Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/02/1991, 3 - ELECTION CONCERNING STATE WATER PROJECTORIGINAL AGENDA REPORT FPOM 11/27 & 12/11 CDLNCIL 1=17INGS. 9fIIlU� f�� city o f San WIS OBISpo tITEM , pqT COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MBER: F ROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officerho__00� SUBJECT: Election Concerning State Water Project CAO RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Determine the timing for an election concerning City participation in the State Water Project. 2. Determine whether the election should be binding or advisory. DISCUSSION Background On July 31, 1990, the City Council approved in concept the holding of an election regarding City participation in the State Water Project. The Council directed staff to begin a dialogue with the County relative to holding such an election on a county -wide, consolidated basis. No decisions were made at that time concerning the specific timing for such an election or whether the election should be binding or advisory in nature. Following the July 31 meeting, officials and City officials consolidated election. In ad possibility with several other Chairperson Evelyn Delany in September 27, 1990. staff met several times with County to explore the possibility of a dition, Mayor Dunin discussed this mayors and with Board of Supervisor a Mayors /Managers meeting held on In summary, holding a County lead consolidated election on State Water does not appear feasible. The County's position is that because not all County jurisdictions are subscribers to the State Water Project, it would be undesirable for the County to hold the election. With respect to the cities, there are very different ideas as to how to decide on the State Water Project. For example, Arroyo Grande is following a "two- step" election procedure. First, in November they will ask voters to determine if the matter ought to be decided by a binding vote; second, if the answer is yes, it will be placed on a future ballot for final action. Other cities indicated that they did not intend to place the matter on the ballot at all; instead, the city council will decide. Because the City of San Luis Obispo will now need to determine independently the approach to holding a State Water election, staff is returning at this time for further direction concerning the timing and nature of such an election. W 'i lll city of San tuts OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Council Agenda Report "Window" for Holding Elections in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties Since July 31, in addition to pursuing the concept of a consolidated election, discussion with various county and city officials has provided a better understanding of the possible "scenario" for elections occurring within San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties. Based on these discussions, the most likely process and deadline for holding elections is as follows: First. November 1991 may be the last opportunity to place the matter before the electorate. This is because of a kind of "domino effect" which is expected to be triggered by Santa Maria in January 1991 and will ultimately impose a deadline on both Santa Barbara County and our county. Santa Barbara County officials have explained that when one member of the Santa Barbara County Water Agency takes action on the State Water issue (e.g. Santa Maria), then contractually all other member agencies must act within six months. Assuming that the Santa Maria City Council will act in January, the Santa Barbara County Water Agency is planning to place a question on the June 1991 ballot asking voters if they will approve the issuance of a revenue bond to support the capital costs of the project. An affirmative vote is tantamount to also approving the State Water Project. Once Santa Barbara County has acted on the matter, then the State will give San Luis Obispo County a limited period of time to make a decision. If a decision is not made within that time period, then the County will be excluded from the project and project design will be initiated to serve Santa Barbara County only. State officials have informally indicated that the State will give SLO County a maximum of six months beyond Santa Barbara's June 1991 election. For this reason, the November 1991 ballot is likely to be a "last election opportunity ". Status of Final EIRs The timeframe for completing the final environmental impact reports for the Coastal Branch (State project) and the local projects may affect when the Council determines it appropriate to schedule the State Water Project issue for an election. According to the State Department of Water Resources, due to the volume of comments received regarding the Draft EIR, the State does not anticipate certification of the final document until the "Spring of 1991 ". Thus far, the State is unable to be more specific than this general timeframe. Therefore, according to MY Of San LUIS OBI SPO