1 of 13
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Al Zelinka, City Manager
VIA: Travis K. Hopkins, Assistant City Manager
PREPARED BY: Shannon Levin, Council Policy Analyst
Subject:
..title
City Council discussion for potential Charter amendments to be considered for the March 5, 2024 Statewide Primary Election.
..body
Statement of Issue:
Note: A PDF Version of this report is attached, in the event that the tables and images do not display properly on the reader’s screen.
On September 5, 2023, City Council authorized four Special Meetings scheduled on September 14, 21, 28 and October 5 to gather public feedback and consider potential Charter amendments. During the first meeting, City Council received public feedback and requested impact analyses for potential amendments, including those proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee and staff. On September 21, Council Members deliberated on several amendments that were previously proposed, while adding new amendments and requesting impac t analyses on each one. On September 28, Council Members discussed several proposed amendments and took straw votes to either table the items or move items forward for discussion on October 5.
Following Council deliberation on all amendments, Council may approve proposed language and Charter amendments to identify those that could be placed on the March 5, 2024 Special Election ballot.
Financial Impact:
On September 5, 2023, staff provided initial estimates to place the three initially proposed ballot measures on the March 2024 Primary Election. After conducting additional research and conferring in depth with the Orange County Registrar of Voters (ROV), the staff is providing a closer estimate as follows:
2 of 13
Cost for March 2024 Ballot Measures
Range Includes
Consolidated
Election $318, 928 $383,128
Cost of the consolidated election,
postage for vote by mail ballot returns,
cost recovery for the purchase of any
new election equipment.
3 Ballot Measures
(as discussed on 9/5/23) $51,000 $76,500
Based on the number of pages required
for each measure at $8,500 per 2 pages
and 3,000 words (the range on the left is
based on 4-6 pages per measure.
Total $369,928 $459,628
1. Cost to hold a special election: $318,928 to $383,128. The final cost will depend on several factors incl. the number of cities participating and sharing in the total election costs.
2. Cost per measure: $17,000 to $25,500 each. The cost depends on the number of pages needed to print each measure on the ballot, which includes ballot language, the revisions, impartial analyses, arguments for/against, rebuttals. Last year’s measures were around 5 pages each.
Recommended Action:
..recommendation
A) Consider the proposed Charter amendments and provide direction on bundling on one or more Charter amendments for placement on the March 5, 2024 Special Election ballot, and B) Direct the C ity Attorney and C ity staff to prepare and return ballot measure language on approved amendments and all other materials required for submittal to the ROV for City Council consideration.
..end
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve one or more of the recommended actions; direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
During the September 28 Special Meeting, City Council cast straw votes to consider Charter amendments and requested staff return with proposed language and additional analyses for consideration.
Following tonight’s Council deliberation, at the October 17, 2023 City Council meeting:
• Staff will bring forth bundled amendments and exhibits for final review; and
3 of 13
• City Council may approve resolution(s) to place Charter amendments on the ballot; and • City Council may select authors to create arguments.
1. Section 303. MEETINGS AND LOCATION. Recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on 8/1/23.
Preliminary Operational Analysis:
Per the Charter, City Council must hold meetings at least twice per month. However, meetings cannot be held without a quorum, as governed by the California Brown Act. The amendment references this quorum to clarify this exception to the two- meeting rule. The amendment also permits the Mayor or majority of Council Members to cancel meetings.
As part of this amendment, the City Council could consider outlining the circumstances or limiting the number of cancelations per year in an ordinance, resolution, or the Council Manual for greater clarity.
Preliminary Fiscal Analysis:
There are no known fiscal impacts associated with this amendment.
On September 28, 2023, Councilmember Kalmick proposed an addition of the language to secure the holding of at least one meeting per month so that the Council meets regularly to conduct the people’s business and avoid potentially frequent meeting cancellations. The City Council agreed via straw vote (7/0) to approve the proposed amendment with suggested minor changes.
2. Section 312. VACANCIES FORFEITURES AND REPLACEMENT . Recommended by Mayor Strickland.
(The following language was placed on the November 2022 General Election ballot and serves as an example. The City Attorney’s Office will need to provide final language, following Council discussion.)
4 of 13
Preliminary Operational Analysis:
The proposed amendment adds requirements to fill a City Council vacancy by requiring at least four affirmative votes (and not a simple majority of the seated Council Members at that time). This proposed amendment would establish that such appointees would fill the vacancy only until the next general municipal election, when the local electorate may vote for a candidate to permanently fill the remainder of the unexpired term for that p osition. If the appointment occurs after the filing deadline for the next general municipal election, the seat is deemed vacant. Upon certification of the general municipal election, the newly seated City Council will be charged with filling the vacancy by appointment or election. This amendment is not expected to result in any significant operational impacts.
