWEN Councilmember McCowen had requested at the last Council meeting that the City Council discuss his proposal that a minority of seats on each City Board and Commission, with the exception of the Planning Commission, be open to any County resident. The matter was continued to this meeting. Refer to Councilmember McCowen's email dated August 10, 2006 (Attachment 1 ). Councilmember Baldwin has requested the Council also discuss the appointment process for the various Boards and Commissions. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and possible action on residency requirements and the appointment process for City Boards and Commissions. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: John McCowen, Councilmember Prepared by: Sue Goodrick, Risk ManagedBudget Officer Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachment(s): 1 - Email of August 10, 2006 from Councilmember McCowen - Residency Requirement for City Boards and Commissions APPROVED BY: ~ Ma~ag erCandace Horsley, City Agenda Item No: 4b Attachment I From: John McCowen [mailto:mccowen@pacific.net] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:36 PIll To: Candace Horsley Cc: Sue Goodrick Subject: Residency Requirement for City Boards and Commissions Residency Requirement for City Boards and Commissions. In the spirit of City/County cooperation, I propose that a minority of seats on each City board and commission, except the Planning Commission, be open to any County resident. Currently most City boards and commissions allow for a minority of members to be County residents provided they live within the current sphere of influence. I believe that the sphere is an arbitrary boundary that excludes numerous County residents who may have a connection to the City and a willingness to serve The proposed change will eliminate confusion over which County residents are eligible to apply; relieve staff of the responsibility of checking residency; and relieve applicants of the potential embarrassment of applying for a position they are not eligible for, or worse yet, being asked to resign from a position they were mistakenly appointed to. It is currently proposed that the sphere be significantly reduced, which will further exclude numerous citizens who are employed or own property or businesses within the City or who have other connections to the City. John McCowen AGENDA ITEM NO: 4c MEETING DATE: August 21,2006 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING UKIAH POLITICAL REFORM ACT SUMMARY: At its July 19, 2006, meeting, the City Council introduced an ordinance amending the recently adopted Ukiah Campaign Reform Act ("the Act"). That Act allows "Voluntary Spending Limit Candidates and Committees" to post for free a candidate picture and 500 word statement on the City's website and an additional 500 word statement, if any candidates reject the Voluntary Spending Limit. For the reasons stated in the Agenda Summary Report ("ASR) for the July 19 meeting, those provisions conflict with Government Code Section 83500 which prohibits public moneys from being used in a political campaign. To remedy this problem, the staff proposed and the City Council voted to introduce an amendment to the Act, which will require Voluntary Spending Limit Candidates and Committees to pay the actual cost of those postings so that no public money is used in the campaigns of those candidates and committees. The July 19 ASR focused on the reasons for the amendment and did not discuss the contents of the amendment in detail. (A copy of the July 19 ASR is Attachment 1 .) (Continued to Pa.qe 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the ordinance, if it reflects in the intent of the City Council or revise the ordinance, if it does not. If revised, the ordinance could not be adopted until August 28, 2006. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Decline to revise or adopt the ordinance. Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A David J. Rapport, City Attorney David J. Rapport, City Attorney Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachment 1- July 19, 2006 ASR; Attachment 2- Ordinance Amending Ukiah Campaign Reform Act Approved: ~anager Agenda Summary Report Page 2 Before the City Council adopts the ordinance amending the Act, this ASR will highlight the important provisions in the amendment. The amendment revises subsection 2081.D.7 of the Ukiah City Code. As revised that subsection reads as follows (emphasis added): For elections occurrin.q after November 8, 2006, and upon payment by the Candidate or Committee of the actual costs thereof, the Candidate or Committee may post on the City's website: a. Up to a 500 word statement along with the Candidate's picture. b. An additional 500 word statement, if an opposing Candidate or City Committee rejects the voluntary spending limit. For purposes of subsections 7.a and 7.b, above, the City Council shall adopt a resolution establishin.q the actual costs to be charged by the City. Those costs shall include all direct and indirect costs associated with posting the statements on the website, the intent bein.q that no public funds shaft be made available for these postin.qs. The statements shall be accompanied by a notice from the City, stating that the views expressed in the statement are those of the Candidate or Committee and do not reflect the views of the City or its officials and do not constitute an endorsement of the Candidate or Committee by the City or its officials. As the emphasized wording makes clear, under the amendment, as introduced, the opportunity to post statements on the website upon payment of the actual costs does not begin UNTIL AFTER THE CURRENT ELECTION CYCLE. This was proposed so that the actual costs of posting on the website could be calculated and presented to the City Council for approval before candidates were required to file their nomination petitions. It has been brought to staff's attention that some City Councilmembers may not have understood that posting statements on the website would not be available during the current election. If that was not understood or desired, the ordinance can be revised prior to