The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC RES 85-074RESOLUTION NO. 85-74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE STH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1985, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFICE OF MAYOR IN SAID CITY SHOULD BE DIRECTLY ELECTED BY THE VO'I'ERS AND REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO CONSOLIDATE SAID ELECTION WITH THE UDEL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE WHEREAS, Section 4017 of the Elections Code of the State of California provides that the legistative body of the city may submit to the voters, without a petition therefor, a proposition for the repeal, amendment, or enactment of any ordinance, to be voted upon at any succeeding regular or special city election, and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the ordinance shall be repealed, amended or enacted accordingly; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as approved at its meeting of February 28, 1985, to allow the electorate of the City of Palm Desert to decide whether or not the office of Mayor should be directly elected by the voters of Palm Desert. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, in accordance with Section 4020 of the Elections Code of the State of California, there shall be held and is hereby called and ordered held in the City of Palm Desert, California, on Tuesday, the Sth day of November, 1985, a special municipal election of the qualified electors of said city, and there is hereby ordered submitted to the qualified electors at said special municipal election the following question which shall appear on the ballot, to wit: Shall the electors of the City of Palm Desert, YES California, elect a Mayor and four (4) councilmembers? NO hall the term of office f Mayor be: TWO YEARS OUR YEARS BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: SECTION 1: That pursuant to the requirements of Section 23302 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a special municipal election with the UDEL election on Tuesday, Novembec 5, 1985, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified etectors of said city the question relating to whether or not� the voters of Palm Desert should directly elect a Mayor for said city. SECTION 2: Said Registrar is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of said special municipal election which it is hereby requested to consolidate with said UDEL election and said election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. SECTION 3: Said Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to issue instructions to the Registra� to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of said consolidated election. SECTION 4: The City of Palm Desert recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any such costs. RESOLUTION NO. 85-� PAGE 2 SECTION 5: That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of the County of Riverside. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the Sth day of .Ti1� , 1985, by the following vote, to wit: qy�; SNYDER NOES: BENSON, JACKSON, KELLY AND WILSON ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE � ; _ \�� TER H. SNYDER, MA R ATTEST: � �� . , - �` �� / - ` �` '/ ,ik=; G,!"C�� .�c �� :1 � � SHEILA R. GILL � AN, CITY C RK CITY OF PALM DESERT, C FORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 85-74 (07/25/85) NO ACTION TAKEN March 14, 1985 Mr. Altman reported that the City Council could not call a special election to be held in November until no more than 103 days prior to the election. He recommended Council continue this item to the second meeting in July. Upon Motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, the item was continued to the meeting of July 25, 1985, by unanimous vote of the Councilmembers present. July 25, 1985 - The Ordinance was changed to a Resolution. Mr. Altman reported that this item was on the Agenda per Council direction and that resolutions had been prepared for the Council to consider. Mayor Snyder stated that if the Council desired to put this issue on the ballot for November 5, 1985, and consolidate with the UDEL election , it would need to adopt Resolution No. 85-74. Councilmember Jackson moved to DENY without prejudice Resolution No. 85-74 calling and ordering a special election and requesting the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County to approve consolidation with the UDEL election to be held on November 5, 1985. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Mayor Snyder voting NO. Mr. Phillips stated that by not passing Resolution No. 85-74, the Council would be denying it without prejudice, and anyone could come back and request that it be put on the ballot. He also stated that with Resolution No. 85-74 denied, the optional resolutions, Nos. 85-75 and 85-76, were moot and no action was necessary. RESOLUTION NO. 85-75 (07/25/85) NO ACTION TAKEN March 14, 1985 Mr. Altman reported that the City Council could not call a special election to be held in November until no more than 103 days prior to the election. He recommended Council continue this item to the second meeting in July. Upon Motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, the item was continued to the meeting of July 25, 1985, by unanimous vote of the Councilmembers present. July 25, 1985 - The Ordinance was changed to a Resolution. Mr. Altman reported that this item was on the Agenda per Council direction and that resolutions had been prepared for the Council to consider. Mayor Snyder stated that if the Council desired to put this issue on the ballot for November 5, 1985, and consolidate with the UDEL election , it would need to adopt Resolution No. 85-74. Councilmember Jackson moved to DENY without prejudice Resolution No. 85-74 calling and ordering a special election and requesting the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County to approve consolidation with the UDEL election to be held on November 5, 1985. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Mayor Snyder voting NO. Mr. Phillips stated that by not passing Resolution No. 85-74, the Council wouid be denying it without prejudice, and anyone could come back and request that it be put on the ballot. He also stated that with Resolution No. 85-74 denied, the optional resolutions, Nos. 85-75 and 85-76, were moot and no action was necessary. RESOLUTION NO. 85-76 (07/25/85) NO ACTION TAKEN March 14, 1985 Mr. Altman reported that the City Council could not call a special election to be held in November until no more than 103 days prior to the election. He recommended Council continue this item to the second meeting in July. Upon Motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, the item was continued to the meeting of July 25, 1985, by unanimous vote of the Councilmembers present. July 25, 1985 - The Ordinance was changed to a Resolution. Mr. Altman reported that this item was on the Agenda per Council direction and that resolutions had been prepared for the Council to consider. Mayor Snyder stated that if the Council desired to put this issue on the ballot for November 5, 1985, and consolidate with the UDEL election , it would need to adopt Resolution No. 85-74. Councilmember Jackson moved to DENY without prejudice Resolution No. 85-74 calling and ordering a special election and requesting the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County to approve consolidation with the UDEL election to be held on November 5, 1985. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Mayor Snyder voting NO. Mr. Phillips stated that by not passing Resolution No. 85-74, the Council would be denying it without prejudice, and anyone could come back and request that it be put on the ballot. He also stated that with Resolution No. 85-74 denied, the optional resolutions, Nos. 85-75 and 85-76, were moot and no action was necessary.