HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1988-13747 RESOLUTION NO. 13747
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING ARGUMENTS FOR CITY
PROPOSITIONS TO BE PLACED ON THE NOVEMBER 8,
1988 BALLOT
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 13692, the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista did call an election and consolidated
said election with the general election to be held on Tuesday,
November 8, 1988 for the purpose of submitting propositions
amending the Charter of the City of Chula Vista to the qualified
electors of the City of Chula Vista, and
WHEREAS, Elections Code Section 5013 authorizes the City
Council or any member or members of the City Council authorized
by the City Council to file a written argument for any City
measure, and
WHEREAS, the Charter Review Committee has prepared, and
the City Council has reviewed, the proposed ballot arguments in
favor of said propositions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the written
arguments, attached hereto in Exhibit "A" and incorporated by
this reference as if fully set forth herein, for filing with the
City Clerk.
Presented and Approved as to form by
D. Richard Rudolf,Q~sistant City Attorney
4546a
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
~,. ,ULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 18th day of~ August
19 88 , by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: C0uncilmembers Nader, Cox, Moore, McCandliss
NAYES: Counci 1 members None
ABSTAIN: Counci 1members None
ABSENT: Counc i 1 members Malcolm
the~ ~y ula Vista
ATTEST ~,,Tz._-,f_,_'~,J ~'~ C~,K,~z~',-~
~ .rE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chula Vista, California,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY thor the obove ond foregoing is 0 full, true ond correct copy of
RESOLUTION N0. 13747 ,ond that the some has not been amended or repealed.
DATED
City Clerk
CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
CC-660
CITY ATTORNEY'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS: "N"
This proposition would amend Article IX of the Chula Vista City
Charter by adding a new Section 904 which would require the City
Council to adopt reasonable regulations of campaign contributions
to be placed in the City Code.
The Charter provision would not define the specifics of the
proposed campaign contribution regulations, but would require
that the City Council adopt them by ordinance.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITIONS:
Monetary contributions to political campaigns are a legitimate
form of participation in the American political process but the
financial strength of certain individuals, businesses or
organizations should not permit them to exercise a
disproportionate or controlling influence on the election of
candidates for City offices. The rapidly increasing costs of
political campaigns have forced many candidates for elective
office to raise larger and larger sums from individuals,
businesses or interest groups with a specific financial stake in
City matters. This can cause the public perception that the
decisions of elected officials are being improperly influenced by
monetary contributions. This perception could undermine the
credibility of the governmental process.
The proposed Charter amendment would serve to protect the
integrity of the electoral process. It would require the City
Council adopt specific regulations governing campaign
contributions which would be placed in the City Code. By putting
specific regulations in the City Code they could be updated and
strengthened without the delays associated with a Charter change.
Reasonable limitations on campaign contributions will help to
insure Chula Vista's citizens that they continue to enjoy fair
and honest decisions from their elected officials.
C. R. Campbell, Chairman
Charter Review Committee
4550a
CITY ATTORNEY'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS: ~O'~
This proposition would amend Article III, Section 304(c) to set
the Mayor's annual salary at $37,200, approximately 60% of the
salary of a member serving on the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors. Members of the Board of Supervisors currently
receive a salary of ~61,927.20 which is 80% of the salary of a
Municipal Court judge. This base salary of the Mayor would be
subject to potential annual increases by resolution of the City
Council in an amount not to exceed the increase in the Consumer
Price Index. It could also be increased annually in an amount in
excess of a Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers/All Items
Component in the San Diego Metropolitan Area U [Broader Base]),
but only upon the vote of the people. Under existing law, the
Mayor's salary is currently ~30,630.72, derived from the existing
Charter authorization of up to 5% annual increases by the City
Council from a base salary of ~24,000.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION O:
Under the Charter, the position of Mayor is a full-time position
and the compensation should be commensurate with the duties and
responsibilities of this office. In a city the size of Chula
Vista, the demands upon the Mayor's time are very great. In
1985, Chula Vista completed the largest populated annexation in
the history of California. The City's population is now
approximately 125,000 which has brought about more diverse and
complex challenges for the Mayor. In setting the Mayor's salary,
we need to recognize the extent of the effort required to fill
this position.
The proposed Charter amendment would result in an increase from
the Mayor's current base salary of ~30,630.72 to ~37,200.00.
This salary would still not meet the private sector standard
given the responsibilities of this position, but this level is
being recommended to reflect the fact that persons entering into
public office are motivated more by the opportunity to perform
community service than by monetary compensation.
C. R. Campbell, Chairman
Charter Review Committee
4547a
CITY ATTORNEY'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS: "P"
This proposition would amend Article III, Section 302 of the
Chula Vista City Charter to establish the annual compensation of
Councilmembers at 40% of the salary of the Mayor. Currently, the
Charter requires City Councilmembers' salaries to be set in
accordance with state law, at $8,334.96 per year and can be
increased up to 5% per year upon City Council approval. The
proposed amendment would set the Councilmembers' salaries at a
constant 40% of the salary of the Mayor. If this proposition
passes, and the proposition relating to the Mayor's salary also
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION P:
Chula Vista is the second largest city in San Diego County. As
the City has grown, so has the complexity of the problems that
face us. City Councilmembers must devote a great deal of time
including evenings and weekends in order to adequately perform
their obligations to Chula Vista's citizens.
