The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/02/1995, 7 - SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ""SUPERVOTE"" PROVISION."��H�i�i►�IIIIIIIIIP ►��III city of san lugs oBIspo Smozo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer f SUBJECT: San Luis Obispo Council of Governments "Supervote" provision. CAO RECOMMENDATION: MEETING DATE: 5/2/95 ITEM NUMBER: Review a report from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (COG) regarding the "Supervote" provision in the Joint Powers Agreement, and provide the City's COG representative with appropriate input on this issue. DISCUSSION: Attached is a self - explanatory correspondence from the COG concerning the "Supervote" provision within the Joint Powers Agreement that established the COG. The COG Board reviewed the provision and discussed various alternatives at its meeting of April 5, 1995. They then directed COG staff to ask each city council in the County to agendize the issue for input and recommendations. The City Council should review the attached material, and provide the City's delegate with aDDrODriate input or direction concerning the Council's nnsitinn nn Chic matter San Luis Ob.,�po Council of governments Regional Transportation Planning Agency Arroyo tascadero g p g g Y Grover Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization p� Morro s Congestion Management Agency San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Count ,% 11, 1995 Dear City Manager; RECEIIJAMZ APR 13, ac��nOlyA At the April 5th meeting of SLOCOG, the group discussed one provision of the Joint Powers Agreement that defines a Supervote. This provision has been somewhat controversial as the attached staff report shows, and staff were directed to request each city council to agend¢e the issue for input and recommendations. The staff report adequately describes the issue. Two options, however, were added to the list of possible SLOCOG actions during discussions. These options are: Option #5 Deadlock alternate. In the event that an issue is deadlocked because of a failed supervote on each side of the issue, an alternate 213 vote of attending members may be called by any member. Option #6 Other. [To be developed by City Council discussion] Any changes to the Joint Powers Agreement must be ratified by each city and the County. A change of the Supervote provision, therefore, must be capable of garnering widespread support or no change will take place. Please let your Council know we appreciate their comments and concerns and will carry them forward to SLOCOG at the next opportunity. Contact me at 781 -4251 if you have any questions on this issue. Sincerely, /" 02 4 C, Ronald L. De Carli Executive Director sue \su pervot. dan / �� 1150 Osos St. Suite 202, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ♦ Tel. (805) 781 -4219 ♦ Fax. (805) 781 -5703 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS MEETING DATE Apnl 5; 1995 <: f iSUBJECT Review o the; "Supervo PO theCOG Jont Powers i Agreement (JPA) SUMMARY Events at recent SLOCOG meetings have focused much attention on the "supervote" provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). This has lead to a request from Delegate Carden for an agenda item to review the supervote issue. This item was agendized and discussed in January 1994, the minutes regarding the item are attached (see C -1 -4). The "supervote" is the requirement for 8 affirmative votes to take an action that may be requested by any member Agency. This provision is contained in Section V, 5. of the JPA as follows: V. OPERATIONS 5. "Forthe purposes of conducting business, there shall be a quorum consisting of a majority of representatives, including (1) COUNTY representative. No action shall be effective without the affirmative votes of a majority of those present. However, eight (8) affirmative votes shall be required for taking any action in the event that any agency demands such a vote. The representatives to SLOCOG shall adopt such procedures as are consistent with this Agreement and necessary to conduct the business of SLOCOG in an orderly manner." Two issues have been proposed for consideration: 1. Should the supervote be maintained as a part of the Joint Powers Agreement? 2. What shall be considered an "agency" - as applied to this provision - regarding the 5 members of the Board of Supervisors who each sit on the SLOCOG Governing Board as a Representative ? Any change to the language of the JPA would require approval of all member agencies. The adopted SLOCOG Rules of Procedure do not specifically address this issue. RECOMMENDATION Staff: Review and provide direction. CTAC: Did not review. TTAC: Did not review. supemapr C-1-1 -J Option 2: Modify "supervote" to a two - thirds (2/3rds) policy This modification is consistent with the existing policy but establishes a sliding scale based on attendance. The necessary affirmative vote would be: 8 of 12, 8 of 11, 7 of 10, 6 of 9, 6 of 8, and 6 of 7. (No quorum below 7) Pros - Requires a substantial majority consensus accounting for the lack of attendance. Cons - Six (6) affirmative votes could approve an issue although it is not a majority of SLOCOG membership. Option 3: Modify "supervote" to majority of membership This option drops the "supervote" requirement to seven (7) affirmative votes and adds the provision that at least one of the seven (7).affirmative votes is from the County. Pros - Weakens the effect of the existing "supervote" provision. Maintains the majority provision, while allowing adequate protection to City and County interests, and mitigating gridlock resulting from reduced attendance. Cons - Does not provide the same level of assurance for the Cities or the County to hinder City vs. County provincial issues. Option 4: Modify "supervote" to majority of attendees This option basically cancels the "supervote" concept. A majority of attendees, with as few as four (4) affirmative votes out of seven (7) attendees could conduct business. Pros - Attendance at SLOCOG meetings would likely rise. Cons - No provisions or safeguards for the County or Cities to block provincial issues affecting their jurisdiction. s"PC rvLa Pr C-1-3 17—'!� M 1eg]5M COUNTY * ii e 3825 South Iliiguera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406 -0112 • (805) 781 -7800 In The Superior Court of The State of California In and for the County of San Luis Obispo AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION A city of M san tuts oslspo CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC dV 7719(}0 -2 HEARINGS. On Tuesday, May 2, City of SLO 1995, the San Luis Obispo City Council will hold public hearings beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Cham- STATE OF CALIFORNIA, bers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, on the items listed ss. below. The reports will be County of San Luis Obispo available for review in the City Clerk's Department on the Wednesday before the I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of !meeting. For mor tion, please call 761 - 7103. the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen The Council mny also and not interested in the above entitled matter, 1 am discuss other hearings or business items before or now, and at all times embraced in the publication p after those listed. If you herein mentioned was, the principal clerk of the challenge any one of the proposed actions described printers and publishers of the SAN LUIS OBISPO bm edlto raising only th se COUNTY TELEGRAM - TRIBUNE, a newspaper of issues you or someone else general circulation, printed and published daily, raised at the public hearing described In this notice, or Sundays excepted, at the City of San Luis Obispo in in written correspondence the above named county and state; that notice at delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public which the annexed clippings is a true printed copy, hearing. was published in the above -named newspaper and NEIGHBORHOOD EN- HANCEMENT PROGRAM - not in any supplement thereof - on the following to review existing efforts and policies for neighbor - dates, to-wit: April 22 hood action and additional that said newspaper was dui and regularly Y 9 Y measures for inclusion in the 1995 -97 Financial Plan. ascertained and established a newspaper of general (45 min.(. circulation b Decree entered in the Superior Court P HISTORIC INCENTIVE TAX INCENTIVE of San Luis Obispo County, Sate of California, on ITION PROGRAM - to consider a June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the provisions of historic tax incentive pro - gram as recommended by Chapter 1, Division 7, Title of the Government Code the Cultural Heritage Com- Of the State Of California. mittee. (30 min.). AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE WAIVERS - to consider certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that implementing General Plan Housing element program the foregoing IS true and Collect. 1.22.15 by amending devel- opment review fees to ex- empt qualifying affordable housing projects from the payment of fees. min.). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 Diane R. Gladwell, 1 City Clerk _ ((Signature of Principal Clerk) ADC 22,1885 671111 Date: April 22, 1995