Preliminary Fiscal Analysis:
This amendment will yield some additional costs to fill the vacancy via an election. However, it is not anticipated to result in significant financial impacts.
5 of 13
3. Section 313. NEPOTISM. Recommended by Council Member Bolton.
Preliminary Operational Analysis:
A review of regional charter cities, as it relates to the nepotism policies in their charters is below.
Orange County
Charter Cities Section on Nepotism
Anaheim, Los Alamitos,
Newport Beach, Seal
Beach
Their charter language mirror Huntington Beach’s, with minor variations.
Please note - These cities do not have elected department heads; as such, they do not specifically prohibit Council from appointing relatives of elected department heads or other offers with appointive powers.
Irvine, Santa Ana Their charters briefly mention a prohibition on nepotism and calls for the use of other governing policies (i.e. personnel rules) to outline the details.
Buena Park, Cypress,
Placentia No nepotism language in their charters.
LA County
Charter Cities Section on Nepotism
Glendale, Long Beach,
Los Angeles, Pasadena No nepotism language in their charters.
Huntington Beach provides details on its anti -nepotism policy in other authorizing documents (see below). However, they do not specifically prohibit the City Council from appointing relatives of elected department heads and other officers with appointi ve powers. A legal analysis would be required to determine if such a prohibition must be included in the Charter or can be included in other sources of authority:
6 of 13
Source of Authority Details
Personnel Rules
16-2 and 16-3
- Persons related by blood or marriage within the third degree* cannot report to the same supervisor or supervise one another.
- Such persons cannot be in positions where one has access to privileged or confidential information that should not be accessible to the other.
Administrative
Regulation 411
- An appointing authority cannot appoint an immediate family member of the City Manager, Department Head, or Personnel Director to a paid temporary or permanent position.
- An employee cannot be moved to a position within the direct line of supervision of a relative; these relatives cannot have the same immediate supervisor.
* The term “third degree” is the same as "immediate family” (relative), which includes an individual related by blood, adoption or marriage, e.g. spouse, parent, child, sibling, sibling/children- in-law, grandparent, grandchild, uncle/aunt, nephew/niece, stepparent/child/sibling, half-sibling.
This item was discussed on Septmber 28, 2023 and clarified that the proposed changes to this Chater section would prohibit the appointment of any relative within the third degree of any elected or appointed official in order to fill a vacancy of an elected position or other officer with appointive powers.
Preliminary Fiscal Analysis:
There are no known fiscal impacts at this time.
4. Section 401(b) and Sections 601-605. Related to Biennial Budget. Recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on 8/1/23.
7 of 13
Preliminary Operational Analysis:
The amendments would transition the City from an annual to a biennial budget, starting in Fiscal Years 2026-2028. There is precedence for two- year budgets in Orange County; half of the 10 largest cities
8 of 13
in Orange County (not including Huntington Beach) ut ilize biennial budgets. There are also known advantages and disadvantages of a biennial budget. Advantages may include reduced staff time from undertaking an intensive six-month budgeting process every year. It also encourages the City to plan strategically and longer term, particularly for larger projects and initiatives.
Disadvantages may include longer range forecasting of revenues and expenditures further into the future; and more extensive budget amendments or mid- cycle reviews and adjustments that may potentially eliminate time savings in year 2.
The Chief Financial Officer is supportive of a biennial budget. However, there will be operational impacts from implementing process changes that require updates to budget forms and document pages to account for the second year; updates to the accounting software; staff training; a new format for the mid-cycle update and adjustments; and criteria and process to carryover funds between years 1 and 2.
The Finance Department would likely need to begin after the approval of this Amendment in order to kick off the budget planning season starting Fall 2025, while simultaneously developing the remaining annual budgets for FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26.
Lastly, the amendment proposes one administrative change to r etitle the Finance Director to Chief Financial Officer, which is the title used commonly today and matched with the City’s organizational chart.
Preliminary Fiscal Analysis:
The primary fiscal impacts will be the hours of staff time required to implement the process changes across all 12 City departments, conduct public engagement on this major change, and potential costs to make changes to the City’s accounting software. The required staff hours will not be known until a plan is identified to transition the budget.
On September 28, 2023, the City Council agreed via straw vote (7/0) with the biennial budget cycle but continue further discussion on October 5.
5. Section 612. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PARKS AND BEACHES (Measure C) . Recommended by Ad Hoc Committee on 8/1/23.
The language of the proposed amendments to Section 612 are separately listed in Attachment 1- Proposed Changes to Charter Section 612. Public Utilities and Parks and Beaches (Measure C) due to length.
