CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Special Meeting
September 5, 2023
5:30 PM
City Hall Council Chamber
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Amourence Lee, Mayor
Lisa Diaz Nash, Deputy Mayor
Rich Hedges
Adam Loraine
Rob Newsom Jr.
AGENDA
THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTEL Y.
SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.
To join via Zoom – click here:
September 5, 2023
To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 895 9897 4428 Passcode: 870633
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
STUDY SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the consideration of these items.
1. Campaign Finance – Voluntary Expenditure Limits and Public Financing Models Provide feedback and direction on research relating to voluntary expenditure limits and public financing models for election campaigns.
CEQA: This study session is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b) (5).)
ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS:
Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at
www.cityofsanmateo.org
. Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.
WATCHING A MEETING ON TV:
City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.
For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER:
There are three ways to stream.
1) Public Meeting Portal
www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings
2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo
3) Watch TV live stream:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream
PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
Prior to the Meeting
Send comments to:
[email protected]
until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.
During the meeting
1 of 14
By Zoom:
Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.
By telephone:
Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.
In Person:
At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form, submit a request at the speaker kiosk or scan the QR code.
ACCESSIBILITY:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected]
. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
2 of 14
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 1
7 8
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 1 Section Name: STUDY SESSION Account Number: 10-1511 File ID: 23-7493 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Clerk's Office
MEETING DATE: September 05, 2023
SUBJECT:
Campaign Finance – Voluntary Expenditure Limits and Public Financing Models RECOMMENDATION:
Provide feedback and direction on research relating to voluntary expenditure limits and public financing models for election campaigns.
BACKGROUND:
In recent years within campaign finance reform discourse, growing concerns over the influence of money in local elections have led to a greater interest in both the adoption of voluntary expenditure limits and public financing models for election campaigns. At its Fiscal Year 2022-23 Goal Setting the City Council directed staff to study campaign finance reform policies, in particular relating to voluntary expenditure limits, and at its February 21, 2023 post-election study session on campaign contributions Council directed staff to return with research into public financing of election campaigns.
Staff is seeking Council feedback this evening on the following questions:
1. Should staff return with a Voluntary Expenditure Limits ordinance and other proposed ordinance amendments?
A. Does the Council have a preferred limit per resident ($1.50, $2, $2.50, or other)? B. Does the Council prefer a limit increase in odd-numbered years of $0.25 or increase by Consumer Price Index?
C. Does the Council wish to exclude certain expenses from the limits or include all expenses?
2. Does the Council have any feedback on the Public Financing research presented?
VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE LIMITS
Voluntary expenditure limits in local elections, as implemented in neighboring cities such as Burlingame and Redwood City, are self-imposed spending boundaries that candidates choose to adhere to during the electoral process. These limits may serve to foster a more equitable and transparent political landscape by curbing election campaign spending and reducing the potential influence of monetary resources on election outcomes. Typically, candidates who opt to participate in a voluntary expenditure limit program commit to capping their campaign expenses, in exchange for some form of benefit.
Note that mandatory expenditure limits are constitutionally impermissible, hence the interest from some jurisdictions in voluntary limits.
Following the examples established within Burlingame and Redwood City, a similar ordinance for San Mateo, as seen in Attachment 1, may include an optional spending threshold, where candidates would indicate their intention to adhere to the voluntary expenditure limit when submitting their nomination documents during the candidate filing period.
Depending on Council direction, such an ordinance could go into effect beginning on January 1, 2024, in order to line up with campaign reporting periods. It would then apply to the November 2024 general election.
3 of 14
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 1
7 8
The agreement to voluntarily limit campaign expenditures may include all expenditures incurred by the candidate or the candidate’s committee in support of their candidacy. However, the Council may determine certain expenditures to be exempt from this, such as filing fees, expenses required for the publication of the candidate’s statement of qualifications in the County’s Voter Information Pamphlet and Sample Ballot, returned contributions, non-monetary contributions, and legal costs incurred in connection with litigation arising out of a campaign for City office.
