HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-26; City Council; 13566; CITIZENS GROUP ON GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURINGAB # m TITLE:
DEPT.
* MTG.~~ CITIZENS GROUP ON
GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING CM
DEPT.
CITY P
CITY h
c
Q bhl > 0 ec g, %
z 0 F 0 a
=! 0 z 3 0 0
C@Y OF CARLSBAD - AGW - A BILL
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. qd -0 c/ authorizing the Mayor to execute a letter to the Coun
of Supervisors regarding a report by the San Diego Region Citizens' Commission 1
GavGrnment Efficiency and Restructuring.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Proposition A, an advisory measure approved by the voters on the November 19s provided for the establishment of a Citizen's Commission to examine issues related
government efficiency and restructuring. The Commission submitted their report to
Diego County Board of Supervisors on November 14, 1995. The Board of Supervi
requested that the City Council review and comment on the report, as implemei
Commission's recommendations would have a significant impact on local governmen
The Commission's report concludes that the central problem of government
"balkanization". 'We have too many governments and too little effective governance." T
recommends that one government agency be created to serve the region now define
Diego County. The governing body would be a popularly elected multi-member Boa
would replace the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the Local
Formation Commission (IAFCO), and the County of San Diego.
The new regional government would have the authority to determine what issues are r<
scope, and would have sole decision making authority concerning those issues. The rc
recommends that a second tier of decision making be created in which Community would have authority over local issues. The report mentions land use permitting, I(
policies and comrnunity policing as examples of local issues. The regional governmc
also be responsible for determining the future of special districts in the region.
The Commission proposes that as an "interim solution", a regional authority should b
to take over the ~responsibilities, staff, and other resources from SANDAG, IAFCC
County. The regional government would also have the authority to determine what i:
regional in nature. The regional government would have planning responsibilities
authority to implement policies and programs to deal with those issues. Probl
transportation planning and infrastructure, sewage and solid waste are mentioned as b
could be consideired regional issues. Cities would continue to have responsibility (
issues, but would not be able to address matters which are found to be regional in n
The Commission's report does not address potential changes to how the state migt
money between iiself and local government or the responsibilities and funding of fe
state mandates. These matters must be clarified before any proposed plan to restruc
government can be adequately evaluated. Also, the California Constitutional
Commission is submitting recommendations to the State Legislature regarding somc
issues, and subsequent legislation or constitutional actions could have an impact on
restructuring effort.
L. a) 0
.. PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 13; 56 6
Staff recommend:; that Council authorize the Mayor to execute a letter to the I
Supervisors expressing the Council’s concern over the proposal’s recommendation to
recommendations until legislative actions are taken regarding the Constitutional
Commission recommendations.
the authority of cities and suggegting it is premature to evalu8b the CON!
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
EXHIBITS:
1. Report by the San Diego Region Citizens’ Commission on Local Government
and Restructuring.
Resolution No. ’?’ 6 - 79 2.
EXHlB I. 0 0
1 SAN DIEGO REGION CITIZENS’ COMMISSION
ON
GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY AND RESTRUCTURING
“SAMCoG ER ’’
30 October 1995
Board of Supervisors
San Diego County
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Chairperson Jacob and Board Members:
In the election of November, 1993, the voters of San Diego County
overwhelmingly approved Proposition “A” which directed the Board of Supervisors to
establish a Commission to ‘...examine issues related to local government efficiency and
restructuring for the purpose of making government more cost efficient and effective in
the San Diego region and to make recommendations related thereto to the Board of
Supervisors for possible submission to local voters at a subsequent election.”
In February 1994, pursuant to Proposition A, the Board of Supervisors
appointed 21 residents of the County as members of the Commission and designated
the undersigned as its Chair.
The charge to the Commission, was a broad and all encompassing one - to
examine the existing structure, organization, components, and interrelationships of
governance within the County; to make recommendations fo’r changes or modifications;
and to do all of the above without any external or self imposed restrictions or pre-
conditions.
The Commissioners, all of whom are outstanding members of the community,
were volunteers and the Commission had neither full time nor paid staff. Although this
was obviously a limitation upon our efforts; the significant substantive contributions of
time, talent and experience of almost every single member of the Commission
throughout the entire process allowed us to transcend this unfortunate constraint.
Two members of County staff who, on top of their other assigned duties, did
provide modest administrative support, also made worthwhile contributions of their
experience, professionalism and unflagging good humor. One of these invaluable
supporters was Jim Smyth of David Janssen’s staff who worked with us over the latter
stages of our labor: the other was Brice Bossler, of then Chairman Brian Bilbray’s staff,
who was particularly helpful dunng our early days. We owe both of these gentlemen a
profound debt of gratitude.
Continued ...
I.
w
To ensure that we did not try to “reinvent the wheel”, the Commission attempted
to identify, research and understand alternative government structures which might offer options to our existing structure. We aggressively sought out and received input
from a number of elected and appointed city officials; from representatives of Special
Districts; from officials of SANDAG, LAFCO, and the State Legislature; and from a
multitude of interested members of the public.
The Commission sat in full session over 14 times and met countless times as
working subcommittees. The interaction between the subcommittees and the full
Commission resulted in a strong consensus on the conclusions contained in the
attached Report. What 1 believe to be particularly noteworthy, is that only one member
of the Commission (Mr. Mamaux) voted against the Report as crafted and presented by
the Commission and he asked that his negative vote be included as an integral part of
the Report. Other than this, the attached Report reflects an impressive and compelling
concurrence of all of the remaining members of the Commission.
Initially, I was tempted to specifically thank individual members of the
Commission for their separate and important contributions to the Commission’s work
and/or to the crafting or drafting of the Report itself. As I started to do so, I realized that
I would have to name all 21 members, since each, in his or her own way, was a real and substantial participant in the entire process. Despite this truth, I must cite the
following for special mention. First, along with the undersigned; Admiral Ray Peet and
Eddie Cisco served, not only on this Commission, but also on the Interim Commission
and on the Finance Review Panel that preceded and contributed enormously to the
Commission’s efforts. They provided continuing wise counsel and consistent and
ongoing support which helped insure a solid and rational platform for both the overall
study and the Report itself. I must also directly recognize Lisa Foster, who, not only
accepted my request for her to act as Vice Chair of the Commission, but wh,o, along
with Glen Sparrow, served as the key members of the Drafting Subcommittee. Without
the critical assistance of these four individuals, our total effort and product would have
been less meaningful, less sound and,much less relevant. To each of these stalwarts,
I need to particularly offer both my personal thanks and that of the community at large.
Finally, I have been pleased to serve as Chair of such a creative, responsive
and willing group of dedicated and able citizens, without whose commitment and
participate with them and even more honored to have been named to chair this
singularly timely and important undertaking.
capacity, this project could not even have reached this point. I have been privileged to
I respectfully submit this Report to you as mandated by Proposition A and as
directed by your appointing Resolutions.
Earry !. Newman, Chair
I.
h e 0
-
Members of the San Dieqo Reaion Citizens’ Commission on
Local Government Efficiencv and Restructurinq
#+ Barry I. Newman, Chair
Attorney; Past Chair - County Finance Review Panel: and
Past President - San Diego County Taxpayers Association
Attorney; Adjunct Law Professor - US0
Former County Supervisor; Former Mayor of La Mesa
Former CFO - Transamerica Financial Services
Businessman; Investor
League of Women Voters
Stephen S. Clarey
RADM USN (Ret)
Chancellor - San Diego City College District
Attorney - Gray, Cary, Ames & Frye
Past President - San Diego County Taxpayers Association
Community Activist
Past CEO - Hospital Council
Former City Manager of Carlsbad
Businessman; Investor
#+ Ray Peet VADM USN (Ret) + Paul A. Peterson
Attorney - Peterson & Price
Kathy Schwartz
Public Research Consultant
Jack Shelver
Former City Manager of Lemon Grove
Glen W. Sparrow
Professor - SDSU
Sydney S. Stewart
Boise-Cascade Executive
Jack E. Thomas
Past President - SDG&E
Associate Vice Chancellor - UCSD
+ Lisa Foster, Vice Chair
+ George Bailey
Richard Bender
Daniel Bunn
#+ Edwina Cisco
+ Augie Galfegs
David 6. Geerdes
Rosalia Attilano Harper
Jim Lott (Member until March 1995) ++
0 John J. Mamaux
Kenneth W. Miller
+ Mary Lindenstein Walshsk
____^_--__-___--------_-------------------------------------------------- ......................................................................... +
0
U
Prior member of the Citizens’ Commission on Government Efficiency
Mr. Lott did not participate in the final draft of the Report
Mr. Mamaux voted against the Report as crafted and presented by the Commission
# Prior member of the County of San Diego Finance Review Panel
@ e
- San Diego is not what is used to be. A sleepy “Navy” town has become a
dynamic and diverse metropolis. San Diego is now home to over 2.6 million
residents who live and work in locations and occupations that were unheard of
even 20 years ago. From Anza - Borrego to Imperial Beach; from Camp
Pendleton to Campo; the very landscape of the region has been transformed.
Technological advances have made it possible to live in Ramona and
“telecommute” downtown, and the growing market for innovative technologies
face of the region has changed as well. More families with more children from
more places around the country and around the globe today call San Diego
home. In many ways, San Diego has entered the 21st century
In one critical aspect, however, the region remains mired in the past.
has spawned new industries that compete successfully around the world. The
Government -the cities, the county and the special districts -- is a product of
the 19th century. Although it has served us well for almost a century, the
structure of governance in the region is ill-suited to function efficiently and
effectively in the future. The San Diego region is governed today by over 135
different jurisdictions. We have over 865 elected officials responsible for the
expenditure of over $6.0 billion. There is enormous overlap, duplication and
redundancy. 56 separate jurisdictions fight fire; 20 different agencies monitor
compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act. We have 8 separate
library systems and 10 police forces. All of this public sector activity takes place
in one geographically contained area where residents typically live work, learn,
shop and play almost exclusively within the borders of the County of San Diego.
Over the years, government has become bigger and more complex.
Paradoxically, however, the more government we create, the more people feel
distant and alienated from it. Not surprisingly, the public has become louder and
more strident in its calls for government reform. San Diegans today demand
government that will make policy decisions effectively and will deliver services
efficiently; they want to curtail the redundant and spiraling cost of government;
and most important, they want to know that their government is listening -- that
their voices can, and will, be heard.
After studying the region and its governments for over a year and a half, the San
Diego Region Citizens’ Commission on Local Government Efficiency and
Restructuring (hereafter, for obvious reasons, referred to as the “Commission”)
has concluded that the central problem of government today is “balkanization”.
We have too many governments and too little effective governance. The result
is government gridlock.
Many of the issues that we demand our government resolve and many of the
services we depend on government to provide, are regional in nature.
Transportation planning and infrastructure, sewage and solid waste
management are just three. Despite this, we have no government entity charged
W m
with, responsible for, or capable of implementing, regional solutions to these and
comparable problems. Similarly, the growth and development of key sectors of
the regional economy -- the military, tourism, biotech, and ever more critically,
our relationship with Mexico - require a uniform and consistent approach. Yet
today we have multiple jurisdictions sending often contradictory messages.
Finally, effective decision-making at any level of government requires logical and *
coordinated planning, yet no single government entity has the authority to plan
for the region.
The Commi’ssion’s study has led us to recommend a complete restructure of
government in the region. We believe that there is a critical need to create new
government structures and dissolve most current government entities.
We strongly believe that the creation of a single unified government for the
San Diego Region is necessary to address and deal with the region’s
current and future needs. Co-terminus with existing County lines, the San
Diego Region would be governed by a popularly elected multi-member
Board. This regional governing body wouid replace the County Board of
Supervisors, SANBAG, and LAFCO and wouid be responsible for regional
planning, policy making, service delivery and perfomance evaluation. It
would have the authority to implement its policies and plans in whatever
ways it determines best serve the public interests. Under a “two tiered”
approach, communities within the region would also be served by
Community Councils. These Councils would be responsible for local
decisions, such as land use permits, local park policies, and community
policing for example. Finally, there would be an agreed upon method for
determining which issues are “local” and which are “regiona1”.
