Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 34-96 EXPLANATION RESOLUTION NO. 34-96 In 1996, the City of Atascadero filed a test claim with the Commission on State Mandates concerning increased costs that were a result of complying with the State Mandate imposed is Section 2601 (e) of the California Elections Code. After the Council approved Resolution No. 34-96 on May 14, 1996 it was decided by the City Clerk at that time, Lee Price, that the resolution needed to be amended. She felt that the resolution number needed to stay the same for the purposes of the test claim. Therefore, there are two Resolution No. 34-96's; the original and the amended version. Marcia M. Torgerson, City Jerk Date RESOLUTION NO. 34-96 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES TO APPROVE TEST CLAIM CSM 4500 SPONSORED BY THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY'S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 2552 & 2601(e) OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE WHEREAS, AB 2196, signed by the Governor on October 5, 1993, amended the California Elections Code by requiring that the statewide presidential primary be held on the 4th Tuesday in March in any year which is evenly divisible by the number four; and WHEREAS, Section 1 of AB 2196 states, in part, that the intent of the bill, as declared by the California State Legislature, is to "maximize voter participation in the electoral process" by "holding both the presidential primary and the direct primary elections the same day"; and WHEREAS, AB 2196 amended Section 2552 of the Elections Code by specifying that the Presidential Primary shall be held on he fourth Tuesday in March any year evenly divisible by the number four; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2-14.01 of the Atascadero Municipal Code, the City of Atascadero has held its general municipal elections in conjunction with the statewide primary in June of even numbered years since 1981 and has lawfully consolidated said elections with the County of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, in order to comply with the change in law, the County of San Luis Obispo did move the statewide primary to March rather than June; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero was therefore compelled to study the impact of the new law on the City and, as a result, considered the options left available. The City Council found the City's municipal code to no longer in be in compliance with State law and determined it necessary to adopt a new ordinance amending the election date. Public hearings were held on June 13th and June 27" 1996 at which time the City Council introduced and adopted an ordinance changing the date of the City's general election; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2601(e) of the California Elections Code, as added by AB 2196, the Atascadero City Clerk did notify by mail all registered voters in the City of the change in election date and the change in officeholder terms; and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero did incur increased costs in excess of $200 as a result of complying with the State mandate imposed in Section 2601(e) of the Resolution No. 34-96 Page 2 California Elections Code and has filed a test claim with the Commission on State Mandates; and WHEREAS, Government Code §17561(a) provides that, "the State shall reimburse each local agency and school district for all costs mandated by the State". Further, Government Code §17514 defines "all costs mandated by the State" as "any increased costs which a local agency or school district is required to incur after July 1, 1980, as a result of any statute enacted on or after January 1, 1975..., which mandates a new program or higher level of service in an existing program within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution." NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby urge the Commission on State Mandates to approve Test Claim CSM 4500 for the following reasons: SECTION 1. Section 2601(e) of the California Elections Code contains a mandate that left the City with no option but to incur increased costs. SECTION 2. The City Council acted in a reasonable and prudent fashion by choosing the least costly alternative that supports the intent of the AB 2196. On motion by Councilperson Bewley and seconded by Councilperson Luna, the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Bewley, Carden, Johnson, Luna and Mayor Highland NOES: None ABSENT: None ADOPTED: July 9'.11906' ATT CITY OF ATASCADERO By: LEE PRIGC.Kt. GEORGE . HIGHL , Mayor City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ART ER 13. O { TANDCity Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 34-96 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES TO APPROVE TEST CLAIM CSM 4500 SPONSORED BY THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY'S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 2601(e) OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE WHEREAS, AB 2196, signed by the Governor on October 5, 1993, amended the California Elections Code by requiring that the statewide presidential primary be held on the 4th Tuesday in March in any year which is evenly divisible by the number four; and WHEREAS, Section 1 of AB 2196 states, in part, that the intent of the bill, as declared by the California State Legislature, is to "maximize voter participation in the electoral process" by "holding both the presidential primary and the direct primary elections the same day"; and WHEREAS, AB 2196 amended Section 2500 of the Elections Code by adding the fourth Tuesday in March as an authorized date for a general municipal election; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2-14.01 of the Atascadero Municipal Code, the City of Atascadero has held its general municipal elections in conjunction with the statewide primary in June of even numbered years since 1981 and has lawfully consolidated said elections with the County of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, in order to comply with the change in law, the County of San Luis Obispo did move the statewide primary to March rather than June; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero was therefore compelled to study the impact of the new law on the City and, as a result, considered the options left available. The City Council found the City's municipal code to no longer in be in compliance with State law and determined it necessary to adopt a new ordinance amending the election date. Public hearings were held on June 13th and June 27' 1996 at which time the City Council introduced and adopted an ordinance changing the date of the City's general election; and WHEREAS pursuant to Section 2601 a of the California Elections Code as added by AB 2196, the Atascadero City Clerk did notify by mail all registered voters in the City of the change in election date and the change in officeholder terms; and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero did incur increased costs in excess of $200 as a result of complying with the State mandate imposed in Section 2601(e) of the Resolution No. 34-96 Page 2 California Elections Code and has filed a test claim with the Commission on State Mandates; and WHEREAS, Government Code §17561(a) provides that, "the State shall reimburse each local agency and school district for all costs mandated by the State". Further, Government Code §17514 defines "all costs mandated by the State" as "any increased costs which a local agency or school district is required to incur after July 1, 1980, as a result of any statute enacted on or after January 1, 1975..., which mandates a new program or higher level of service in an existing program within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution." NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Atascadero does hereby urge the Commission on State Mandates to approve Test Claim CSM 4500 for the following reasons: SECTION 1. Section 2601(e) of the California Elections Code contains a mandate that left the City with no option but to incur increased costs. SECTION 2. The City Council acted in a reasonable and prudent fashion by choosing the least costly alternative that supports the intent of the AB 2196. On motion by Councilperson Luna and seconded by Councilperson Bewley, the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Bewley, Carden, Johnson, Luna and Mayor Highland NOES: None ABSENT: None ADOPTED: May 1 , 199 AT S - CITY OF ATASCADERO v: LEE PRI , C.M. GEORG P. HIGH D, Mayor City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ART ER A. MOIN\TANDOIJ, City Attorney