Oceanside councilman wants to examine charter-city status
By: MARGA KELLOGG - Staff Writer | ∞
Looking north along Pacific Street in Oceanside construction continues Thursday on a bridge that will span the San Luis Rey River, foreground, with the Oceanside Harbor in the background.
BILL WECHTER Staff Photographer
Order a copy of this photo
Visit our Photo Gallery
OCEANSIDE ---- Vista's voting on it, Carlsbad's talking about it and now at least one Oceanside councilman thinks the charter city movement is worth another look.
Councilman Jack Feller, who over the years has opposed the idea of Oceanside's becoming a charter city, said this week that because of growth and the number of projects in the pipeline, the time is right to re-examine the issue.
"We have a lot of major projects ahead of us ---- the El Corazon property, the Rancho del Oro interchange, the senior center, ultimately building a public safety center," Feller said. "Maybe there's an opportunity for us to look at some cost savings. Until we investigate it we won't know."
Vista voters will decide the issue for their city Tuesday, and Feller has put discussion of the subject on Wednesday's council agenda. But while Councilman Jerry Kern said he's open to taking a look, it doesn't seem to be getting much traction from other council members or area labor leaders.
Under California law, cities have the option of writing their own charters, which allow them to take certain actions not available to cities that operate under the state's general laws.
Of the 478 cities in California, 109 have their own charters, including San Marcos, Chula Vista and Del Mar. Cities operating without charters, such as Oceanside, are called "general-law" cities.
Charters can allow cities to do such things as grant additional authority to a mayor and give councils more leeway in setting salaries. They can also allow council members to be elected by district and cities to avoid paying prevailing wages on projects that don't involve state or federal funds.
The concept isn't new to Oceanside voters, who have defeated charter proposals three times in the last two decades. In 1996, they rejected by a 59 percent to 41 percent vote a city charter that would have exempted Oceanside from paying prevailing wages on certain public works projects. The city studied the possibility of becoming a charter city again in 2001, but it was never put to a public vote.
Both Mayor Jim Wood and Councilwoman Esther Sanchez expressed surprise Thursday that Feller was asking the council to consider examining charter-city status more closely.
Sanchez said the fact that a charter status allows council members to raise taxes, set their own salaries and decide whether council members would be elected on a by-district basis have been among concerns raised by the public.
Said Wood: "I think the citizens seem to know the facts, and they don't seem to want to have the council having the authority to tax them.
"For council members it's good," he said. "You just have to campaign in your area, and you can get a lifetime job and lifetime paycheck."
Interim City Manager Peter Weiss said the concept demands some research.
Being a charter city gives council members "some ability to look at their capital projects as they relate to prevailing wages. Is there some benefit to that? I guess that depends. If you have huge multimillion-dollar projects there, maybe."
But charters can be tailored to a city's needs.
For example, San Marcos' charter, which was enacted in 1994, was written to meet the economic needs of the time.
"The best charters are ones that are drafted to address specific issues," said San Marcos City Manager Paul Malone. "The provisions run the gamut, depending on what you determine your needs to be."
Malone said San Marcos' charter is fairly narrow. "The environment at the time was recession, the state budget was going upside down. Cities were feeling pretty impotent at the time and we have some aggressive provisions in our charter to keep the state from doing that."
Malone said that labor savings in San Marcos since 1994 runs into "several million dollars."
However, Lorena Gonzalez of the San Diego Imperial Counties Labor Council, questioned whether charters really save money.
She said there are few municipal projects that do not use some state or federal money, and that ultimately it costs more to run a charter city than it does a general law city.
"There's a whole new level of bureaucracy," Gonzalez said.
She said that people who view the issue as a union issue are wrong.
"This has nothing to do with the unions. Union members will still make the same wages. We're trying to protect the nonunionized workers and the taxpayers from the burden of low-paid underinsured workers in their cities. It's a worker issue and a taxpayer issue," she said.
