Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-03-2022 City Council Agenda PacketSaratoga City Council Agenda August 3, 2022 – Page 1 of 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 3, 2022 Teleconference/Public Participation Information to Mitigate the Spread of COVID‐19 This meeting will be held entirely by teleconference. All members of the City Council and staff will only participate via the Zoom platform using the process described below. The meeting is being conducted pursuant to recent amendments to the teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act allowing teleconferencing during a proclaimed state of emergency when local official have recommended social distancing. The purpose of the amendments is to provide the safest environment for the public, elected officials, and staff while allowing for continued operation of the government and public participation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Members of the public can view and participate in the 6:00 p.m. Special Meeting by: • Using the Zoom website https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82263066102; Webinar ID 822 6306 6102 OR • Calling 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833 and entering the Webinar ID provided above. The public will not be able to participate in the meeting in person. Written Communication Comments can be submitted in writing at www.saratoga.ca.us/comment. Written communications will be provided to the members of the Council and included in the Agenda Packet and/or in supplemental meeting materials. Public Comment Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3) minutes. The amount of time for public comment may be reduced by the Mayor or by action of the City Council. Meeting Recording Information In accordance with the Saratoga City Council’s Meeting Recording Policy, City Council Study Sessions, Joint Meetings, Joint Sessions, Commission Interviews, Retreats, meetings with the Planning Commission, and Regular Session Meetings are recorded and made available following the meeting on the City website. 6:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING ROLL CALL REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 29, 2022. Saratoga City Council Agenda August 3, 2022 – Page 2 of 2 1. GENERAL BUSINESS 1.1. Argument in Favor – Term Limit Ballot Measure Recommended Action: Approve an Argument in Favor for the City’s Term Limit Ballot Measure being presented to voters at the November 8, 2022 General Municipal Election or amend Resolution 22-018 to revise the ballot argument authorizations. Staff Report Attachment A– Mayor Walia August 3 Draft Argument in Favor Attachment B– Council Member Bernald August 3 Draft Argument in Favor Attachment C – July 20 Draft Arguments in Favor Attachment D - Resolution Amending Resolution 22-018 Attachment E - Resolution 22-018 Attachment F - Written Communications ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT I, Britt Avrit, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council was posted and available for review on July 29, 2022 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 29th day of July 2022 at Saratoga, California. Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda, copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda, and materials distributed to the City Council by staff after the posting of the agenda are available on the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us and are available for review in the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Governor’s Executive Order, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at bavrit@saratoga.ca.us or calling 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the meeting. The City will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 3, 2022 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY: Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk SUBJECT: Argument in Favor – Term Limit Ballot Measure RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve an Argument in Favor for the City’s Term Limit Ballot Measure being presented to voters at the November 8, 2022 General Municipal Election or amend Resolution 22-018 to revise the ballot argument authorizations. BACKGROUND: The General Municipal Election of the City of Saratoga will be held on Tuesday, November 8 for the purpose of filling three Council Member seats and submitting the following Ballot Measure regarding City Council term limits to the voters: Shall the City of Saratoga adopt an ordinance establishing term limits for members of the Saratoga City Council, limiting individuals to serving two terms and specifying the duration of various types of partial terms that are considered a term for the purposes of term limits? At its May 18 meeting, the City Council was presented with the three following options regarding ballot arguments: • Option A: Authorize the City Council as a body to submit a written argument in favor or against the measure, signed by the Mayor as the authorized representative of the City Council. In the event that an argument is filed taking the opposite position, the City Council as a body is authorized to submit a rebuttal to that argument. • Option B: Authorize specific member(s) of the City Council to submit a written argument in favor or against the measure. At the specified member(s) discretion, the argument may also be signed by other members of the City Council, bona fide associations, or individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure. In the event that an opposing argument is filed, the specified member(s) is also authorized to submit a rebuttal argument, which, at the specified member(s)’ discretion, may also be signed by members of the City Council, bona fide associations, or individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure. Signatures on the rebuttal argument may be different from those who signed the primary argument. 3 • Option C: Take no action with regard to authorizing the Council, or member or members of the Council to submit a written argument in favor or against the measure. In this case arguments could be filed by any voter, a bona fide association of citizens, or any combination of voters and associations. The Council chose Option A and adopted Resolution 22-018 authorizing “the City Council as a body to submit the written Argument in Favor of the measure and a written Rebuttal to any Argument Against the Measure.” At that time, the City Council agreed the Mayor would draft the Argument in Favor and return on July 20 for the full Council to review the Argument. The Mayor’s original draft is provided in Attachment C. Council Member Bernald provided an alternative Argument in Favor for the Council’s consideration for that meeting and is also provided in Attachment C. At the July 20 meeting, the City Council gave direction for the Mayor to work with one other Council Member to develop a revised Argument in Favor for the City Council to consider during a special meeting on August 3. Mayor Walia’s revised draft Argument is provided as Attachment A. Council Member Bernald also provided a revised alternative which is provided as Attachment B. Alternatively, the City Council may amend Resolution 22-018 to revise ballot argument authorizations to allow arguments to be filed by a bona fide association of citizens, any voter, or any combination of voters and associations. The City Council may amend the ballot argument authorizations by adopting a resolution (Attachment D) removing Section 3 of Resolution 22-018 (Attachment E). If the City Council adopts the resolution amending Resolution 22-018 and neither the Council as a body nor specific Council Member(s) are authorized to submit any of the arguments, then any voter, bona fide association, or combination of voters and associations may submit arguments and rebuttals. As required under California Elections Code, an argument submitted by a bona fide association will receive priority over an argument submitted by a voter or voters. If the City receives multiple arguments either for or against the measure from bona fide associations, voters, or combination of associations and voters, the City Clerk will follow the League of California Cities’ best practices for selection of an argument and will conduct a randomized drawing for argument selection. If two or more equally qualified bona fide associations or combination or associations and voters submit an argument, the City Clerk will choose the argument based on a random drawing which would be witnessed by any authors who submit an argument. If no arguments are submitted by an association and the City receives an argument by two or more equally qualified voters, the City Clerk will choose the argument based on a random drawing which would be witnessed by any authors who submit an argument. The City Clerk has not received any arguments in favor or in opposition to the measure as of the writing of this report. The deadline for the City Clerk to submit Primary Arguments to the Registrar of Voters is Tuesday, August 16. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A– Mayor Walia August 3 Draft Argument in Favor Attachment B– Council Member Bernald August 3 Draft Argument in Favor Attachment C – July 20 Draft Arguments in Favor Attachment D – Resolution Amending Resolution 22-018 Attachment E – Resolution 22-018 Attachment F – Written Communications 4 In 1992 City voters approved the non-binding Citizen Advisory measure. Now, let’s make it stick! Term limits are good because they: • Foster greater resident participation in local government; • Create more competitive elections; • Provide voters more choice at the ballot box; • Hold elected officials accountable; and • Promote fresh perspectives and ideas. Thirty years later, it is time to formalize the Citizen Initiative. Vote YES on Measure [ ]. 5 In 1992 City voters approved the non-binding Citizen Advisory measuere. Now, let’s make it stick! Term limits are good because they: • Foster greater resident participation in local government; • Create more competitive elections; • Provide voters more choice at the ballot box; • Hold elected officials accountable; and • Promote fresh perspectives and ideas. Thirty years later, it is time to formalize the Citizen Initiative. Vote YES on Measure [ ]. 6 Term limits for Saratoga city council members are necessary. Here’s why: • We are a small city that delivers quality services to our residents. In challenging times, we need innovative solutions to maintain our quality of life. Council members with new ideas are the best way to ensure that we keep moving forward. Saratoga does not need career politicians. • Saratoga council members represent the entire community. A two-term limit is an effective way to make sure that the interests of ALL Saratogans are represented, both long-time AND new residents. • Most council candidates serve as volunteers on a city commission before running for office, and understand how the city functions. They don’t need multiple terms in elective office to be effective. If council members can’t accomplish their goals in eight years, they should step aside. Thirty years ago, Saratoga residents overwhelmingly voted in favor of a two-term limit for city council members. At that time, state law permitted only advisory, not binding term limits. That restriction has since changed. A permanent two-term binding limit for city council members is long overdue. Vote yes on this Measure. 7 In 1992 the voters of the City of Saratoga overwhelmingly approved a non-binding advisory measure limiting the terms of Saratoga City Council members to two terms. At that time, State law permitted only voluntary compliance with this advisory vote. In 1996, the law changed. Measure [ ] will make term limits official. Many benefits come with term limits, including, but not limited to: • Fostering greater resident participation in local government; • Creating more competitive elections; • Providing voters more choice at the ballot box; • Promoting elected officials’ responsiveness to the public; and • Encouraging fresh perspectives and ideas. Thirty years later, it is time to formalize that Citizen Initiative. Term limits will improve our political process and keep our City government effective and accountable to voters. Vote YES on Measure [ ]. 8 (Modified version) Term limits for Saratoga city council members are necessary. Here’s why: • We are a small city that delivers quality services to our residents. In challenging times, we need innovative solutions to maintain our quality of life. Having Council members with new ideas and fresh perspectives are the best way to ensure that we keep moving forward. Saratoga does not need career politicians. • Saratoga council members represent the entire community. A two-term limit is an effective way to make sure that the interests foster participation of ALL Saratogans are represented, both long-time AND new residents. • Most council candidates serve as volunteers on a city commission before running for office, and understand how the city functions. They don’t need multiple terms in elective office to be effective. If council members can’t accomplish their goals in eight years, they should step aside. Eight years should enable council members to accomplish their goals and be effective and accountable. Thirty years ago, Saratoga residents overwhelmingly voted in favor of a two-term limit for city council members. At that time, state law permitted only advisory, not binding term limits. That restriction has since changed. A permanent two-term binding limit for city council members is long overdue. Vote yes on this Measure. 9 RESOLUTION NO. 22-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DELETING SECTION 3 OF RESOLUTION 22-018 WHEREAS, on May 18, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution 22-018 calling for an election to be held for the for the purpose of electing three (3) Council Members each for a full term of four (4) years and for the purpose of submitting to the voters the following question: Shall the City of Saratoga adopt an ordinance establishing term limits for members of the Saratoga City Council, limiting individuals to serving two terms and specifying the duration of various types of partial terms that are considered a term for the purposes of term limits? YES NO WHEREAS, section 3 of Resolution 22-018 authorized the City Council as a body to submit a written Argument in Favor of the measure and a written rebuttal to any argument against the measure; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to allow Arguments in Favor and written rebuttal arguments to be submitted pursuant to Elections Code Section 9281-9287. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga that: 1. Section 3 of Resolution 22-018 is hereby deleted. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a special meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 3rd day of August 2022, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Tina Walia, Mayor ATTEST: Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk 10 11 12 13 14 15 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Mary-Lynne Bernald; Yan Zhao; Rishi Kumar; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Friday, July 29, 2022 12:33:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Glenda Rossie Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Council Term Limits Comments Why don’t you be honest with the residents of Saratoga and tell everyone that your term limit is now 4 years? Don’t even suggest, on the ballot, that your term is 8 years! And don’t even promote that idea in your wording. It’s not honest and makes you untrustworthy. Term limits should be no more than 4 years! We don’t need the same people running this fine town, for any longer than 4 years. Serve, then move on. We need new people and new ideas, not self-promotion! Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 16 17