We are convinced that a single regional government, complemented by
community councils, is the best form of government for the San Diego region in
the new century. Such a system of governance would be efficient, accountable
and accessible, providing the people of the San Diego region with a government
capable of responding creatively and effectively to changing demands and
needs.
The Commission recognizes that such a proposal is bold and visionary, and we
recognize that our vision may be clouded by reality. There are numerous
obstacles to the achievement of such dramatic change. People may find it
difficult to imagine themselves residents of a “region” rather than a city or feel
comfortable substituting a “community councii” for their City Council or Board of
Supervisors. Local elected officials may well be hostile to a plan which
restructures them out of a job. Public employees may not relish working for a
new and unknown regional board. The undeniable risks of creating new
structures; the enormity of the task; the many details that will have to be
2
0 0
- resolved; the inherently difficult transition period which a move to a regional
government must entail, will all be cited as reasons to defeat this proposal.
Recognizing, however, that the path to regional government must be
evolutionary, we propose what we believe to be both a politically feasible and
highly effective solution as an interim measure.
The Commission recommends that the voters of San Diego create a regional
authority that would replace the existing County Board of Supervisors, SANDAG,
and LAFCO. The regional authority would be responsible for the identification
and planning of regional issues and for the implementation of its policy decisions
with respect to regional issues. Local issues would remain the province of the
independent cities in the region, which would continue to operate largely as they
do today.
The Commission prefers to view this approach as a transitional measure -- a first
step on the road to regional government. We recognize also, that our interim “first step” measure could well be the final step of the region’s reform effort, but we are convinced that even this “partial” solution will improve our governmental
situation even if no further evolution occurs.
Still, we hope that our bolder, more inclusive, vision of a single regional
government will be the standard, the template, towards which all future action is
directed, and by which, future decisions and actions will be measured. In the
future, therefore, before making any changes which affect governance in the
region, we should ask whether the proposed change moves us toward the
ultimate goal of regional government.
X*****
This report proceeds in four parts. First we describe the genesis of the
Commission and provide some background information about the region and its
governance. Next we describe some of the issues -- and the attempts to resolve
these issues -- which have led us to the recommendations we are making.
Then, we describe our recommendations for restructuring government in the
region, and finally, we make a specific recommendation as how best to
implement this proposal.
3
a .w
GENESIS OF THE COMMISSION
Our Commission is not the first citizen’s body to address these issues of local
government efficiency and restructure.
On January 7, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved the establishment of a
Finance Review Panel to advise the County on its fiscal condition and
practices. A fifteen-member panel began work on February 27, 1992, and
concentrated its review, inter alia, on the Structure of County Government.
Among the many problems/issues which the Panel observed were:
1) revenues were not keeping pace with service deemamis; 2) state mandated programs
(without adequate funding) overburden local government resources; 3) conipe fi’tion between
governmental entities for power unrl inone-v wastes governmental resources; 4} overlapping
jurisdictions in inunv service ureas produce inefective and ineflcient progroins; 5) lack of
authority for regional decision making leads to procrastination and interagency conflict;
and 6) complexity ofgovernmentid responsibilities contributes to frustrated and uninvo fved
citizens.
This generalized finding -- that the la& sf authority for regional decisions kads
to governmental inefficiencies in service delivery; frustrated and uninvolved
citizens; overlapping and competing jurisdictions; and an increasingly complex
system of government not supportable by current and future revenues; -- led the
Panel to frame these issues in the form of the following questions to be
addressed in a subsequent in-depth analysis, to wit:
f Is there n necessiQ and/or henejit to have the State, the County, 18 cities, the
Unified Port District, over 200 other special districts, and SANDA G providing
governmental services, sonie duplicating, soine conficting, sonic overlapping and all
impacting?
+ Is the Couiily providing setvices that should be performed and paid for by other
agencies?
+ Could SOI~ of the services being perfornied by cities or special districts he better
performed hv a regionai autl?ori!v?
-t Have the prohkins reached such a complex state, and financial resources become
so limited, that, fine tuning is no longer a viable solution?
The Panel further recommended that the Board of Supervisors endorse the
creation of a San Oiego “Blue Ribbon Commission’’ to address these concerns,
with particular emphasis on the regional structure of government. It was
suggested that such a Commission should study in depth how best to deliver
services efficiently, identifying who, what source of funding, and the kind of
structure best capable to deliver services, with due regard to local control.
.
4
0 ..
., . As the direct result of the Finance Review Panel’s findings and
recommendations, The Citizens’ Commission on Government Efficiency
(”Citizens’ Commission”), an independent, blue ribbon committee, was organized
by a small group of concerned San Diegans, to analyze the process of
restructuring local government in the San Diego region. The Citizens’
Committee:
-
*
Gathered objective, impartial, and non-partisan information on the
region’s governmental units and the experiences of other areas of the
nation that have consolidated and/or coordinated public services.
Researched and analyzed governance in the region, including
potential special act legislation, city and county charter revisions, and
other measures to bring about greater consolidation of public
functions.
Studied the potential for reallocation of the mix of locally generated
revenues and the allocation of state revenues to the region.
-
-
While the Citizens’ Commission was engaged in its tasks, the voters of the
County, in November 1993 overwhelmingly approved Proposition “A” which read
as follows.
“Shall the Board of Supervisors establish a San Diego Region Citizens Commission
on Local Government Efficiency and Restructuring, comprised of not more than 2 1
members who shall be residents and representative of the various communities in the
region, and who shall not be current employees or officers of any public agency, to examine
issues related to local government efficiency and restructuring for the purpose of making
recommendations relzted thereto to the Board of ‘Supenrisors for possible submission to
local voters at a subsequent election.”
a goveriiment more cost efficient and effective in the San Diego region. and to make
The voters of San Diego County approved Proposition A 65.4% to 34.6%.
Proposition A was seen by the proponents of the measure and by the members
of the Citizens’ Commission as a endorsement and validation of the Citizens
Commission’s work. Given the similarity of purpose and tasking, upon the
placing of the proposition on the ballot, the Citizens Commission suspended
further work on its project, pending the resuits of the election and the
subsequent action of the Board of Supervisors. The Citizens’ Commission did
issue a report in October 1993 (which although entitled Final Report was
intended to serve as the next intermediate building block of the process), That
intention has been honored by the Commission which has taken the Report, and
moved forward from, and with, it as an integral part of our own process. We
recognize and acknowledge the enormous contribution to our own efforts which
has been made by the Citizens Commission and the critically important
5
0 0
component of this Report which is represented by the Citizen’s Commission
document. It should also be here noted that of the 21 members of the current
Commission, 9 had also served on the 18 member Citizen’s Commission; and,
of those, 3 had also served on the 15 member Finance Review Panel. This
“continuity” demonstrates the consistency of the focus and thinking of the
several sequential and deliberative groups which have conscientiously
addressed the vital and timely subject of this Report.
The Commission has met over a dozen times since its formation in early 1994,
taking testimony from a large number of individuals representing LAFCO,
SANDAG, special districts, large and smaller cities within the region, the County,
and interested individuals. After educating themselves generally about
governance in the region, the Commission members divided themselves into
three working substantive subcommittees for further analysis of the issues; one
subcommittee dealing with “planning”; one with “service delivery” and the third
with “resource management”. Each subcommittee produced a report that was
presented to the Commission as a whole. The Commission then began
considering a range of recommendations, reaching, after lengthy and spirited
dialogue and debate, the conclusions reflected in this Report.
The Commission operated without the benefit of either permanent or full time
staff. As a result, (and as an indirect benefit) the members of the Commission,
collectively, contributed an enormous amount of time and talent to this difficult
assignment. What follows is some of what the Commission learned.
.
SAN DIEGO
The San Diego region covers 4,255 square miles, extending 70 miles along the
Pacific coast from the Mexican border to Orange County and inland 75 miles to
Imperial County. Riverside and Orange Counties form its northern boundary.
A unique aspect of San Diego County is that it is truly an autonomous region.
Camp Pendleton, the Pacific Ocean, the mountains and desert, and Mexico,
isolate San Diego geographically from other counties. Thus, unlike, for example,
the San Francisco Bay area (or the Los Angeles/Orange/Riverside area) where
people often live in one county and travel through or to one or more other
counties to work, shop or play, San Diegans overwhelmingly live, work and play
in San Diego County. The provision of public services, therefore, does not
involve the cross-county issues usually associated with overlapping metropoiitan
areas.
With respect to governance, the region reflects the familiar metropolitan pattern
of decentralization and fragmentation, of central city-suburban city rivalry, and of
central city-county competition for leadership, and of continual expansion of
public services to meet new demands through the use of both traditional and
6
e m
. metropolitan special districts. More significantly, the recent fiscal crisis of the
and encouraged fragmentation.
State of California has exacerbated the competition among units of government
GOVERNANCE IN THE REGION
There are 18 cities, one county, and as best as we can determine 150 special
Community College districts, 26 Mello-Roos districts, 80 assessment districts
within cities, more than 25 public non-profit corporations and Joint Powers
Agencies created by governments, and 17 governmental units established by
state I eg i sl at i on.
The local governments of the region of San Diego, which number at least 135,
affect the lives of over 2.6 million people. These governments spend over 4.58
billion dollars annually to supply a wide variety of services ranging from caring
for abandoned infants to the operation of an international airport through which
nearly 15 million passengers annually pass. And, largely due to the integrated
nature of our county, nearly every human enterprise is affected by the services,
regulations and decisions that are made by the region's more than 865 elected
officials.
districts in the San Diego region. In addition, there are 43 school districts, 5
The ordinary citizen is unable to understand the functioning complexity produCed
by the many jurisdictions that distribute similar services but use varying methods
and operating policies. Within the region, the average resident probably lives in
a community that is governed by a different government which provides a
different level of police protection than that where he/she works. For most other
services that is usually the case as well.
Where matters of regional concern, - water distribution, transportation, solid
waste management, crime control, etc., - demand a comprehensive strategic
response, a plethora of parochial perspectives and a general lack of vision
hinder decision-making. The region is micromanaged by the many jurisdictions
which compete with one another regionally and lobby for their narrow self-
interests in Sacramento. Interagency cmflict and preservation of "turf" hamper
the formation of logical, cooperative approaches and contribute to long-term
procrastination. We are governed by jurisdictions that were formed, and whose
boundaries were established, in the 19th century.
Typically, these general purpose jurisdictions argue for self-determination and
independence. However, history demonstrates that to overcome political
impasses, there must be a willingness to create new single purpose agencies
with authority over major regional services, such as: sanitation, economic
development or transportation. Thus, we have seen the creation of the
7
e e
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), the San Diego Unified Port
District, the San Diego County Water Authority, the administration of regional
transportation funds by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
and the failed attempt to create the San Diego Area Wastewater Management
District. Creation of these agencies appear to contradict the principles of
“representation” since they tend to result in further distancing the general public
from elected decision-makers.
Additionally, in the unincorporated areas of the region, the number of special
districts has increased at a phenomenal rate, for the most part to take care of the
scope of this form of local government can be readily seen by a comparison of
their number with that of the two basic units of general purpose government in
the region (cities and the county) - 150 to 19.
Special districts are authorized to perform only those functions that are set forth
in the enabling act under which they are established and, for the most part,
districts are limited to a single purpose or function. This is in direct contrast to
the numerous authorizations available to the general purpose city and county
governments. However, an important facet of special districts is that a large
number are governed by an elected board and therefore enjoy a high degree of
autonomy. This local autonomy does not always provide the grassroots control
that it is presumed to since district government tends to be confusing to the
citizen, district elections are frequently unnoticed, and voting records indicate
that the average citizen has little interest in the day-to-day activities of districts,
probably due to the nature of their operations and method of funding.
Subsequent to the enactment of Proposition 13, many special districts have
been operating as enterprises, relying primarily on non-tax revenues for funds.
They charge fees and service charges for their services (particularly those which
furnish utility type services) or have obtained the approval of voters to enact
benefit fee assessments and/or special taxes. These revenues are collected in
the form of additional levies appearing on property tax bills or through utility bills
(as in water and sewer bills).
There are two types of “special districts”; independent and dependent. An
independent special district has its own independently elected (or appointed)
board of directors; a dependent district is governed by another body, either the
County Board of Supervisors or a City Council or are appointed by these bodies.
