20180521 Late CorrespondenceTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MAY 21, 2018
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No. Description of Material
1 Email from Ken Swenson
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Friday, May 18, 2018**.
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180521 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From: Emily Colborn
Sent:
To:
Monday, May 21, 2018 11:29 AM
Nathan Zweizig
Subject: FW : Proposed City Charter
Late correspondence for tonight.
~ Emily Colborn, MMC, City Clerk
, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorn e Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5208
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: swensonsathome@aol.com [mailto:swensonsathome@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 9:42 PM
To: carolynn.petru@gmail.com
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Propsed City Charter
Thank you to the Charter City Committee for their long and diligent work putting this proposed City Charter
together. There are a few places where the document is objectively too open-ended, leaves too much to
undefined interpretation, or leaves gaps, and where I therefore believe the interest of the public is better
served with certain revisions. Therefore, please accept the following as my comments to the proposed
document. Underlined language constitutes proposed additions. AOL mail does not have a strikeout
function, so highlighted language is proposed for deletion. [Bold in brackets] signifies my remarks in
connection with suggested revisions.
Section 207 exclusions:
(c) Any land deed restricted as a nature or habitat preserve except to the extent such land is at any time in
the future lawfully removed from such deed restrictions.
(g) Any lease, franchise or contract with a term, inclusive of extension and renewal options, of ten (10)
years or less which is approved by four or more members of the city council.
Section 907:
(a) General Tax. The city council shall not impose, extend, or increase any general tax for general
government purposes unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by at least a
two-thirds [delete: majority] vote. A general tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is
imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved.
Section 910:
Election for Major Capital Projects. The appropriation and/or expenditure of City funds in excess of twenty
million dollars ($20,000,000), whether as a single sum or as an aggregate of sums over time or in multiple I
installments for the same project. by the City or any entity thereof, such as a public financing authority, for
1 •
the development of public improvements or facilities must be approved by the voters of the City at an
election called for such purpose or, in the event of bona fide emergency [delete: urgency as any project
could be deemed "urgent" and such term is highly subjective], by a vote of at least four members of
the city council. For purposes of this section, the $20,000,000 trigger only applies to the City's funding of
the project, and not any grant or other noncity funding which does not count towards the limit [delete: and
does not include financing costs as financing costs, if paid from city funds, could be an important
and significant part of the project cost, perhaps even double depending on the time period for
repayment, and in any event if the project is being financed this is a material fact that should be
disclosed to the public just as is it required to be disclosed in just about every other aspect of life
from consumer finance to corporate securities; also excluding interest in the event of financing is
at odds with the principles underlying the requirements above that some types of indebtedness
require public vote], but would apply if City funds are spent over multiple years to carry out the
project. [Deletion of the yellow highlighted items below is recommend, or in the alternative, they
need to be much more closely defined as at present virtually every project be argued to fall outside
the voting requirement] In addition, the foregoing requirements for an election does not apply to:
(a) The conduct of feasibility studies, design work, or other planning or preconstruction activity, so long as
no commitment has been made to construct the public improvements or facility. [It is contrary to the
public approval requirement to be able spend $20MM plus on feasibility and design without public
approval. It also makes the subsequent vote on the project itself biased since the city will argue
that the project should be approved since it has already spent $20MM plus on the design--without
public approval, of course.]
(b) The maintenance, repair, or operation of any public improvement or facility. [While this is probably to
avoid having to go for public approval for things like replacing old sewer lines and similar
infrastructure repairs and maintenance, the lack of definition of any term in this carve-out means
that almost any project can be argued to fall within it, including, for example, the so-called
landslide abatement project.]
(c) The redesign or modification of any public improvement or facility which has already received voter
approval. [This has the flavor of bait and switch--the public approved one project and then project
will be changed into something different from what the voters thought they were approving. It may
be that this deficiency could be addressed by inserting the word "material" before "redesign or
modification."]
Section 913:
The city council may, by ordinance, establish procedures for the procurement of supplies, services,
construction of public works, and the like. Such ordinance may provide requirements and procedures for
competitive bidding, and award to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder except that no competitive
bidding shall be required for sole source contracts, contracts for professional services, [delete: design
build contracts the city shouldn't even do design-build as it disincentivizes cost reduction in the
design phase, and in any event there are plenty of design-build firms and there is no reason not to
bid out this very important function--failing to do so creates a perception that something is amiss],
or contracts undertaken in response to emergency situations [delete: or other situations authorized by
ordinance of the city council this is much too broad and can take literally everything off the
competitive table--there are no criteria established; no rules for how the authorization occurs, and
no limitations on council's actions]. Formal bids need not be obtained for professional services, but
informal bids shall be obtained from at least three (3) individuals or firms, and a report shall be prepared
documenting the process used and the reasons for selecting the provider. Such ordinance may also
establish standards or qualifications for the screening of contractors or providers of goods and services by
a prequalification process, so that in specified circumstances factors other than price may be considered,
and a competitive registration process may be utilized based upon demonstrated competence and
2
qualifications in planning, design, development, finance, construction, maintenance, improvement, repair
and operational characteristics. On call contracts can also be let where after a bid process is completed,
contractors can be on standby to carry out maintenance, repair work and public improvements as the need
occurs. Appropriate contract controls can be prescribed by the city council in the purchasing
ordinance. The purchasing ordinance shall also establish criteria for insurance, bonding, liability,
transferability, changes, terms, enforcement and other factors.
