CITY OF COMMERCEAGENDA REPORTCITY OF COMMERCEAGENDA REPORT
CITY OF COMMERCE
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF COMMERCE
AGENDA REPORT
Item No. Item No.
Item No.
Item No.
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: TERM LIMITS - CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL APPROVal of a RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION PLACING A BALLOT MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF COMMERCE, ORDINANCE NO. ___ AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 634, TO AMEND SECTION 2.08.160, OF CHAPTER 2.08, OF TITLE 1, OF THE COMMERCE MUNICIPAL CODE, REGARDING TERM LIMITATIONS, SETTING DEADLINES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE INITIATIVE MEASURE, AND REBUTTALS THEREOF; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS; AND RELATED MATTERS TO SAID MUNICIPAL ELECTION; CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.08.160, OF CHAPTER 2.08, OF TITLE 1 OF THE COMMERCE MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO TERM LIMITATIONS Meeting Date: July 26, 2022
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council to consider and approve the following:
(1) That the Commerce City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMMERCE, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF COMMERCE TWO ORDINANCES; 1) ORDINANCE NO. ____ ENACTING A SPECIAL PARCEL TAX ON INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY TO PROTECT THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF OUR RESIDENTS BY MAINTAINING ESSENTIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE, PARAMEDIC SERVICES, EMERGENCY SERVICE / RESPONSE TIMES, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND IMPROVE COMMUNITY SAFETY; 2) ORDINANCE NO. ___ MODIFYING EXISTING CITY COUNCIL TERM LIMITS; SETTING DEADLINES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE REFERENDUM MEASURES, AND REBUTTALS THEREOF; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS; AND RELATED MATTERS TO SAID SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION; and (2) That the Commerce City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMMERCE, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF COMMERCE TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022, WITH THE OTHER ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE, AND FURTHER REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES RELATING TO SAID ELECTION”; and (3) INTRODUCE for first reading, read by title only, and waive further reading, the attached Ordinance entitled “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COMMERCE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2.08.160, OF CHAPTER 2.08, OF TITLE 1 OF THE COMMERCE MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO TERM LIMITATIONS”; and (4) Authorizing the City Attorney’s Office to make any necessary revisions to the attached Resolutions and Ordinance to be consistent with City Council’s Motions and Directives; OR (5) Alternatively, City Council may provide staff with alternate or additional directives. Please note that the above referenced resolutions calling for the special election and requesting that the County of Los Angeles consolidate the special election with the November 8, 2022 general election were combined with an earlier agenda item. If the City Council approves the resolutions as part of the earlier agenda item, the City Council will only be asked to introduce the ordinance amending the City’s current term limits ordinance for a first reading. No action will be required on the resolutions.
BACKGROUND:
On March 8, 2011, an ordinance limiting the terms of office for councilmembers was presented and approved by the voters. Ordinance No. 634 was codified as Section 2.08.160, “Term Limitations,” of Chapter 2.08, “City Council,” of Title 1, “General Provisions,” of the Commerce Municipal Code. However, as written, certain provisions of Section 2.08.160 are internally inconsistent, and in certain scenarios, contradictory and therefore not practical to implement. Accordingly, the attached Resolutions propose submitting an ordinance to the City’s voters to amend Section 2.08.160 to clean-up and clarify the internal contradictory terms.
The following illustrates the effects of the term limits for the current City Council by continuous seniority:
1st Councilmember
Appointed 2012, Elected 2013, Re-Elected 2017, Re-Elected in 2022 would serve approximately two (2) years or half of the term and would step down in 2024 under the current term limits ordinance. The proposed amendment would allow for the councilmember, now recently re-elected in 2022, to serve until the end of the full term until 2026. 2nd Councilmember and 3rd Councilmember
Elected in 2015, Re-Elected in 2020, *if* Re-Elected in 2024 would serve only three years and would step down in 2027 under the current term limits ordinance. The proposed amendment would allow for the councilmember, if re-elected in 2024, to serve until the end of the full term until 2028. 4th Councilmember and 5th Councilmember
Election in 2022, *if* Re-Elected in 2026, and Re-Elected in 2030 would not have any issues for the time being, however if the City Council moves the election date from June to November then they would have their final term cut short by 5 months.
City Councilmembers that may be appointed to unexpired terms caused for any reason, including filling the vacancy created say by “1st Councilmember” stepping down due to the current term limits or ordinance or any vacancy for any reason, may also face a similar issue and be called on to step down without finishing a term they were elected to.
