Chula Vista City Council members on Tuesday debated a sweeping, proposed ballot measure that seeks to change 13 sections of the city’s charter, including extending term limits from two to three terms and increasing council salaries by 59%. And with just three weeks left to meet an Aug. 7 deadline to file a measure with the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, its chances of reaching the November ballot remain uncertain.
Read more Lawmakers demand answers after ‘bombshell’ report about ICE officer shooting in Maine
The proposed ballot measure was drafted and submitted by the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local 89, one of San Diego County’s most politically influential labor organizations and a strong supporter of Democratic politics in the region. The council received the proposal June 16, when Deputy Mayor Cesar Fernandez requested it be brought back before the council at a later date for formal consideration.
If placed on the November ballot, the amendment would also modify sections of the charter spanning council committees, salary setting, ethics oversight, public contracting, lobbying and binding arbitration, City Manager Tiffany Allen told the council.
The measure would raise the consecutive term limit for the mayor and council members from two terms to three, excluding any terms that began before July 1, 2026. Allen said that provision would allow current members to serve up to four consecutive terms.
It would also change how the mayor, council members and city attorney are paid, shifting from formulas tied to a Superior Court judge’s salary to a newly created Salary Setting Commission.
Other provisions include a City Ethics Commission with subpoena authority that the city’s current ethics body lacks, new public contracting disclosure rules, lobbyist registration requirements and a binding arbitration process for police and fire labor disputes.
The council ultimately took no formal action and sent the matter back to staff for further work.
Mayor John McCann raised repeated objections during the discussion, saying no city-led public meetings had been held and that neither the Charter Review Commission nor the Ethics Commission had reviewed the proposal. City Attorney Marco Verdugo confirmed both commissions had received the document but had not formally discussed it.
McCann took particular issue with the salary increases, pointing out that it would be a 59% pay raise for council members and the mayor.
“Does anybody at the city of Chula Vista over the last several years, remaining in the same position, get a 59% pay increase?” McCann said during his comments. “How about you in the private sector? You’re moving the council salaries from basically $64,000 to $110,000. You’re giving council members a six-figure salary.”
McCann made two motions — one directing the item to both commissions before returning to council, and another to remove the proposed salary increases — but both failed for lack of a second.
“There are some items here that I think some people agree with, and I think there’s some items there that people don’t agree with, but they’re all lumped together and they’ve thrown everything in it together with the kitchen sink,” McCann said.
Barrios the proposal, saying it was designed to address gaps such as the ethics commission’s lack of subpoena power and to make council salaries more competitive for working-class candidates.
“So those pay raises Chula Vistans should be able to run for city council and not have to have a $500,000 savings or their house paid off,” Barrios said.
Read more To air or not to air? Nation’s TV networks struggle to find the right balance for Trump speech
Fernandez said he supports raising the term limit to three terms, but does not support resetting the clock so that current council members’ past terms wouldn’t count toward their term count. He also said he supports a “modest” salary increase, though not necessarily the amount as drafted, to make the position accessible to working residents.
“This position shouldn’t just be accessible to those people who are retired, who have a huge savings, or just don’t work for whatever reason there is. It should be accessible to nurses, to librarians, to regular folk that still have to work that job,” Fernandez said.
Speaking on the subject of term limits, Fernandez said a longer term would allow council members to see council-initiated projects all the way through — rather than being termed out before the project sees completion.
“I am currently advocating for at the Palomar Trolley Station,” he said. “I’m not going to be able to see that to completion with two terms. I’m just not. And I can’t count on the next person to advocate for that same project.”
Several public speakers, including District 2 council candidate Angelica Martinez and District 1 candidate Gregory Martinez, urged the council to reject the measure as written, arguing it bundled unrelated changes and had not gone through the Charter Review Commission or Board of Ethics.
“This measure is being presented as a government reform package, but at its core, it does something very simple: It allows politicians to stay in power longer while giving themselves a massive pay raise,” Gregory Martinez said.
Resident Norma Toothman, who has served on both the Ethics and the Charter Review Commission, said she supports fair compensation for council members but objected to the process, noting the city was “unaware of any community engagement before this proposal was brought forward.”
“Because of this extremely short timeline, the city has been unable to present it to the Charter Review Commission, the very body for evaluating charter changes,” Toothman said. “While not legally required to review a charter amendment before the city council places it on the ballot, it’s the normal expected and the good governance practice to do so.”
Resident David Stookey said he had no objection in principle to a third term for the mayor and council, but raised concerns about the appearance of self-interest, suggesting any such changes should apply only to future councils rather than the current one.
“Allowing the current council to vote to extend their own terms does lend itself to the appearance of being self-serving; that’s a problem,” he said. “Likewise, to allow the council to effectively vote for its own salary pending the establishment of a salary-setting commission, it is inconsistent with the concept of an independent salary commission. If it’s deemed appropriate by the voters to have such a body, its work should apply to future councils only.”
Councilmember Carolina Chavez asked the city attorney to analyze extending binding arbitration to additional employee bargaining groups. Under the proposal, binding arbitration would send unresolved labor disputes to a three-member panel with the power to issue a final, binding decision, rather than leaving the outcome to further negotiation or a strike. The council reached consensus to direct that legal analysis.
Verdugo also disclosed that his office is arranging outside counsel to advise on portions of the measure affecting the city attorney’s own salary, citing a conflict of interest.
Allen said the council could act on the item as early as July 21, with a final deadline of July 28 to meet the Aug. 7 filing deadline with the San Diego County Registrar of Voters for the November ballot. No council member was formally designated to submit a ballot argument in favor of the measure, as McCann said he could not do so before seeing a final version of the proposal.
Read more Michael Smolens: November ballot asks voters for a lot of money