[Also in this section or perhaps in the conflict of interest section there should be an anti-Nepotism
policy with respect to procurement--where Nepotism includes both council and staff.]
Ken Swenson
28981 Palos Verdes Dr. E., Rancho Palos Verdes
3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MAY 18, 2018
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for Monday night's meeting.
Item No. Description of Material
1 Emails from: Carolynn Petru; Chip Zelt; Lowell Wedemeyer
Respectfully submitted,
W:\01 City Clerk\LATE CORRESPONDENCE\2018 Cover Sheets\20180521 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Carolynn Petru <carolynn.petru@gmail.com>
Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:35 PM
cc
RPV Citizens Charter Website
Dear Honorable Mayor & City Council -
In addition to the materials included in the May 21st agenda packet, I wanted to let you know that the RPV
Citizens Charter Committee also has a website available at the link below:
https :// ci tizenscharteradm. wixsite.com/rpvci tizenscharter
In addition to the draft charter document and crosswalk, the website also includes a Frequently Asked Questions
page and the following PDF background documents for download:
• 2011 RPV Proposed City Charter
• A Quick Summary of Charter Cities (League of CA Cities)
• Foundational Aspects of Charter Cities (UC Berkeley School of Law)
• General Law vs. Charter Cities Comparison Chart (League of CA Cities)
• List of California Charter Cities (League of CA Cities)
• Charter Cities and Prevailing Wage (California Land Use Blog)
I hope this additional information is helpful. The committee is looking forward to presenting and discussing the
draft charter with you next Monday evening.
Best regards,
Carolynn Petru
/
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Carolynn:
Chip Zelt <chipzelt@gmail.com>
Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:48 PM
Carolynn Petru; CC
Re: RPV Citizens Charter Website
WOW! Great job on the website! Looking forward to the RPV city council meeting this coming Monday, see
you all then. Thanks Chip
On 5/17/2018 12:35 PM, Carolynn Petru wrote:
Dear Honorable Mayor & City Council -
In addition to the materials included in the May 21st agenda packet, I wanted to let you know
that the RPV Citizens Charter Committee also has a website available at the link below:
https :// citizenscharteradm. wixsite.com/rpvcitizenscharter
In addition to the draft charter document and crosswalk, the website also includes a Frequently
Asked Questions page and the following PDF background documents for download:
• 2011 RPV Proposed City Charter
• A Quick Summary of Charter Cities (League of CA Cities)
• Foundational Aspects of Charter Cities (UC Berkeley School of Law)
• General Law vs. Charter Cities Comparison Chart (League of CA Cities)
• List of California Charter Cities (League of CA Cities)
• Charter Cities and Prevailing Wage (California Land Use Blog)
I hope this additional information is helpful. The committee is looking forward to presenting and
discussing the draft charter with you next Monday evening.
Best regards,
Carolynn Petru
1 /.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Madam City Clerk:
Lowell R. Wedemeyer < lowell@transtalk.com >
Thursday, May 17, 2018 1:03 PM
CityClerk
City council agenda for Monday, May 21 (city charter)
2018-05-17-COMMENTS UPON DRAFT CITY CHARTER.docx
Please provide the attached memorandum to the city council and the public as late correspondence
for the meeting of Monday, May 21, with respect to the city charter agenda item.
Thank you.
Lowell R. Wedemeyer
\ .
1
COMMENTS UPON DRAFT CITY CHARTER, Version of May 11, 2018
I support the goal of home rule by adoption of a city charter. 1
The May 11 draft addresses every major topic of city governance in 55 pages of detail. The
May 11 draft charter is a work in progress. Recently it has been recognized that new
restrictions upon the existing legislative powers of the city council pervade this May 11 draft.
