CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 6
3 6
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: {{item.number}} Section Name: {{section.name}} Account Number: 10-1711 File ID: {{item.tracking_number}} TO: City Council
FROM: Prasanna W. Rasiah, City Attorney
PREPARED BY: City Attorney's Office
MEETING DATE: January 2, 2024
SUBJECT:
Charter Amendments and Council Compensation - Study Session RECOMMENDATION:
Provide feedback and direction on proposed City Charter amendments addressing how the Mayor is chosen, Board and Commission member selection and compensation, and other revisions, as well as Council member compensation.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council directed staff at its Fiscal Year 2022-23 Goal Setting to review and update the City Charter related to district elections, mayoral rotation, and filling Council vacancies. During an October 16, 2023 Study Session, these and other staff-proposed changes were presented to the City Council. The staff changes related to removing language that was not necessary (regarding Council members elected in 2017 and verified statements by candidates), publication and expiration of emergency ordinances, and miscellaneous edits.
The Council largely agreed with the proposed changes but requested revisions to the draft Charter language addressing mayoral rotation. The Council also agreed with splitting the amendments into two measures, with the shift to district elections and other non- controversial changes grouped into one measure, and further agreed with the proposed plan for future Council meetings, community outreach, consultant assistance, and polling. Details on the Charter amendment process may also be found in that report.
Staff also indicated during the October 16, 2023 study session that further information would be presented on the subject of Board and Commission compensation and qualifications at this meeting, in addition to Council compensation (which does not require a Charter amendment). Note that an adjustment to Council compensation would not take effect until after the next municipal election for Council members.
Staff is seeking Council feedback this evening on the following questions:
1. Does the Council agree with:
i. Proposed language addressing Mayoral rotation?
ii. Recommendations for board and commission compensation and qualifications? iii. Other proposed changes?
2. Does the Council wish to adjust Council compensation? i. If so, in what amount (from the current $600 to a maximum of $1,900 per month)
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 6
3 6
DISCUSSION:
A. Mayoral Rotation / Start Time for Council Meetings
Existing Charter Language Proposed Charter Language
The council shall meet at the first regular council meeting in December following a general municipal election and
canvass the returns thereof. The new members shall then be inducted into office, whereupon the council shall elect the mayor and deputy mayor. The regular meetings of the council shall be held on the first and third Monday of each month not earlier than 6:30 p.m., but any regular meeting may be adjourned to a date and time certain, which
adjourned meeting shall be a regular meeting for all
purposes. The council may, in its discretion, change the date of any regularly scheduled Monday council meeting
which would fall on a holiday or other inconvenient day to the nearest convenient day subsequent to the regularly
scheduled Monday council meeting. (Sec. 2.09.)
(a) The council shall meet at the first regular council meeting in December following a general municipal
election and canvass the returns thereof. The new
members shall then be inducted into office, whereupon
the council shall elect the mayor and deputy mayor
without continuing such action to a future date and time absent a unanimous vote of the Council, or a fire, flood, or other disaster.
(b) The selection of the mayor and deputy mayor shall
follow a rotational sequence. The first person in the
sequence shall be selected as mayor and the second
person in the sequence shall be selected as deputy
mayor. Except however, a council member may decline
to serve as mayor or deputy mayor, in which case the
office would pass to the next council member in the
rotation, and the council member who declined would
drop back one position. The rotational sequence shall be further specified by ordinance, and the rotational list shall be kept by the city clerk.
(c) The regular meetings of the council shall be held on the first and third Monday of each month at a time
specified by ordinance not earlier than 6:30 p.m., but any regular meeting may be adjourned to a date and time
certain, which adjourned meeting shall be a regular
meeting for all purposes. The council may, in its discretion, change the date of any regularly scheduled Monday
council meeting which would fall on a holiday or other
inconvenient day to the nearest convenient day
subsequent to the regularly scheduled Monday council
meeting. (Sec. 2.09.)
The proposed language would remove 6:30 p.m. as the start time for Council meetings and simply allow the time to be determined by ordinance.
Regarding the mayoral rotation, the proposed language would address both the procedure and substance of selecting a mayor and deputy mayor. First, as previously proposed, it would require the Council to select a Mayor at the first regular meeting in December and would prohibit continuing the action to a future date, as specified. But additional changes are proposed to codify the key aspects of the Council Guidelines, namely to frame the process of selecting a Mayor and Deputy Mayor as a ministerial act by strictly following a rotational sequence. In order to avoid a lengthy Charter section, the proposed language states that the details are to be specified in an ordinance. The ordinance would generally include the following provisions from the Council Guidelines:
1. After serving as mayor, that council member moves to the end of the rotation sequence, and the other four
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 6
3 6
council members move forward.
2. When a council member is newly elected or appointed (as the result of a cancelled election), that new council member goes into the fourth position in the rotation, after all incumbents, but before the current outgoing Mayor.
3. If two or more council members are newly elected or appointed at the same time, the newly elected or appointed council members shall draw lots to determine their position relative to one another in the rotational sequence.
