San Bruno City Council
March 29, 2022

Rico E. Medina, Mayor
Linda Mason, Vice Mayor
Tom Hamilton, Councilmember
Marty Medina, Councilmember
Michael Salazar, Councilmember

“The City with a Heart”
AB361****
CORONAVIRUS COVID-19
On September 16, 2021, the Governor of California signed AB361, suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct their meetings telephonically or by other electronic means. Pursuant to the CDC’s social distancing guidelines which discourage large public gatherings, the San Bruno City Council is now holding meetings via Zoom. Members of the public may attend the meeting by video or phone linked in this agenda or watch by livestream at www.youtube.com/user/cityofsanbruno. CityNet Services Channel 1 will air the meeting live and the recorded meeting will be made available for viewing on the City’s YouTube channel after the meeting has concluded.

If you would like to make a Public Comment on an item not on the agenda, or comment on a particular agenda item, please email [email protected]. Emails received before the special or regular meeting start time will be forwarded to the City Council, posted on the City’s website and will become part of the public record for that meeting. If emailed comments are received after the meeting start time, or after the meeting ends, they will be forwarded to the City Council and filed with the agenda packet becoming part of the public record for that meeting. Emails received will not be read aloud during the meeting.

Individuals who require special assistance of a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Melissa Thurman, City Clerk 48 hours prior to the meeting at (650) 619-7070 or by email at [email protected]. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City of San Bruno to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment.

AGENDA

SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL

Special Meeting

March 29, 2022

5:00 p.m.

Zoom Meeting Details:

https://sanbruno-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83637855553?pwd=Y1Y4Vm9oTzh2b3lqUzFKWm90OWJ3dz09 Webinar or Meeting ID: 836 3785 5553 (audio only)
Participant ID: #
Webinar or Meeting Password: 850756
Zoom Phone Line: 1-669-900-9128 (same webinar ID and password as above)

City Council meetings are conducted in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order. All regular Council meetings are recorded and televised on CityNet Services Channel 1 and replayed the following Thursday, at 2:00 pm.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

4. STUDY SESSION

a. Conduct Study Session and Provide Direction Regarding the Process and Next Steps to Become a Charter City.

City Council – Agenda
March 29, 2022

b. Conduct Study Session and Provide Direction Regarding Submitting a Measure to the Voters at the November 8, 2022 General Election Repealing Ordinance that Established the Elective Office of Mayor.

c. Conduct Study Session and Provide Direction Regarding Submitting a Measure to the Voters at the November 8, 2022 General Election Repealing Section

2.04.015(B) of the Municipal Code and Establishing Term Limits for Councilmembers.

d. Conduct Study Session and Provide Direction Regarding Adopting Local Campaign Finance Regulations.

5. ADJOURNMENT – The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on April 12, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO

DATE: March 29, 2022

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Marc Zafferano, City Attorney
Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

SUBJECT: Conduct Study Session and Provide Direction Regarding the Process and Next Steps to Become a Charter City

BACKGROUND:

As part of the City Council’s strategic planning session the City Council discussed becoming a charter city to assure on -going fiscal stability by implementing a real property transfer tax, which only charter cities are authorized to levy. This staff report outlines the general characteristics of a charter city, and the process that the City Council may use to present a charter to the voters, as required by state law, which contains the real property transfer tax as its integral feature.

DISCUSSION:

General Law Cities vs. Charter Cities

In California, there are two types of cities: general law cities and charter cities. General law cities get their corporate powers from the general laws passed by the State legislature. Charter cities, on the other hand, get their corporate powers from the California Constitution’s home rule provision, which allows them to preside over all “municipal affairs,” limited only by their own charters and State law on “matters of statewide concern.”

Unfortunately, the California Constitution does not define “municipal affairs.” What constitutes a municipal affair has been interpreted by the courts on a case-by-case basis. The League of California Cities created a de tailed chart that is attached, which describes various municipal issues and applicability to general law and charter cities.

Courts have found the following to constitute municipal affairs:

• The form of city government.
• Procedural aspects of resolution and ordinance adoption. • Local elections, including qualifications for office and public funding of campaigns.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

• Some aspects of zoning and land use.
• The process of contracting for public works.
• Scope of authority related to taxes and assessments.

Over time, the differences between general law cities and charter cities have been reduced.

For instance, the Legislature has extended to general law cities many of the same powers as charter cities. In addition, the Legislature has characterized many laws affec ting cities as matters of statewide concern, and hence, applicable to all cities, both general law and charter.

Generally, a matter is of “statewide concern,” as opposed to a “municipal affair,” when its impact is “primarily regional,” even if its impacts are not truly statewide. The following is a list of matters determined by the courts to be matters of “statewide concern” and hence not amenable to modification by charter:

• Educational school systems
• Traffic and vehicle regulations
• Tort claims against a governmental entity
• The Ralph M. Brown Act open meetings law
• The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act regarding employee organization • The California Environmental Quality Act
• The exercise of the eminent domain power

One of the primary tangible benefits of becoming a charter city is the ability to implement a real property transfer tax. General law cities are not legally authorized to impose real property transfer taxes.

Steps to Become a Charter City

To become a charter city, a city must adopt a charter. The California Constitution authorizes the voters to adopt a city charter. There are two ways to draft a charter: (1) the City Council drafts the charter; or (2) the City’s voters elect a charter commission to draft the charter. (Gov. Code, §§ 34451, 34458.) In either case, the charter is not adopted by the City until it is ratified by a majority vote of the City’s voters at a statewide regular election. (Gov. Code, §§34457, 34458.) To streamline the process, the City Council ha s directed staff to propose a charter for consideration and approval by the City Council, which would then be placed before the voters at the November 2022 general election . There is therefore no need to create a charter commission.

After the proposed charter has been drafted by the City Council, it may be sent to the voters for ratification at the next established statewide general election, provided there are at least 88 days remaining before the election. (Gov’t Code § 34458.) Before a proposal to adopt a charter is submitted to the voters, the City Council must hold at least two public hearings on the proposal of a charter and the content of the proposed charter. Notice of the public hearings shall be given by publication in a newspaper designated by the City Council and circulated throughout the city, and by posting notice in three public places within the city at least 21 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

calendar days prior to the date of each public hearing. The second public hearing shall be held at least 30 days after the firs t public hearing. At least one of the public hearings shall be held outside of normal business hours to facilitate public participation. The City Council shall not conduct a vote on whether to approve the submission to the voters of the proposal to adopt a charter until 21 days after the second public hearing. (Gov. Code, § 34458.) The majority of voters must vote in favor of the proposed charter for the charter to be adopted. (Gov. Code, § 34459.)

No Later Than: Meeting Details: Recommended
Regular City
Council Meeting
Date:

May 3, 2022 Prepare Draft Charter Prior to May 3,
2022
May 3, 2022
E-169
Publication Date for First Public Hearing
21-day notice requirement
Publication Date:

May 3, 2022
May 24, 2022
E-148
Public Hearing #1
City Council holds first required public hearing May 24, 2022 June 22, 2022
E-139
Publication Date for Second Public Hearing
21-day notice requirement
Publication Date:

June 7, 2022
July 13, 2022
E-118
Public Hearing #2
City Council holds second required public hearing
Must be held at least 30 days after first public
hearing)
June 28, 2022
August 12, 2022
E-88
Adoption of Resolution
City Council adopts resolution placing charter on
the November 2022 ballot
Must be held at least 21 days after second public
hearing
July 12, 2022
November 8,
2022

General Election Day

Contents of Proposed Charter

While there are no particular provisions required to be in a city charter, cities often reserve the greatest amount of power possible when they adopt charters. Under the California Constitution, it is sufficient to provide in any city charter that the city governed under it may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations regarding municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in the charter. (Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5, subd. (b).)

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

Staff therefore recommends a charter that generally provides that the City will follow California law in all areas except those stated in the charter; and specifically that the charter shoul d authorize the City to implement a real property transfer tax if approved by the voters as an integral part of the charter. This procedure links the required voter approval of the charter to the required voter approval of the tax, so that both would be a pproved or disapproved in one ballot measure, avoiding the problem of inconsistent votes on two separate ballot measures.

The City of El Cerrito successfully used this strategy in adopting its charter.

A real property transfer tax is a tax on the sale of property that is paid when real property is conveyed, and is based on the value of the property. As noted above, only charter cities are authorized by state law to impose such a tax. This tax is distinguished from the similarly-named documentary transfer t ax that the county has adopted, and which all cities thereby became authorized to impose by ordinance. The City’s documentary transfer tax is codified in Municipal Code section 3.36, which since at least since 1980, has imposed the tax at the maximum legally authorized rate of $.55 per $1,000 of value.

Charter cites, in enacting their own laws, may enact a real property transfer tax in place of a documentary transfer tax and provide exemptions of certain property sales. The City Council has previously directed that staff consider a real property transfer tax only on the sale of commercial properties and not on the sale of residential properties. Payment of the tax could be negotiated between buyer and seller. The tax would be owed at the time of sale of the commercial real property. The tax would collecte d by the City. Both the City Charter and the tax would be approved if the measure receives at least a simple majority vote of affirmative votes.