Special districts are simple to create and can provide a needed service to areas
that in most cases could not otherwise be provided. However the presence of
too many special districts is confusing to the average citizen and the multiplicity
of special districts results in varying levels of service and service costs for
similar services throughout their region. It increases the complexity of citizens
petitioning for services and registering complaints. Planning for the region
municipal type service needs of these rapidly-growing areas. The extensive
8
. .e e
becomes an exercise in multi party negotiation that usually results in little or no
effective product. Region-wide coordination is near impossible as was recently
demonstrated in attempting to have consistent water conservation measures
during the drought.
An importarlt consideration is that special districts provide services and do not
have the higher level obligations of governing which require the exercise of
sensitivity toward social, economic, demographic, and other aspects of human
enterprise expected of general purpose agencies (i.e., counties and cities). The
Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 noted that "(t)he
legislature finds and declares that a single governmental agency (Le. city or
county), rather than several limited purposes agencies, is in many cases better
able to assess and be accountable for community service needs and financial
resources and, therefore, is the best mechanism for establishing community
service priorities."
It needs to be noted that while the creation of these single function governments
with usually limited territory have often resulted in uneven services, lack of
purpose limited government has not been learned in San Diego. In areas such
as water, sewage, transportation and solid waste, attempts have been made or
are being made in San Diego County to provide for sinsle purpose metropolitan - wide special districts. The errors made in the creation of the smaller special
districts are now being replicated at the regional level.
Newcomers and natives alike complain that regional issues are studied
endlessly without resolution. They point to studies for the creation of an
international airport to replace Lindbergh Field, the debates over the location of .
a new central library, the suboptimization in the construction and development of
the Convention Center, and others. Accomplishing change is too slow and most
projects take too long to come to fruition. A single individual on the city council
of one of the region's suburban cities can delay and even terminate a project or
program that would benefit the entire region. In a region dominated by government gridlock, blocking or delaying is the norm and accomplishment of a goal is the exception.
These observations must be tempered by acknowledging that there are
examples of development which have occurred in an orderly pattern, a wide
range of urban renewal projects are underway, a top-level ethnically diversified
committee has been formed to work for better racial relations, and the economic
base is widely diversified.
Of growing concern, however, is the viability of the region's decision-making
process to address in a timely fashion the numerous and complex issues
regarding replacement of obsolete infrastructure, erosion of essential services,
cooperation or coordination, and fragmented planning, the lesson of single
-
9
0 ,W
and provision of services to new citizens. This concern is heightened by the
severe - and expanding - revenue gap experienced by all units of local
government in the region and the state. Maintenance of satisfactory quality of
life is directly linked to the ability of local governments to effectively deliver
services. The fragmentation of public service priorities, various delivery
systems, delays, duplication of responsibility, overlapping and competing efforts,
and administrative hierarchies contribute to inefficiencies that can, and should,
no longer be tolerated.
OPTlONS TO IMPROVE THE REGION'S GOVERNANCE
Given the region's problems of planning, service delivery, finance and citizen
satisfaction, the Commission developed a list of potential solutions, any of which
could be considered as a way to streamline the region's government structure.
-
-
-
Consolidate all local units into a single government
Transfer more functions to county government
Transfer more functions to city governments
Bring about greater cooperation among municipalities through formal
agreements, Joint Powers Agencies and the like
Consolidate certain services, such as fire protection or sanitation, on
a county-wide basis by forming county-wide special districts or single
region-wide agencies
Transfer more functions to state government
-
-
-
The Commission has selected Consolidation as the optimum solution.
ADVANTAGES OF CONSOLIDATION
- increased local control: The effectiveness of local control is not to be
measured by the size of the agency but by the accessibility of its
governing board to the voters and the time and attention such a board
' can devote to community issues and problems.
- Better utilization of equipment and personnel, including the
advantages of economies of scale.
Standardization of policies and procedures relating to services
rendered and conditions of eligibility.
-
10
0 e
- Simplified and Improved relations with citizens who seek public
services.
improved relations with the business community, especially those who
are subject to regulations and have to pay fees and licenses.
A more equitable basis for the distribution and cost of public services.
improved reliability of statistical data to measure workload and
potentially justify funding assistance from state and federal agencies.
Facilitate the extension of services to new areas quickly and
-
-
-
-
efficiently as the need arises.
Improved regionwide planning in order to continue to render adequate
and efficient service.
-
HOW DID THE COMMISSION ARRIVE AT THE
CONSOLlDATlON SOLUTION?
BY STUDYING THE PROBLEMS OF GOVERNANCE
IN THE SAN DlEGO REGION
For the purposes of this document, we can divide the problems of governance in
the region into three generalized areas; - Planning - Service Delivery - and
Resource Management. Certainly, none of the three is mutually exciusive, but
for the purpose of presenling the picture of dysfunctional governance in the
regian, we shall examine each of these areas separately
Over the years, there have been efforts, either locally initiated or directed by the
State or the Federal Governments, to improve the level of intergovernmental
planning and service delivery. Even those efforts such as the creation of
SANDAG and LAFCO, have not kept up with the desire of the public for a more
cohesive regional planning capacity and a more economic and efficient level of
service delivery. In recent years. a number of entities have been formed either
by statute or by interagency contract (Joint Powers Agreement) to address the
planning and/or service delivery of specific services. These range, for example,
from the Heartland Communications Facility, a Joint Power Authority which
provides Fire Dispatch services to eight Fire Service Agencies; to the
Metropolitan Transit Development Board, an agency created by statute to plan
and deliver public transportation services in the San Diego Metropolitan area;
the San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Authority; the San Diego Regional Solid
11
0 .W
Waste Authority. The success of these attempts at regional and subregional
cooperative efforts has been mixed at best; often, it is terrible.
In order to develop a snapshot of the mosaic that makes up the tangle of public
planning, service delivery and resource management in the region, it may be
helpful to examine a representative sample of the problem areas.
PLANNING
When the word “planning” is used in a local government‘setting, it is most often
perceived to be in a land use context. Although land use planning is a key
element of sound regional planning, it is only a small piece of the total picture.
However it is well to begin the examination of coordinated regional planning (or
the lack thereof) with this keystone issue.
Land Use: There are 18 Cities and the County within San Diego which have
land use planning responsibilities. SANDAG is also charged with certain land
use planning functions as they relate to transportation planning and population
projections. The municipalities and the County have zealously guarded their
land use planning and zoning authority to the extent that SANDAG planning
efforts merely reflect the adopted General Plans and Zoning Ordinances of the
Cities and the County. Most of the cities in the Region and the County make an
effort to share information about land use decisions that might impact or affect
adjoining jurisdictions, but they all reserve the right to final decision making
authority regardless of the point of view of the adjoining jurisdiction. This
posture has led to frustrations, friction and sometimes litigation between
neighboring jurisdictions.
Solid Waste: The Solid Waste System in this region is, at best, not a system,
and, at worst, IS a shambles. The “collection” component is controlled through
exclusive franchise agreements in all of the Cities except San Diego, which
provides for residential collection by municipal forces and commercial collection
through open private company competition. The “disposal” element became
quite fragmented a number of years ago when several Cities opened and
operated their own landfills alongside the landfills operated by the County.
Several years ago, the County accepted the responsibility for providing disposal
facilities and made substantial capital irxestment in landfills. For a variety of
reasons; that system is no longer price competitive with disposal sites outside
the County and several Cities have elected to direct their solid waste to those
more price competitive sites. Very recently, the Regional Solid Waste Authority
was created to attempt to develop a regional disposal system which would serve
all the entities except the City of San Diego (which is totally self sufficient) but
that effort is faltering, because very few of the remaining Cities have joined the
Authority with the County. One only need read the Union Tribune to
,
12
0, e.
comprehend the level of disaster into which the CountyA 7 city relationship has
degenerated.
Flood Control: There is no single flood control agency in the region and very
little coordination or cooperation exists between jurisdictions that are responsible
for flood control planning and implementation. On the premise that runoff which
causes flooding does not respect political boundaries and political boundaries
do not reflect watershed boundaries, the County attempted to create countywide
Flood Control District about 25 years ago, but few of the Cities were interested.
Those which did participate withdrew when Proposition 13 substantially reduced the property tax funding source.
Transportation: This is the area where there has been some success at regional
planning. SANDAG has the basic responsibility for regional Transportation
Planning. The planning process has worked with SANDAG providing the
regional coordination function and resource allocation within certain parameters.
The level of coordinated Transportation Planning does not, to any significant
degree, include air or sea transport or shipping. It? the arena of air transport,
SANDAG serves as the Airport Land User Commission addressing land use
surrounding the various airports in the region and has conducted numerous
studies concerning a new major airport location. Comprehensive, regional air,
rail and water transportation planning is practically non existent, yet absolutely
critical to regional economic development.
Fire Protection: There is little comprehensive regional planning with regard to
fire protection. There is a level of communication and cooperation through the
Fire Chiefs Association, but this is purely voluntary on the part of the different
member agencies and individuals.
Economic Development: Regional activities in this category are a hodge podge.
The City of San Diego has an active program operated through the Economic
Development Council and sub regional groupings such as the South Bay and the
inland East area have their own Economic Development Councils. There is no
cohesive economic development plan for the region and, in the real world, all the
programs that do exist create and maintain an aggressive, and oft times non-
productive, competitive environment within the region.
Social Services: The County and the State are primarily responsible for social
services in the region. There are, however, some service needs which are not
mandated by either the State or the Federal Government, but to which some
local agencies have responded. One example is the problem of planning for
services to the homeless.
private non profit organizations and cities within the region have provided some
programs, but again there is no comprehensive regional planning effort with
regard to the homeless.
c Many programs provided to homeless are offered by
13
e 0
Military Interface: The military will be an essential element in the growth and
economic development of the San Diego region. Our area is slated to become
the largest concentration of military personnel and facilities in California as the
result of recent base closures in other parts of the State. There is no single
regional authority to interface with the military on such matters as traffic
planning, aircraft routing and noise abatement, military housing, or the impact of
facilities development on overlapping, adjoining jurisdictions.
Crossborder Planning: Arguably this is an area, given NAFTA, which should be
a number one priority for the San Diego region, and yet it languishes. This issue
is uncoordinated and conducted by “unofficial” institutions and organizations
of the local governmental structure. The City of San Diego has sn Office of
Transborder Affairs which is understaffed and not well focused, and now the
County seems to have dropped out of the area completely.
such as the Chamber of Commerce, SDSU, and Dialogue, which operate outside
SERVICES AND SERVICE DELIVERY
As with the issues of regional .planning, there are similar areas of concern with
respect to comprehensive delivery of services to the residents of the region. -It
may help to put the problem in perspective to describe several examples of the
lack of such comprehensive services and service delivery in the region.
1 ) Duplication in Administration and Overlapping Jurisdiction of Service Delivery
Law Enforcement: Basic law enforcement is delivered to the region by the
California Highway Patrol for traffic enforcement in the unincorporated area; the
Sheriffs Department for other than traffic enforcement in the unincorporated
area and for patrol and traffic enforcement in nine of the 18 cities. The other
nine cities maintain their own police departments. This situation results in
different levels of service and expectations and overlapping allocation of
resources. As an example, given the number of SWAT type of operations in the
region each year, is it efficient and cost effective for the City of San Diego, the
County Sheriff and several of the other cities each to train, equip and operate
their own discrete SWAT Units?
Library: The City of San Diego has a full public library system which
includes a main full-service library as well as a number of neighborhood branch
libraries. The County operates a system of neighborhood branch libraries in the
unincorporated area as well as in some of the smaller and medium size cities.
Several of the small, medium and larger Cities in the region operate their own
libraries ranging from a single unit to a main and several branch units. Although
from the user or borrower’s perspective, the systems are integrated, there is
considerable overlap and duplication of overhead and asset and resource
14
I 0 ..
management within the fragmented regional library system. In addition,
branches of different systems are often located close to one another without
coordinating hours of operation - the new City of San Diego branch at Scripps
Ranch and the Poway branch are good examples. Similarly, there are few
efforts to integrate school libraries into the system. Finally, there are 3 major
University libraries in the region which are valuable resources, but that are not
utilized as well as they might.