4. If a council member is appointed to fill a mid-term vacancy, that council member will go to the bottom of the rotational list.
5. Incumbent council members, when re-elected, do not begin anew at the bottom of the list, but rather retain their placement in the rotation.
6. If for any reason, such as death, resignation, recall, or not seeking re-election, a council member is removed from the rotation, the remaining council members move forward in the sequence.
Chapter 5 of the Council Guidelines contains the current policy and can be found here.
Filling Council Vacancies
During the prior study session, a majority of the Council agreed with the proposed language below, particularly the extension of the time to fill a vacancy from 30 days to 60 days. There was some discussion regarding whether to remove the power of the mayor to fill a vacancy and replace it with a special election, in the event that that Council could not make a decision even within the extended 60-day period (although it could also choose to call a special election earlier, as permitted by state law). In light of the draft revised language for mayoral rotation, this portion of a potential Charter amendment is repeated in the event the Council wishes to revisit this language.
Existing Charter Language Proposed Charter Language
A vacancy on the city council from whatever cause arising shall be filled by appointment by the council provided, that if the council fails to agree or for any other reason does not fill such vacancy within 30 days after the same occurs, then such vacancy shall be filled by the mayor. The appointee shall hold office until the next general election, when a successor shall be chosen by the electors for the unexpired term. If for any reason the seats of a majority of the council become vacant, then the city clerk shall call a special election at once to fill the vacancies for the
unexpired terms, and the same shall be conducted
substantially in the manner provided for general municipal elections. The candidates receiving the most votes shall serve the longer, if any, of the unexpired terms, and in case of ties the terms shall be fixed by lot. (Sec. 2.08.)
A vacancy on the city council from whatever cause arising shall be filled by appointment by the council provided, that if the council fails to agree or for any other reason does not fill such vacancy within 30 60 days after the same occurs, then the city clerk shall call a special election at once to fill such vacancy such vacancy shall be filled by the mayor. The An appointee shall hold office until the next general election, when a successor shall be chosen by the electors for the unexpired term. If for any reason the seats of a majority of the council become vacant, then the city clerk shall call a special election at once to fill the vacancies for the unexpired terms, and the same shall be conducted substantially in the manner provided for
general municipal elections. The candidates receiving the most votes shall serve the longer, if any, of the unexpired terms, and in case of ties the terms shall be fixed by lot.
As mentioned in the prior study session staff report, the proposed language would address several issues. First, by replacing the phrase, “the mayor” with text calling for a special election, the draft wording would remove the authority of the Mayor to fill vacancies and instead send the decision to the voters, if the Council is unable to make a decision within the allotted time. Notably, in 1983 Measure C was submitted to the voters that would have accomplished the same purpose with somewhat different wording, but that measure failed by a 46.4% to 53.6% vote.
The time for the Council to make a decision on filling a vacancy would also be increased from 30 to 60 days. This is important because if a vacancy occurs due to a Councilmember being elected to another office, that would occur in November. The existing 30-day period would then expire in December during the holiday season. Extending the period to
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 6
3 6
60 days would allow for increased outreach to the community and a more deliberate application, interview, and selection process. The Council would also have more time to weigh the benefits and drawbacks (such as expense) of a special election, versus making a decision to fill the vacancy after extensive community input.
Finally, the draft language eliminates text allowing candidates receiving the most votes to serve the longer of unexpired terms (and addressing tie votes) where a majority of the Council seats become vacant. But following the shift to district elections, candidates would no longer run for one of several at-large seats and would instead run for a single seat in their district. Thus, the current language is no longer necessary.
C. Board and Commission Compensation and Qualifications
On July 17, 2023, the City Council considered whether to compensate those who serve on the City’s boards and commissions, and whether to amend their qualifications for service, in order to provide more opportunities and incentives to participate on boards and commissions. The Charter requires Board and Commission members to possess the same qualifications as Councilmembers, who must be qualified electors and residents of the City. Chart. §§2.01, 6.05. Board and commission members are also barred from receiving compensation under the Charter but may receive reimbursement for expenses. Chart. §6.06. A change to either set of rules would require an amendment to the Charter.
Below is a chart identifying compensation along with elector (citizenship) and residency requirements for board and commission members in San Mateo County. This chart is intended to be illustrative rather than comprehensive in nature.
