Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - PH-2 - Second Public Hearing on Draft Charter - 6/3/2014CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 3, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: PH 2 SUBJECT: SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT CHARTER DATE: MAY 28, 2014 FROM: KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW, SPECIAL COUNSEL YOLANDA M. SUMMERHILL PRESENTATION YOLANDA M. SUMMERHILL BY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BRENDA GREEN AT 714/754-5221 RECOMMENDATION The recommendation is for the City Council to hold the second public hearing on the proposed charter. BACKGROUND On April 22, 2013, the City Council held its first public hearing on the proposed charter. The City Council received comments from the public as well as raising questions of its own. The second public hearing is now being held in order to respond to those questions, hear additional comments from the public and determine whether the City Council would like to have an additional meeting to vote on placing the proposed charter on the November 2014 general election ballot. DISCUSSION General Law v. Charter City's Authority to Impose Assessments As a general law city, the City's power to impose an assessment must be authorized under various state statutes. Some examples include the Streets and Highways Code's Improvement Act of 1911, Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Improvement Bond Act of 1915, Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, and Benefit Assessment Act of 1982. These statutes involve an assessment for specific purposes such as street improvements, lighting improvements, irrigation, sewer connection, drainage improvement or flood control improvements. Assessments are subject to Proposition 218, which requires a city to determine the cost, how the assessment will be apportioned and thereafter adopt a resolution of intention, allowing protests to be filed, and hold a public hearing whereby an affirmative vote of four-fifths of the members of the city council is required to overrule the citizens' protests. Charter cities have broader discretion to impose an assessment pursuant to the statutes, referenced above, or enact local assessments for purposes beyond those allowed under state law. For instance, in the City of San Diego, the court found that the city could impose an assessment on undeveloped property in a particular area for the future construction of public facilities to serve that area. J.W. Jones Companies v. City of San Diego, 157 Cal. App. 3d 745 (1984). Thus, even though the assessment was not authorized by state statute, as a charter city, San Diego could impose the assessment on those properties that would be benefited. However, even a charter city must follow Proposition 218 in imposing that assessment. II. Charter City v. General Law City Generally Attached is a chart reflecting matters considered a "municipal affair" subject to regulation by a charter city versus the statutory limitations placed on general law cities. Power of Eminent Domain If Costa Mesa becomes a charter city, it would still be subject to the California Constitution and case law holding that the power of eminent domain is a matter of statewide concern. Wilson v. Beville, 47 Cal. 2d 852 (1957). Additionally, the California voters approved additional restrictions on cities' powers over eminent domain following the United States Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005). Specifically, the California Constitution was amended by "Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act" that prohibited a local government from using eminent domain to acquire a single-family home (including a condominium) and transferring to a private person or business except where: • The property owner does not live in the home, or has lived there for less than 1 year; • The property is being acquired for a public work or improvement; or • The property is being acquired to abate a nuisance; protect public health and safety; prevent serious criminal activity; respond to an emergency; or remedy environmental contamination that poses a threat to public health and safety. Thus, as a charter city, the City would be subject to the same limitations that it currently has as a general law city on this issue. IV. Charter Cities Powers At the first public hearing, the question was raised as to the extent of the City's powers as a charter city. Section 104 would give the City authority over "municipal affairs, subject only to such restrictions and limitations as may be provided in this Charter or in the Constitution of the State of California." What this language means is that, as a charter city, the City would have the power to regulate those areas expressly addressed in the charter along with those areas that have been deemed by state statute and case law to be a municipal affair. The City Council could consider including language in the proposed charter that limits the City's powers as a charter city to those areas expressly addressed in the charter. V. Public Contracting At the first public hearing, Council members requested a slight revision to Section 700 governing the City's authority to use the Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Act. As set forth below, Section 700 is revised to resolve that ambiguity. The Public Services Department is autherized +„may utilize the informal bidding procedures and cost thresholds set forth in the Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Act, as the procedures and cost thresholds may be modified every five (5) years by the Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall not be obligated to comply with any provision of the Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Act, including but not limited to, future changes which relate to matters other than solicitation of bids and thresholds for informal bidding. VI. Public Input, Additional Proposals & Process Going Forward The public will be given an additional opportunity to provide input on placing the charter on the ballot at a following City Council meeting when it decides whether the proposed charter will be placed on the ballot. That meeting must be timed so that it takes place at least twenty-one (21) days following the second public hearing. The Pension Oversight Committee has made recommendations set forth in Attachment 3 that the City Council may consider for inclusion in the proposed Charter. Information to Property Owners At the first public hearing, the City Council determined that the issue of how information would be provided to the public relating to the proposed charter would be decided after the City Council determines whether the proposed charter would be placed on the ballot. In connection with an earlier proposed charter, the public received three (3) mailers providing notice of the proposed ballot measure. The City Council may follow this same procedure, or choose an alternative method, to provide notice to the public. As of December 2013, the City maintains 42,570 active business and residential addresses. Notice of Public Hearin In anticipation of tonight's public hearing, the City Clerk's office published and posted notice of tonight's meeting in three (3) different places in accordance with California Government Code Sections 6066 and 34458. Additionally, the City Clerk's office prepared an additional advertisement that was placed in the Daily Pilot prior to tonight's meeting. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The City Council can choose not to proceed with a proposed charter FISCAL REVIEW If the proposed charter is placed on the November 2014 ballot, the additional cost is estimated at $12,880.00. Thus, the total cost of a consolidated election that includes the charter is $78,500-$97,500.00. Additionally, the cost for citywide mailings to the 42,570 active business and residential addresses would be $ 6,342.93 per mailing or 14.9 cents per mailed piece. CONCLUSION The Council should take public comment on the proposed charter and determine whether it wishes to schedule the item for a future council meeting to consider placing it on the ballot. Attachments: (A) Draft Charter (B) General Law v. Charter City (C) Pension Oversight Committee Proposals City of Costa Mesa: Advanced Components: Forms: Reporting: Vote... hUp://38.106.5.76/fbirdParty/Form/NSurveyAdmin/VoterReport.a! City tti, of Costa Mesa 1...., .1 11 1 . . 11 1 I ..... .. ... _L - ... ...... . .... .. .. ... ... . ... ..... . . ........... . . ... ..... .. ... .. .. . .. .. ... . .. .. VISION INTERNET CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM C k� visioll Advanced Components: Forms: Reporting: Voter Details User: Arzo Arid Back grwhImIrgPort I text -wan I dota 'Xwa Submission information Submitter DO ID : ASP.net's user name Submitter's Email : Submitter's language IP address : Submission recorded on Time to take the survey: 6647 Disabled Anonymous Default language 4/25/2014 3:56:28 PM 3 minutes, 4 secs. Survey answers Switch to submitter's answers edit trod Name: T Ryan Address: T T City: Costa Mesa T State: CA T Zip Code: 92627 E-mail., T Give us your thoughts on the charter: T Charter is a joke just like the council majority. Dictator Righelmer needs to go! Q Copyright 2003-2014, Vision Internet Providers, Inc. M rights reserved. City of Costa Mesa: Advanced Components: Forms: Reporting: Vote.., http://38.106.5.76/ThirdParty/Form/NSurveyAdmin/VoterReport.t Back 9W, liC..al report I text..telds_enCres. Icross Ulbivlttion Igta.._Cxp..oS Submission information Submitter DB ID : ASP net's user name Submitter's Email : Submitter's language: IP address. Submission recorded on Time to take the survey; Survey answers 6567 Disabled Anonymous Default language 4/22/2014 6:29:13 PM 8 minutes, 51 secs. Switch to aibmitter's answers edit mode Name: T Cynthia McDonald Address: T T City: : Costa Mesa T State: CA T Zip Code: 92626 E-mail: T Give us your thoughts on the charter: T I don't support wasting more money on putting this charter on the ballot. It doesn't really give us local control and we lose rights and remedies we would have under general law. You can't void contracts just because Costa Mesa becomes a charter city. There are no benefits or gains. City of Costa Mesa: Advanced Components: Forms: Reporting: Vote... http://38.106.5.76/ThirdParty/Forin/NSurveyAdmin/VoterReport.E Back graphic�i. repo. rt I .k��t.ficld� en, t!:i4S I ao�s_tabul;jtl..op � d�gta export Submission information Submitter DB ID: ASP.net's user name Submitter's Email : Submitter's language IP address : Submission recorded on Time to take the survey; Survey answers 6114 Disabled Anonymous Default language 3/26/2014 3:51:29 PM 6 minutes, 42 secs. Switch to submitter's answers edit mode Name: T Scott Williams Address: T T City: : Costa Mesa T State: CA T Zip Code:: 92626 E-mail: T VISICIR User, Arzo Azad Reset �;���{; ,rdl Give us your thoughts on the charter: T I believe very strongly in local control. The charter is limited by the State Constitution but, nonetheless, it provides local control over local projects. It allows the city managers to shop for the best construction deal and pay market wages. The managers will have to "manage" to make this a successful but that's why they manage! City of Costa Mesa: Advanced Components: Forms: Reporting: Vote... http://38.106.5.76/ThirdParty/Form/NSurveyAdminNoterReport,E City of Costa Mesa VISION INTrnNE'7 CONTENT MA14AGEM-EIIT SYSTEM _ C visloFt Advanced Components: Forms: Reporting: Voter Details user: Arzo Azad [a o�P� Back graphical. report I kcxdfl4k15 en..rinp� crq .$„tabul��tionI data Cxno.rt Submission information Submitter DB ID : ASP.net's user name: Submitter's Email. Submitter's language IP address: Submission recorded on Time to take the survey: 5975 Disabled Anonymous Default language 3/19/2014 4:31:09 PM 1 minutes, 59 secs. Survey answers Switch to submitter's answers edit rnode Name: T Diane Scioli Address: T T City: Costa Mesa T State: CA T Zip Code: 92627 E-mail: T Give us your thoughts on the charter: T I very much in support of Costa Mesa becoming a charter city. I thank those of you who are fighting hard for this goal and not bending to the will of employee unions. Diane Scioll ........... . - .. © Copyright 2003-2014, V'sbn Internet Providers, Inc. All rights reserved. City of Costa Mesa: Advanced Components: Forms: Reporting: Vote... http://38.106.5.76/ThirdParty/Form/NSurveyAdminNoterReport.; Back grAph-1011PPOrT I text. _Og, ent.. .le� I dam -export; Submission information Submitter DB ID : ASP.net's user name: Submitter's Email : Submitter's language 1P address: Submission recorded on Time to take the survey: Survey answers 5933 Disabled Anonymous Default language 3/18/2014 11:58:57 AM I minutes, 12 secs. Switch to submitter's answers edit mod Name: T Address: T T T T E-mail: T Carol L Beck City: : Costa Mesa State: CA Zip Code: 92627 Give us your thoughts on the charter: T I can't figure out why anyone is working on a charter. We voted against it ... and we will again. @ Copyright 2003-2014, Vision Internet Providers, Inc. All rlghts reserved.