MIhMe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page Three Council Agenda Report their current estimate the final EIR may not be available until as late as June 20, 1991 (the last day of Spring). The County Environmental Coordinator estimates certification of the Local Projects EIR in August 1991. Supplemental information concerning the County's State Water subscribers and the EIR /election process is provided in a memorandum from the County Administrative Office (Attachment 1). Council Decisions 1. Timing: Special or General Election? The Council needs to determine whether the State Water issue should be brought to the voters in a special election or in the next regular City election, which is November 1991. The decision to schedule a special election may be impacted by the following considerations: • The availability of the Final EIR. At this point, if a special election was to be scheduled in June 1991, it is possible, though not certain, that the final Coastal Branch EIR document will be available prior to Election Day. It is important to note, however, that even if the document becomes available prior to an election, there may not be adequate lead time to integrate consideration of the final EIR information in the election process discussion. The Local Project EIR is not anticipated until August 1991. On the other hand, the Final EIR documents are expected to be available in time to fully consider their findings prior to November 1991. • "Coordination" with Santa Barbara County's consideration of State Water. If the scenario outlined earlier occurs, there may be an advantage to a June 1991 election in terms of the community considering the State Water issue at the same time it is being debated by cities in Santa Barbara County. The advantage would be in terms of any benefits which might be derived from the discussion and public focus on the issue which will occur simultaneously (and thus hopefully provide for a more informed electorate). This could help compensate for the fact that the final State EIR document may not be available. J *g• 3 V 11IVII1 1IIId$ city of San Luis OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT rage rour Council Agenda Report By November 1991, State Water decisions by other SLO County cities may be known, although only San Luis Obispo will hold a regular election at that time. If the Santa Barbara scenario plays out as expected, the results of that election will also be known. • Voter Turnout. Voter turnout is a highly variable matter, depending to a large degree on the issues and scope of the ballot. Based on past history, however, the City Clerk estimates that turnout for either a June Special Election or the November regular election is likely to be similar, in the 35% to 40% range. • Cost. A special election could cost the City as much as $50,000, whereas adding the State Water question to the November 1991 ballot could only cost an additional $4,000 - $5,000. • Special Election for Other Issues? At the present time, it is not mandatory for the City to hold a special election for other issues. With respect to the WATER Initiative petition, the City Clerk has indicated that a Certificate of Sufficiency will be submitted to the Council soon for acceptance. Because the petition did not qualify for a special election, it will therefore be scheduled for the next Regular Municipal Election in November 191. However, if a special election is held for State Water, Council could add the WATER Initiative question on the same ballot. With respect to Tract 1750, a referendum was filed in the City.Clerk's Office on November 1, with 4,633 signatures. Because only 2,482 signatures (10 %) are required, the referendum appears likely to qualify, necessitating placing this issue on the next Regular Municipal Election. However, like the Water Initiative, it could be placed on an earlier special election, if desired. As of this writing, though publically discussed, no formal proceedings have commenced regarding recall or the Smoking Ordinance. 2. Binding or Advisory Election? Although this is primarily a "philosophical" issue, it may be helpful for Council to consider this question in the context of election timing. For example, if it is considered advantageous to schedule the issue for an early special o►u►gIIIIIIpiai11jl city of San Luis OBISPO VINGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page Five Council Agenda Report election (prior to completion of the EIR), the Council may prefer an advisory election so that community input is obtained at an early time, but a final decision deferred until the EIR is available. Whether the Council chooses a binding or advisory vote, the specific ballot language will be a matter of importance. while staff will return to Council at a later time with ballot language alternatives (after the question of binding versus advisory is resolved) , outlined below are binding/ advisory language examples used in previous elections: Binding "Shall the City Charter be amended to allow the City Attorney to prosecute