Charter cities in the Bay Area opt for a wide range of fixed and variable property transfer tax rates. In response to the City Council’s direction to consider a real property transfer tax only on the sale of commercial properties , staff has analyzed the potential reven ue scenarios under various options. Given the inherent difficulties with projecting t he level of commercial sales activity and sale price s going forward, staff has analyzed the potential revenue that the City would have received in each of the prior 5 years based on actual sale transactions in San Bruno based on the transfer tax rates in 21 cities that have such as tax in the Bay Area. The analysis is shown on Attachment 2 (Property Transfer Tax Simulation Analysis). The data shows that the City would have collected average property transfer taxes ranging from $61,000 to $2.7 million, if adopting the property transfer tax rates of our neighboring cities over the last 5 years.

It is important to note that property transfer tax revenue is an elastic revenue source in that it is highly influenced by economic shifts that affect the real estate market (e.g. interest rates, inflation, recessions, economic growth cycles, consumer confidence, local construction activity, etc.).

Defining Commercial Property
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

The City Council will need to specify a specific definition for commercial properties that will be subject to the proposed transfer tax. The term “commercial property” should not be interpreted to automatically exclude all residential dwellings. In simple terms, commercial real estate is a property that has the potential to generate profit through capit al gain or rental income. A commercial property can be anything from an office building to a residential duplex, or even a restaurant or warehouse.

For the purposes of the attached Property Transfer Tax Simulation Analysis, City staff defined a commercial property as any transaction of a:
• Commercial Property (office building, hotel, retail structure, etc.) • Industrial Property (warehouses, manufacturing building, etc.) • Multifamily Housing Dwelling of 5 units or greater
• Planned Unit Development by Residential Developers
• Vacant Land

The City Council may wish to provide alternative direction or additional options for the definition of commercial properties that would be subject to a San Bruno transfer tax.

Modifications to the commercial property definition could include:
• A residential property exemption for:
o Single-family homes only; or
o Single-family homes and duplexes (with or without an owner-occupancy requirement); or
o Exemption for residential dwellings up to triplexes (with or without an owner- occupancy requirement); or
o Exemption for residential dwellings up to fourplexes (with or without an owner- occupancy requirement); or
o Owner-Occupied exemption only
o Etc.
• A sales price threshold for residential or all properties:
o Exemption for residential property sales of $3,000,000 or less; or o Exemption for all property sales of $3,000,000 or less; or o Exemption for residential property sales of $3,000,000 or less and all other properties of $5,000,000 or less; or
o Etc.

Common property tax exemptions , such as those for religious and government properties , would apply. Other Ballot Measures Potentially Related to a City Charter The City Council has also received presentations and discussed alternative voting methods to the plurality system that all general law cities are required to use per state law. These methods, which include ranked choice voting, approval voting, and several variants of these, can only be adopted by charter cities, and will only produce different results from the current plurality system if more than two candidates run for any given seat in each district . Staff has not conducted a detailed analysis of these methods or their variants, and many questions remain, including identifying the issues that such a method would be designed to address and how that method would resolve those issues , whether and which methods can be implemented by the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

County, and if so when could the new voting method be implemented and at what cost. Final City Council direction on these other potential ballot measures may include the development of the City Charter.

Direction to Staff
In summary, staff requests that the City Council provide direction regarding the following:

1. Does the City Council want to propose a charter measure to the voters at the November 2022 election?

2. If so, should the charter include an integral real property transfer tax? a. If so, should that tax be limited to commercial property? i. If so, what is the definition of commercial property that would be subject to the tax?

3. Should the charter include other provisions, or should these provisions be separate ballot measures?
a. Repeal elective Mayor
b. Term limits
c. Alternative voting mechanisms (requires a charter)
d. Campaign finance reform such as contribution limits; public financing of elections (the latter requires a charter to be adopted)
e. Any other items

Staff is in active conversations with potential polling consultants whose work could start in April or early May to gauge public opinion on this and other ballot measures, and can return to t he City Council with additional information and costs at an upcoming meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT : On March 9, 2022, t he County elections office provided staff with an estimated range of $93,000 -$112,000 for the upcoming municipal election plus one ballot measure. The County estimated that each additional ballot measure would add approximately $10,000 to the cost of the election. T he City Council may also consider retaining a firm to poll for this and other potential ballot measures, at a cost to be determined.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This is not a project within the meaning of CEQA and hence no further analysis is required.

RECOMMENDATION: Conduct study session and provide direction regarding the process and next steps to become a charter city.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Propose changes to the timing or recommended focus of the draft charter.

2. Do not move forward with a draft charter.

ATTACHMENTS:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

1. League of California Cities Charter Analysis

2. Property Transfer Tax Simulation

Information from the nonpartisan California League of Cities:
http://www.cacities.org/chartercities

Introduction

Charter Cities

Did you know that, under certain home rule provisions in California's state constitution, voters can exercise a greater degree of local control than that provided by the California Legislature? Becoming a charter city allows voters to determine how their city government is organized and, with respect to municipal affairs, enact legislation different than that adopted by the state.

In 2001, the Institute for Local Government, the League's research arm, teamed up with the Hastings Public Law Research Institute to create an informational resource for those interested in understanding more about this special form of local control. The League is grateful to everyone who helped with this project including Phillip Hall of UC Hastings and the Hastings Public Law Research Institute; Karl Berger of Jenkins & Hogin LLP; Betsy Strauss (Attorney at Law); John Cook (Former City Attorney, Indian Wells); and Harvey Levine (City Attorney, Fremont). In 2007, the League updated these resources and the new documents can be found below. The League would like to thank Hilda Cantú Montoy (Attorney at Law) for her help with the update.

Charter Cities: A Quick Summary for the Press and Researchers

The following summary was drafted by the League of California Cities’ legal staff, in an attempt to give the press and research communities a primer on some frequently asked questions regarding charter cities.

Charter Cities vs. General Law Cities – The Basics

The California Constitution gives cities the power to become charter cities. 1 The benefit of becoming a
charter city is that charter cities have supreme authority over “municipal affairs.”2 In other words, a charter city’s law concerning a municipal affair will trump a state law governing the same topic.3

Cities that have not adopted a charter are general law cities. General law cities are bound by the state’s general law, even with respect to municipal affairs. Of California’s 478 cities, 108 of them are charter cities.

The charter city provision of the State Constitution, commonly referred to as the “home-rule” provision, is based on the principle that a city, rather than the state, is in the best position to know what it needs and how to satisfy those needs.
4 The home-rule provision allows charter cities to conduct their own business and control their own affairs.5 A charter maximizes local control.

A city charter, in effect a city’s constitution, need not set out every municipal affair the city would like to govern. So long as the charter contains a declaration that the city intends to avail itself of the full power provided by the California Constitution, any city ordinance that regulates a municipal affair will govern over a general law of the state.6

Defining ‘Municipal Affairs’

Determining what is and is not a “municipal affair” is not always straightforward. The California Constitution does not define “municipal affair.” It does, however, set out a nonexclusive list of four “core” Information from the nonpartisan California League of Cities:
http://www.cacities.org/chartercities

categories that are, by definition, municipal affairs.7

These categories are 1) regulation of the “city police force”; 2) “subgovernment in all or part of a city”; 3) “conduct of city elections”; and 4) “the manner in which . . . municipal officers [are] elected.” 8 Beyond this
list, it is up to the courts to determine what is and is not a municipal affair.

To determine if a matter is a municipal affair, a court will ask whether there are good reasons, grounded on statewide interests, for the state law to preempt a local law. 9 In other words, courts will ask whether
there is a need for “paramount state control” in the particular area of law.10 The Legislature’s intent when enacting a specific law is not determinative.11

The concept of “municipal affairs” is fluid and may change over time. 12 Issues that are municipal affairs
today could become areas of statewide concern in the future.13 Nonetheless, there are some areas that courts have consistently classified as municipal affairs. These include:

• Municipal election matters14
• Land use and zoning decisions (with some exceptions)15 • How a city spends its tax dollars16
• Municipal contracts, provided the charter or a city ordinance exempts the city from the Public Contract Code, and the subject matter of the bid constitutes a municipal affair.17 Thus, a charter may exempt a city from the State’s competitive bidding statutes.

Likewise, there are some areas that courts have consistently classified as areas of statewide concern, including:

• Traffic and vehicle regulation
18 • Tort claims against a governmental entity19
• Regulation of school systems20

How to Become a Charter City

To become a charter city, a city must adopt a charter. There are two ways to adopt a charter:

• The city’s voters elect a charter commission.21 The commission has the responsibility of drafting and debating the charter.

• The governing board of the city, on its own motion, drafts the charter.22

In either case, the charter is not adopted by the city until it is ratified by a majority vote of the city's voters.
23 For more information about charter cities, please visit the “Charter Cities” section of the League’s Web site at http://www.cacities.org/chartercities
.

1 Cal. Const. art. XI, § 3(a).
2 Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(a).
3 Johnson v. Bradley, 4 Cal. 4th 389, 399 (1992).
4 Fragley v. Phelan, 126 Cal. 383, 387 (1899).
5 Id.