Housing Programs: The City of San Diego and several of the larger Cities
in the region operate their own housing programs through individual Housing
Authorities. The County operates a Housing Authority for the unincorporated
area that serves as a Housing Authority for several of the smaller cities. This
fragmented approach does not lend itself to efficiency and effectiveness, nor
does it insure that scarce housing resources will be applied or available at the
point of greatest need.
Fire Services: There are 17 municipal fire agencies and a significant
number of Fire Districts providing fire protection in the region. There has been a
number of efforts directed towards consolidation of municipal fire services and
independent fire districts over the past two decades. Nearly all have been
unsuccessful, with one notable exception of the consolidation of the Spring
Valley and Mount Helix Fire Districts to create the San Miguel Fire District. This
multiplicity of agencies has resulted in greater cost to the taxpayer due to
redundant administration and management and in some cases, agencies which
are too small to take advantage of the economies of scale that are available to a
24 hour operation. Unlike other local government services, fire services have
been successful, through subregional Automatic Aid Agreements, in sharing
personnel and equipment to the extent that artificial political boundaries have
' been virtually erased in the interest of efficient and effective service delivery.
Animal Control: This is one of the local governmental services which has
experienced a measure of consolidation over the past 25 years. Other than the
decision by the City of San Diego to contract with the County for Animal Control
services, the decisions by other smaller cities to contract with the County were
driven partly by the lack of economy of scale in a small city but primarily by state
laws which made small animal shelters very costly and complex to operate.
retaining the direct public contact portion of the service.
There has been some consolidation at the shelter level with the local jurisdiction
Disaster Services: Approximately 30 years ago, it was recognized that if a
major disaster occurred in the region, it would not likely respect political
boundaries and, further, even if the disaster was isolated in one area of the
region, the responsive resources of all the public agencies in the region would
be required. It was therefore determined that a countywide agency consisting of
the County and all of the Cities would be advantageous in responding to a major
L.
15
.. 0
disaster. Thereafter the Office of Disaster Preparedness was created by a Joint
Powers Agreement which bound the County and ali of the Cities together for
planning and finance purposes. This Agency lost much of its value when the
City of San Diego withdrew from the organization.
Storm Drainage/Flood Control: The County and each of the 18 Cities take
individual responsibility for these facilities within their respective jurisdictions.
While seemingly fair on the surface, there are many inequities in such an
arrangement. There is little, if any, inter-jurisdictional planning in an area where
lack of planning can be disastrous. Such fragmentation does not allow for
equitable spreading of the cost of facifities to serve the “larger public” beyond
the individual jurisdiction. It compounds the old scenario in which the property
owner on the top of the hill disclaims any responsibility for the problem because
the rain which falls on his property runs downhill and is therefore not a problem
for him and the property owners in the valley (where property is flooded) do not
believe that they should have to pay for solutions because the water came from
the hill and the valley land is merely the victim.
2) Conflicting Impacts of Actions by Governing Entities
Another aspect of the fragmentation of the delivery of public services among
many jurisdictions is that an action by one may have an adverse impact on
another. There is no mechanism for examining and mitigating the actions by one
agency which may adversely impact another nor to distribute the public
resources in such a manner as to offer disincentives to agencies to adversely
impact another. The storm drainage/flood control example described above is
only one of many that could have been cited. A city which decides to employ
additional police officers may find that decision to be clearly in its best public
interest, but if the result of the additional officers is that more people will be
arrested, then the action will place an additional financial burden on the County
to provide more prosecutorial, court and jail space and staffing. The State has
mitigated this impact somewhat by authorizing the County to charge a “booking”
fee to other jurisdictions to recover costs of booking prisoners into County jails,
but the fee does not cover the cost of housing the prisoner after the person has
been booked. Also charging cities for arrests might produce a scenario in which
cities might reduce arrests because they can not afford to pay booking fees.
if the County reduces certain social service expenditures, there may be more
hOMeleSS people on the streets which may result in greater law enforcement
costs for the cities, if the additional street people turn to crime as a means of
subsistence. On the other hand, as cities determine that housing the homeless
is not their responsibility or find that housing for the homeless does not compete
successfully with other budget priorities, the homeless may find themselves
seeking additional social services from the County or in greater need of
emergency medical assistance from County medical facilities.
.
16
am 0
From the revenue generation side, a City may decide to locate a regional mall or
the taxes generated by the use and the adjoining jurisdiction must deal with the
traffic, noise, crime, etc. which accompanies such land use.
3) Issues of Multiple Governance which impact the Region
Compounding the problems of locat government fragmentatio-n of planning and
service delivery described above is the occurrence, which is fairly recent in local
government history, that can be identified as the “multiple governance
phenomenon”. This situation occurs at all levels of government and ranges from
very clear and egregious examples such as the StateCounty relationships with
Courts and Social Services to many more subtle intergovernmental relationships
that are often referred to as “unfunded mandates”.
In the case of intergovernmental relationships, there are three questions which
should be asked about the service; 1) how and by whom are the decisions
made regarding the program, the level of service to be delivered and how it is to
be administered; 2) what Agency administers the program; and 3) what Agency
of government has the authority and the ability to generate the funding for the
program. If all three of these questions cannot be answered by naming the
same Agency of government, we have a multiple governance issue.
In the case of Soeial Services, in most instances, the decision to provide the
service and the service level to be provided, is determined by the Federal or the
State Government; the County is directed, or mandated, to administer the
program; and the source of funding to pay for the programs is a variety of
sources, including State and Federal Grants and local revenues.
It is our belief that when the entity which makes the service decision does not
have the delivery or funding obligation, it is less likely to consider the ultimate
public interest as contrasted with the special interest pressures. It also has the
effect of assigning scarce local resources to a program which the local entity is
merely delivering on behalf of a higher level of government to the detriment of
other critical local programs. There is, additionally, a basic principle of
representative government; that the people who have the delivery and funding
responsibility should be the ones who decide to provide the service.
other traffic or crime generating facility near its border, The host city receives
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Revenues and Geography: Local government revenues bear Ii ttle
relationship to the priority of the services funded by the revenues. Since
Proposition 13 removed a substantial portion of the property tax as a
discretionary revenue source for local government, there has been a propensity
17
0 W
to fund programs with service charges or user fees at the local level. Since the
State has been in fiscal crisis due to the economic downturn, it has shifted
property taxes among local government entities and has claimed several
revenue sources which traditionally had been considered to be local in nature.
Although we do not know the exact magnitude of this shift for the San Diego
region, statewide it has been over $4 billion since 1990. The result has been the
degradation of services at the local level and increased efforts to generate
special purpose revenue sources as well as increased fees and charges for
services.
Sales tax ranks close to or is the number one source of tax revenue for cities in
the County, yet its distribution - done by the stale - has no relation to service
needs or residence of the individual who spends it. This is truly a tax that is
collected within the region and should be equitably allocated within the region.
With the loss of the significant portion of the property tax, cities and special
districts have had to rely on revenue sources which do not necessarily have a
correlation to demands for services. This phenomenon has also resulted in
in most need of property related services are not necessarily those with
sufficient non-property tax revenue sources.
significant disparities in per capita revenues among cities. Also, cities which are
Regional Fiscal Capacity vs. Regional Responsibilities: As noted above,
the tendency toward speeiai purpose revenue sources, rather than discretionary
revenues, at the local level, can result in adequate resources for a low priority
program and a shortfall of discretionary revenues for higher priority programs.
The theory that was propounded by the supporters of Proposition 13 in 1978
was that if the citizens of a local jurisdiction felt that a particular program (e.g. -
public safety, parks, transportation) had a high enough priority, the jurisdiction
could place a measure on the ballot for an increase in the property tax and if the
program was desirable enough, it would receive the necessary 2/3 majority vote.
In point of fact, local agencies have found the super majority vote nearly
impossible to achieve regardless of the perceived (or the actual) value of the
program.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOVERNANCE IN THE REGION:
AM INTERIM PLAN - A FIRST STEP
As explained above, the Commission recommends the creation of a single
regional government complemented by Community Councils.
Because however, even as we issue this Report, governments in the region &
exist, we propose to move towards this recommendation through, what we hope
18
4 0 0
will he, an interim solution. Despite our expectation that the ultimate regional
structure we are recommending will eventually evolve, we are confident that
even, the interim changes we suggest, will, by themselves, make clear and
substantial improvements in the quality, efficacy and efficiency of governance. .
A central feature of the Commission’s interim solution is a clear division of
responsibility for local and regional issues. As explained more fully below, the
Commission proposes a mechanism for the delineation of local and regional
issues. Local issues would continue to be the responsibility of the cities within
the region, which would continue to operate much as they do today. The
residents of the City of San Diego, for example, would continue to elect city
council members and a mayor, and those elected officials would continue to
govern the City in most areas in much the same way as they do to-day.
The cities, however, would not independently address issues which are
determined to be regional in nature. For such regional issues, we propose the
creation of an elected regional governing body (“Regional Authority”) which
would be charged with the planning of regional issues and which would have the
authority to both identify such issues and to implement its decisions. Tne
Commission recommends that this new regional authority replace the County
Board of Supervisors and assume the responsibilities, staff and resources of the
Board of Supervisors, and both SANDAG and LAFCO.
As just one example, we.anticipate that such a regional authority would be given
the power for solid waste management for the region. It would gather data, set
regional policy, and design a plan for the implementation of its policy. The
authority would be free to determine how best to implement its plans. It might
contract with existing cities, it might contract functions out to the private sector or
it might do a combination of both. Critically, however, the decision of this
regional authority would be binding on existing cities and special districts.
The mechanism by which such a regional authority identifies, and assumes
responsibilify for, a regional issue is described more fully below.
In addition, the regional authority would assume all of the County’s
responsibilities under state and federal law. For example, the regional authority
would continue to operate the courts and welfare offices; hire and fund a
Registrar of Voters and retain responsibility for the courts, prosecutions and
jails.
However, the Commission strongly recommends and urges that this regional
authority work with the California Legislature and the Congress to reassess the
proper role of each in the provision of particular services. Local governments
are not independent. Cities, counties and any new regional authority created
can only derive power from the State. Sometimes local government is required
19
a 0
to provide a particular service because the State requires that it do so, and
sometimes the State requires local government to provide a service which the
federal government has required of the State. All such so called state and
federal mandates must be re-examined. In general, the Commission believes
that local government should not be obligated to provide a service where such
local government has neither control over the financial resources necessary to
provide the service nor control over the policies which determine the level or
quality of said service.
Thus, simply as one example, the Commission believes that the State should
take back the financing and administration of the court system. Neither the
County today, nor the proposed regional authority, can set policy with respect to
the courts. That is the province of the State Legislature as codified in state law.
Neither the County today, nor the proposed regional authority, controls the
financial resources necessary to fund the court system. Funding for the courts
comes from the state, and, in recent years, has been inadequate to cover the
costs of the services that the state mandates the County provides. The County
is required to supplement the funding it receives from the State in order to satisfy
state mandates over which the County has no control. The same is true of
certain federal mandates to the State, which are often in turn, passed along to
local government. The Commission cannot complete (or even pursue) the
task of defining responsible and effective government for the region
without a wholesale and global reevaluation of these critical relationships.
THE REGIONAL AUTHORITY IN OPERATION
The first charge of the regional authority will be to determine the appropriate
structure of governance in the unincorporated area of the region. The regional
authority would be precluded from itself governing the unincorporated areas.
Instead, the authority would work with the unincorporated communities to determine the most appropriate form of governance. The Commission does not make a specific recommendation in this regard. The regional authority might
consider incorporation, annexation or the creation of other innovative forms of
local government.
The regional authority would also be responsible for deciding the future of
special districts. There are 150 special districts in the region. Many can, or
should, be consolidated or eliminated, while maintaining the same, if not a
higher, level of service. The regional authority might want to consider
consolidating special districts by function -- a single water district for the region,
for example -- or it might divide the region into quadrants and create a fire
district in each quadrant. The Commission makes no recommendation as to the
ultimate configuration of special districts. only that the regional authority
consider this matter seriously and immediately
20
e 0
REGIONAL vs. LQCAL ISSUES
HOW THE REGIONAL AUTHORITY DETERMINES REGIONAL ISSUES
Underlying both the Commission’s ideal and interim proposals is the belief that
there can be established a clear distinction between local issues, which can best
be resolved by a smaller and more intimate level of government, and regional
issues which can best, and in many instances, can only be resolved
satisfactorily regionally. The difference between local and regional concerns is
not always self evident. To the best of our knowledge, there is no existing
classification scheme which would allow us to categorize issues as either “local”
or “regional”.