A three-business day window following the conclusion of the candidate filing period would be provided for candidates to reconsider their choice. Those who opt to embrace the voluntary expenditure limit would receive recognition on the City's official website, eNews, as well as in widely circulated newspapers. If a candidate who had agreed to abide by the voluntary limits surpasses those limits, the City's staff would proceed to publicly announce the violation through the same avenues.
Using the Redwood City and Burlingame model of capping expenditure on a per resident basis, the Council may wish to consider campaign expenditure ceiling limits of $1.50, $2.00, $2.50, or another amount, per resident in the district for each election in which the candidate is seeking elective office. Residency numbers for each district will be determined by the latest available Decennial Census data. The expenditure ceiling amount for each district (rounded to the nearest $100), would be published on the City Clerk’s website. For example, based on a population of approximately 105,000 and roughly 21,000 residents per district, a $1.50 per resident would limit total campaign expenses to approximately $31,500. A $2.00 per resident would limit total campaign expenses to approximately $42,000 A $2.50 per resident would limit total campaign expenses to approximately $53,000. During the 2022 Regular Election, successful election campaign expenses ranged from $17,000 to $57,000. Staff did consider using the number of registered voters per district as a basis for a voluntary contribution limit instead of the number of residents. However, because the number of registered voters varies widely per district (e.g., District 1 has approximately 13,564 registered voters, while District 2 has approximately 9,370 registered voters), staff felt that the resulting significant difference in voluntary contribution limits between districts could be seen as inequitable and discourage participation.
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
District Population Based on 2020 U.S. Census 21,572 21,589 21,061 19,873 21,709 District Population x $2.36*
*City of Redwood City model
$51,000 $51,000 $50,000 $47,000 $51,000
District Population x $5*
*City of Burlingame model 2024
$108,000 $108,000 $105,000 $99,000 $109,000
District Population x $1.50*
Staff Report Option #1
$32,400 $32,400 $31,600 $29,800 $32,600
District Population x $2.00*
Staff Report Option #2
$43,100 $43,200 $42,100 $39,800 $43,400
District Population x $2.50*
Staff Report Option #3
$53,900 $54,000 52,700 49,700 54,200
Beginning in December of 2025, in odd-numbered years the City Clerk would increase the expenditure ceiling amounts by twenty-five cents ($0.25) per resident. Alternatively, the expenditure ceiling could increase by Consumer Price Index, considering 2023 as the base year.
OTHER PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
Recall Elections
Municipal Code Chapter 2.80 requires amendments to align with changes in the law governing recall elections. Assembly Bill (AB) 2584 (2022) amended the process whereby a recall election occurs. Generally, the question of whether an elected officer shall be removed from office and their successor has historically been put to the voters in the form of one ballot measure. (Note that in San Mateo, the filling of a Council vacancy is left to the Council or the Mayor to decide, under the Charter.) However, AB 2582 has removed question of the officer’s successor from the recall election, and instead the seat would remain vacant until the agency is able to fill the vacancy in accordance with its process for doing so. In addition,
4 of 14
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 1
7 8
recall committees are more akin to ballot measure committees than candidate committees, in that the issue submitted to the voters is whether an elected official should be recalled, and not who should fill the vacancy upon a successful recall.
For these reasons, and based on court decisions, recall elections are not subject to candidate contribution limits. An ordinance amendment is recommended to make these conforming changes.
Aggregation of Contributions
Recent experience with implementing the City’s campaign ordinance suggests that clarification is needed when applying contribution limits to aggregated contributions. Contributions by an individual are aggregated with contributions from organizations that the individual directs or controls. Also, contributions by two or more organizations are aggregated if they are directed or controlled by a majority of the same persons. However, there are two contribution limits - $500 for individuals and $1000 for organizations. Staff recommends amending Section 2.80.045 “Aggregation of Contributions” to clarify that aggregated contributions shall be subject to the $1,000 contribution limit.