Ultimately, paying less than the prevailing wage hurts the economy, said Mike Magallanes of the Southwestern Regional Council of Carpenters.
"It lowers the standards because you're eliminating the contractors that are actually paying a living wage plus benefits," said Magallanes. "If you're not making enough to afford health care, the taxpayers are going to pay for it when you go to the hospital."
Contact staff writer Marga Kellogg at (760) 901-4067 or mkellogg@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Why not look at the benefits before we say NO, wrote on Jun 1, 2007 6:03 AM:Charter City status has never been discussed in Oceanside as a mechanism to save money by "not having to pay prevailing wages" for big construction contracts. Union supporters, like Sanchez and Wood, want you to believe this is about raising taxes. A Charter can be drafted that does not give the Council any additional power to raise taxes.
Terrible idea= wrote on Jun 1, 2007 6:27 AM:Once again Feller comes up with a bad idea for the citizens- this allows developers to determine what is built and where. The residents are at the mercy of the out of town money and end up accepting what outsiders want rather than what they want for their communities- Bad idea way back when and a terrible idea now. Oceanside residents must not agree to this change which will mean more taxes, less protection for the environment and shoddy construction of projects we don't want.
LAWSON......... wrote on Jun 1, 2007 7:28 AM:Money is the cancer on the body politic, as Jess Unruh said. Councilman Feller is very courageous to bring this forward. I totally agree because we need council districts which cost less to campaign in because of the small geographic area. Where this currently exists, it works well. The money is politics today is obscene. This is one way to rememdy that.
Jimmy the III wrote on Jun 1, 2007 8:35 AM:I like the idea of City districts and I agree it is time for them sooner than later and can be done without an Charter linkage. But we need to explore the charter thing. Lets pass the District proposal and examine the charter idea for flaws, deficits and benefits.
Sam wrote on Jun 1, 2007 9:19 AM:Feller, doesn't know what he is talking about. It is time he retired. Taxes are a liscense to steal.Keep our city as it is.
Randy wrote on Jun 1, 2007 9:39 AM:The only charter that Feller knows anything about is a 1/2 day or full day fishing boat out to sea without a paddle! This man is clearly out to lunch without his sandwich shop!!
Union Tax Scare Tactics wrote on Jun 1, 2007 10:21 AM:This tax issue has been a red herring for the Unions’ to avoid any responsible Community debate on the Charter City issue in Oceanside before. A Charter can be written to avoid additional taxing authority, while providing competitive bidding for local public works jobs. State and Federal Prevailing Wage Rules can add as much as 25% to the cost of new projects. There is nothing wrong with discussing this issue, let the citizens know the real facts.
Randy wrote on Jun 1, 2007 10:47 AM:Is it true that the Charter has been defeated at the ballot box 4 times in Oceanside?
SEA SICK CECIL: wrote on Jun 1, 2007 10:58 AM:Once again, Jim Wood, the densest Mayor in San Diego County, just doesn't get it and starts talking before he has engaged what limited grey matter he has available. Jim should run for president of DENSA. A City Charter must be approved by the voters and could and should severely limit the powers of a city council. Doofus Wood should know that a City Council cannot tax voters without a vote of the people. Wood and Sanchez are simply chanting the mantra of the AFL-CIO/ Public Employee unions -- they were bought by the unions and it looks like they are going to stay bought. Let's look at the benefits before we just say no. Good for Councilman Feller.
To Sam: wrote on Jun 1, 2007 11:18 AM:Sam doesn't know what he is talking about. The "keep our city as it is" attitude sounds like my grandfather. It's time to check the facts. There is nothing wrong with discussing this issue, let the citizens know the real facts.
Jack wrote on Jun 1, 2007 1:01 PM:People say I don't know jack, but I do know this: Once Oceanside passes the Charter, nothing will stop city contractors from hiring illegal immigrants by the boatload. After all, who else can afford to work for the minimum wage?