misdemeanors as infractions ?" (June 1986) "Shall the City Charter be amended to add Section 908 to require that annexed lands may only be developed consistent with the General Plan ?" (November 1985) Advisory "Should the City of San Luis Obispo amend its Growth Management Ordinance to apply to all development in our City ?" (November 1989) "Should the City continue programs to protect sensitive hillsides including consideration of the purchase of open space ?" (November 1983) Summary of Issues In order to properly plan for an election on the State Water Project, direction from the Council at this time is requested regarding the following two questions: 1. Should a special election be held regarding City participation in the State Water Project, or should the issue be scheduled for the next regular election in November 1991 (if a special election is preferred, in what month should it be held)? 2. Should the election be binding or advisory in nature? -5 �1��i�i��iIIIIII�1 111��II city of San LUIS osIspo mm . i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page Six Council Agenda Report ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may determine that in light of all current information, it would be preferable for the City Council to decide on the State Water issue without taking the matter to an election. 2. The Council may determine that a survey of resident opinion concerning the State Water project would be preferable to holding either a special or regular election on the issue (e.g., in utility bills). Such an approach would provide greater flexibility and lower cost than a special advisory election. However, it would be a less formal and controlled process than an election. ATTACHMENT: County Memorandum KH \state.wtr 09/25/° 13:17 SAN LUIS OHISPL JUNTY ADMIN OFC 002 County of San Luis Obispo C'.pi&Ty Goww mt;wr CFJ.'iu • Sm Lm Ost9ro. CAMVM 93408 • (905) 549•SOI I TO: CHRIS CHRISTIANSEN, CITY MANAGER CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RAY WINDSOR, CITY MANAGER CITY OF ATASCADERO ARNOLD DOWDY, CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF GROVER CITY GARY MAPPER, CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF MORRO BAY JERRY BANKSTON, CITY MANAGER CITY OF PASO ROBLES RICHARD L. KIRKWOOD, CITY MANAGER 'CITY OF PISMO BEACH JOHN DUNN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF SAN LUIS B SPO CMCE OFTUt CPR WW A0M[NWMT0R FROM: ROBERT E. HENDRIX OUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1990 SUBJECT: MSR>SS=V MATEF=S FOR MAYORS AND MANAGEW MEETING - SiPIEMBFR 26, 1990 I asked the Engineering Department to put together some information for you and Your Mayor about the State Water project as this might have a bearing on the matter of advisory elections. Following are a listing of potential State water users, a discussion on elections and alternatives. Who are potential State water users? a. Cities (1) San Luis Obispo (2) Atascadero (Served (3) Paso Robles (4) Arroyo Grande (S) Grover City (6) Morro Say (7) Pismo Beach by Atascadero Mutual Water Co.) b. Community Services District (1) Nipomc (2) Oceano (3) Templeton 3 e- 00? 09i25i9P 13:17 SAN LUIS OBISPO "'AUNTY ADMIN OFC 003 C. County service Areas (Board of Supervisors) (1) Los Osos (Also served by Cal Cities water Company, a private company regulated by Public Utilities Commission and S 6 T Mutual Water Company) (2) Shandon d. Water works Districts (Board of Supervisors) (1) Cayuccs (Also served by two mutual water co*z nies - Paso Robles Beach water Association and Morro Rock Mutual water Company) (2) Santa Margarita e. County water Districts (Governed by own Board of Directors) (1) Avila Beach County Water District f. Other potential users that may not, or can not, participate in an Advisory Election (1) County Operations Center /E1 Chorro Park (2) California Men's Colony (3) Cuesta College (4) Port San Luis Harbor District (5) Cal Cities water Service Areas for: (a) County Club /Rolling Hills Estates (b) Nipomo The timing of the environmental review on the project appears to have a bearing on when an advisory election might occur. The lead times involved in the election's process area also relevant. Assuming that elections should not be held until EIR's for both Coastal Branch (State project) and Local Projects are certified; the State now thinks that the Coastal Branch EIR could not be certified, in light of Comments received, until some time in 1991. The County Environmental Coordinator gave August 1991 as a target certification date for Local Projects EIR (Regional Treatment Plant and Spur Lines). The elections process requires about 90 daysl from time the Board places an item an the ballet before the election takes place. The Election Clerk within that time must take arguments for and against the measure, obtain rebuttals for and against the measure and provide for printing of ballot pamphlets and the ballots themselves. The dates that elections can take place are limited. The earliest potential date is November 5, 1991. If this