Accordingly, we have crafted, at least an initial draft of, one such formula. In
order to identify those issues that should be the responsibility of the regional
government and those which should remain the province of the local authorities,
we offer the following template or model, the use of which would allow the public
and public officials to make such a determination.
We propose that the regional authority be given the power to conclude thst a
particular service or program is [‘regional’’ and should therefore be best
addressed at the regional level. In order for the regional authority to declare a
following questions and base its decision on a factual demonstration of each
response.
1 ) Is the service/program mandated by the State or Federal government to be
implemented regionally (county-wide)?
2) Is the service/program one which should be uniform throughout the region?
In other words, should there be equality of treatment region wide?
3) Is the funding base for the service/program region wide?
4) Does the provision of the service/program regionally, eliminate duplication
among jurisdictions?
servicelprogram regional, however, it would first have to address each of the
5) Does the provision of the servicelprogram regionally allow for economies of scale?
6) Does the provision of the service/program regionally improve the quality of
the service delivered7
21
0 ..
7) Can the service/program be provided regionally without sacrificing
accountability and public access?
8) Is the service program one traditionally associated with “local” control? (Is it
one with which there is a high degree of citizen interest in specific outcomes?)
We would require the regional authority to a) produce a written document based
upon factual evidence addressing each of these eight questions; b) provide that
such document be circulated widely and made available to the public at least 30
days prior to a public meeting at which the regional authority proposes to decide
whether to take jurisdiction over a particular sen/ice/program; and c) conduct a
publie hearing on each servicelprogram over which the regional authority
proposes to take jurisdiction.
If the regional authority complies with .these requirements and then votes to
declare that a specific issue is “regional”, such decision would be final. The
regional authority would, however, retain the power to reconsider such a
decision at any time.
.
SUNSET PROWSION
Because our proposal is untested, the Commission recommends that the
Regional Authority sunset after 10 years. Specifically, we recommend that if, as
we fully expect, a ballot measure is needed ultimately to create the Commission
and determine such details as the Regional Authority’s composition and district
lines, the measure should indude a provision requiring a vote of the people of
the region to renew the Regional Authority after 10 years. We would further
recommend the creation of a Commission, like ours, to study the Regional
Authority , its work and its effectiveness, and report to the voters prior to the
renewal vote.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
The Commission’s recommendations are intentionally quite general. We
acknowledge that there are a myriad of questions that must be considered and
resolved before our proposal could be implemented. We also recognize that our
recommendations will be controversial and, as with many proposals for
fundamental political reform, those currently charged with governing the region -
both elected and non elected officials - may be reluctant to embrace our ideas.
Thus we recommend that the Board of Supervisors prepare an advisory
proposition, similar to Proposition A - that would ask the voters of San Diego
County whether they favor the creation of a Regional Authority as outlined in this
report. Possible language for such ballot language might be:
22
e 0 ’.
“The people of San Diego have determined that many of the issues
affecting their communities are regional in nature and can only.be
resolved by measures that cross traditional jurisdictional lines.
Accodingly, we seek to create a Regional Authority that would replace
the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, the San Diego Local Area
Formation Commission (LAFCO) and the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG). The Regional Authority would be charged
with the identification of regional problems and with the planning and
imp/ementation of effective solutions to these problems. The Regional
Authoity’s decisions regarding these issues would be binding on the
people of San Diego County and on all of the local jurisdictions within the
County. In order to establish such a Regional Authority, the Board of
Supervisors of San Diego County shall appoint a Commission,
comprised of 3 persons from each Supervisorial District (none of whom
may be a public employee or elected official), which shall be charged
with formation of a Regional Authority, including the determination of the
appropriate size of the Authority and the appropriate District lines. The
Commission shall also determine the legal prerequisites to the formation
of such a Regional Authority, including any changes needed in state law
the County. The Commission shall draft any ballot measures necessary
to create such a Regional Authority and task any other steps necessary
to create such a Regional Authority, The Commission shall be provided
with staaff, including legal counsel, necessary to accomplish its task. The
San Diego County Board of Supervisors is hereby directed to
appropriafe the sum of $250,000 per year for the next three years as a
budget for the Commission to be spent in accordance with the terms of
this measure”.
or in the Counfy of San Diego Charfer or in the chafer of any cify within
If the voters approve the concept of such a Regional Authority, then the Board of
Supervisors would appoint a regional commission to study and make specific
recommendations for the implementation of this plan. Such a commission would
need to consider:
What changes of state law, if any, need to be made to effect this proposal?
What changes, if any, are required in the charter of the County of San
Diego and the charters of the charter cities in the region, in order to effect this
proposal?
How many members should be on the Regional Authority?
How are these members to be elected?
Assuming district representation, how are the district lines to be drawn?
L.
23
0. 0
Ultimately, how will .voters approve this proposal? Does adoption require a
majority of county voters and/or a majority of each city within the county?
The new Commission must be. adequately staffed and funded to insure that
appropriate legal and factual data support is available.
CONCLUSION
San Diego is a great place to live, work and play - but our communities are by
no means trouble free. The problems we face as a region -- solid waste
management, transportation, wastewater, infrastructure planning and the like --
can only be resolved efficiently and effectively if we are willing to embrace new
ideas and new ways of implementing those ideas. As the region has grown and
changed dramatically over the past 20 years, so too must our governance. We
must be willing to reshape governments so that it -- and we -- are able to
resolve the issues we face in bold new ways.
We need government that listens - and hears; government that. is accountable:
government that is accessible; and government that works. After studying the
region and its governments for almost 2 years, this Commission has concluded
that we must begin to deiineate local issues from regional issues and to create
governance structures capable of addressing and resolving each. Thus we
propose the creation of a new form of government -- a Regional Authority -- that
would respond to regional issues. Local forms of government -- our independent
cities and some of our special districts - would continue to address local issues.
We are confident that this new structure will be a critical and productive first step
on the road to more effective and efficient government for the people of San
Diego.
'.
24
0 e
EXHIBIT A
CONSOLIDATION ISSUES
- Would delegation of government functions to a larger legislative body,
which is more distant from the people, provide proper and adequate
representation of the citizenry and produce appropriate
responsiveness to constituent needs?
- If a city is going to delegate to a regional agency the performance of a
municipal function, it is desirable that the city have some direct
representation on the governing body of the regional agency.
Elimination of city governments would block the implementation of this
desirable public policy consideration.
- People have a natural and legitimate concern regarding the quality ,
quantity and costs of services they currently receive and how structural
governmental changes will affect their basic and necessary services.
Reorganization on a voluntary basis would appear to be extremely
difficult if left up to the local officials who naturally have an emotional
factor inherent in their opinions and decisions.
A regionwide agency's governing board should include representation
of the population of the entities replaced by the regionwide agency (i.e.,
elimination of county and cities). This would require the drawing of
district boundaries from which representatives to the region-wide
goverrling body would be selected through a public vote. There are
various models that can be designed to achieve voter representation.
Funding sources for the financing Of municipal services in existing cities
vary widely from city to city. Consolidation of such services into a
region-wide agency would require a re-alignment of revenue sources to
fund the consolidated services. While the property tax is decreasingly
less important as a major source of financing, assessed valuation
frequently influences the level of service to be provided. For example, it
is a factor in the provision of fire protection services. Variations in
service level needs will require analysis and the development of a
suitable mechanism to be sensitive to those variations.
Consolidation will require accounting for the outstanding debts of public
agencies either eliminated or consolidated. A mechanism for the
continuance of debt service payments on outstanding bond issues will
be required. It can be expected that communities will object io the
paying Of outstanding bond indebtedness for Communities other than
-
-
-
-
25
0 a
their own. No one will want to assume the debt of others. Care will
have to be given to the avoidance of outstanding issues being downgraded due to consolidation.
- Sanitation districts have, over the years, built up a sound reputation in
the bond market. Consolidation should not disturb the stability of
financing mechanisms for sanitation purposes.
- The effect of consolidation upon the individual rights of the employees of
cities, special districts and the county should be given serious
consideration. Principal areas sf concern would be:
- variations in pension systems - -
- variations in compensation plans -
People who are at the department head level will, in all likelihood, be
extremely critical of any consolidation plan due to concerns that they
would lose prestige, status and perhaps certain vested rights.
accumulated vacation and sick leave, and other leave credits
variations in health, life, disability, and other insurance coverage
variations in deferred compensation plans
-
26
0 0
March 26,1996
>
TO: MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Clty Manager
AGENDA ITEM #4 - SAN DIEGO REGION CITIZENS’ COMMISSION REPORT ON LOCA
GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY AND RESTRUCTURING
Attached please find John Mamaux’s minoriiy report relative to the San Diego Citizens’ Commission on Government Efficiency and Restructuring. Mr. Mamaux provided this for yo
information in view of the fact that he was the lone descending vote.
A
RAY PATCHElT
ma
Attachment
c: City Attorney
City Clerk
0 0
JOHN J. MAMAUX
1393 Basswood Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(619) 729-5648
October 22, 1995
Letter to Mayors & City Managers:
Please be advised that for the past eighteen months I have
served as a member of the San Diego Region Citizens kommission
Local Government Efficiency and Restructuring (SANCOqER).
The final report of this Commission is being submitted to t
Board of Supervisors for said Board's review and approval. I a
the only member in opposition to the Commissions report.
This report is diametrically opposed to the basic concepts
local government and local home rule. Your review and oppositi
to this report is important to the survival of City Government,
we know it, in San Diego County.
Transmitted herewith please find a copy of a letter that I
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Copies of the report ci
secured from the Chief Administrative Office, San Diego County
The report is outlandish in what it says, but the danger is in
unwritten words.
Mayors and City Managers should lead the opposition to thi!
report. I cannot presume to tell you how that opposition shou
structured. My function is to bring this problem to your
attention.
Yours very truly,
0
4 363h 0
f333 9i3dk
&&xh&, &+& 92008
(643) 799-5648
October 22, 1995
San Diego County
Board of Supervisors
Honorable Diane Jacob, Chairwoman
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA. 92101-2472
Subject: Report Submitted By San Diego Citizen's Commission 0
Government Efficiency and Restructure
Honorable Diane Jacob:
It was a distinct pleasure to be appointed by the Board o
Supervisors to the SANCOGER Commission. When I accepted this
assignment, I felt that it was a continuation of my long
involvement in City and County Government.
As City Manager, of the City of Del Mar, I helped negotia
first contracts between Del Mar and the County. Back in 1960
County Representative for Sheriffs Services was Leon Williams
also had the privilege of helping form the Comprehensive Plan
Organization (CPO), which evolved into SANDAG.
In the late 1970's I was a member of the San Diego County
Charter Review Committee. That Committee met for one(1) full
every week for over onc(1) year; the result was a proposal th
successfully presented to the Board of Supervisors, and ultim
approved by the Voters by a very large majority.
T do not believe that the Voters will approve the SANDCOG
report as presented. Herewith are a few of my comments on th
advised proposal:
General Comment: It is difficult to conceive of a more
wrongheaded notion, about che future of governmental organiza
in the region, than the one proposed by this Commission.
To be specific: The report reflects the group's three bas
errors. They are:
1. The Commission's recommendations would nullify the st
public preference, that many governmental decisions,
shoufd be made as close to home as possible.
o In the second sentence of it's report, the Commiss
describes the San Diego region as "diverse." It's
analysis also recognizes at least the existence an
validity of local issues, decision-making, and ser
Then, in recommending a "regional authority'' to re
0 0
4 October 22, 1995
Page Two of Four
Honorable Diane Jacob
the region's cities and special districts. the
Cornmission essentially ignores the political. and
governmental cljversitv of the reFion's commiinities.
o The Commission's analysis of the existingisituation
local and regional Zovernance: is characterized by
numerous negative and demagogic, but unsubstantiate)
conclusions. In fact, ?.he available data showc. tha
from the residents point of view, there ;R no real
impetus for change in local governmental organizati
I
For example: The group's proposal that the existing
cities be replaced by sub-regional districts, appar
ignores the fact that dozens of public opinion surv
conducted in most cities in recent years, have repo
substant.ia1 citizen satisfaction with local service
2. The Commission characterizes it's proposal for creatio
i! regional authority as "visionarv." yet it's "vision
overlooks the fundament.al striictural f1.aw in County
government that ultimately caused the Commission to be
created: The failed attempt. to simultaneonslp perform
local. regional. and state functions.
o The fsi ZirrP to recognize and sol.ve thP C.oi1nt.v'~ bas
structural defect should be viewed, by the Commissi
supporters, as the group s biagest error. Birrdenin
"regional authority" with hoth regional anti Iocai
responsibilities would doom it to failure as well.
making it nothing more than t.he County using an ali
That's not visionary, it's myopic.