This is because proposed charter section 109 provides,
"No such proposal [for amendment, repeal or revision of this charter or any portion
thereof] shall be effective until approved by a majority vote of the City's voters .... "
When section 109 is applied to the 55 pages of detail the following questions become
apparent:
Which ordinances of the existing city municipal code should be copied into the charter
where those ordinances could not be amended, revised or repealed by the city council,
but only by vote of the electors? (The city council can propose, only voters can
approve.)
Which existing ordinances should be left outside the charter and thus subject to future
amendment, revision or repeal by ordinary majority vote of the city council?
The issue is not whether existing ordinances should remain in force --they nearly all will
under section 102. Rather, the issue is whether existing ordinances should remain subject
to plenary authority of future city councils to amend, revise or repeal.
1 As always, this memo addresses only public policy. It is not intended as criticism of any person. This memo
should never be read to question the good faith of any person. This is purely a comment upon differences in
public policy.
Comment on May 11 Draft Charter 2018-05-17 Page 1
I invite members of the city council, and members of the public, to ask themselves as they
read each sentence of the May 11 draft charter:
Should this subject matter be removed from the ordinary power of the city council and
limited only to a vote of electors?
The detailed answers to this question will profoundly affect future relationships:
Between city council and the city manager;
Between city council and the city attorney;
Between citizens and the city manager; and
Between citizens and city staff.
It is a very big deal whether or not a charter withdraws a particular topic from the power of the
city council and restricts amendment, revision and repeal to a vote of electors.
Because the 55-page May 11 draft charter covers nearly every topic of municipal affairs, the
core of nearly all municipal affairs would be withdrawn from the plenary authority of future city
councils. I have found it practically impossible to foresee all of the ways this 55 -page draft
charter would pinch off and complicate future city council flexibility. For this reason, I would
simply delete most of the 55 pages of detail in the May 11 draft charter. That would preserve
the existing authority of the city council over such details.
The May 11 draft charter extensively, permanently delegates powers and authority to the
non-elected city manager and city attorney. It prescribes budgeting procedures in great
detail. It also states blanket criminal and infraction penalties for "violation" of "any" ordinance.
It does not expressly provide for purely civil, non-criminal enforcement, but literally reads as
a blanket criminalization of all ordinances. On all of these topics this draft charter would
restrict the power of the city council. There is insufficient room in this comment to identify
and discuss each topic where this 55-page, May 11 draft charter would withdraw authority
from the city council. All of these issues currently are within the existing, plenary power of
the city council to adopt ordinances and resolutions.
Comment on May 11 Draft Charter 2018-05-17 Page 2
I do not oppose all charter limits on city council power, but I do believe that restrictions on city
council power should be sparing. Each such restriction should be carefully, individually
evaluated and precisely, narrowly focused.
I broadly differ with the "cross-walk" document that was submitted with the May 11 draft
charter. On numerous topics where that "cross-walk" document lists a "no" (meaning 'no
change from existing municipal code'), I would answer "yes" on that topic.
It is true (subject to proof reading) that the text of existing ordinances has been copied into
the draft charter without change. I believe that this is the spirit in which "no" has been stated
in the "cross-walk." However, it also is true that copying the text of an ordinance into the
charter will remove that subject matter from the plenary power of future city councils by
reason of draft charter section 109. Therefore, on most of the topics listed as "no" in the
"cross-walk" document I answer "yes," the draft charter will make an important change from
existing practice of Rancho Palos Verdes as a general law city.
I believe that there likely will be widely spread voter concern about elimination of city council
power and flexibility on broad aspects of municipal government. A few aspects of proposed
charter restrictions of city council power were discussed at the most recent, fourth public
discussion of the draft charter at PVIC. Numerous attendees expressed concern about
restriction of the city council's flexibility to handle new and different circumstances as they
may arise. However, there has not yet been a full public discussion of this broad issue
poised by the May 11 draft charter as a whole.
Before a final proposed charter is submitted to voters the proposed restrictions on city council
authority should be publicly debated in detail on each section of the draft charter. A
community consensus should be reached if possible. Each section of the draft charter must
be evaluated individually because the potential impacts of charter section 109 tend to vary
by the subject matter of the ordinance that is incorporated into the charter.
Comment on May 11 Draft Charter 2018-05-17 Page 3
Again, I strongly support expansion of home rule by city charter. But it really matters what
else this May 11 draft charter would do. The charter submitted to voters should not be
burdened with wholesale restrictions upon the historic, existing power of the city council.
The solution is obvious and easy: prune this May 11 draft charter to remove most of the 55
pages of detail. Leave that detail within the plenary authority of future city councils so they
have flexibility to deal with changed circumstances. That will more closely approach existing
city practice than does the May 11 draft charter.
Lowell R Wedemeyer May 17, 2018.
Comment on May 11 Draft Charter 2018-05-17 Page 4