date is selected for Advisory Elections then the last reasonable date for board of Supervisors action to consolidate elect cns would be August 61 1991. A better decision date would be in July to give the Board flexibility. If November 1991 were chosen, we would estimate about a 30% voter turnout. ------------------ - - - - -- (lactually varies from 88 to 113 days) V / 09.2° 13!19 SAN LUIS OBISPO k SY ADMIN OFC 00/1 The next available election day is the seeona Tusmlay of April 2.092 (A city election Par the general lAV cities Jung �am and regular Tuesday after first Tuesday afFsr the ilrEL Monday in the first Monday in Novembor 1992. In this ccur&y, all des, except the City of San Luis OIiI ?Or hold aloctir+ns in Tune or N(Nwg)er on just the even numbered years. The City att Stith Luis Obispo changed to Noveanber of the odd numbered years- to correspond school districts and special districts elections. other alternatives we iaentiried for peeking constituent opinion aret a mail ballot on a day other than the three regular election large to comply with the Unfuitunate. a:c3i an aAvisory ma 19 uixutnelts of the ZjsLijQns Code for a mail ballot ou an Advicory qu4Aticn- Seocodly, there is the alternative of using questionnaires mailed with vator bills. This could save money and result in a greater response than might be expected in an off -yoar olection. I hope this information assists in the discussion yr iseuco at the meeting. I asks'! Clint Milne to attAnd and to assist with any questions that may arise. REH:njm #3 /advisory 3� 9 MEETING A,r_ "yDA DATE �- � III IIIII o c� of sAn luis �s 990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8100 Wno,cs action by r— L6a P, e:= December 10, 1990 C� Au L;101' Memorandu Fil e. TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: KEN HAMPIAN, ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SUBJECT: STATE WATER PROJECT During the December 11, 1990 meeting, the Council will consider an item regarding the State Water Project election. In the report prepared for this item, staff highlights that due to timing constraints imposed by the Santa Barbara Water Agency and the State, November 1991 may represent the City's the last opportunity to place the issue on the ballot. J. Questions have been raised regarding the legal basis behind the timing constraints established for the State Water Project. With respect to Santa Barbara County, responsibility for the State Water Project was transferred to the Santa Barbara Water Agency (which represents all the water purveyors in Santa Barbara County) in the early 1980's. With the transfer, the Water Agency took complete responsibility for State Water, including funding and overseeing the progress of the project. In establishing the Water Agency, each participant signed a retention agreement which contractually obligated them to act on State Water within six months of any other participants' decision on the project (staff is in the process of obtaining a copy of the retention agreement for the Council's review). City of Santa Maria staff has confirmed that the City is likely to take action on State Water in January or February of 1991. In the case of the County of San Luis Obispo, a master contract was entered into with the State in 1963 to participate in the State Water Project. The master contract obligates the County to make a decision on the State Water Project within six months of receiving a request from the State to act on the project. Under the master contract, the State will request a decision from the County six months in advance of the date that final design plans are scheduled to commence for the project (projected, at this time, to take place right after the certification of the Master EIR and the County of Santa Barbara's decision to move forward). Copies of the language relating to this provision of the Master Contract have been attached for the Council's review. JM10 Page Two State Water Memo Questions have also been raised as to whether the City can hold an election on the State Water Project prior to certification of the Master EIR and Local EIR for the project. While there is a lot of speculation on this issue, the County of San Luis Obispo has yet to take a formal position. According to our City Attorney, certification of the Master EIR and Local EIR prior to the election is not likely to be a legal matter if the ballot language is carefully worded. As an example, the County of Santa Barbara held an election on whether to participate in the State Water Project over ten years ago. Obviously, environmental impact information was not available at that time. Rather, the issue centers on Council policy. It will be up to the Council to determine the amount of environmental information that should be available to the public prior to the election so that an opportunity exists to make an informed decision. Please contact me at extension 112 if you have questions. Thank you. J'�/ E. SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND TABLES 45. SPECIAL PROVISIONS (a) The State shall provide sufficient Capacity In the bonsportation facilities a dollar the Agency's "minutes annual entitlement at a epntimu.