City Board/Commission Monthly Compensation Residency/Elector Requirement
Atherton Planning Commission None Town residence required Brisbane All None City residence required
Burlingame Planning Commission and
Park and Recreation
Commission
None Registered, qualified electors of the city
Colma None None None
Daly City Planning Commission
Recreation Commission
Arts and Culture Commission
None
None
None
Residency required
Both required
Foster City Planning Commission $269 per month City residence required Half Moon Bay Planning Commission None City residence required Hillsborough Architecture and Design
Review Board (ADRB)
None Qualified elector of the Town for ADRB
City residence required for all others
Menlo Park All None Resident of the City and at least 18 years of age
Millbrae Planning Commission and
Parks and Recreation
Commission
None Qualified elector of the city for Planning
Commission only
Pacifica All None Registered, qualified electors of the city, except for youth commissioners
Redwood City Planning Commission
Library Board
Other boards/commissions
None Resident/elector of the city
Resident/elector of the city
Resident/elector of the city unless
otherwise specified by Council
San Carlos All None Resident of the City
South SF Planning Commission
Parks/ Recreation Commn
Personnel Board
Compensation for all ($100)
set by Council resolution
Residency required for all
Woodside Planning Commission None One resident/district, except as specified
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 6
3 6
The Charter currently requires board and commission members to be San Mateo residents at least 18 years old, and a U.S. citizen. As indicated from the chart above, some cities require board and commission members to be electors similar to San Mateo, while others simply impose a residency requirement. If San Mateo were to change its current elector requirement to residency, then non-citizens would be eligible to serve on these advisory bodies. The Council could consider whether to broaden eligibility for all boards and commissions or only a select few, and whether to impose a minimum age requirement (such as 16) if youth commissioners are desired for certain bodies (possibly excluding the Personnel Board given the nature of sensitive employment issues). Additionally, if the elector requirement is removed, the Council could examine whether residency in adjacent unincorporated areas rather than strictly within the City should be a sufficient basis for eligibility for at least some boards and commissions.
Removing the elector requirement could be as simple as stating, “The members of all boards and commissions created by ordinance or by this Charter shall be appointed by the council, and shall at the time of appointment and while serving possess the same qualifications as required by this Charter for election or appointment to the council, unless otherwise provided by the Council.” (Chart. §6.05, with proposed revision underlined.) With regard to compensation, allowing board and commission members to be paid would differ from almost all other cities in San Mateo County and could lead to complicating factors. For instance, compensating these members could implicate other requirements related to minimum wages, taxation, and workers compensation, which may not be in the City’s best interest. Furthermore, removing the elector requirement in conjunction with allowing compensation would create the opportunity for community members who are not eligible to work in the United States to serve on boards and commissions. On the one hand, this does increase the opportunity for participation in City affairs. However, the City cannot compensate such individuals who are not eligible to work. If the Council were to decide to choose between these two options, removing the elector requirement while keeping the restriction on compensation would have the benefit of avoiding potential legal concerns while still opening up participation on City boards and commissions to a greater segment of the community.
D. Council Member Compensation
On October 16, 2023, the Council requested a discussion of Council compensation at a future study session. While a Charter amendment is not required, for convenience this topic is included as part of tonight’s study session.
As a reminder, the City Charter states that, “The mayor and other members of the city council shall each receive $600.00 per month compensation for their services as council. Compensation may be adjusted in the manner authorized by the general laws of the State for general law cities of the same population as San Mateo.” Chart. §2.03. Thus, the Charter builds in flexibility to adjust Council compensation consistent with general law cities without a Charter amendment.
Also consistent with state law as required by the Charter, a salary increase for the Council may only take effect once a Council member commences a new term. Specifically, “a change in compensation does not apply to a council member during the council member's term of office. This prohibition shall not prevent the adjustment of the compensation of all members of a council serving staggered terms whenever one or more members of the city council becomes eligible for a salary increase by virtue of the council member beginning a new term of office.” Govt. §36516.5. What this means is that if the Council chooses to approve a salary increase, it would not apply until after the next municipal election.
Under state law SB 329 (2023) effective on January 1, 2024, compensation for council members in general law cities may be increased, and for cities between 75,000 and 150,000, the maximum compensation will be $1,900 per month as of January 1, 2024, although inflationary or other limited increases are permitted as specified. Any adjustment to Council compensation must be accomplished by ordinance.
Below is a chart identifying compensation levels for Council members in San Mateo County. Some cities also provide other benefits including health, dental, vision, retirement (CalPERS), and/or an auto allowance.
CITY OF SAN MATEO
4 6
3 6
City Compensation/ Month
Atherton None
Brisbane $400
Burlingame $590
Colma $961
Daly City $1102.92 bi-weekly
Foster City $496
Half Moon Bay $1,056
Hillsborough None
Menlo Park $650
Millbrae $345
Pacifica $700
Redwood City $750
San Carlos $560
San Mateo $600
South SF $1000
Woodside None
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact associated with this study session. Should the Council direct staff to pursue further action on charter amendments, further analysis and scoping will be required. Hiring a ballot measure consultant and polling consultant will likely cost approximately $190,000. Placing each measure on the ballot at the consolidated November 5, 2024 election will also cost approximately $100,000, for a total of $390,000.
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).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met. Additionally, a public hearing notice was published for this study session.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Charter Amendments – Tracked Changes
LINKS
City Charter
City Council Guidelines
October 16, 2023 Study Session (Item 2)
STAFF CONTACT
Prasanna W. Rasiah, City Attorney
[email protected]
(650) 522-7020