Information from the nonpartisan California League of Cities:
http://www.cacities.org/chartercities

6 There are some exceptions to this rule. For example, a charter city is bound by the Public Contract Code unless the city’s charter expressly exempts the city from the Code’s provisions or a city ordinance conflicts with a provision in the Code. See Cal.

Pub. Cont. Code § 1100.7.
7 Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b); Johnson, 4 Cal. 4th at 398. 8 Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).
9 Johnson, 4 Cal. 4th at 405.
10 Id. at 400.
11 Id. at 405.
12 Cal. Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal. 3d 1, 16 (1991); Isaac v. City of Los Angeles, 66 Cal. App. 4th 586, 599 (1998).
13 Isaac, 66 Cal. App. 4th at 599.
14 Mackey v. Thiel, 262 Cal. App. 2d 362, 365 (1968).
15 See Brougher v. Bd. of Pub. Works, 205 Cal. 426, 440 (1928). 16 Johnson, 4 Cal. 4th at 407.
17 Pub. Cont. Code § 1100.7; R & A Vending Services, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 172 Cal. App. 3d 1188, 1191 (1985); Howard Contracting, Inc. v. G.A. MacDonald Constr. Co., 71 Cal. App. 4th 38, 51 (1998). 18 Cal. Veh. Code § 21.
19 Helbach v. City of Long Beach, 50 Cal. App. 2d 242, 247 (1942). 20 Whisman v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 86 Cal. App. 3d 782, 789 (1978). 21 Cal. Gov’t Code § 34451.
22 Cal. Gov’t Code § 34458.
23 Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 34457, 34462.

General Law City v. Charter City

Characteristic General Law City Charter City

Ability to Govern
Municipal Affairs

Bound by the state’s general law, regardless
of whether the subject concerns a municipal
affair.

Has supreme authority over “municipal
affairs.” Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).

Form of Government

State law describes the city’s form of
government For example, Government
Code section 36501 authorizes general law
cities be governed by a city council of five
members, a city clerk, a city treasurer, a
police chief, a fire chief and any subordinate
officers or employees as required by law.

City electors may adopt ordinance which
provides for a different number of council
members. Cal. Gov’t section 34871. The
Government Code also authorizes the “city
manager” form of government. Cal. Gov’t
Code § 34851.

Charter can provide for any form of
government including the “strong mayor,”
and “city manager” forms. See Cal. Const.
art. XI, § 5(b); Cal. Gov’t Code § 34450 et
seq.

Elections Generally

Municipal elections conducted in accordance
with the California Elections Code. Cal. Elec.

Code §§ 10101 et seq..

Not bound by the California Elections Code.

May establish own election dates, rules, and
procedures. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b);
Cal. Elec. Code §§ 10101 et seq..

Methods of Elections

Generally holds at-large elections whereby
voters vote for any candidate on the ballot.

Cities may also choose to elect the city
council “by” or “from” districts, so long as the
election system has been established by
ordinance and approved by the voters. Cal.

Gov’t Code § 34871. Mayor may be elected
by the city council or by vote of the people.

Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 34902.

May establish procedures for selecting
officers. May hold at-large or district
elections. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).

City Council Member
Qualifications

Minimum qualifications are:

1. United States citizen

2. At least 18 years old

3. Registered voter

4. Resident of the city at least 15 days
prior to the election and throughout
his or her term

5. If elected by or from a district, be a
resident of the geographical area
comprising the district from which he
or she is elected.

Cal. Elec. Code § 321; Cal. Gov’t Code §§
34882, 36502; 87 Cal. Op. Att’y Gen. 30
(2004).

Can establish own criteria for city office
provided it does not violate the U.S.

Constitution. Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b), 82
Cal. Op. Att’y Gen. 6, 8 (1999).

Characteristic General Law City Charter City

Public Funds for Candidate
in Municipal Elections

No public officer shall expend and no
candidate shall accept public money for the
purpose of seeking elected office. Cal. Gov’t
Code § 85300.

Public financing of election campaigns is
lawful. Johnson v. Bradley, 4 Cal. 4th 389
(1992).

Term Limits

May provide for term limits. Cal. Gov’t Code
§ 36502(b).

May provide for term limits. Cal. Const. art.

XI, § 5(b); Cal Gov’t Code Section 36502 (b).

Vacancies and Termination
of Office

An office becomes vacant in several
instances including death, resignation,
removal for failure to perform official duties,
electorate irregularities, absence from
meetings without permission, and upon non-
residency. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 1770, 36502,
36513.

May establish criteria for vacating and
terminating city offices so long as it does not
violate the state and federal constitutions.

Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).

Council Member
Compensation and
Expense Reimbursement

Salary-ceiling is set by city population and
salary increases set by state law except for
compensation established by city electors.

See Cal. Gov’t Code § 36516. If a city
provides any type of compensation or
payment of expenses to council members,
then all council members are required to
have two hours of ethics training. See Cal.

Gov’t Code §§ 53234 - 53235.

May establish council members’ salaries.

See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b). If a city
provides any type of compensation or
payment of expenses to council members,
then all council members are required to
have two hours of ethics training. See Cal.

Gov’t Code §§ 53234 - 53235.

Legislative Authority

Ordinances may not be passed within five
days of introduction unless they are urgency
ordinances. Cal. Gov’t Code § 36934.

Ordinances may only be passed at a regular
meeting, and must be read in full at time of
introduction and passage except when, after
reading the title, further reading is waived.

Cal. Gov't Code § 36934.

May establish procedures for enacting local
ordinances. Brougher v. Bd. of Public Works,
205 Cal. 426 (1928).

Resolutions

May establish rules regarding the
procedures for adopting, amending or
repealing resolutions.

May establish procedures for adopting,
amending or repealing resolutions. Brougher
v. Bd. of Public Works, 205 Cal. 426 (1928).

Quorum and Voting
Requirements

A majority of the city council constitutes a
quorum for transaction of business. Cal.

Gov’t Code § 36810.

All ordinances, resolutions, and orders for
the payment of money require a recorded
majority vote of the total membership of the
city council. Cal. Gov't Code § 36936.

Specific legislation requires supermajority
votes for certain actions.

May establish own procedures and quorum
requirements. However, certain legislation
requiring supermajority votes is applicable to
charter cities. For example, see California
Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.240
requiring a vote of two-thirds of all the
members of the governing body unless a
greater vote is required by charter.

Characteristic General Law City Charter City

Rules Governing
Procedure and Decorum

Ralph Brown Act is applicable. Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 54951, 54953(a).

Conflict of interest laws are applicable. See
Cal. Gov’t Code § 87300 et seq..

Ralph Brown Act is applicable. Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 54951, 54953(a).

Conflict of interest laws are applicable. See
Cal. Gov’t Code § 87300 et seq..

May provide provisions related to ethics,
conflicts, campaign financing and
incompatibility of office.

Personnel Matters

May establish standards, requirements and
procedures for hiring personnel consistent
with Government Code requirements.

May have “civil service” system, which
includes comprehensive procedures for
recruitment, hiring, testing and promotion.

See Cal. Gov't Code § 45000 et seq.

Meyers-Milias-Brown Act applies. Cal. Gov't
Code § 3500.

Cannot require employees be residents of
the city, but can require them to reside within
a reasonable and specific distance of their
place of employment. Cal. Const. art. XI, §
10(b).

May establish standards, requirements, and
procedures, including compensation, terms
and conditions of employment for personnel.

See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).

Procedures set forth in Meyers-Milias-Brown
Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 3500) apply, but note,
“[T]here is a clear distinction between the
substance of a public employee labor issue
and the procedure by which it is resolved.

Thus there is no question that 'salaries of
local employees of a charter city constitute
municipal affairs and are not subject to
general laws.'” Voters for Responsible
Retirement v. Board of Supervisors, 8
Cal.4th 765, 781 (1994).

Cannot require employees be residents of
the city, but can require them to reside within
a reasonable and specific distance of their
place of employment. Cal. Const. art. XI,
section 10(b).

Contracting Services

Authority to enter into contracts to carry out
necessary functions, including those
expressly granted and those implied by
necessity. See Cal. Gov't Code § 37103;
Carruth v. City of Madera, 233 Cal. App. 2d
688 (1965).

Full authority to contract consistent with
charter.

May transfer some of its functions to the
county including tax collection, assessment
collection and sale of property for non-
payment of taxes and assessments. Cal.

Gov't Code §§ 51330, 51334, 51335.

Characteristic General Law City Charter City

Public Contracts

Competitive bidding required for public works
contracts over $5,000. Cal. Pub. Cont. Code
§ 20162. Such contracts must be awarded to
the lowest responsible bidder. Pub. Cont.

Code § 20162. If city elects subject itself to
uniform construction accounting procedures,
less formal procedures may be available for
contracts less than $100,000. See Cal. Pub.

Cont. Code §§ 22000, 22032.

Contracts for professional services such as
private architectural, landscape architectural,
engineering, environmental, land surveying,
or construction management firms need not
be competitively bid, but must be awarded
on basis of demonstrated competence and
professional qualifications necessary for the
satisfactory performance of services. Cal.

Gov't Code § 4526.