Contractor wrote on Jun 1, 2007 1:21 PM:I completely endorse Oceanside becoming a charter city. I promise to give every council member a 10% kickback, er, campaign contribution for each successful bid. I promise to pay the minimum wage. I promise to hire everyone who will work for minimum wage, regardless of qualifications.
To SEA SICK wrote on Jun 1, 2007 1:22 PM:Lawson, you were a Union man for 40 years! Waht happened?
Jan wrote on Jun 1, 2007 1:40 PM: I would like to see responsible counsel members not ones that give OPD big chunks of our money. I can just imagine OPD getting another chunk, God help us we don't need this. I would also like to see the city counsel draft some CODE ENFORCEMENT and DRAFT some true ORDINANCES. This crap about Oceanside being the CITY OF REFUGE for every criminal element is irresponsible. Horton’s commentary was absurd who in the right mind would elect these folks to city commissions?
Wow wrote on Jun 1, 2007 1:42 PM:This discussion is obvious. Lets gerrymander the city into districts. Probably being brought up because of Junket Jack's promise to meet every voter as he runs for mayor and now he realizes how large a city he actually lives in. A discussion about any charter is pointless until there is a sample charter to debate. Once again these bloggers, including LAWSON, prove why Oceanside is behind everyone else. More name calling and knee jerk reactions. If money is the cancer, LAWSON, then your developer buddies, OAA, and AOPA are the real tumors and need to be removed.
Charter vs General Law wrote on Jun 1, 2007 1:52 PM:All "Special Districts" under the CA Constitution (School Districts, Water Districts, Lighting Districts, etc.) have more authority and control over what they do than does a General Law city. Chartering a City simply levels the playing field. Currently in Oceanside the School Districts (OUSD, VUSD, MiraCosta College District) have more power and authroity than the city council and mayor. Granted, in most cases all these districts also have more money as well. So, they can and do litterally dictate to the City anytime they want something within the City (look only as far as the VUSD Melrose/76 project). Chartering would give the city more power when writing and enforcing code, and requiring these "Special Districts" to conform to said code!
MORE DETAILS wrote on Jun 1, 2007 3:42 PM:There's nothing wrong with considering charter status for Oceanside. I assume this would require voter approval. The San Marcos City Manager says that a charter can be drafted to deal with specific issues, etc. So let's see what is proposed in detail. We really don't have enough information yet to say yay or nay. More details please. I do like the idea of councilmanic districts. As it is the councilpersons are elected at large. A more focused representation would make that council person more accountable in my mind.
Living Wage wrote on Jun 1, 2007 3:48 PM:Don't buy into this ploy simply because Vista and Carlsbad are looking into Charter City status. We don't need to study this issue, it is simply an attempt to undermine union pay scales. No need to look further, nuff said.
The Wage Issue wrote on Jun 1, 2007 3:59 PM:Don't be put off by a charter allowing a city to pay lower than the prevailing wage. If this is seen as a negative, then craft the charter to forbid that. Input is needed from the citizenry via workshops and at council meetings as to the specifics of any proposed charter. It may take loads of time to craft a charter that passes with the majority, but it may well be worth such time.
Hugh Dunnit wrote on Jun 1, 2007 4:11 PM:The San Diego County Grand Jury recommends Charter Cities because it saves money and stops unfunded State micromanagement. Check out the report here: http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/grandjury/reports/2001_2002/charter.html Shame on the partisan union hacks, Lorena and Mike, for lying about Charter cities as a means for higher taxes. None of the existing tax protections are removed by simply going to a Charter city.
To terrible idea wrote on Jun 1, 2007 4:33 PM:I agree with everything you said plus some of the other writers. We will have every illegal worker here in Oceanside making substandard wages and going to Tri City for their free medical care. I am not pro-union, only pro-prevailing wage which allows people to live and pay their own bills, not the public dole.