1.
3. As a consequence of these two mistakes, the authors
apparently are able to rationalize their third error:
proposal to eliminate all of the effective governmenta
agencies in the region, while recommending that the on
that obviously doesn't work --the County-- should be
perpetuated by expanding, in effect. the Board of
Siipervisors.
o Unified regional governments of the type proposed t
commission were briefly and mildly poptilar in the 1
1960's, mostly in the South. For a variety of gooc
reasons, the short lived movpment fizzled o!it. The
regional government was organized in the 1370's. (
enough. when the growth of government was e~treme1~
8 0 e
:/
October 22, 1995
Page Three of Four
Honorable Diane Jacob
popiilar, regional government never became popular.
member or representative of any said regional goverr
presented an.v evidence to SANCOGER.
Conclusions & RecommendationsL
Jn my opinion, the Commission failed to respond to its prir
charge to "reinvent" government, because it did not identify
orranizar;onal changes that wnuld solve tha Cnut1r:- 5: :firtiti:qment;
% t riic t 7ir> !
,'
proh 1 em.
The County's fiindamental. problem, as mentioned above. i.s tf
October 22, 1995
Page Three of Three
Honorable Diane Jacob
it bas three different, often conflicting, responsibilities. ar
constituencies: i.e.: local. regional, and state. The Commissi
proposed "regional authority" would have the same flaw. So, ir
fact, there is nothing new in the report that would improlre lor
Fovernrnpnt.
To .=rsist t.he Commission and the C.ounty in their review of
report. I offer the recommendations listed below.
The esistimg Commmmission or a SI~CC~SSOL- group shoiild revi:
the report based on these directives:
A . lr s e3 C ommi s s i on ' s
proposals. as the basis for all of its recommendations.
Const.it.ittiona1 and statewide fiscal reform are essentia
the RIICC~SS of sny local governmental reorpanj7ation.
Commission's rpport. treats the Constit-iifional Revision
effort. as an efterthought: in fact, it.'s i! prerequisit~
meaningful change.)
t he C.a 1 i. for n i a Con s t i t.nt i. on a 1 Rev i s i on
e notion of eliminating cities and special distr:
t fundamental to improving local government. OVC
ome cities and special districts in t.he region m:
consolidate or dissolve. (It happens frequently with
sptcial. dist.ricts). Such events are local 1'ssiies. and ai
dec i s ion-making.
not central to the Commission's chosen t.heme of regiona:
C. Use the "coiincil of local governments" concept as the hi
for regional decision-making. A region, after all, 2s
nothi.ng more than a group of geographically,
environmentally, economically. and socially-related
communities. By definition, regional decisions should bl
good for the communities in the region. Local community
decision-makers are, therefore: bezt qualified. to make
regional decisions. Improve representation of resident
from unincorporated areas. (Ciirrent flaw in SAWJAG).
0 @ 3
i
Octoher 22. 1995
Page Foiir of Foiir
Honorable Diane Jacob
D. let the voters determine the type and numner of decision
makine and service responsibilities to be carried out h.
rsgiaflal tciuri~;l of local governments. Pnciude, a9 one
the proposals to the voters, the authority to resolve at
least certain tpp~s of conflicts among local governments
E. Provide, as part of the revised Commission report, basic
cost and benefit information on the proposals: include
preliminary dollar costs and savings. Reader4 of the
report, and the voters, need this kind of info1-mation tc
make intelligent decisions about the recommendations.
Reqpectfullv Submitted,
-- John .J. ivramaiis-Member
SANCOGER Commission
J JM I dm
-p: Pnn Fnh~rt 5. 4th Djstrict Siipervisor
Pam Slater. 3rd District Supervisor
Grps Cox, 1st District Supervisor
William Horn, 5th District Supervisor
0 e $
4
A PROPOSAL TO CREATE A REGIONAL COUNCIL IN THE SAN DIEGO REG1
(January, 1995), k- . I 9) ,, v
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum summarizes a proposal that, if implemented by loc
governments, could improve regional decision-making in the h
Diego region.
The proposal seeks to:
**improve regional governance rather than create a regior
government;
**make evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes in (
governmental structure, building on existing regional institutic
and agencies;
**take advantage of the concurrent trends toward localization
government and the regionalization of some services and decisic
making;
**protect local government's land use control authority and hc
rule responsibilities;
**continue and reinforce the region's well-established princip
of using locally elected officials to make regional decisions.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The local governments of the San Diego region should use lo
consensus and authorities, and, where necessary, changes
appropriate state legislation, to create the San Diego Regio
Council.
1
0 a
The San Diego Regional Council should be composed of one elect
representative from each of the cities in the region, plus one fr
the County's unincorporated area. Local governments wou
establish their own procedures for electing their representative
Membership on the Council would be mandatory for all local agenci
with voting rights. Additional membership on the Council for 0th
local, regional, state, and federal agencies would be necessar
and is desaibed belw
The Council would establish its own by-laws, rules of order, E
select its own officers.
The Council's voting procedures should include both a unit vote e
a weighted voting formula based on the principle of one persor
one vote.
The affected local and regional agencies should work tow:
consensus on the review, modification, approval, and phat
implementation of these proposals.
THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL COUNCIL
The San Diego Regional Council should be the policy-making body
most regional services and facilities provided in the San Dii
region.
As detailed in the sections that follow, the Regional Council wo
replace, and assume almost all of the regional functions of,
least the following agencies:
**San Diego Association of Governments
**San Dieyo County Board of Supervisors
**San Diego County Water Authority
**Solid Waste Management Authority
**Local Agency Formation Commission
2
0 e
**Air Pollution Control Board
**Automated Regional Justice Information System
**Service Agency for Freeway Emergencies
In addition, the Regional Council should assume the responsibili'
disposal facilities, in cooperation with the existing subregionl
sewage management agencies.
As the successor to the agencies listed above, the Regional Counc
would be responsible for setting policy, planning and programmin
funding, and, where appropriate, implementation and rate setti
for most regional facilities and services.
As a consequence of assuming the functions of the agencies list
above, the proposed list of regional services, functions a
facilities to be handled by the Regional Council would be:
for reviewing and approving major sewage collection, treatment ai
**Water supply (wholesale), with its attendant policy-settir
planning, programming, rate-setting, and implementati
responsibilities;
**Review and approval responsibility for all plans for major sews
collection, treatment and disposal facilities;
**Transportation Planning and Programming, with its numerc
related functions (e.g., Regional Transportation Commission, E
Bridge revenue administration, congestion management, Airport Le
Use Commission, etc.) ;
**Regional Growth Management, as established by the voters in 191
and carried out by SANDAG since 1990;
**Regional Solid Waste Management, including planning, sitii
financing, and, where necessary, rate-setting for regioi
facilities;
3
0 e
**Regional Justice System, including Superior Courts and locz
jails (see a potential qualification to this proposal under tf
section on the County of San Diego, in the Attachment, below);
**Regional Health and Social Services System (see potentii
qualification under County section in the Attachment, below);
**Establishment of Budgets and oversight for all other regionwit
services now handled by the County, including the sheriff,
tax assessor, tax collector, and several others;
**Air Pollution Control Board, including both SANDAG's and t
County's current responsibilities;
**Local Ayency Formation Commission;
**Automated Regional Justice Information System, Service Agency f
Freeway Emergencies, and other functions as considered appropriat
NOTE: Attachment 2 to this memo provides comments and suggestic
regarding each of the agencies and functions listed above.
The Regional Council should be composed of an elected offici
representing each city in the region, plus an elected offici
representing the region's unincorporated area. These elect
officials would be the voting members of the Council. Addition;
non-voting members should include the State of California, the U.
Department of Defense, the San Diego Unified Port District, t
government of Mexico, and perhaps others, as well.
Voting on the Council should include both a unit vote (commox
known as Isone agency - one votess) and a weighted voting formi
designed to achieve the principle of 'lone person - one vote
SANDAG's current voting formula provides a good basis j
negotiating and reaching a decision on this important issue.
4
0 e
There would be no single mandated method for selecting loc
elected officials to serve on the Regional Council. Each city E
the unincorporated area would establish its preferred method f
selecting its elected official to represent it. As the Regior
Council is formed, the local agencies should agree on t
appropriate alternative methods by which Council representatil
may be chosen. Each agency would then decide the method
prefers. Furthermore, local preferences for selection methc
might change over time.
It should not be necessary to mandate the position of Regio:
Council representative as "full time." To do so would restrict *
local agencies' flexibility in selecting their representativc
However, it should be obvious that the position would require
significant commitment of time from the Councilmember.
Regional Council representatives should be paid an amo
commensurate with the responsibility. Standard terms of off
should be established as well. Also, the Regional Council wo
establish its own by-laws, rules of order, and select its
officers.
HOW THE REGIONAL COUNCIL COULD WORK
The Regional Council could consider establishing functional a
subcommittees (e.g., solid waste, transportation, etc.) to h
carry out its work. (The County Water Authority and the San Di
City Council conduct much of their business using subcommittees
their respective governing bodies.) The subcommittees could
composed of members of the Regional Council or, alternative
members of the Council and other local elected officials as WE
This latter approach should help broaden local support for
Regional Council's decisions, and reinforce it as an extensior
local government.
Terms of service on these functional area subcommittees shoulc
5
0 0
defined, and membership should be rotated periodically so thz
Council members and the other participating elected officials
get a broad range of regional experience. It also should 1
possible, and probably necessary, for Council members to serve (
more than one subcommittee at a time.
The Regional Council also should establish numerous citizen a
technical advisory committees to assist both its subcommittees a
the Council.
the Council probably have about seventy advisory committees.)
(As a group, the agencies that would be replaced
STAFF FOR THE REGIONAL COUNCIL
Staffing for the Regional Council should be provided based on t
following principles:
** Staff skills and organization should be based on the Region
Council's responsibilities: identifying regional policy, planni
and programming, funding, and, where appropriate, implementati
and rate-setting for most regional facilities and services.
** The staff should be employed by and answerable directly to t
Regional Council. "Loaned staff It from other agencies, if necessa
for specific projects, should be only adjuncts to the Council
regular staff.
** Staff should be employed on a lfrnerit1l or performance z
productivity basis.
** Consultant assistance should be used whenever appropriate
provide specialized expertise, to increase involvement of t
private sector in the Council's work, and to help manage the sj
of the Council's staff.
WHAT THE REGIONAL COUNCIL WOULD NOT DO
6
0 e
The Regional Council, as proposed in this memorandum, does n
replace local government. Nothing in this proposal contemplate
the elimination or consolidation of any city or local speci
district, or the assumption of any of their responsibilitie
Rather, it proposes that local yovernment provide the foundati
and the ground rules for regional decision-making.
As proposed, the Regional Council also would not assume a
decision-making responsibility for the region's various sew
systems. Sewage collection, treatment and disposal are, by natur
subregional functions. The Regional Council, however, shou
review and approve all plans for major sewage collection, treatme
and disposal facilities. The purpose of this proposal (which a1
could be accommodated using a "self -certif icationl' approach) is
promote consistency in policy-setting for regional facilities a
services while leaving local and operational decisions to loc
sewage agencies.
Finally, it is proposed that the Regional Council would not be
operator of major regional services and facilities. Operatior
responsibilities for the services and facilities subject to t
Regional Council's decisions should be handled through contrac
with the private sector or other governmental agencies. '1
Attachment to this memo offers more details on operatior
responsibilities.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGIONAL COUNCIL
Implementation of a Regional Council, as proposed in this pap<
would require a combination of local agreement and changes to st:
law.