Not required to comply with bidding statutes
provided the city charter or a city ordinance
exempts the city from such statutes, and the
subject matter of the bid constitutes a
municipal affair. Pub. Cont. Code § 1100.7;
see R & A Vending Services, Inc. v. City of
Los Angeles, 172 Cal. App. 3d 1188 (1985);
Howard Contracting, Inc. v. G.A. MacDonald
Constr. Co., 71 Cal. App. 4th 38 (1998).

Payment of Prevailing
Wages

In general, prevailing wages must be paid on
public works projects over $1,000. Cal. Lab.

Code § 1771. Higher thresholds apply
($15,000 or $25,000) if the public entity has
adopted a special labor compliance program.

See Cal. Labor Code § 1771.5(a)-(c).

Historically, charter cities have not been
bound by state law prevailing-wage
requirements so long as the project is a
municipal affair, and not one funded by state
or federal grants. Vial v. City of San Diego,
122 Cal. App. 3d 346, 348 (1981). However,
there is a growing trend on the part of the
courts and the Legislature to expand the
applicability of prevailing wages to charter
cities under an analysis that argues that the
payment of prevailing wages is a matter of
statewide concern. The California Supreme
Court currently has before them a case that
will provide the opportunity to decide
whether prevailing wage is a municipal affair
or whether it has become a matter of
statewide concern.

Characteristic General Law City Charter City

Finance and Taxing Power

May impose the same kinds of taxes and
assessment as charter cities. See Cal. Gov't
Code § 37100.5.

Imposition of taxes and assessments subject
to Proposition 218. Cal. Const. art.XIIIC.

Examples of common forms used in
assessment district financing include:

• Improvement Act of 1911. Cal. Sts.
& High. Code § 22500 et seq..

• Municipal Improvement Act of 1913.

See Cal. Sts. & High. Code §§
10000 et seq..

• Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Cal.

Sts. & High. Code §§ 8500 et seq..

• Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972. Cal. Sts. & High. Code §§
22500 et seq..

• Benefit Assessment Act of 1982.

Cal. Gov't Code §§ 54703 et seq..

May impose business license taxes for
regulatory purposes, revenue purposes, or
both. See Cal. Gov't Code § 37101.

May not impose real property transfer tax.

See Cal. Const. art. XIIIA, § 4; Cal. Gov't
Code § 53725; but see authority to impose
documentary transfer taxes under certain
circumstances. Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code §
11911(a), (c).

Have the power to tax.

Have broader assessment powers than a
general law city, as well as taxation power as
determined on a case-by case basis.

Imposition of taxes and assessments subject
to Proposition 218, Cal. Const. art. XIIIC, §
2, and own charter limitations

May proceed under a general assessment
law, or enact local assessment laws and
then elect to proceed under the local law.

See J.W. Jones Companies v. City of San
Diego, 157 Cal. App. 3d 745 (1984).

May impose business license taxes for any
purpose unless limited by state or federal
constitutions, or city charter. See Cal. Const.
art. XI, § 5.

May impose real property transfer tax; does
not violate either Cal. Const art. XIIIA or
California Government Code section 53725.

See Cohn v. City of Oakland, 223 Cal. App.
3d 261 (1990); Fielder v. City of Los
Angeles, 14 Cal. App. 4th 137 (1993).

Streets & Sidewalks

State has preempted entire field of traffic
control. Cal. Veh. Code § 21.

State has preempted entire field of traffic
control. Cal. Veh. Code § 21.

Penalties & Cost Recovery

May impose fines, penalties and forfeitures,
with a fine not exceeding $1,000. Cal. Gov’t
Code § 36901.

May enact ordinances providing for various
penalties so long as such penalties do not
exceed any maximum limits set by the
charter. County of Los Angeles v. City of Los
Angeles, 219 Cal. App. 2d 838, 844 (1963).

Characteristic General Law City Charter City

Public Utilities/Franchises

May establish, purchase, and operate public
works to furnish its inhabitants with electric
power. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 9(a); Cal.

Gov't Code § 39732; Cal. Pub. Util. Code §
10002.

May grant franchises to persons or
corporations seeking to furnish light, water,
power, heat, transportation or
communication services in the city to allow
use of city streets for such purposes. The
grant of franchises can be done through a
bidding process, under the Broughton Act,
Cal. Pub. Util. Code §§ 6001-6092, or
without a bidding process under the
Franchise Act of 1937, Cal. Pub. Util. Code
§§ 6201-6302.

May establish, purchase, and operate public
works to furnish its inhabitants with electric
power. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 9(a); Cal.

Apartment Ass’n v. City of Stockton, 80 Cal.

App. 4th 699 (2000).

May establish conditions and regulations on
the granting of franchises to use city streets
to persons or corporations seeking to furnish
light, water, power, heat, transportation or
communication services in the city.

Franchise Act of 1937 is not applicable if
charter provides. Cal. Pub. Util. Code §
6205.

Zoning

Zoning ordinances must be consistent with
general plan. Cal. Gov't Code § 65860.

Zoning ordinances are not required to be
consistent with general plan unless the city
has adopted a consistency requirement by
charter or ordinance. Cal. Gov’t. Code §
65803.

Information from the nonpartisan California League of Cities:
http://w
ww.cacities.org/chartercities

Foundational aspects of charter cities

What is the Constitutional Framework for Charter Cities? Article XI, section 3(a) of the California Constitution authorizes the adoption of a city charter and provides such a charter has the force and effect of state law. Article XI, section 5(a), the "home rule" provision, affirmatively grants to charter cities supremacy over "municipal affairs." However, the California Constitution does not define the term "municipal affair."

What are "Municipal Affairs?"
The home rule provision of the California Constitution authorizes a charter city to exercise plenary authority over municipal affairs, free from any constraint imposed by the general law and subject only to constitutional limitations. See Cal. Const. art. XI § 5(a); Ex Parte Braun, 141 Cal. 204, 209 (1903); Bishop v. City of San Jose, 1 Cal. 3d 56, 61 (1969); Comm. of Seven Thousand v. Super. Ct. (City of Irvine), 45 Cal.3d 491 (1988).

How Do the Courts Distinguish Between Municipal and Statewide Concerns? Whether a given activity is a municipal affair over which a city has sovereignty, or a statewide concern, over which the legislature has authority, is a legal determination for the courts to resolve. Thus, the determination of whether a given activity is a municipal affair or statewide concern is done on a case-by-case basis. The court's determination will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. See In Re Hubbard, 62 Cal. 2d 119, 128 (1964). Keep in mind that the concept of "municipal affairs" is a fluid one that changes over time as local issues become statewide concerns. See Issac v.

City of Los Angeles, 66 Cal. App. 4th 586 (1998).

What Activities Have the Courts Classified As Municipal Affairs? There are some areas that the courts have consistently classified as municipal affairs.

Examples include the following:

 Municipal Election Matters. See Mackey v. Thiel, 262 Cal. App. 2d 362 (1968).

 Procedures for Initiative, Referendum and Recall. See Lawing v. Faul, 227 Cal.

App. 2d 23, 29 (1964).

 Procedures for Adopting Ordinances. See Brougher v. Board of Public Works, 205 Cal. 426 (1928).

 Compensation of City Officers and Employees. Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b); See Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of Sonoma, 23 Cal. 3d 296 (1979); but see San Leandro Police Officers Association v. City of San Leandro, 55 Cal. App. 3d 553 (1976) (labor relations is not a municipal affair; Charter cities are subject to the Meyers-Milias Brown Act. Cal. Gov’t Code § 3500.

 Processes Associated with City Contracts. See First Street Plaza Partners v. City of Los Angeles, 65 Cal. App. 4th 650 (1998); but see Domar Electric, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 41 Cal. App. 4th 810 (1995) (state law establishing employment policy may preempt local regulation of bidding criteria).

Information from the nonpartisan California League of Cities:
http://www.cacities.org/chartercities

 Financing Public Improvements. See City of Santa Monica v. Grubb, 245 Cal.

App. 2d 718 (1996).

 Making Charitable Gifts of Public Funds for Public Purposes. See Cal. Const. art.

XVI, § 6; Tevis v. City and County of San Francisco, 43 Cal. 2d 190 (1954).

 Term Limits for Council Members. See Cawdrey v. City of Redondo Beach, 15 Cal. App. 4th 1212 (1993); but see Cal. Gov't Code § 36502(b) (regulating term limits).

 Land Use and Zoning Decisions (with a few exceptions). See Brougher v. Bd. of Pub. Works, 205 Cal. 426 (1928).

What Activities Have the Courts Classified as Statewide Concerns? The following have consistently been classified by the courts as matters of statewide concern:

 School Systems. Whisman v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 86 Cal. App. 3d 782, 789 (1978).

 Traffic and Vehicle Regulation. Cal. Veh. Code § 21.

 Licensing of Members of a Trade or Profession. City and County of San Francisco v. Boss, 83 Cal. App. 2d 445 (1948).

 Tort Claims Against a Governmental Entity. Helbach v. City of Long Beach, 50 Cal. App. 2d 242, 247 (1942).

 Open and Public Meetings. Ralph M. Brown Act. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 54951, 54953(a).

 Exercise of the Power of Eminent Domain. Wilson v Beville, 47 Cal. 2d 852, 856 (1957).