adoption. In that event, the City Council must wait at least five days after the Agenda Summary Report Page 3 introduced ordinance is revised before adopting it. (Gov't Code §36934.) If the City Council wanted the amendment to become effective as soon as possible, it could continue the August 21 meeting to August 28, when it could adopt the ordinance. It would become effective 30 days later, or on September 27, 2006. A revision could simply delete the following from the beginning of the subsection: [Delete:] "For elections occurring after November 8, 2006, and . . ." As a result, the subsection would begin: "Upon payment by the Candidate or Committee..." The subsection requires the City Council to adopt a resolution establishing the charge for posting statements on the City's website. The ordinance states that the charge shall include all direct and indirect costs with the intent being that no public funds will be used to subsidize these postings. If the City Council revises the amendment to allow postings for candidates and committees participating in the November election, staff would bring a resolution establishing the charge to the City Council for approval prior to the ordinance becoming effective. Finally, the ordinance would require a disclaimer to accompany the posted statements from candidates or committees. As quoted above, the disclaimer would make clear that the statements contain the views of the author and not of the City or its officials. The postings do not constitute an endorsement of the candidate by the City or its officials. If the City Council does not revise the ordinance, it may adopt it at the August 21 meeting. ATTACHMEN I' ITEM NO: 10d MEETING DATE: July 19, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM ACT SUMMARY: The City Council recently enacted the Ukiah Campaign Finance Reform Act. That ordinance includes incentives for candidates and committees which agree to the voluntary spending limit provisions of the ordinance, including the City paying half the cost of the ballot pamphlet candidate's statement and the free posting of a 500 word statement on the City's website. In preparing the ordinance, the City Attorney overlooked Government Code Section 83500, enacted by Proposition 73, which states: No public officer shall expend and no candidate shall accept any public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office. This section in Proposition 73 was intended to prohibit public funding of political campaigns. (See Center for Pubfic Interest Law v Fair Political Practices Com. (1989, 4th Dist) 210 Cai App 3d 1476 [$3 check off on state income tax return for use in public funding of campaigns prohibited by this section]. It applies to local, as well as statewide, elections. (County of Sacramento v Fair Political Practices Com. (1990, 3rd Dist) 222 Cai App 3d 687.) Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to introduce ordinance by title only; motion to introduce ordinance. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Modify proposed ordinance or decline to introduce ordinance amending Ukiah Political Reform Act. Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: David J. Rapport, City Attorney David J. Rapport, City Attorney N/a 1 - Proposed Ordinance Approved: Candace Horsley, City Manager July 19, 2006, City Council meeting The State Attorney General has issued an opinion, saying that Government Code Section 83500 does not prohibit a community college district from paying the cost of printing candidate statements, because Government Code Section 85300 does not prohibit all expenditures of public funds on elections and Elections Code Section 13307 gives a local agency the authority to charge candidates for the cost of printing their statements in the voters' pamphlet, but it does not require it to do so. The Attorney General opinion concluded that candidate statements in a voters' pamphlet are not part of the candidate's campaign and would not constitute "campaigning" for any particular candidate in a "partisan" manner. The Attorney General opinion addressed a community college district which paid those costs for all candidates for its board of trustees. In Ukiah's case, the City is paying half the costs only for certain candidates. The courts are not bound by Attorney General Opinions, but those opinions are entitled to serious consideration. On balance, the City Attorney believes the payment of half of the cost of candidate statements for voluntary spending limit candidates and committees would not violate Government Code Section 85300. Each candidate and committee has an equal opportunity to take advantage of the subsidy. For that reason, the City Attorney thinks the City can rely on the Attorney General opinion, at least, until it is rejected by a court. However, the statements posted on the City website are somewhat different. There is no Election Code provision authorizing the use of those statements. The City is undertaking to provide this access entirely on its own. The content of candidate statements in voter pamphlets is prescribed by the Elections Code (name, age and occupation of the candidate and a brief description, of no more than 200 words, of the candidate's education and qualifications. No reference to the candidate's party affiliation, membership or activity in partisan political organizations.) There are no similar limitations in the 500 word website statements authorized in the City's ordinance. For these reasons, in the City Attorney's opinion, the City will have to inform candidates that the website statements are not available or will only be available, if the candidate pays the City's costs in posting the statements on the website, so that no public funds are used. A proposed amendment of the ordinance to avoid this potential violation of Government Code Section 83500 is attached. The ordinance must be introduced on July 19 and adopted at the August 2, 2006, City Council meeting. It will become effective on September 1,2006. As long as the City informs candidates of the limits on the use of its website, amending the ordinance after the election cycle begins for the November election should not be