The salary level recommended would relate Councilmembers salaries
to that of the Mayor in recognition of the fact that the
Councilmembers policy responsibilities require them to put in a
great deal of time, but does not require them to be full-time as
it does the Mayor.
Chula Vista has been fortunate in that it has attracted a high
caliber of person to serve the City Council but there must be a
better balance between the quality of performance demanded and
the compensation given in order to insure that this position
continues to attract the best possible candidates. Our failure
to adequately compensate Councilmembers could serve to limit the
number of experienced and qualified people who will offer to
devote their time and effort to setting the policy direction of
the future for Chula Vista.
C. R. Campbell, Chairman
Charter Review Committee
4548a
CITY ATTORNEY'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS:
This proposition would amend Article VI by adding a new
subsection (d) to Section 602 which would explicitly limit
eligibility to serve on City boards and commissions to registered
voters with the exception of the Youth Commission where
candidates would need only be residents of the City.
Currently the Charter states that a position on a board or
commission becomes vacant if a member ceases to be an elector of
the City. The amendment clarifies the eligibility requirement
that a board member or commissioner must be a registered voter.
An explicit exception is recommended for Youth Commissioners in
recognition of the fact that they are normally too young to be
registered to vote, but they should be required to be residents
of the City.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITIONS:
There is currently some ambiguity in the Charter with regard to
whether members of the public who serve on boards and commissions
are required to be registered voters of the City. The Charter
currently states that a vacancy occurs on a board or commission
if a member ceases to be a qualified elector of the City. In
1984, the voters rejected a proposition which would have allowed
non-residents to serve on those boards and commissions which are
not specifically mentioned in the Charter. Based upon the
language in the "Vacancies" section and the action of the voters
in 1984, it has been the consistent interpretation of the Charter
that to serve on a board or commission, a person must be a
resident of the City.
This amendment will specifically spell out in the Charter the
eligibility requirement that a person be a registered voter with
the exception of Youth Commissioners who need only be residents
of the City.
C. R. Campbell, Chairman
Charter Review Committee
4551a
CITY ATTORNEY'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS: 5
This proposition deletes Section 307 of Article III of the Chula
Vista City Charter dealing with "special meetings" This section
duplicates the requirements of state law. The repeal of this
section will in no way affect the law with regard to special
meetings because the City will continue to be required to meet
the provisions of the state law.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITIONS:
This is primarily a housekeeping measure. Special meetings are
regulated by state law and the City is pre-empted from having any
regulations different from those set forth by the state. There
is no need to have this duplicate provision in the City Charter.
C. R. Campbell, Chairman
Charter Review Committee
4553a
CITY ATTORNEY'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS:
This proposition amends Article III, Section 311 of the Chula
Vista City Charter to allow resolutions or orders for the payment
of money to be made at special meetings called for that purpose.
Currently the Charter only specifically allows resolutions or
orders for the payment of money to be made at regular or
adjourned regular meetings. The proposed amendment would include
special meetings in this section.
4494a
This is primarily a housekeeping measure. Occasionally the City
Council is required to call a special meeting to deal with some
unforeseen circumstances. The notice for such a meeting is
required by state law. For example, in a special meeting called
to discuss a flooding problem or a dangerous condition of public
property, it may be necessary to approve an expenditure of money
to correct the problem. This proposal would authorize
resolutions or orders for payment of money to be approved at a
special meeting called for that purpose.
C. R. Campbell, Chairman
Charter Review Committee
4554a
CITY ATTORNEY'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS:
This proposition amends Article III, Section 312 of Chula Vista
City Charter to clarify that the City Clerk may publish a summary
of an ordinance which is passed by the City Council. It also
allows the Council to adopt other codes such as the Building Code
or federal laws by reference without the requirement that they be
published in the newspaper. It further makes ordinances
effective thirty days after final passage as opposed to the
current 31st day after adoption. This latter change is identical
to the provisions in state law.
4499a
3Q-q q
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION U:
This is a housekeeping measure to clarify some ambiguous sections
in the current Charter dealing with publication of ordinances and
their effective dates. It primarily allows the City Clerk to
post a summary of an ordinance as opposed to publication of the
full text. In addition, it spells out a procedure for adopting
codes and regulations of other government agencies by reference.
It also makes the Charter consistent with state law on the
effective date of ordinances. Since most case law interprets the
state law, this latter amendment would make it clear that those
cases may be used to interpret issues dealing with the effective
date of City ordinances.
C. R. Campbell, Chairman
Charter Review Committee
4555a
(Controlled Growth Ordinance) ~/"
CITY ATTORNEY'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS:
This ordinance would require the City Council to include a Public
Services and Facilities Element in the General Plan. to insure
that future development does not degrade existing public services
and facilities. The ordinance sets forth criteria to determine
whether future development would degrade existing services and
facilities. It establishes a schedule for rezoning property and
requires a two-year waiting period if the owner wishes to rezone
the property above the next higher density zoning
classification. The ordinance allows the City Council to modify
any of its terms if the amendment is clearly in keeping with the
intent of the overall ordinance and if the modification is passed
by an affirmative vote of all five City Council members.
4524a