Information from the nonpartisan California League of Cities:
http://w
ww.cacities.org/chartercities

What is a charter?

A city charter is a unique document that, in many ways, acts like a constitution for the city adopting it. It can only be adopted, amended or repealed by a majority vote of a city's voters. The primary advantage of a charter is that it allows greater authority for a city’s governance than that provided by state law. For example, a city may tailor its organization and elective offices, taking into account the unique local conditions and needs of the community.

A charter transfers the power to adopt legislation affecting municipal affairs from the state legislature to the city adopting it. A city operating under a charter can acquire full control over its municipal affairs. These affairs are unaffected by the general laws passed by the state legislature on the same subject matters. This, in effect, gives the local voters more control over their local government and the affairs of the city.

However, a city operating under a charter is still subject to the general laws, as passed by the state legislature, on affairs that are not municipal in nature, and are of statewide concern (e.g., California Vehicle Code).

It is the scope of the term "municipal affairs" that provides the opportunity for uncertainty.

No easy analytical test exists. The threshold issue is whether there is a conflict between state law and a charter city enactment. The next issue is whether the state regulation addressed an issue of "state wide concern." Courts analyze these conflicts on a case- by-case basis.

Information from the nonpartisan California League of Cities:
http://w
ww.cacities.org/chartercities

What is in a charter?

While a city charter is not required to have any particular provisions in it, a city will often reserve for itself the greatest amount of power it can when it adopts a charter. To accomplish this goal, the charter must include a declaration that it is the intention of the city to avail itself of the full power provided by the state constitution to charter cities.

However, the city is not required to extend the breadth of its charter any further than it wishes.

Some of the common areas that are explicitly regulated in a charter are:

 The date and conduct of city elections;

 Regulations on the appointment of municipal officials;

 The terms and payment of municipal officials;

 The process for removal of municipal officials;

 Form of government;

 Budget adoption;

 The number, pay, qualifications, and appointment of deputies, clerks, and other employees that each municipal officer will have;

 Sub-government in all or part of the city;

 The tenure of office for deputies, clerks, and other employees;

 The process for removal of such deputies, clerks, and other employees; and

 The constitution, regulation, and government of the local police force.

A number of California cities' charters are available online. The National Civic League also has a model charter project.

Information from the nonpartisan California League of Cities:
http://w
ww.cacities.org/chartercities

Process used to adopt a charter

There are two ways to draft and adopt a city charter. The first is to elect a charter commission. The commission then has the responsibility of debating over the provisions and the drafting of the charter. The other alternative allows the governing board of the city, on its own motion, to draft the charter. In either case, the charter is not adopted by the city until it is ratified by a majority vote of the city's voters.

When using the charter commission approach, the first step is to elect the commission.

The vote to elect a charter commission is called for by either a majority vote of the city's governing body or by a petition signed by not less than fifteen percent of the registered voters within the city. If the formation of a charter commission is requested by a petition, the authority in charge of the city's registration records must verify the signatures on the petition. The expense of this verification must be paid for by the city's governing board.

If the petition is verified, the city's governing board must call for an election in accordance with sections 1000 and 10403 of the California Elections Code. See Cal.

Gov't Code section 34452.

Once it has been decided that a charter commission election will take place, candidates for commissioners must be nominated. Candidates for the office of charter commissioner are nominated either in the same manner as officers of the city or by petition. A candidate for charter commissioner must be a registered voter of the city.

After the election of commissioners, any vacancy on the commission will be filled by a mayoral appointment. See Cal. Gov't Code section 34452.

At an election for charter commission members, the voters will vote first on the following question: "Shall a charter commission be elected to propose a new charter?" After voting on this question, the voters will then vote for the charter commission candidates.

If a majority of the voters vote for the formation of a charter commission, then the top fifteen candidates for the office of charter commissioner will be organized as the city's charter commission. No commission will be formed if a majority of voters vote against the election of a charter commission. See Cal. Gov't Code section 34453.

Once formed, the charter commission will have the responsibility of developing the city's charter. After a simple majority of commissioners have decided that the proposed charter is appropriate, they file the charter with the city's clerk in preparation for a vote by the city's electorate. See Cal. Gov't Code section 34455. However, instead of sending the whole charter at once, periodically the commission may send portions of the charter to the city's electorate for a vote. See Cal. Gov't Code section 34462.

After the charter (or portions of it) has been filed, it must be copied in type greater than 10 point and either mailed to all the voters of the city or made available to those citizens who wish to review it before the election. The city may show the difference between existing provisions of law and the new charter through the use of distinguished type styles, but this is not required. See Cal. Gov't Code section 34456.

After the charter has been filed with the city clerk, the city's governing board must decide whether to call a special election or to wait until the next established municipal election to submit the charter to the voters. If the city's governing board determines that a Information from the nonpartisan California League of Cities:
http://www.cacities.org/chartercities

special election should be held, then they must call for that special election within 14 days of the charter being filed. The special election must be set at least 95 days after the date from which the special election was called. See Cal. Gov't Code section 34457.

In any case, the charter commission must send the charter to the voters within two years of the vote that formed the commission. Upon the expiration of the two-year time period, the commission is abolished. See Cal. Gov't Code section 34462.

The alternative to electing a charter commission is to have the city's governing board develop and draft the charter. An election to decide on the adoption of a charter may be called by initiative or the city council. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 3. On its own motion, the city's governing board may propose a charter and submit it to the voters for adoption.

See Cal. Gov't Code section 34458. With this option, the governing board can call a special election or allow the charter to be voted on at any established election date, as long as that election date is at least 88 days after the proposed charter was filed with the city clerk. See Cal. Gov't Code section 34458. As a practical matter, an election may have to be called sooner than 88 days before the election in order to meet certain notice and ballot printing deadlines.

In either case, the majority of voters must vote in favor of the proposed charter for it to be ratified. The charter will not go into effect until it has been filed and accepted by the Secretary of State. See Cal. Gov't Code section 34459. After a charter is approved by a majority vote of the voters, the mayor and city clerk shall certify that the charter was submitted to the voters of the city and that it was approved by a majority vote. See Cal.

Gov't Code section 34460. One copy of the approved charter shall be filed with the County Recorder's office and one shall be kept in the City's archive. See Cal. Gov't Code section 34460. A third copy of the charter must be submitted to the Secretary of State with (1) copies of all publications and notices in connection with the calling of the election; (2) certified copies of any arguments for or against the charter proposal which were mailed to the voters; (3) a certified abstract of the vote at the election on the charter. See Cal. Gov't Code section 34460.

Information from the nonpartisan California League of Cities:
http://w
ww.cacities.org/chartercities

How to amend or repeal a charter

If a citizens group, or the city's governing body, wishes to amend or repeal a portion of the city's charter, the steps remain largely the same as they are for drafting a charter.

There are, however, two notable exceptions. First, the petition calling for the repeal or amendment needs only ten percent of the electorate's signatures, instead of the previous fifteen percent. See Cal. Elec. Code sections 9215 and 9255. The other notable difference has to do with the charter itself. A city charter may establish different rules for the municipal elections process than those laid out by the state legislature in the Elections Code. If this is the case, the city's charter will govern the elections process used to appeal or amend the city's charter, instead of the general laws laid out in the Elections Code.

Information from the nonpartisan California League of Cities:
http://w
ww.cacities.org/chartercities

Charter Cities

Adelanto
Alameda
Albany
Alhambra
Anaheim
Arcadia
Bakersfield
Bell
Berkeley
Big Bear Lake
Buena Park
Burbank
Carlsbad
Cerritos
Chico
Chula Vista
Compton
Culver City
Cypress
Del Mar
Desert Hot Springs
Dinuba
Downey
El Centro
Eureka
Exeter
Folsom
Fortuna
Fresno
Gilroy
Glendale
Grass Valley
Hayward
Huntington Beach
Indian Wells
Industry
Inglewood
Irvine
Irwindale
King City
Kingsburg
Lancaster
La Quinta
Lemoore
Lindsay
Loma Linda
Long Beach
Los Alamitos
Los Angeles
Marina
Marysville
Merced
Modesto
Monterey
Mountain View
Napa
Needles
Newport Beach
Norco
Oakland
Oceanside
Oroville
Pacific Grove
Palm Desert
Palm Springs
Palmdale
Palo Alto
Pasadena
Petaluma
Piedmont
Placentia
Pomona
Port Hueneme
Porterville
Rancho Mirage
Redondo Beach
Redwood City
Richmond
Riverside
Roseville
Sacramento
Salinas
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Information from the nonpartisan California League of Cities:
http://w
ww.cacities.org/chartercities

San Leandro
San Luis Obispo
San Marcos
San Mateo
San Rafael
San Ramon
Sand City
Santa Ana
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Santa Maria
Santa Monica
Santa Rosa
Santee
Seal Beach
Shafter
Signal Hill
Solvang
Stockton
Sunnyvale
Temple City
Torrance
Truckee
Tulare
Vallejo
Ventura
Vernon
Victorville
Visalia
Vista
Watsonville
Whittier
Woodlake