Next steps:
Following direction from the Council, staff would return with a draft ordinance to amend Municipal Code Section 2.80 “Contributions and Loans to City Candidate Campaigns”. Council may provide direction on aspects of the draft ordinances during this meeting, such as the expenditure ceiling amount and expenses that should be exempt.
Note that this report does not address independent expenditure committees, as U.S. Supreme Court caselaw and other court decisions prohibit the restriction of independent expenditures, which are not made at the behest of a candidate or their controlled committee. Under state law, independent expenditures must already be reported, including late contributions totaling $1,000 or more made after the last campaign statement but before the election.
At the direction of the Council, with the broad intention to increase public transparency into candidate campaign finances, including independent expenditures, staff developed and launched the first Campaign Finance Dashboard in the County for the November 2022 general election. Towards the goal of transparency in campaign finances, the Dashboard provides an interactive overview of financial activities (including contributions and expenditures), summaries of contributions by individuals, organizations, etc., summaries of contributions by contribution amount, and contributions by location. The campaign dashboard can be found on the City’s website at: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4664/Council-Campaign- Financing-Dashboard
PUBLIC FINANCING
The research has shown that broadly speaking, agencies that have adopted public financing of election campaigns have done so to reduce the reliance of candidates on private donations and to widen the interest in seeking elected office.
These agencies include San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Seattle. Based on preliminary modeling, if public financing had been in place in San Mateo for the 2022 election cycle based on a 6:1 financing formula ($6 of public funds for each $1 of privately raised contributions), similar to San Francisco’s model, a disbursement of public funds to San Mateo candidates would have likely been in the amount of $127,000. Alternatively, the voucher model of public funding, implemented by Seattle, would likely have cost approximately $436,500 in public funds distributed to candidates. Neither of these figures include administrative costs. These models and associated costs are described in more detail below. These costs would have been paid for out of the General Fund.
An overview of some of the different public financing models that have been implemented for local election campaigns is provided below in the Public Financing Models section.
Currently, city council candidates in San Mateo, like most cities in California, rely on private donations to finance their election campaigns. At its February 21, 2023 Study Session, Council expressed interest in exploring public financing of campaigns, in part due to concerns of the high cost of running for office making it difficult for potential candidates to compete in an election. Table 1 below, taken from the City’s Campaign Finance Dashboard, provides a breakdown of campaign costs per voter, which equates to $8.45 median average per vote received for successful candidates.
5 of 14
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 1
7 8
Table 1: Cost Per Voter Summary (November 2022 General Election)
PUBLIC FINANCING MODELS
Matching Funds
The matching funds model of public financing provides public funds to candidates who agree to limit their spending and/or raise a minimum amount of money from small donors. Under the matching funds model, for every dollar raised from small donors, the agency matches the contribution with a predetermined amount of public funds. Some of the key elements of matching funds models that have been adopted by agencies include:
Eligibility: candidates who agree to abide by the agency’s campaign regulations and demonstrate a minimum level of support from the community are eligible to participate in the program.
Matching Funds: matching funds at various rates are provided to qualified candidates, in some cases this funding can only be used for specific activities and expenses.
Contribution Limits: some programs place limits on contributions a candidate may receive, including the number of self-contributions and loans, as well as contributions from individuals residing in the candidate’s district. (Note that such restrictions would be legally problematic if imposed on all candidates instead of voluntarily accepted by candidates participating in a public financing program.) Ethics and Compliance: programs may require compliance with relevant campaign finance laws and regulations, as well as the program's own code of ethics.
Oversight and Enforcement: in some cases, such as the City of San Francisco, the City of Los Angeles, and the City of Oakland, matching funds oversight, including establishing eligibility, post-election auditing and enforcement, is performed by a dedicated Ethics Commission. In agencies, such as the City of Long Beach and the City of Santa Fe, the City Clerk administers these programs with external auditing contract support.