a problem. ORDINANCE NO. 1083 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING SECTION 2081 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE. The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE. Section 2081 of the Ukiah City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: §2081: VOLUNTARY SPENDING LIMIT: A Candidate or City Committee may elect to comply with the voluntary spending limits as set forth in this Section 2081. A. A Candidate or City Committee which voluntarily accepts expenditure limits may not make Campaign Expenditures in excess of the limits set forth in subsection C, below. Campaign Expenditures by a Candidate and his or her Controlled Committee shall be aggregated. B. Each Candidate and each City Committee shall indicate on a form provided by the City Clerk his, her or its acceptance or rejection of the voluntary spending limits as established under Subsection C, below. At a minimum, the form shall (1) state the voluntary spending limit then in effect, (2) the benefits of acceptance of the voluntary spending limit, and (3) contain an agreement to comply with the requirements of this Section 2081. Said form shall be filed with the City Clerk at the same time that a Candidate files his or her nomination paper and verified statement of acceptance pursuant to Elections Code Section 10224 or that a City Committee files its statement of organization pursuant to Government Code Section 84101. C. For the November 2006 City Election, the spending limit is $5,000.00. This voluntary spending limit shall apply to future elections, but may be adjusted periodically by resolution of the City Council to reflect increases or decreases in City population and the Consumer Price Index since August 2006. D. For Candidates and City Committees accepting the voluntary spending limit, the following benefits apply: 1. The contribution limitation in Section 2079.A is increased from $200.00 to $500.0O. 2. Except for recall elections, the voluntary spending limit for any Candidate opposing an incumbent shall be increased by 25%. 3. The City will pay for one-half the cost of the Candidate's statement of qualifications as printed in the ballot pamphlet. 4. Within one week of the filing deadline, the City will issue a news release, describing the purpose and benefits of the program, and announcing the Candidates and City Committees which have accepted the voluntary spending limit. 5. Each participating Candidate and City Committee may use the designation "Voluntary Spending Limit Candidate/Committee" in all election/campaign materials and in the Candidate's ballot pamphlet statement of qualifications. 6. Candidates and their Controlled Committees may carry over funds from one election cycle to the next, if, within the first three days of the next Election Cycle, the Candidate or committee files a statement with the City Clerk accepting the voluntary spending limit applicable to that Election Cycle. If the Candidate or committee does not file the required statement, all funds CalTied over from the previous Election Cycle shall be disbursed pursuant to Section 2085 within seven days after the beginning of that subsequent Election Cycle. 7. The City shall post on the website a "Voluntary Spending Limit Candidates/Committees" list. For elections occurring after November 8, 2006, and upon payment by the Candidate or Committee of the actual costs thereof, the Candidate or Committee may post on the City's website: a. Up to a 500 word statement along with the Candidate's picture. b. An additional 500 word statement, if an opposing Candidate or City Committee rejects the voluntary spending limit. For purposes of subsections 7.a and 7.b, above, the City Council shall adopt a resolution establishing the actual costs to be charged by the City. Those costs shall include all direct and indirect costs associated with posting the statements on the website, the intent being that no public funds shall be made available for these postings. The statements shall be accompanied by a notice from the City, stating that the views expressed in the statement are those of the Candidate or Committee and do not reflect the views of the City or its officials and do not constitute an endorsement of the Candidate or Committee by the City or its officials. E. A Candidate or City Committee which files a notice accepting the voluntary spending limit may not thereafter reject the limit, except that if an opposing Candidate or City Committee files a statement rejecting the voluntary spending limit, the Candidate or City Committee may file a statement with the City Clerk rescinding its acceptance of the 2 voluntary spending limits within three days after the final date that nomination papers can be filed. F. Any candidate who files a statement of acceptance pursuant to subsection B, above, and makes Campaign Expenditures in excess of the limits shall be subject to the remedies in Section 2086. SECTION TWO. 1. SEVERABiLITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ukiah, and shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. Introduced by title only on July 19, 2006, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmember Crane, Rodin, McCowen and Vice Mayor Baldwin None Mayor Ashiku None Adopted on August 2, 2006, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmember Crane, Rodin, McCowen, Baldwin and Mayor Ashiku None None None Mark Ashiku, Mayor ATTEST: Gail Petersen, City Clerk ITEM NO. 4d DATE: 8/21/06 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: D1'SCUSS[ON OF SUCCESSZON PLANNZNG At the last City Council meeting, the City Manager announced her plans for retirement from the City in July of 2007, after twelve years of serving as the Ukiah City Manager. The formal announcement was made at this time to allow the Council the opportunity to complete a recruitment process for a replacement City Manager and provide for any transition time that is needed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss issue as presented. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Hanager Prepared by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: None APPROVED: ~ ~M C anager