Total Cities: 120

PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX SIMULATION
2017-2021
City Name Piedmont Emeryville Albany El Cerrito Gilroy San Rafael Palo Alto Alameda Mountain View Redwood City San Ramon San Leandro San Mateo Richmond Berkeley Santa Clara Sunnyvale Hayward Oakland San Francisco San Jose Population 11,270 12,905 20,271 25,962 59,520 61,271 68,572 78,280 82,376 84,292 84,605 91,008 105,661 116,448 124,321 127,647 155,805 162,954 440,646 873,965 1,013,240 County Alameda Alameda Alameda Contra Costa Santa Clara Marin Santa Clara Alameda Santa Clara San Mateo Contra Costa Alameda San Mateo Contra Costa Alameda Santa Clara Santa Clara Alameda Alameda San Francisco Santa Clara Tax Rate /
Model 1.3000% 1.2000% 1.1500% 1.2000% 0.0550% 0.2000% 0.3300% 1.2000% 0.3300% 0.0550% 0.0550% 0.6000% 0.5000%

0.7% under 1m,

1.25% 1-3m, 2.5%
3-10m, 3% over
10m

1.5% up to 1.5m,

2.5% for over

2.5m

0.0550% 0.0550% 0.8500%
1% up to 300k,

1.5% 300k-2m,

1.75% 2m-5m,

2.5% over 5m
Over $100,000 AV
=> 0.5%, Over
$250,000 AV =>

0.68%
Over $1 million
AV => 0.75%,
Over $5 million
AV => 2.25%
Over $10 million
AV => 2.75%, over
$25 million =>

3.00%
Discounts for
certain solar &
seismic
$2m AV exempt

1.25% $1M-$3M

2.5% $3M-$10M
3% ov er $10m
Calendar Year
2017 1,110,977 1,025,518 982,788 1,025,518 47,003 170,920 282,017 1,025,518 282,017 47,003 47,003 512,759 427,299 1,154,946 1,632,697 47,003 47,003 726,408 1,441,272 839,360 520,625 2018 127,075 117,300 112,413 117,300 5,376 19,550 32,258 117,300 32,258 5,376 5,376 58,650 48,875 173,865 214,425 5,376 5,376 83,088 158,225 71,910 61,000 2019 4,295,655 3,965,220 3,800,003 3,965,220 181,739 660,870 1,090,436 3,965,220 1,090,436 181,739 181,739 1,982,610 1,652,175 9,771,180 8,221,225 181,739 181,739 2,808,698 8,206,225 9,642,142 9,712,850 2020 428,337 395,388 378,914 395,388 18,122 65,898 108,732 395,388 108,732 18,122 18,122 197,694 164,745 403,668 737,095 18,122 18,122 280,067 512,285 246,075 90,250 2021 1,307,576 1,206,994 1,156,702 1,206,994 55,321 201,166 331,923 1,206,994 331,923 55,321 55,321 603,497 502,914 2,213,424 2,362,482 55,321 55,321 854,954 2,088,791 1,966,771 1,762,584 Average 1,453,924 1,342,084 1,286,164 1,342,084 61,512 223,681 369,073 1,342,084 369,073 61,512 61,512 671,042 559,202 2,743,417 2,633,585 61,512 61,512 950,643 2,481,360 2,553,252 2,429,462 Range 61,512 to 2,743,417
Population Sources:
https://www.california-demographics.com/cities_by_population Bay Area Charter Cities w/ Transfer Tax
Estimated Tax Revenue Based on San Bruno Actual Commercial Sale Figures in the Past 5 Years City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO

DATE: March 29, 2022

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Marc Zafferano, City Attorney
Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

SUBJECT: Conduct Study Session and Provide Direction Regarding Submitting a Measure to the Voters at the November 8, 2022 General Election Repealing Ordinance that Established the Elective Office of Mayor

BACKGROUND:

Government Code section 34902 authorizes cities to establish either an elected or appointed office of Mayor. If the Mayor is appointed, councilmembers select a Mayor periodically, usually annually from among their members, sometimes using a rotational schedule. If the Mayor is elected, Government Code sections 34901, 34902, and 34906 prescribe the form and content of the ballot question.

In 1977, the City Council placed Measure F on the ballot, which asked the following question: “Shall the electors elect a Mayor and four Council members?” The voters adopted this measure. Proposition G on the same ballot established that the term of office for the elected mayor, if approved by the voters, would be two years. (See Attachments 1 and 2.)

Elections Code section 9217 provides that a vote of the people is required to repeal or amend an initiative that was adopted by a vote of the people, unless the initiative specifically provides otherwise. Neither Measure F or Proposition G contained a provision that they could be repealed or amended without a subsequent vote of the people. Government Code section 34902(b) provides that a vote of the people may abolish the office of elected mayor, but only prospectively. Therefore, the process for filling the office of elected mayor and its corresponding two-year term can only be abolished by a vote of the people.

The office of the elected Mayor will be one of three City Council seats on the November 2022 ballot. Two of the seats will be assigned to districts, per the City Council’s prior actions to comply with the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). The Mayor’s seat will be voted on at large, by all registered voters regardless of where they live.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

The City Council recently directed staff to develop a ballot measure repealing the measure that established the office of elected mayor. If placed on the ballot and adopted by the voters, the proposed measure would go into effect after the term of the mayor elected at the November 2022 general election expires. Therefore, if the proposed measure is adopted at the November 2022 election, it would take effect in 2024.

DISCUSSION:

State law provides that an elected Mayor “is a member of the City Council and has all the powers and duties of a member of the City Council.” (Government Code section 34903.) State law prescribes three main duties and powers of a Mayor, aside from presiding over City Council meetings. The Mayor, whether elected or appointed, is authorized to sign contracts per Government Code section 40602(b). An elected Mayor may draw an additional salary to that established for members of the City Council, if approved by the electorate or by an ordinance adopted by the City Council per Government Code section 36516.1. The City has not adopted such an ordinance. An elected Mayor, “with the approval of the City Council, shall make all appointments to boards, commissions, and committees unless otherwise specified by statute.” (Government Code section 40605.)

The majority of cities in California (65%) have a mayor that is selected by councilmembers. Approximately 170 cities in California currently have a directly elected Mayor, whereas approximately 311 cities have a mayor selected by councilmembers.

Below is information on the current election/appointment process for mayors in the 20 cities within San Mateo County.

Elected mayoral process:
• San Bruno

Appointed mayoral process:
• Atherton
• Belmont*
• Brisbane
• Burlingame
• Colma
• Daly City
• East Palo Alto
• Foster City
• Half Moon Bay**
• Hillsborough
• Menlo Park
• Millbrae
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

• Pacifica
• Portola Valley
• Redwood City
• San Carlos
• San Mateo (city)
• South San Francisco
• Woodside

* At the time of this report, the City of Belmont was in the process of considering establishment of an elected mayor as a function of its District Elections process and, on March 22, 2022, the Belmont City Council adopted the first reading of an Ordinance to establish 4 council districts as well as an at-large, elected mayor for the November 2022 general election.
** Within the last year, the City of Half Moon Bay decided to abandon their previous effort to establish an elected Mayor in connection with their districting process.

If the voters were to repeal the process for electing the Mayor in 2022, then in 2024 that councilmember’s seat would need to be assigned to a newly created fifth district to comply with the CVRA. The City would need to engage in a redistricting process with attendant public hearings, and the City Council would select a new five-district map adopted for use at the November 2024 election.

If the City Council desires to proceed with placing a measure on the November 2022 ballot, one question is whether to include it in a proposed City Charter (if that initiative also proceeds to the ballot), as opposed to a stand-alone ballot item. The same question applies to the other potential ballot initiatives that the City Council is discussing at tonight’s meeting and at subsequent meetings. Staff recommends that the City Council receive information about the optimal strategy from a ballot consultant.

To qualify for the November 2022 general election, the City must transmit the ballot measure and associated documents to the County before August 12, 2022. Staff recommends that the final decision be made by the regular City Council meeting on July

26. The resolution adopted at that meeting would authorize the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis, and address the details regarding submission of ballot arguments and rebuttal arguments, per state law.

As noted above, should the City Council desire to place the question of repealing Measure F on the November 2022 ballot and voters adopt the repeal, the office of the elected mayor would not appear on the November 2024 ballot and the City would formally transition to an appointed Mayor in 2025.

In summary, staff requests direction regarding the following:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

1. Does the City Council want to propose a ballot measure to the voters at the November 2022 election to repeal the ordinance that established the elective office of Mayor?

2. If so, should that measure be a stand-alone measure, as opposed to being integrated into the language of a city charter, if a charter is also on the same ballot?

FISCAL IMPACT:

On March 9, 2022, the County elections office provided staff with an estimated range of $93,000-$112,000 for the upcoming municipal election plus one ballot measure. The County estimated that each additional ballot measure would add approximately $10,000 to the cost of the election. Staff is in active conversations with potential polling consultants whose work could start in April or early May to gauge public opinion on this and other ballot measures, and can return to the City Council with additional information and costs at an upcoming meeting.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Request additional information before providing direction to staff.

RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct Study Session and Provide Direction Regarding Submitting a Measure to the Voters at the November 8, 2022 Election Repealing Ordinance that Established the Elective Office of Mayor

ATTACHMENTS:

1. November 8,1977 Voter Pamphlet

2. Resolution 1977-93 (Election Results)

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO

DATE: March 29, 2022

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Marc Zafferano, City Attorney
Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

SUBJECT: Conduct Study Session and Provide Direction Regarding Submitting a Measure to the Voters at the November 8, 2022 General Election Repealing Section 2.04.015(B) of the Municipal Code and Establishing Term Limits for Councilmembers

BACKGROUND:

Government Code section 36502 authorizes cities to impose, by a vote of the people, term limits on elected offices. The history of term limits in San Bruno has been shaped by both state law and local ballot measures. In 1977, the City Council placed Measure C on the ballot, which sought to impose a limit of two four-year terms on councilmembers.

The voters approved the measure. (See Attachments 1 and 2.) In 1979, a California appellate court invalidated a two-term limit for San Diego County Supervisors on the basis that it violated state law. In 1984, a San Diego Superior Court invalidated a two- term limit measure in the City of Vista. In 1987, the California Legislative Counsel issued an opinion that local term limits violate state law. In 1988, a San Mateo County Superior Court judge invalidated South San Francisco’s two-term limit for councilmembers.

In 1988, at the recommendation of the City Attorney and in response to these developments, the City Council directed that the City initiate a formal court action to “validate” a proposed ordinance that would repeal the 1977 voter-approved term limit measure. State law authorizes public entities to file these “validation actions” in certain limited circumstances to confirm that a particular enactment is consistent with state law.

In April 1988 the Superior Court validated City Ordinance 1486, which repealed term limits in the City. This was codified in Municipal Code section 2.04.015(B), which states:

2.04.015 Councilmember.

A. Those qualifications for the office of Councilmember shall be as stated in Title 4, Division 3, Part 1 of the Government Code (beginning at Section 36501).

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

B. There is no limit to the number of successive or consecutive terms a councilmember may serve. (Ord. 1867 § 2, 2018; Ord. 1486 § 4, 1988)

In 1995, the state adopted Government Code 36502(b), which clearly authorized cities to adopt, by a vote of the people at a regular statewide election, term limit ordinances that would apply prospectively to councilmembers:

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 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. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subdivision, the provisions of any city charter that, on January 1, 1996, impose limitations 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, shall remain in effect. Unless otherwise prohibited by a city charter, any city charter may be amended pursuant to this section or pursuant to the procedures specified in the charter, to include the limitation authorized in this subdivision.

The City Council recently directed staff to research a potential ballot measure that would repeal section 2.04.015(B) of the Municipal Code and establish term limits for councilmembers.

DISCUSSION:

It is difficult to find current, accurate data about how many cities in California have adopted term limits for local councilmembers.

In San Mateo County, the following cities have adopted term limits for consecutive terms, but do not limit the total number of non-consecutive terms:
• Foster City: two consecutive four-year terms
• Millbrae: two consecutive four-year terms
• San Mateo: three consecutive four-year terms
• Redwood City: four consecutive four-year terms

One city in San Mateo County has adopted term limits for consecutive and non- consecutive terms.
• Pacifica: two four-year terms in total, whether consecutive or not.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

The following San Mateo County cities do not have term limits:
• Atherton
• Belmont
• Brisbane
• Burlingame
• Colma
• Daly City
• East Palo Alto
• Half Moon Bay
• Hillsborough
• Menlo Park
• Portola Valley
• San Bruno
• San Carlos
• South San Francisco
• Woodside

Additionally, the San Mateo County imposes a term limit of three consecutive terms on members of the County Board of Supervisors.

All of these ordinances generally provide that partial terms are not counted against the limit.

There are various policy considerations regarding term limits. These were summarized in a paper by the National League of Cities, which is attached for reference. (Attachment 3.) In sum, proponents of term limits argue that they incentivize new candidates to run for office and reduce the advantages of incumbency in elections.

Opponents argue that term limits reduce historical and institutional knowledge and result in councilmembers who are not as knowledgeable about the complexities of city government.

If the City Council desires to proceed with this item, one question is whether to include it in a proposed City Charter, if that initiative also proceeds to the ballot, as opposed to proposing a stand-alone ballot item. The same question applies to the other potential ballot initiatives that the City Council is discussing. Staff recommends that the City Council receive information about this strategy from a ballot consultant.

To qualify for the November 2022 general election, the City must transmit the ballot measure and associated documents to the County before August 12, 2022. Staff recommends that the final decision be made by the regular City Council meeting on July

26. The resolution adopted at that meeting would authorize the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis, and address the details regarding submission of ballot arguments and rebuttal arguments, per state law.

In summary, staff requests direction regarding the following:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

1. Does the City Council want to propose a ballot measure to the voters at the November 2022 election to establish term limits for councilmembers?

2. If so, should that measure be a stand-alone measure, as opposed to being integrated into the language of a city charter, if a charter is also on the same ballot?

3. What term limits for councilmembers does the City Council want to propose?

4. Does the City Council want the term limits to apply only to successive terms, or in total?

FISCAL IMPACT:

On March 9, 2022, the County elections office provided staff with an estimated range of $93,000-$112,000 for the upcoming municipal election plus one ballot measure. The County estimated that each additional ballot measure would add approximately $10,000 to the cost of the election. Staff is in active conversations with potential polling consultants whose work could start in April or early May to gauge public opinion on this and other ballot measures, and can return to the City Council with additional information and costs at an upcoming meeting.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Request additional information before providing direction to staff.

RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct Study Session and Provide Direction Regarding Submitting a Measure to the Voters at the November 8, 2022 Election Repealing Section 2.04.015(B) of the Municipal Code and Establishing Term Limits for Councilmembers

ATTACHMENTS:

1. November 8, 1977 Voter Pamphlet

2. Resolution 1977-93

3. National League of Cities: Term Limits

Cities 101 — Term Lenths and Limits - National League of Cities https://www.nlc.org/resource/cities-101-term-lenths-and-limits/ All Resources
Cities 101 — Term Lenths and Limits
Civic EngagementFact Sheet Large: 200K + MemberMid-size: 50-200K Mid-WestNortheast Mid-AtlanticProspectiveSmall: 50K South West Term LengthsSkip to Content
Cities 101 — Term Lenths and Limits - National League of Cities https://www.nlc.org/resource/cities-101-term-lenths-and-limits/ The most common (roughly 50 percent of localities) mayoral and councilor term length is four years. When adding municipalities that have mayoral/councilor terms of 2 years, that covers approximately 80 percent of cities and towns.

Term Limits
Although voters nationwide imposed term limits for state legislatures in the 1990s, most of those eorts did not extend to municipal terms of oce. Only a small percentage of cities (roughly 15 percent) limit the mayoral and/or councilor terms and even those states (such as California) often are focused more on successive terms in oce. Importantly, term limits at both the state and local level vary by state with little discernable pattern by state size, population, or geography.

In general, views on term limits tend to rely on the following lines of argument. First, term limits may reduce potential abuses of power by incumbents who stay too long in oce. Also, limits encourage political participation by newcomers. Conversely, the election process itself already serves as the antidote for long-serving ocials who are no longer responsive to citizens. Moreover, term limits are an infringement on the democratic process, as citizens are restricted from selecting a candidate they may see as the most qualied for the position. Below, these and other arguments are assessed in more detail.

Arguments and Counter-Arguments
Supporting and Opposing Term Limits
Favoring Term Limits
1) Term limits increases the ratio of competitive elections. In theory, with more term limits, more elected ocials must leave oce with greaterSkip to Content Cities 101 — Term Lenths and Limits - National League of Cities https://www.nlc.org/resource/cities-101-term-lenths-and-limits/ regularity creating open seats were no incumbent is seeking reelection. 2) Term limits curbs the inuence of lobbyists. As a practical matter, those who contribute to political campaigns often are providing funds to multiple candidates running for the same oce. Because political campaigns often cost so much, even at the local level, money and at least the appearance of inuence are intertwined with governance. Campaign spending, as it is practiced following the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen’s United, remains the most controversial aspect of the American electoral process to date competing only with moves to limit ballot access to those in possession of a specic state-sanctioned identication card. 3) Term limits will produce a citizen legislature of more ordinary people rather than full-time politicians. In such a circumstance, term-limited representatives would be more in harmony with public opinion and with their districts’ constituents. One criticism of this argument is that once successfully elected, ocials in oce have a tendency to move between oces at the municipal, county, state, and federal levels. Moreover, professional government sta members often seek to follow in the footsteps of their former bosses who vacate one oce for another. 4) Term limits will promote fresh ideas. While it is true that new oce holders often bring a fresh perspective and are not necessarily wedded to the status quo, there is no guarantee that the newly elected ocial will be any more successful at promoting a new approach than was their predecessor.