It is premature, however, to propose a detailed implementatj
process as part of this memorandum. A detailed proposal shoi
await the results of at least the initial review of the concer
proposed herein.
7
0 0
Nevertheless, there are some general principles of implementatic
are:
** Local agreement on a proposal should be the most importar
ob] ective. It is essential not only to changes in loa
institutions, but to obtaining the necessary amendments to stai
legislation, as well.
** As a practical matter, implementation of these proposals wou:
be phased, because some changes simply would take longer thi
others. Nevertheless, the primary objective should be to obta.
political agreement on the entire concept, as modified by tl
review process, and then begin implementing all aspects of
simultaneously.
that should be kept in mind as these proposals are discussed. Thc
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT ONE TO THE PROPOSAL TO CREATE A REGIONAL COUNCIL IN T:
SAN DIEGO REGION (January, 1995)
The following is a summary description, presented in list form,
observations and ideas that were used in preparing the propos
that a "Regional Counciln1 be established in the San Diego regio
*** The Basic Questions
- Who or what should be reorganized? - Why reorganize? What problems are we trying to solve? - What objectives are we trying to achieve? Can we identi
at least the most obvious or important advantages and
disadvantages of reorganizing?
*** Some Proposed Basic Answers
Our choices for reorganizing government in the San Diego regi
are functional and/or institutional. Functional reorganization
would address decision-making and service provision, the
8
0 8
functions of government. Institutional reorganization addresse
the form and structure of governmental agencies. Obvious11
because form follows function, the two topics are relate(
Nevertheless, it is possible to reorganize at least some governmei
functions without reorganizing governmental institutions.
*** Some Observations to Help Decide What to Reorganize
a. Nearly everyone claims to oppose having It more government
Nevertheless, in recent years, local agencies, the voters and t
state have created many new local and regional qovernment
agencies. And this doesn't even include the growth of the feder
government.
b. Governmental reorganization goes on all the time in t
region; it's going on now. The best current examples
governmental reorganization are: the situation with the County
solid waste system, the newly established district for sewa
collection, treatment and disposal in the San Diego area, and t
many examples of shared administration and service provision amo
cities, the County, and special districts.
c. There are concurrent trends toward localization
government and regionalization of some services and decisic
making. Localization is the stronger trend althou
regionalization gets more publicity. Nationwide and regional1
hundreds of new local governments and quasi-government
organizations (e.g., homeowners' associations, open spz
conservancies) have been created over the past several years
people try to ensure that certain kinds of decisions are made
close to home as possible. Any attempt to reorganize governmt
that ignores the trend toward localization of certain kinds
decisions won't succeed.
Nevertheless, the two trends, regionalization and localization, i
not necessarily in conflict because it is possible to distingu:
between those kinds of decisions that
9
0 I)
people want made locally and those that can and should be ma
regionally.
In fact, in this region, the two trends, regionalization a
localization, have become one. Sub] ect by subject, region
decision-making is being defined in this region as I' region
decisions made by locally elected officials."
regional decision-making is more than just a platitude. For thc
working on governmental reorganization, it indicates that loc
elected officials believe that they can and should do double dl
as regional decision-makers. And, therefore, the region does1
need a separate group of elected or appointed regional polic
makers.
This definition
d. The region's recent experiences with the creation of I
regional agencies illustrate the point that local elected officii
want to make regional decisions. All of the regional agenc.
created in recent years by local governments have been organized
that the affected local governments make the regional agencic
decisions. This is true even when local governments use st,
enabling law to create the new agencies (e.g., transit boards q
the metropolitan sewer district).
e. When the state feels the need to have some regio.
function performed, it sometimes designates the County to act
the regional agency in this area (e.g., air pollution). Us
various organizational forms, the state has created numerous sin
purpose regional agencies over the past twenty-five yea
However, the state's attitude toward creating regional agenc
might be changing. Legislative proposals on this topic made o
the past few years generally have contemplated consolidat
existing regional agencies and, in some cases, their statew
parents. This movement might be a tacit admission that the st
erred in creating so many single purpose regional agencies.
Furthermore, the existence of so many different regional agenc
in this region, whether created by the state or locally generat
io
0 e
implies that the current County government structure is inadequal
to handle the task of comprehensive regional decision-making,
f. Groups studying reorganization should be careful 1
distinguish the governmental decision-making function from tl
provision of services. The reason: it might be useful to chanc
one without affecting the other. For example, the cities and t
County might agree that the cities will be full partners in t
decision-making for the County solid waste system, while retaini
the current operational (service provision) responsibilities.
This distinction between decision-making and service provision wi
be particularly important when considering local, municipal-ty
services. As mentioned above, the evidence strongly suggests th
people want as many decisions as possible made as close to home
possible. Surveys published by SANDAG also indicate that loc
urban area residents apparently are satisfied with the servic
they receive from cities. In those surveys, city residents gi
local services a 70% approval rating.
Local residents might very well accept some reorganizati
affecting the provision of some services, but proponents of chan
should be aware of these two points: people like their decisia
made locally, and they're satisfied with their services now.
*** Some Observations to Help Determine Why or Why Not Reorganiz
a, Rescuing agencies in fiscal trouble has been used as
reason (although frequently unstated) for reorganizing governmer
The recently appointed Governmental Reorganization Committ
(established as a result of a regionwide advisory vote) P
proposed, in large part, to help solve the County government
budget problems.
b. We should not confuse current or short-term fisc
difficulties, such as those cities are experiencing now, witk
chronic structural problem requiring reorganization.
11
,
0 0
c. A governmental "structural problem1' should be defined g
the inability of an agency to implement its decisions, especial
when implementation requires the cooperation of and acceptance
other agencies. The County's situation in solid waste, and, to
great extent, in air pollution, are good examples of structur
problems.
d. Governmental reorganizations might occasionally save mon
but not often enough to solely justify the changes.
e. Government employees are usually the biggest obstacle
governmental reorganization.
***Some Observations on the Objectives that Could Be Achieved
Reorganizing to Create a Regional Council in the San Diego regj
The Regional Council is intended to create a comprehensj a.
approach to regional decision-making, and reduce the number
single purpose agencies.
b. The Council concept proposes to apply the lessons lean
from the successful regional decision-making efforts (e.!
transportation and other topics at SANDAG, water supply at CWA)
As mentioned elsewhere in this Attachment, these lessons incluc
local officials make regional decisions, all affected agencies i
represented in the decision-making process, the Regional Counci
staff is employed by and is answerable to the Council.
the other, less successful, regional functions (e,g, I solid wast(
c. As described in the proposal, the Council's staff shol
be employees of and be answerable to the Council. The reaso
greater likelihood of staff objectivity on issues, fair
equitable treatment of all affected agencies, and more assura
that the staff is responding to the Council's priorities.
d. The Council would not cause the consolidation of any lo
ayencies. Nor would it have any land use control authori
12
0 0
Consequently, the proposal might be a disappointment to son
people. If so, those people are uninformed about the propc
distinction between local and regional decision-making,
e. Creation of the Regional Council does not necessari:
limit or reduce the number of elective offices available 4
aspiring elected officials. The cities and the unincorporated ari
may decide to select their Regional Council representatives throuc
separate elections rather than through appointment of current loc
council members.
f. The Regional Council provides the opportunity to corre
some problems created by the state: elimination of state-appoint
single purpose agencies with structural problems, and returni
some state mandated programs to state control -- and to the state
budget.
It also beats the state to the punch on regional decision-makin
A few years ago, the state legislature began writing bills th
would have created directly elected regional governments in t
state's urban areas. Before they could enact any of the proposa
into law, however, their attention was diverted by the recessi
and the state's budget problems. But these distractions are or
temporary. Term limits in the Legislature and other factors wi
bring them back to the topic soon. And when they do, loc
governments in the San Diego region would be well-advised to
implementing their own plan.
g. The Regional Council also offers the opportunity
replace the existing County government, transferring its loc
responsibilities to local control, returning the statc
responsibilities to the state, and combininq its reyioi
responsibilities into what should be a more effective,
comprehensive structure.
Obviously, replacing the County's decision-making responsibilit.
and reorganizing the County's service delivery functions would ti
13
0 a
longer than replacing the other agencies affected by the Region:
Council proposal.
Despite the difficulties, replacing the current County structui
should be the most important objective of any effort to improy
regional decision-making. As mentioned previously, the existent
of so many different regional agencies is strong evidence that t
San Diego area's local governments don't recognize the County
the appropriate regional decision-making entity.
The reasons for local government's attitude toward the County a
both obvious and subtle. But the basic opinion is worthy
mention here: the Board of Supervisors is not viewed
representative of local interests regionwide or of loc
government, generally.
Most people, and, in particular, city council members, relate
their cities and their communities rather than to supervisori
districts, the boundaries of which are established primarily f
statistical purposes.
The County's role as Ifan arm of the state" reinforces the attitu
that it is not sufficiently representative of local interests
act as regional decision-maker. Its most familiar *lamu of t
state" functions -- operation of the courts and jails, and t
health and welfare system -- further reinforce that opinic
Despite the broadcast media coverage that crime and welfare ge
most people aren't directly involved in either subject. (
contrast, they do use the water, sewer, solid waste, E
transportation systems every day.)
Finally, local government's confidence in its own ability to mz
regional decisions has increased because of the relative SUCCE
enjoyed by its representatives in making decisions at varic
regional forums, including SANDAG, the transit boards, and othei
14
0 0
ATTACHMENT 2: OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING TI
AGENCIES THAT WOULD BE REPLACED BY THE PROPOSED REGIONAL COUNCI
(January, 1995)
INTRODUCTION
The proposed **Regional Council, *I if implemented as recommendel
would replace five existing governmental agencies, plus at lea
two interagency coordinating groups.
The five agencies that would be reorganized and replaced are: t
County of San Diego, the County Water Authority, SANDAG, the Sol
Waste Management Authority, and the Local Agency Formati
Commission (LAFCO) .
The two interagency coordinating groups that would be replaced a
the Automated Regional Justice Information System (commonly kno
as I*ARJIStt), and the Service Agency for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE
It is important to understand that the functions of these agenci
would continue. However, they should continue as functions of t
Regional Council, the state, and in some cases, local governmen
Presented below are observations and suggestions regarding t
replacement and reorganization of these agencies. Because of i
size and complexity, of course, the County will be the mc
difficult and complicated of the agencies to replace.
In approaching the challenge of reorganizing and replacing thc
agencies, these fundamental principles should be kept in mind:
** Governments are made up of human beings. The "problen
encountered in reorganizing and replacing them are mostly **peoI
problems. It Dealing appropriately with the fears and concerns
the people involved with and employed by government will be,
far, the most important aspect of any reorganization.
15
0 0
** Every governmental function affected by this propose
reorganization has an appropriate tthomet' -- local, regional o
state. Defining each function correctly will reveal it
appropriate venue.
** All of these changes are doable. The relevant statutes
ordinances and agreements all can be modified to accomplish tk
changes that are agreed upon. The key to making these changes i
getting agreement among decision-makers on the who, what, whj
when, and how of this proposed reorganization.
REPLACING AND REORGANIZING THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
San Diego County is a local government for the region'
unincorporated area, and a regional decision-maker and servic
provider for some types of regional services, acting primarily :
this capacity as an agent of. the state. The objective of replacii
and reorganizing County government is to transfer its loa
responsibilities to local control, return the state
responsibilities to the state, and combine its remaining region;
responsibilities into what should be a more effectivc
comprehensive structure at the Regional Council.
The observations and suggestions presented below regardii
replacing and reorganizing the various elements of Coun
government are organized to address first the various elect1
officials and their responsibilities, the disposition of variol
County departments and agencies, and finally, the disposition
the justice and social services systems.
The Board of Supervisors
The County Board of Supervisors would be replaced by the Region
Council. As described in the report above, the Regional Counc
would be composed of an elected representative from each city
the region, plus an elected representative from the unincorporat
16
(0 e
area,
Also, as mentioned previously, the elimination of the Board
Supervisors does not necessarily mean a reductiOn in the number
offices for aspiring elected officials. At least some of t
cities and the unincorporated area could decide to select the
Regional Council representatives through direct elections, th
potentially creating more offices than the five eliminated,
Replacement of the Board of Supervisors with the Regional Counc
also raises the issue of land use authority in the regior
unincorporated area. Currently, the Board of Supervisors exercis
this authority.