ANALYSIS:
California Government Code Section 36502(b) provides that, “…[T]he city council of a general law or charter city may adopt or the residents of the city may propose, by initiative, a proposal to limit or repeal a limit on the number of terms a member of the city council may serve on the city council, or the number of terms an elected mayor may serve. Any proposal to limit the number of terms a member of the city council may serve on the city council, or the number of terms an elected mayor may serve, shall apply prospectively only and shall not become operative unless it is submitted to the electors of the city at a regularly scheduled election and a majority of the votes cast on the question favor the adoption of the proposal.” Accordingly, there are two primary paths a local ballot measure regarding term limits can take to qualify for placement on an election ballot: (1) citizens can propose an initiative and circulate a petition for signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot, or (2) a City Council may pass a resolution to place its own measure on the ballot, thereby bypassing the need to petition for signatures.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 36502(b), term limitations were implemented in the City of Commerce by initiative in 2011, and a corresponding ordinance was passed by a majority of the voters. Specifically, on March 8, 2011, an ordinance limiting the terms of office for councilmembers was presented and approved by the voters. Ordinance No. 634 was codified as Section 2.08.160 of the Commerce Municipal Code. However, as written, certain provisions of Section 2.08.160 are inconsistent and contradictory, and in certain scenarios, not practical to implement.
For example, Section 2.08.160(a) provides that a person is ineligible to hold office as member of the City Council if that has person has served in office for three (3) full terms. Meanwhile, Section 2.08.160(c) provides that a person who serves less than one-half the original term will not be considered to have served a full-term for purposes of calculating term limits. Finally, Section 2.08.160(b) provides that under no circumstances may a person hold office as member of the city council for longer than twelve years total.
Reading the provisions of Section 2.08.160 together and collectively, it appears the intent of the voters was to create a limit of three (3) full terms for city council, while also exempting partial terms that are less than one-half an original term from the term limit calculation. However, the limitations described in Section 2.08.160(b) would prejudice a person who served less than one-half an original term. A strict application of Section 2.08.160(b) would prohibit a person who has served less than one-half an original term from serving more than two full terms. Staff does not believe that was the intent of the voters.
Additionally, a recent moving of election dates to ensure compliance with SB 415 has also created practical complications regarding the application of Section 2.08.160. The City Council moved the dates of its elections to three months forward to have a stand-alone election in 2017 (in order not to consolidate with the County). The City Council later moved the City’s election dates forward an additional eight months to comply with SB 415’s mandate that the City move its election dates from June in odd numbered years to March in even-numbered years to coincide the City’s elections with statewide primary elections to attempt to increase voter turn-out. These changes do not affect the terms of office, but extended each councilmember’s years in office.
Accordingly, to ensure the successful implementation of Section 2.08.160 consistent with the voter’s intent, Staff recommends amending Section 2.08.160 by eliminating Section 2.08.160(b), deleting the provision that under no circumstances may a person hold office as member of the city council for longer than twelve years total. All other provisions would remain in effect, including the provision of limiting a council member to serve in office no more than three (3) full terms. The proposed amendments to Section 2.08.160 of the Commerce Municipal Code are reflected in the Ordinance marked as Exhibit A, attached to this Agenda Report and the related attached Resolutions, reflecting a strikethrough of the proposed amendment to delete said provision.
California Elections Code Section 9217 states in pertinent part, “No ordinance that is either proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the legislative body of the city without submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters, shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance.” Ordinance No. 634 implementing term limitation was approved pursuant to Government Code Section 36502, which was done by the required initiative process. Therefore, consistent and in accordance with Elections Code Section 9217, amendment to Ordinance No. 634, which codified Section 2.08.160 of the Commerce Municipal Code, would require the ordinance amending Section 2.08.160 of the Commerce Municipal Code to be submitted to the voters.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. The cost of the election will be determined by the Los Angeles County Registrar/Recorder Office when they are held.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC GOALS:
This relates to 2016 Strategic Goal, “Community Quality of Life” and Guiding Principle 5 - “Continue to identify and develop City Codes that support a clean, well-maintained and sustainable community.” Prepared by: Lena Shumway, Administrative Services Director & City Clerk Recommended by: Lena Shumway, Administrative Services Director & City Clerk Approved to the form by: Noel Tapia, City Attorney
Respectfully submitted by: Edgar P. Cisneros, City Manager Attachments:
Exhibit A – Ordinance Amending Section 2.08.160 of the Commerce Municipal Code Resolution Calling for a Special Election Resolution Requesting the Consolidation of a Special Election with the General Election 2 2