Opposing Term Limits
1) Term limits result in a loss of experience. Question: what is the value of experience? The nation’s highest oce, The President of the United States, is term limited. Why then are less senior positions in need of more indispensable people?
Skip to Content
Cities 101 — Term Lenths and Limits - National League of Cities https://www.nlc.org/resource/cities-101-term-lenths-and-limits/ As a practical matter, elected ocials have turned to professional managers to augment their roles as decision makers. These savvy professionals are schooled in the operation of government and the management of nances. Is this model of governance, practiced in over half of all cities, the best solution or will the term limited (and thus inexperienced leaders) fall easy prey to permanent sta, bureaucrats, and other special interests?
2) Term limits remove popular leaders and are thus undemocratic. While this may be true does this in turn mean that no one else replacing existing leaders can be popular? Are individuals more important than the system? And if so, what does that say about the system?
3) Term limits negatively aect the types of projects that elected leaders implement and the continuity of those projects. Arguably, this depends on the types of project involved and whether they are of the type that will or will not be supported by a successor. This also is a relevant issue even when term limits are not involved as projects require not only mayoral leadership but also council funding.

Sources
Moulder, Evelina. “Municipal Form of Government: Trends in Structure, Responsibility, and Composition.” In The Municipal Year Book, 2008.

Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association, 2008.

Fahim, Mayraj. “Arguments for and against term limits.” City Mayors Government, November 2008.
http:/ /www.citymayors.com/government/term-limits.html
Skip to Content
City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO

DATE: March 29, 2022

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Marc Zafferano, City Attorney
Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

SUBJECT: Conduct Study Session and Provide Direction Regarding Adopting Local Campaign Finance Regulations

BACKGROUND:

The City Council previously requested that staff research the topi c of campaign finance reform for consideration either as an ordinance that the C ity Council could adopt , or as a ballot measure at the November 2022 election.

Staff understood t he request to apply to the most common form of campaign finance reform adopted by general la w cities, whi ch are local contribution limits placed on individuals or organizations who contribute to candidates for the City Council.

The City currently does not have campaign contribution li mits. Formerly, state law authorized, but did not require, cities and counties to limit campaign contributions in local elections. AB 571, which is codified as Government Code Section 85301 and went i nto effect on January 1, 2021, imposes default campaign contribution limits on individual contributors, per campaign, pe r election, upon cities and counties without campaign contribution limits. The default contribution limit is set as the same amount for state elected officia ls, subject to adjustment by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) in January of every od d-numbered year to reflect any increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index. The default limit for Fiscal Year 2021 -2022 is $4,900 per person or entity p er election. The FPPC is also res ponsible for administration and enforcement of the default contribution limits.

Government Code Section 85702.5 permits the City to establish by ordinance or resolution, without a vote of the p eople, its own campaign cont ribution limits for councilmember elections (including the Mayor). However, the City Council may also elect to place question of establishing local campaign contribution limits before voters by placing a local measure on a general or special election.

Local campaign contribution limits (adopted by the City Council or voters) may be either higher or lower than the limits established by AB 571 an d the FPPC , and the City can Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

consider establishing separate limits for persons and organizations. If the City establishes its o wn contr ibution limits, candidate s for the office of Mayor and City Council positions will not be subject to the contribution limits established by A B 571.

The City may also adopt enforcement standards for violations of the adopt ed limits, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties.

Below is a summary of the current contribution limits in the neighboring cities in San Mateo County. Cities not listed default to the state limit of $4,900 per person or entity.

CITY INDIVIDUAL LIMIT ENTITY LIMIT OTHER FEATURES
Atherton $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Belmont $500 $1,000 No assumed name or
unknown sources over
$250
Brisbane $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Burlingame $500 $1,000
Colma $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Daly City $4,900 $4,900 State limit
East Palo Alto $500 $500
Foster City $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Half Moon Bay $250 $500 Public reporting of
contributions over
$100; other regulations
Hillsborough $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Menlo Park $4,900 $4,900 State limit; public
reporting of
contributions over $25-
$100
Millbrae $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Pacifica $4,900 $4,900 Disclosure required
over $600/individual
and $1,000/org.

Portola Valley $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Redwood City $1,000 $1,000 Voluntary expenditure
limits
San Bruno $4,900 $4,900 State limit
San Carlos $4,900 $4,900 State limit
San Mateo (city) $500 $1,000 $15K limit on loans by
candidate
San Mateo (county) $1,000 $1,000
South San Francisco $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Woodside $4,900 $4,900 State limit

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

Of the 21 agencies listed above, thirteen algin to the State limit of $4,900 without deviation and seven have elected a lowe r contribution limits (some with additional features related to contribution limits and loans) and one entity retains the State limit but has local disclosure requirements (Pacifica).

DISCUSSION:

Staff seeks direction from the City Council regarding whether the City should continue its practice of aligning to the AB 571 default contribution limit of $4,900 per person or entity per election , or establish its own contribution limits. The City Council has two options, neither of wh ich requires a vote of the people but, as noted abov e, the City Council may elect to not make a decision and instead place a specific contribution limit before voters.

1. Follow state campaign contribution limits . If the City Council takes no action, candidates for the office of City Council will be subject to AB 571’s default contribution limit, which is currently set at $4,900 per person or entity, per election. Candidates fo r City Council office will also be subject to pena lties enforced by the FPPC for violations of AB 571 and additional statutory limitations, including limits on transfer s of camp aign funds from one controlled committee to another controlled committee of the same candidate, and limits on loans to a candidate’s campaign.

AB 571 also provides the following exemptions:

• Candidates facing a recall can establish a committee to oppose t he recall and can accept contributions in excess of the contribution limits est ablished by AB 571;
• Candidates may accept contribu tions after an election to pay off debts from the election; and
• Candidates can carry over contributions from one elect ion to pa y for expenses for a subsequent election for the same office.

In determining to follow the state contribution limits, some citie s simply do not take any formal action while others adopt a resolution accepting the state’s default contribution limits. Staff will ensure that the minutes ref lect any decision or action by the City Council, whether or not a resolution is adopted.

2. Set the City’s own campaign contribution limits. If the City Council does not wish the City to be subject to AB 571’s contribut ion limits, the City Council may adopt its own contribution limit that is higher or lower than the current st ate limit of $4,900. If the City sets its own contribution limit, the exemptions from AB 571 described above will not apply. The City Council mus t also establish penalties for violations of the contribution limit, and bear the cost of the enforcement bec ause the FPPC will not enforce the City’s contribution limit. At this point, staff has not yet developed an Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

estimation of the administration and implementation c osts of locally established and enforced contribution limits.

As noted above, local contribution limits can be adopted by the City Council without a vote of the people. Alternatively, such limits could be placed in a proposed charter, or placed before the voters as a separate ballot measure. Staff requests direction regarding these alternatives. If the City Council wants to place this item in a proposed charter or on the ballot as a separate measure, the City Council should consider receiving information about that strategy from its ballot consultant.

If the City Council chooses to place this item on the November 2022 ballot, the City must transmit any ballot measure and associated documents to the County before August 12, 2022. Staff recommends that the final decision be made by the regular City Council meeting on July 12. The resolution adopted at that meeting would authorize the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis, and assign the details regarding submission of ballot arguments and rebuttal arguments, per state law.

Public Campaign Financing
In researching the topic of Campaign Finance Reform, staff discovered that some charter cities such as Oakland and Berkeley have adopted a system of public financing for councilmember campaigns. Per state law, only charter cities are authorized to implement such a system.

The City of Oakland has a Limited Public Financing Act (LPF) that provides District City Council candidates with some public funds by reimbursement for eligible campaign expenses. The amount of money available to candidates depends on how much money was budgeted by City Council and how many candidates are running for City Council Districts 1-7 in current election. In past years, the amount distributed per candidate has ranged between $8,000 and $25,000. No candidate may receive more than 30% of Oakland's voluntary expenditure ceiling for the office being sought.

In the City of Berkeley, candidates that participate in the City’s Public Financing Program are eligible to receive a 6-to-1 match on qualifying contributions of up to $60 (e.g. for a $60 qualifying contribution, a participating candidate receives $360 in public matching funds).

Staff has deferred further researching these systems pending City Council direction.

In summary, staff requests direction regarding the following:

1. Does the City Council want staff to develop an ordinance limiting campaign contributions?
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 29, 2022

2. If so, does the City Council wish to adopt such an ordinance itself, place it in a proposed charter, or place it as a separate item on the November 2022 ballot?

3. In either case, what dollar limits for individuals and entities does the City Council wish to set?

4. Does the City Council want staff to further research public financing of local campaigns for inclusion in a future city charter, and if so, should that be done for a proposed charter on the November 2022 ballot?

FISCAL IMPACT:

If the City Council directs preparation of a resolution of ordinance imposing local contribution limits, total staff time to develop the staff report and associated documents would be between 15-20 hours. If the City Council chooses to place this item on the ballot, additional staff time would be required to draft all of the election documents. Staff is informed that on March 9, 2022, the County elections office provided staff with an estimated range of $93,000-$112,000 for the upcoming municipal election plus one ballot measure. The County estimated that each additional ballot measure would add approximately $10,000 to the cost of the election. Staff is in active conversations with potential polling consultants whose work could start in April or early May to gauge public opinion on this and other ballot measures, and can return to the City Council with additional information and costs at an upcoming meeting. $$

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Request additional information before providing direction to staff.

RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct Study Session and Provide Direction Regarding Adopting Local Campaign Finance Regulations

ATTACHMENTS:

None.