Note that there are two recommendations for Section 612 (Attachment 1):
5a. Ad Hoc Committee Recommendation
5b. Staff Recommendation
Preliminary Operational Analysis:
Section 612, also known as Measure C, was a voter initiative that was approved by voters during the November 1990 General Election and was incorporated into the Charter thereafter. Measure C requires majority voter approval on matters involving the following, with some exemptions:
• Sale, lease, transfer or exchange of park and beach lands in Huntington Beach
9 of 13
• Construction of certain private and public developments on these lands This proposed amendment would add to the list of current exemptions: public restrooms under a certain size, above ground public works utility structures under a certain size, new playground facilities or equipment in parks; and replacement playground facilities or equipment under certain sizes.
These amendments would permit staff to provide these amenities without the added cost of a ballot measure, which would facilitate t he process to provide public review earlier, and ultimately deliver projects to the public at an accelerated rate.
Recommendations from City staff
Based on staff experience working on public projects within the guidelines of Measure C, a few recommendations are listed for consideration:
• Amend Section 612(a) to:
1) remove the dollar threshold ($161,000 adjusted for CPI) that triggers Measure C, as most projects exceed that value today or
2) It is important to note that projects complete an e nvironmental review according to CEQA would still be required; conceptual design, all design documents, construction documents, and environmental review will still be prepared and presented to the public and City Council for a thorough review. Project construction would be contingent only after obtaining approvals for all items.
• Amend Section 612(a) to clearly define “structure” and its minimum square footage, as it is not defined in the Charter. Determine if structure also includes flatwork such as pickleball and other sports courts. This would clear up ambiguity about which projects qualify under Measure C. • Amend Section 612(c) to add public restrooms as an exempted project; remove any square foot thresholds, as many projects such as restrooms and public works utilities exceed 3,000 square feet.
An additional consideration is the subsequent development of an ordinance, upon approval of suggested changes, to strengthen the parameters of Measure C based on categories defined in the Parks Master Pla n. The Charter language would provide the "upper limits” of Measure C with an ordinance possibly providing tighter parameters.
Preliminary Fiscal Analysis:
Currently, Measure C requires the City to produce a “shovel ready project” by completing a conceptual design, all design documents, construction documents, and pertinent environmental studies, prior to placing a park or beach project on a ballot measure. The cost of each component may vary significantly (upwards of a million dollars) and often take on a percentage of the final total project cost. For the purposes of a general fiscal analysis, the average cost, per acre, of each phase of the project is listed below, and includes additional data for an anticipated 6% increase in costs in 2024:
Project Phase Average Per Acre Cost
(2023)
Average Per Acre Cost
6% Escalation (2024)
Conceptual Design $5,340 5,661
Design Cost $13,949 $14,786
Construction
Documents $44,463 $47,131
10 of 13
Construction $508,390 $538,893
Playgrounds average $110 per square foot in 2023, and $117 per square foot in 2024, with the anticipated 6% escalation in costs.
This estimate does not include any costs to place the project on a ballot measure, which is an added cost.
On September 28, 2023, the City Council agreed via straw vote (7/0) with updated Measure C language and continue further discussion on October 5.
6. Sections 702 and 705 (NEW). Recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on 8/1/23, and staff recommendations 9/10/23.
11 of 13
Preliminary Operational Analysis
Per the Ad Hoc Committee, the amendment envisions that the City would implement the proposed changes while still consolidating elections with the County Registrar of Voters (ROV). In this scenario and with the current number of registered voters, the ROV would continue to provide eight ballot drop box locations with vote by mail (VBM) options, three 11- day in- person Vote Centers at major City facilities, and ten 4-day in person Vote Centers at both local and smaller city facilities. The minimum number of Vote Centers is predetermined by an Elections Code formula and identified in the County’s Election Administration Plan which will be updated in 2025. However, the City would need to provide poll voters to verify id, request an additional 10 Vote Centers an d install video cameras to monitor the drop boxes.
The City has inquired with the ROV about whether the County would allow City poll workers to conduct voter id verification at the County’s Vote Center and whether the County would consider providing additional Vote Centers above and beyond what it provides now. On September 20, the ROV stated that it cannot comment on these proposals.
In the event the ROV does not accept the City’s proposal and does not consolidate elections, staff has conducted a very preliminary cost analysis for one City standalone election. The initial startup cost for items such as equipment is $664K – 858K; the recurring or operating costs to hold each election is $689K - $832K, with the estimated total cost of 2026 stand- alone local election for Huntington Beach to be $1.35 - $1.69 million. This is based on figures from other municipalities that have recently conducted standalone elections but scaled for Huntington Beach and its number of registered voters.