To Cecil wrote on Jun 1, 2007 4:34 PM:C'mon we know who you are. Just another one of the right wingers who supports Feller and thinking of your own run for council. Who do you think you're fooling? If we could eliminate the political bloggers from this discussion, this idea is a hands down loser.
Old Timer wrote on Jun 1, 2007 5:36 PM:The citizens actually turned down a Charter City Measure FOUR TIMES. The only reason to have a Charter is to be able to tax your telephone, your gas and electric bills, your cable tv and your income. Whoever said the voters will have to vote on every tax is wrong. Once the council has the taxing authority they can use it and will use it. They will raise their saleries and pay for it with new taxes. The prevailing wage thing is a red herring. Name a major project in Oceanside that did not include some state or federal funding. Those projects are required to pay prevailing wage as are ALL redevelopment projects since redevelopment is funded by tax increment funds. The benefits of districting are nil compared to the liabilities of districting. When they drew those lines in the past they marginalized seniors and mobile home parks and other neighborhoods. They drew some very interesting lines and jerimandered the districts to help certain factions. Talk to old timers and they will tall you why Jack Feller wants this and that does not even explain his over-riding need for a wedge issue for his upcoming campaign.
To Jan wrote on Jun 1, 2007 5:47 PM:Why do you have such a problem with the OPD getting money? They put their lives on the line every day for you, and all of us who live in O'side. Feller's idea is all about ego. He's running for mayor and according to the NCT, a city charter will give more authority to the mayor! Duhhhh. Read between the lines. Feller does not speak for all of Oceanside and I will not support anything that isn't available for public discussion or on the ballot. This isn't about the OPD! It's about Feller and his political aspirations. We would all be better served if Jack would retire!
Such a bad idea wrote on Jun 1, 2007 5:53 PM:Vista's City Council sees this as a fantastic way to just go ahead and make it official that the public money is theirs to use for personal gain. If Prop C passes, there will be nothing to stop them from handing out contracts to their business friends, not to mention they won't be paying the prevailing wage.
Another Old Timer wrote on Jun 1, 2007 6:34 PM:I don't believe that I am so old that it is not possible to have open intelligent discussions about this item. The Charter City issue has been used as a political wedge many times before, as has other political scares such as, mobile home rent control, beach development, and parks. There is no election now, so let’s talk about the issues of taxes, Council pay and yes, prevailing wage. This is a better use of Council time than the demeaning debates the Council has had with each other over the last year.
How long will this go on? wrote on Jun 1, 2007 6:48 PM:Why do taxpayers continue to vote for council members who want to wake up each day and see their name in the paper? There is more important news than what Jack Feller wants!! Give it up Jack! I'm headed out for a sandwich at a thriving business, anyone want to join me??
I have an idea! wrote on Jun 1, 2007 9:16 PM:Why doesn't Jack propose another IN God We Trust plaque? That is something more within him grasp and short attention span...a wedge issue for sure but does anyone care anymore?
Why not discuss the issue? wrote on Jun 1, 2007 11:05 PM:When one can not address the issues at hand, it is much easier to attack the individual. 109 cities in California have charter status, but Oceanside can not even discuss this? What is to fear, that the electorate is too stupid to be trusted with important issues?
Mary wrote on Jun 2, 2007 2:14 AM:What happened to Feller's Ranch Del Oro Road initiative? You can have a charter city without districts and without avoiding paying a living wage. It can be extremely narrow. But Feller, Orr, Chadwick et al are just stirring the sand for Feller's campaign 2 years from now!
Public Interest Lawyer wrote on Jun 2, 2007 2:25 AM:Of course Oceanside should pursue charter city status! The city should do everything it can to get the most bang -- the most value -- for the public's buck. Concerns about taxes (if that's the red herring raised by Wood and Sanchez) can be addressed directly in the charter before it is submitted to the electorate for approval.
Paul wrote on Jun 5, 2007 10:16 AM:Jack this will only invite a low wage which will mean a low paid worker and who are those workers? They live in your river bed.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement
Videos
Advertisement