The City and County of San Francisco’s matching funds model, known as the ‘Public Financing Program’, was first established by Proposition O, a ballot measure approved by the voters in November 2000, and offers eligible candidates a six-to-one (6:1) match for campaign donations. This means that a candidate receives $6 in public funding for every $1 of private contributions raised.
During San Francisco’s 2022 election through the Public Financing Program, candidates certified as eligible to receive public financing could have received up to the maximum of the following amounts:
•Non-Incumbent Mayoral Candidates: $1,200,000
•Incumbent Mayoral Candidates: $1,185,500
•Non-Incumbent Supervisorial Candidates $255,000
6 of 14
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 1
7 8
•Incumbent Supervisorial Candidates: $252,000
The total amount of public funds disbursed through the Public Financing Program was $1,158,006. In the fiscal year 2021- 2022, the San Francisco Ethics Commission's budget was approximately $4.9 million. The majority of this funding came from the City and County’s General Fund, with additional revenue coming from fines, fees, and penalties collected by the Commission.
Attachment 2 provides a list of agencies that offer public financing of election campaigns and the rate of participation for the most recent election. During San Francisco’s 2022 General Election, forty-six (46) percent of candidates appearing on the ballot participated in the Public Financing Program. For the same election year, the City of Los Angeles had a sixty-five (65) percent participation rate among candidates in their Public Matching Funds. During the 2022 election cycle, the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission disbursed $12,761,378.12 in Public Matching Funds. Participation in the City of Los Angeles Public Matching Fund requires candidates to:
•Limit the amount of contributions or loans to their own campaigns ($37,000 for City Council positions, and $148,100 for city-wide positions)
•Receive qualified contributions of $5 or more from 100 individuals living in the City Council district or, for a Citywide contest, from 100 individuals living in the City •Receive a minimum cumulative threshold of qualified contributions from individuals residing in the City •Limit campaign spending to pre-determined amounts
•Be certified to appear on the ballot and be opposed by a candidate who is also certified to appear on the ballot •Participate in a debate with opponents who have qualified to appear on the ballot. •Attend an Ethics Commission candidate training
•File all required campaign statements
The City of San Francisco, the City of Berkeley, and the City of Los Angeles each provide a 6:1 match on contributions received. The participation rate of candidates seeking office in each of these agencies in their most recent election was 46%, 97%, and 65%, respectively.
Table 2 below shows a breakdown of the campaign expenses from the November 2022 City Council election with an application of a 6:1 match. Here we can see a 6:1 ratio on the actual campaign expenses, meaning the proportion of private contributions in contrast to the total amount of public funding that would be required to meet the total campaign expenses. Table 2 shows that the number of private contributions required is reduced significantly, from a total of $152,610.56 to $25,435.09. The total amount of public funding that would be required in this model would be $127,175.
Table 2: Applying a 6:1 Ratio to San Mateo’s 2022 Election Campaign Expenses Candidate Total Campaign
Expenses
Private Contributions Needed
Using 6:1 Ratio
Amount of Public
Funding Needed
Nick Atkeson $ 3,619.52 $ 603.25 $ 3,016.27
Lisa Diaz Nash $ 56,685.11 $ 9,447.52 $ 47,237.59
Rob Newsom $ 17,433.44 $ 2,905.57 $ 14,527.87
Sergio Zygmunt $ 518.85 $ 86.48 $ 432.37
Sarah Fields $ 31,350.93 $ 5,225.16 $ 26,125.77
Rod Linhares $ 12,508.74 $ 2,084.79 $ 10,423.95
Adam Loraine $ 30,493.97 $ 5,082.33 $ 25,411.64
Total $ 152,610.56 $ 25,435.09 $ 127,175.45
7 of 14
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 1
7 8
Grant Funds
A grant-based model of public financing bares many of the same characteristics of the matching funds model, and in some cases, such as the City of New Haven, Connecticut, public contributions are provided in a hybrid form of matching funds and grants.