Preliminary Fiscal Analysis
Should the City eventually obtain an affirmative response from the County, the amendment would require the City to consider the following costs related to this amendment.
The City would need to provide poll workers at each ROV Vote Center to verify voter identification; this would likely require recruitment costs, training and hourly wages at a rough cost estimate of $69,000.
Regarding the cost of the additional ten 4-day in-person Vote Centers that will help achieve the total 20 residential voting locations described in the amendment – the ROV did not provide a cost estimate.
The ROV stated that it is not their practice to bill jurisdictions on a Vote Center by Vote Center basis.
If they are authorized by the County to provide the additional Vote Centers, the cost would be billed proportionately to all participating jurisdictions based on a formula that takes the number of voters per jurisdiction into account. This cost cannot be known at this time.
Regarding drop box monitoring, the City may be able to install 24 -hour video cameras on buildings within proximity to each drop box. If a building is located on private property, staff would need to negotiate an agreement to mount a video camera on the property. At this time, one firm offers v ideo monitoring for approximately $2,500 per location including camera equipment and installation for 24- hour access. Based on that, the City would anticipate incurring at least $20,000 plus additional unknown cost related to the agreements. The City was advised by the ROV to further consult with the City Attorney regarding the legality of local monitoring of ballot drop boxes.
On September 28, 2023, the City Council agreed via straw vote (4 -3, Kalmick, Moser, Bolton - No) to move forward with the recommended amendment but with the following changes:
12 of 13
• Change reference from ”shall” to ”may” in both Sections 702 and 705 • In Section 705, add ”Beginning in 2026...”
• In Section 705, amend it to state ”20 ADA compliant voting locations” and take out ”residential” from the Section.
7. Section 806. Display of Flags. Recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee on 8/1/23.
Preliminary Operational Analysis:
There are no known operational impacts at this time. It should be noted that the amendment allows the City to fly additional flags not listed in the proposed amendment, if it is authorized by unanimous vote of the City Council.
Comments by City Councilmembers include the requirement for unanimous vote whereas there are no other Charter sections require unanimous votes, this Charter section would disallow for any cultural or national flags to be displayed at the libraries, and this proposed amendment should have a stand-alone measure if it goes to the March primary ballot.
On September 28, 2023, the City Council agreed via straw vote (4/3, Kalmick, Moser, Bolton - No) to move forward with the recommended amendment.
Preliminary Fiscal Analysis:
At this time there are no known fiscal impacts.
8. Charter amendments from Mea sure L (2022) with exclusions. Recommended by Council Member Kalmick
The language of the proposed amendments are listed separately in Attachment 2 - Proposed Changes from Measure L, 2002, with Exclusions , due to their length. Amendments related to Section 312 (Vacancy), 612 (Measure C) have been removed as they are being considered by City Council as separate amendments.
Preliminary Operational Analysis:
Measure L proposed both substantive and non-substantive amendments.
Amendments to Sections 300, 303, 304, 306, 311, 312, 400, 601, 604, 801 are non- substantive in that they clarify or update language in the Charter regarding outdated phrases, syntax, dates,
13 of 13
pronouns and titles. For example, Section 300 updates the election years to be more current and rephrases the term “casting of lots” to a “random drawing” for clarity.
S
ection 303 updates the Charter to allow the use of “current technology” to distribute notices, changes the words “executive session” to “closed session” because closed session is the current vernacular as well as clarify the process of adjourning City Council meetings. 303(
c) 312(c) 400(d) and 801(e) replace pronouns “he” or “it” with “person” or the title being referred to and 311(d) 601, and 604 replaces “Director of Finance” with the updated title of “Chief Financial Officer”.
O
ne substantive amendment is in Section 804 which would require City Council to consider a Charter review at least every ten years, starting after the last review conducted by a Committee, Council or staff. This would require additional staffing support to organize but does not pose a significant operating impact.
O
n September 28, 2023, the City Council also agreed via straw vote to move forward with the recommended amendment except the provision of changing the title of Mayor Pro Tempore to Vice Mayor in Section 306 from Measure L and keep the title of Mayor Pro Tempore as it currently stands.
Staff recommendation:
All other inconsistencies in language and titles within the Charter shall be included for correction in this amendment should it be approved by the City Council.
Preliminary Fiscal Analysis:
There are no known fiscal impacts at this time.
Environmental Status:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment do not constitute a project.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. Proposed Changes to Charter Section 612. Public Utilities and Parks and B eaches (Measure C)
2. Proposed Changes from Measure L, 2022, with Exclusions
3. PDF Version of RCA
4. Charter Proposals
5. Communications