-_ flow subject to the provisional of Article 17 (b). No Capacity shall be provided far peaking. (b) For purposes of subdivisions (C), (d), and (e) of this article, dealing With eommemC. tion of the Coastal Aqueduct. the tern "Coastal Stub Aqueduct" shat) mean that portion of the Coastal Aqueduct beginning at the junction With the San Joaquin ValleySouthem Califomta Aqua- duct in the vicinity of Avenel. Kings County, and extending to a point about 12 miles along the route of the Coastal Aqueduct, ending at an elevation of about S70 feet above mqan sea level, at the )ovation of the intake to proposed Pumping Plant C4. (c) The Agency shall have the right to Withdraw from participation in the Coastal Aque- duct downstream from the Coastal Stub Aqueduct: Provided. That payments of the Transportation Charge for other reaches listed in Table 1. end of the Delta Water Charge shall Continue for the term of this contract: Provided further. That any such withdrawal must be made by a request for change of Table I submitted in Writing to the State prim to the date an which the State eomme pas final design on the reach under consideration. The State shall notify the Agency sit months in ad- vane Of thedi to an which final design Will Commence on any Mach of the Coastal Aqueduct down - frm the Casual Stub Aqueduct. (d) Notwithstanding Article 6(a) and 17(a) of this contract• the Sate shall advance or delay construction of any reaches of the Coastal Aqueduct if all eoouactors taking Water threugh ■ reach request a flange in the year of initial water delivery: Provided. That any contractor Mrough Ing a delay in the eomintetion of any each shall submit a request by January n actor and any contractor requesting the advance of construction of any reach shall submit a iryo1. m Isanl five years in advance of theestimated year of initial Water delivery. Unless all t a radon taking sister through a reach of the Coastal Aqueduct request a change in the year o! initial delivery, water shall be scheduled so that the year of initial Water deli the hen mochas l en very. on t the Coastal Stub Aqueduct is 1980. (e) Notwithstanding the pmvis:ars of Articles 23 and Za of this contract, in the event that construction of am mscS of the Coastal Stub Aqueduct is commenced more than S years prior to the year of initial water delivery for :rte Atescy 1Sete shall be deducted until the year 1976 or until S veam prior to the year of in::ial rater delivery, Whichever, is entire:. from the annual pay• meet of principal interest ipal and in which would otherwise be required by Article 34(c) (1) an amount equal to the annual payment of pr nc:FM •ad interest under the Capital cost component of the Tans - Portotion Charge attributable item veer to ':ear to the Agenei's allocated share of the Cost of con- srructimg such portions of the Coastal Aqueduct. Such amounts shall be accumulated. With interest thereon computed at the project interest :ate and compounded annually, until December 31, of the fifth veor prior to the estimated year of initial water delivery or of the year 1975. Whichever is earlier: thereafter the total accumulated a -runt shall be ■id in lift 50 P y ( ) equal annual install - mems under the provisions of Article ;a(c) in the same manner as though the entire amount had bees expended for cuesrmction purposes :n that year. If no other water. supply Contracts am axe- cured for a dependable supply of Plittct rarer to be delivered from delivery structures on the Coastal Srub Aqueduct. the rights of the Agony under subdivisions (d) and (d) of this article shall apply to the Coastal Stub Aqueduct. (f) Subject to approval by the Sate and pursurm to an agreement to be entered into with the State govemine operating criteria, the Ag"rcv roar construct the Coastal Aqueduct or any reach thereof with its owe funds or in cooperation with other agenctea including the federal government. (g) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 39(m), the Agency shall emo enc@ payment Of the capital cost and the minimum operation. maintenance, power and replacment man more of the Delta Rater Charge according to the schedule in Table A of this contract in the year of Ini- tial Water delivers or 1980. whichever is ea:!ier: PniideL That such Charge shall not be paid in a year or years in which the State is scheduled to cmmenCa delivery but through no fault of the Agency fails to eommemee such delivery of sourer. Cod �tio L� 3-'� TABLE A ANNUAL SAN LUIS OBISFO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND MATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Ywr 1980 1981 198] 1987 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 And each auctmedia8 year thereafter fm the term of L%ia contract u e Maximum Annual Entitlement: 4 Teed Aeeeal Amewt le Aere.Feat 1.000 I.= 7.000 7.000 4.500 7.500 10.000 [7.500 15.500 70.000 75.000 75.900 J--,//