The City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, provides a dedicated public finance fund, which is administered by the City Clerk. Each fiscal year, a total of $150,000 is budgeted for this fund. Eligibility for candidates to participate in the Public Campaign Finance Fund, include meeting the requirements to be a certified candidate for municipal office, collection of qualifying contributions from separate qualified electors (600 for the office of mayor, and 150 for the office of city council), with some allowances for accepting seed money contributions to cover the costs incurred in obtaining qualifying contributions, as specified. Within three business days of certifying as a participating candidate, the city clerk is required disburse from the Public Campaign Finance fund $60,000 to candidates for mayor and $15,000 to city council candidates.
In the event of an uncontested race, only 10% of the amount that would be due to a candidate in a contest race is dispersed. All payments received by a participating candidate from the fund can only be used to pay expenses reasonably incurred during the candidate’s current campaign. During its most recent election, of the total number of candidates appearing on the ballot in Santa Fe, 33% of candidates participated in the public financing program.
Reimbursement Funds
From 1999 until more recently, the City of Oakland provided public funding to candidates running for elected office through its “Limited Public Finance Act” (LPF). The LPF provided eligible candidates with reimbursements for qualified expenditures used for campaign expenses. During the November 2022 election, the total amount of LPF reimbursement funds came to $159,038, which amounted to 90 percent of the total funds available.
Table 3: Participation Rate in LPF
Source: City of Oakland Public Ethics Commission
Table 3 above shows varying rates of participation in the LPF since 2010, with the 2022 election seeing a 63% participation rate. The November 2022 election was the final election cycle of the LPF, with the passage of Measure W Oakland Fair Elections Act, beginning in 2024, the City of Oakland will implement its Democracy Dollar voucher program.
Voucher Program
In a voucher program, eligible residents are provided with a dollar value in the form of a voucher that can be used to contribute to a participating candidate of their choice during an election cycle.
In 2015, voters in Seattle approved the ‘Honest Elections Seattle’ ballot initiative, establishing the Democracy Voucher Program, which is administered by the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. Under this program, voters in Seattle receive four $25 vouchers to allocate to candidates running for local offices. Candidates may qualify for participation in the program by collecting qualifying signatures and small contributions from Seattle residents. Participating candidates may use Democracy Vouchers to finance certain campaign activities, which is governed by the City of Seattle’s campaign
8 of 14
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 1
7 8
spending laws and must also follow strict reporting guidelines. The program is funded by the voter’s approval of a property tax of $3 million per year for 10 years. The properties affected include commercial, businesses, and residential properties.
The Democracy Voucher Programs costs the average homeowner about $8 per year.
A study of Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program by Georgetown University showed the more than 48,000 Seattle residents used their democracy vouchers in 2021. As a percentage of the voting age population, the participation rate reached its highest level of 7.59%. Chart 1 below shows that between 2017 and 2021, the participation rate for the Democracy Voucher program rose across all racial groups, including a significant percentage increase among Black and Hispanic residents.
Chart 1: Participation Rates by Race
Source: Georgetown University
To apply Seattle’s voucher program to San Mateo, it can be broadly calculated that potential costs using their most recent
7.59% participation rate, which would amount to approximately 4,365 voters in San Mateo, assuming the full $100 usage per participant, this will amount to $436,500 in public funds distributed to candidates. Additional administrative costs would be required to facilitate this program, which would raise the total dollar amount for the service every two years to at least $500,000, which would be a material amount of money from the General Fund.
It is worth noting, the total expenses for candidates during the November 2022 City Council Election came to $150,610.56.
This election also was unique as all three available seats for election did not have incumbents running, which can increase the costs needed for seeking office. However, it is difficult to anticipate the exact costs as the intention of Seattle’s voucher model was in-part to encourage more first-time candidates to seek office.
