Council delays decision on Issue 300

The City Council decided Tuesday to postpone a proposed ordinance to implement Issue 300, a two-sentence ballot initiative that has thrust City Hall into confusion since voters approved it in November.

The council voted 7-2 to delay the proposal until Feb. 23 to give employees in the City Attorney’s Office and anti-tax activist Douglas Bruce, who wrote the initiative, time to work on a “consensus ordinance.”

If the two sides can’t reach an agreement, council members asked to consider separate proposals.

Although Bruce promised to cooperate, Mayor Lionel Rivera and Councilman Scott Hente, who cast the dissenting votes, had their doubts.

“As the one member of council who has debated Mr. Bruce several times over the last years, more than any of my colleagues have, to say that we, as a council, I personally, are at an impasse with him would be an understatement,” Hente said.

In addition to trying to forge a compromise with Bruce, council members said they also want to receive more feedback from the public.

“I would like to see broader public input on what people really expected when they voted on (Issue 300),” said Vice Mayor Larry Small, who made the motion for the delay.

“I’d like to have more people show up at our meeting (Feb. 23) to express their opinions on this,” Small added.

“Today, we heard from four or five proponents of 300, but nobody was out there to give any other point of view.”

Council members said the delay would also give staff time to provide more information, including how much money the city-owned enterprises are paying for shared services, such as fleet and human resources.

Under the proposed ordinance, the enterprises, which are city-owned businesses, could still pay the city for services rendered, even though Issue 300 called for “all enterprise payments to the city” to be phased out over eight years or fewer.

City attorneys, who say Issue 300 is ambiguous and subject to different interpretations, have identified at least six potential conflicts with the city charter, which is analogous to state or U.S. constitutions for the city.

“The issue is really going to be the implementation,” said Councilman Darryl Glenn, adding that the council may have to place a clarifying measure on the April 2011 ballot.