STATE LEGISLATION DEVELOPMENTS
Currently in California, five charter cities have adopted public financing of election campaigns (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, and Long Beach). State law currently prohibits counties, special districts, and general law cities from pursuing public funding of elections. Two identical bills – SB 24 (Lee) and AB 270 (Umberg) would place the matter on the November 5, 2024, statewide election by asking voters to remove this prohibition. In 2016, the state legislature passed SB 1107 (Allen), which would have removed this prohibition, however the courts ruled that the issue must be put to the
9 of 14
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 1
7 8
voters. Note that under court decisions, charter cities can approve public financing using its “home rule” authority under the California Constitution.
SB 1439
As a reminder for the City Council, Effective January 1, 2023, Senate Bill 1439 (SB 1439) strengthened conflict of interest regulations concerning campaign contributions. The bill extended the reach of these rules to local elected officials, such as members of city councils and boards of supervisors. Previously, these rules applied to appointed officials, such as board and commission members, but excluded elected officials.
State law now provides that campaign contributions of more than $250 would be a conflict of interest for these local officials and would require disclosure and recusal in certain situations, such as where the donor was an applicant for a license or permit, if the contribution was made within the 12 months before the decision. SB 1439 also prohibits local officials from accepting, soliciting, or directing contributions of more than $250 from parties to a proceeding on a license, permit or entitlement for use (such as a land use permit) while the proceeding is pending, and for 12 months after the decision (which expanded the 3-month period previously in effect). However, if local official does not willfully and knowingly accept, solicit, or direct a prohibited contribution, the violation can be resolved by returning the contribution, as specified. Finally, the Fair Political Practices Commission has issued detailed regulations implementing SB 1439 that are now in effect.
CONCLUSION:
This report shows there is a wide scope of approaches that exist for agencies to provide public financing programs for election campaigns. Within each approach, agencies have tried a variety of matching rates and grant amounts and adjusted the eligibility criteria to make their programs more successful. Significant staffing resources and general fund amounts would be required to administer such a program.
In discussions with staff from these agencies, a common sentiment was shared that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to public funding of election campaigns. Moreover, for any agency wishing to pursue public financing, it is important to clearly define the criteria for success. This research has shown a variety of criteria for success provided by agencies who have adopted public financing, including:
•Limiting campaign contributions as a proportion of total contributions from outside the jurisdiction; •Increasing the number of small contributions provided to candidates; •Increasing the number of first-time candidates running for office; •Minimizing the number of uncontested elections and increasing number of candidates competing for vacancies; •Increasing engagement and participation from historically underrepresented communities.
This research shows that public financing models for city council elections has the potential to help reduce the influence of money in politics and increase citizen participation in the political process. However, these public financing models can be costly and would require administrative support, both paid for out of the General Fund. Each model has its own strengths and limitations and requires careful consideration and planning to ensure its effectiveness. Should the Council wish to pursue public financing of election, further direction will be required on which model should be considered for further analysis.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact associated with this study session. Should the Council direct staff to pursue further action on public financing of election campaigns, further analysis and scoping will be required.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This study session is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
10 of 14
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 1
7 8
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Working Draft – Voluntary Expenditure Limit
Att 2 – Research of Agencies Using Public Financing
STAFF CONTACT
Martin McTaggart, Deputy City Clerk
[email protected]
(650) 522-7044
11 of 14
9 0
3 8
2.80.055 VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE LIMIT.
(a) Each candidate for election to the City Council in November 2024, and for each City Council election thereafter, shall, prior to the time they file their nomination papers with the city clerk, advise the city clerk in writing on a form provided by the City whether or not the candidate will opt to voluntarily limit their campaign expenditures in accordance with the voluntary campaign expenditure limits set forth in this section and by resolution. The agreement to voluntarily limit campaign expenditures shall pertain to all expenditures incurred by the candidate or the candidate’s committee in support of their candidacy and shall include all such expenditures that a candidate or candidate’s committee is required to report pursuant to the California Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, whether those expenditures are made before or after the filing of nomination papers. (b) Withdrawal Period: within three (3) business days after the deadline to file nomination papers with the city clerk, a candidate that previously accepted the voluntary campaign expenditure limit will have one (1) opportunity to notify the city clerk that they have decided not to accept the voluntary campaign expenditure limit. The candidate shall thereafter be relieved of abiding by the expenditure limit.
(c) Candidates who agree to abide by the voluntary campaign expenditure limit shall receive the following benefits and incentives at no cost to themselves:
(1) The City’s website will clearly identify which candidates have agreed to the voluntary expenditure limit.
(2) The City will publish in its regular digital newsletter which candidates have agreed to the voluntary expenditure limit. This will be published twice (once at the next publishing of said newsletter after the withdrawal period and once when the ballots are mailed to residents.) (3) The City will publish notices in newspapers of general circulation the candidates who agreed to the voluntary expenditure limit.
(d) Calculation of Voluntary Campaign Expenditure Limit. (1) A candidate for district City Councilmember who voluntarily agrees to expenditure ceilings shall not make qualified expenditures exceeding [$1.50, $2.00, $2.50, or other] per resident in the electoral district for each election in which the candidate is seeking elective office. Residency of each electoral district shall be determined by the latest decennial census population figures available for that district. The City Clerk shall publish on its website and in a newspaper of general circulation the expenditure ceiling amount for each district, rounded to the nearest hundred dollars ($100), no later than sixty (60) business days following adoption of the ordinance from which this Section is derived.
12 of 14
9 0
3 8
(2) Beginning in December 2025, the city clerk shall in odd-numbered years increase the expenditure ceiling amounts by twenty-five cents ($0.25) per resident. [Alternative: increase by Consumer Price Index considering 2023 as base year]
(3) The voluntary campaign expenditure limit called for by this section shall include any expenditures made by the candidate or by the candidate’s campaign committee in connection with the preparation and publication of the candidate’s statement of qualifications in the sample ballot pamphlet published in accordance with California Elections Code Section 13307. (e) Penalties: Any violation of this section, including the filing of false reports that entitle the candidate to the benefits conferred by this section, shall within seventy-two (72) hours of the City’s knowledge of the violation:
(1) Be posted on the City's website, and
(2) Be posted in the City’s regular digital newsletter; and (3) Be forwarded to newspapers of general circulation for publication.
13 of 14
Location Year enacted Type Last Reported
Election Data
Participation Rate
Candidates/Voters (%) Administering Agency
Santa Fe, NM 1987 Grants 2021 33 (Candidates) City Clerk New York
City, NY 1988 Matching Funds 2013 89 (Candidates) NYC Campaign Finance Board Long Beach,
CA 1994 Matching Funds 2022 83 (Candidates) City Clerk
Tucson, AZ 1987 Matching Funds 2019 64 (Candidates) City Clerk San
Francisco, CA 2000 Matching Funds 2022 46 (Candidates) City & County of San Francisco Ethics Commission
Los Angeles,
CA 1990 Matching Funds 2022 65 (Candidates) City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission
Albuquerque,
NM 2005 Matching Funds 2021 50 (Candidates) City Clerk
Oakland,CA 1999
Matching Funds -
Reimbursement
(Pre-2024)
2022 63 (Candidates) City of Oakland Public Ethics
Commission
New Haven,
CT 2006 Grants and
Matching Funds 2021 100 (Candidates) Democracy Fund Board Berkeley, CA 2016 Matching Funds 2022 97% (Candidates) Fair Campaign Practices Commission
Seattle, WA 2015 Vouchers 2021 7.59% (Voters) Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission
Mayor, City Council, City Attorney
Mayor, City Council, School Board, Rent Stabilization Board, City Auditor
Offices
Mayor, Citywide, City Council
Mayor, City Attorney, City Auditor, City Prosecutor, City Council Mayor, Board of Supervisors
Mayor, City Council
Mayor, City Council
Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, Controller
Mayor
District City Council
Mayor, City Council, Municipal Judge
14 of 14