The proposal to create the Regional Council is based, in part,
the principle that land use control is a local, rather than
regional, responsibility, and that local decisions should be m:
as close to home as possible, Accordingly, it is suggested tl
the responsibility for land use decisions in the unincorporat
area should be given to the unincorporated area’s residents i
their local representatives that they would elect for that purpoz
To implement this idea, the region’s unincorporated area could
divided into an appropriate number (probably three to five)
community areas. The Regional Council, serving as the Local Age1
Formation Commission, would assist with the identification of thc
areas. Current special district boundaries, including the Coui
Water Authority‘s service area, the current County commun:
planning area boundaries, and local school district boundar:
should help determine unincorporated community areas.
Residents of these areas could elect community area councils, wh
would be given the responsibility, through changes to state 1,
for general planning and land use decisions in the respect
community areas. (The other community-type services would conti:
to be provided, of course, by the existing special distril
currently serving these areas.)
17
0 6
There are precedents and models all over the country for local lar
"township" form of government used in many parts of the eastei
United States is a good example of this local approach to ruri
land use decision-making.
This basic direction is subject to several variations, dependii
upon the attitudes and opinions of the communities' residents. TI
important point to remember is that this kind of change can be mat
if people are interested, and it is consistent with the trei
toward localizing decision-making.
Other Semi-Autonomous County Elected Officials
The proposal to establish the Regional Council is not intended
directly affect the elective offices of sheriff, tax assesso
treasurer-tax collector, recorder-clerk, and district attorne
While the validity of these positions as elective offices
certainly open to question, changing their status is not vital
establishment of an effective Regional Council.
However, the establishment of the Regional Council would cause
least some of the functions of most of these offices to chang
These suggested changes are summarized below.
use control of rural communities, villages and areas. TI
Sheriff and Tax Assessor
It is not intended that the functions of the Sheriff's Departme
and the Tax Assessor would be directly affected by t
establishment of the Regional Council. The Council would, howeve
replace the Board of Supervisors as the governing body that revie
and approves the Sheriff's and the Tax Assessor's annual budget
It also should be noted that the tax assessor's primary function
regulated by the state. There is no local discretion in assessi
property, except at the appeals board level. Accordingly, the t
assessor function could be returned to the state, thus eliminati
18
e e
a questionable elective office.
Also, over time, the law enforcement function of the sheriff
office probably will be replaced by local police departments
what are now commonly referred to as Itcontract cities.11
observation, however, not necessarily a recommendation.
Finally, the County's Disaster Preparedness operation should beco
a function of the Sheriff's office.
This is
Treasurer-Tax Collector
As with the other County elective offices, the Regional Counc
would review and approve the Treasurer-Tax Collector's annu
budget.
The Regional Council, as the successor to the County, the Cour
Water Authority, SANDAG, and the other agencies it replaces, WOL
have to determine how or if it would use the Treasurer as t
repository of those agencies' respective investment accounts.
The current County government and the school districts in t
region are required by state law to maintain their accounts wi
the Treasurer. Furthermore, the rules governing tax collection i
state rules. Therefore, as mentioned above, except for t
perception of local control created by having a locally elect
Treasurer-Tax Collector, these functions could be transferred
the state.
County Recorder-Clerk
The Regional Council, as in the cases above, would review i
approve the annual budget of the County Recorder-Clerk. r
current functions of this elective office would remain unchangc
Like the Treasurer, however, it should be noted that 1
responsibilities of this department are essentially state-direcl
functions, and could be returned to the state.
19
0 0
.-
District Attorney
As with the other elective offices, the Regional Council wou
review and approve the annual budqet of the District Attorney.
is not intended that the office would be affected in any other wa
Staffing for the Semi-Autonomous Elective Offices
The elected officials would be responsible for hiring a
supervising their staff members.
The Regional Council would be responsible for establishing
personnel program to replace the County's civil service system, a
the personnel systems of the other superseded agencies. ('I
replacement for the County agencies could be a continuation of t
current system. As mentioned previously, however, it
recommended that the staff working directly for the Regior
Council should be employed on a merit-performance basis, as is t
case with the CWA and SANDAG, rather than as part of a traditiar
civil service-type system.)
The description presented below of the basic effects
reorganization on each agency or department includes a discussj
of the potential effects on the respective staffs.
Agricultural Weights and Measures
The Office of Weights and Measures is a good example of the Coui
acting as an arm of state government. This office should be a pi
of the state Department of Food and Agriculture, and its employc
should be state rather than local employees.
Air Pollution Control District
The primary function of the Air Pollution Control staff is
enforce state and federal air pollution rules and regulatio
Therefore, as with Weights and Measures, Air Pollution Cont
20
0
.-
staff should be employed directly by the state rather than by ar
regional agency.
The truly local aspects of the APCD’s functions, primarily .
federally and state mandated air quality planning ai
implementation, can be handled by the Regional Council, serving q
the region‘s Air Pollution Control Board, and its staff.
Animal Control
Animal control should be a responsibility of local governme
rather than a regional function. Also, because of i
characteristics, animal control could be handled throu
cooperative agreements among local agencies, and by using t
private sector for at least some functions.
Auditor and Controller
The Regional Council should have its own staff responsible for t
Council’s financial matters. This staff should replace the offi
of County Auditor & Controller.
Furthermore, audits of the Regional Council‘s financial activiti
should be accomplished by private sector accounting firms, as we
as the periodic audits conducted by state and federal agencies th
help fund the Council’s programs and projects. This method
operation has been used successfully by both CWA and SANDAG f
years.
Chief Administrative Officer
The Regional Council should have a director for its staff. Th
position should replace the position of County Chief Administrati
Officer .
Civil Service Commission
21
0 0
.-
The future of the Civil Service Commission depends upon t
Regional Council's decision regarding the type of personnel syst
to be established for the staffs of the semi-autonomous elect
officials listed above. If the Council prefers to continue a civ
service-type system for those employees, the Commission cou
continue to function. If not, the Commission would be unnecessar
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
As with the Board of Supervisors and the other agencies replaced
the Regional Council, the new organization will require records
its meetings and actions. This function should be analyzed
determine the size of staff commitment needed for modern recoi
keeping and agenda preparation for the Regional Council. In E
case, the clerk function should be a part of the Regional Council
staff.
County Counsel
The office of County Counsel, in its current form, would be mz
unnecessary by the creation of the Regional Council. However, I
Council and the semi-autonomous elected officials (e.g., Sheril
services in the performance of their duties.
Assessor, etc.) listed above would continue to require lec
The various elected officials would be responsible for obtain:
legal counsel as part of their respective offices' staff.
arrangements, and the Regional Council would do likewise for .
staff. Consulting legal assistance from private sector law fii
should be considered, of course, where appropriate.
Medical Examiner
The office of Medical Examiner should be made a part of the Coui
Department of Health Services and, as described below, the Coui
Health Department should be transferred to the state Department
Health.
22
0 0
...
Equal Opportunity Management Office
Assuring equal opportunity in the hiring and purchasing practic
of the Regional Council and the miscellaneous elected official
operations should be the responsibility of each agenc
Accordingly, a separate office would no longer be required, k
could be maintained if the Council so chooses.
Farm and Home Advisor
Like the Office of Agricultural Weights and Measures, this is
state function, and is funded through the University of Califorr
Extension Service.
General Services
As a separate entity, a general services department would no lonc
be needed. The various "general services1o activities should
dispersed among the successor entities, including the Regior
Council and the offices of the various elected officials, Tf
should be responsible for their own property, equipment 2
purchasing, coordinating it when appropriate to achieve savir
through economies of scale and customer convenience.
Housing and Community Development
llHousinglt and Itcommunity developmentt1 are local responsibilitic
and should be handled by the cities and the unincorporat
communities, working either individually or together throi
cooperative arrangements. With the transfer of the County's loc
functions to local units of government, a County Department
Housing and Community Development is no longer necessary.
Human Resources
This department handles primarily the County's personnel matte]
For reasons explained under various sections above, this departmt
23
0 @ .-
would no longer be necessary if the Regional Council i
established. Each successor agency should be responsible for it
own personnel practices.
Information Services
As with Human Resources, General Services, and others, tl
Information Services Department would be unnecessary under thj
recommended reorganization.
Appropriate interactive information sharing, data base managemenl
and communications are essential, of course, to customt
satisfaction and efficient government. However, with model
technology, these advantages can be more easily realized throu!
cooperating entities than through the "one size fits al:
tendencies of a single department.
Law Library
The Law Library should continue as a function of the Distric
Attorney's office.
County Library
Library service is a local governmental responsibility. TI
County's library system should be transferred to the respecti.
local units of government within which the various branches a:
located.
This change should be accompanied by transferring to the receivi
agencies a proportionate share of the property tax revenul
currently spent by the County on the library system.
The communities in the unincorporated area can continue
individually operate the libraries they would be receiving fromt
County, or operate them through cooperative agreements wi
neighboring communities, including cities.
24
U e
*-
It is likely that improvement of the local libraries inherited fr
them. On the other hand, the general public might be satisfi
with the existing level of expenditures.
Parks and Recreation
The disposition of the County Parks Department is a two-st
process. First, management of most of the existing County par
can be transferred to either cities or to the state park syste
based on their locations within or contiguous to the
jurisdictions.
successor agencies pay for their operational costs.
Second, the local jurisdictions are currently working together
prepare open space/habitat conservation plans that, when complete
will cover the region. Implementation of these plans will occ
primarily through local land use controls.
The local agencies might also decide to implement some elements
these plans jointly, such as management of the open space/habit
preserves. If they do, they could designate an existing agency(
or establish a new regional agency or organization to he
implement these plans on a regional basis. The County Par
Department's management functions, including any parks not alree
transferred, should be made a part of that operation.
Planning and Land Use
If land use control in the unincorporated area is transferred
the local areas, there is no need for the County Plann:
Department as currently organized. However, the local areas st:
would require planning and development assistance, and they COI
provide this service either individually, or through a cooperat:
arrangement. They should receive property tax revenues to he
carry out these functions, if the County is currently spending i
the county would require more revenue than is now being spent
Such a transfer of management responsibility,
course, warrants an appropriate transfer of tax revenue to help t
I 25
W e
*-
general fund money on planning and development controls. If no.
the cost of this service shwld be paid by fees on developme
regulations.
Public Works
The County's Public Works Department can be dissolved, and i
component parts transferred to the private sector or 0th
agencies, or eliminated.
For example, the operation of the County's general aviatil
airports can be offered to the adjacent cities or the priva
sector.
The responsibility for the County road system should be transferrl
to the California Department of Transportation, and the Region
Council should annually contract with Caltrans for road desig
construction and maintenance in the unincorporated area. Caltran
in turn, also could contract this work with the private sector.
The wastewater management division can be eliminated. The Couni
currently has jurisdiction over only a few "dependent" speci:
sewer districts, so-called because the Board of Supervisors acts i
the districts' governing body. These districts should be convertc
to independent agencies with locally elected boards.
The solid waste division also can be eliminated, and stroi
consideration should be given to transferring the County's sol.
waste facilities to the private sector or other public agencies
Cartography, base mapping, and other related geographically-bas(
information could be handled through the Regional Urban Informatc
System, currently managed through the San Diego Data Processir
Corporation, or by private firms specializing in this kind of worl
Purchasing and Contracting
26
W e .-
The County‘s Purchasing and Contracting Department would no long
be necessary if the proposal for a Regional Council is implemente
Each office managed by a separate elected official (e.g., Sherif
Assessor, etc.) and the Regional Council should take care of the
own purchasing and contracting services.
Registrar of Voters
The Registrar of Voters could become a part of the Region
Council’s staff, under the overall direction of the Council‘s sta
director. Alternatively, the Registrar could be appointed by t
Regional Council and thus be answerable directly to it.
These options are offered because the public should be assured th
the Registrar’s office is non-partisan and appropriately free fr
other responsibilities.
County Retirement Association
The County’s Retirement Association would continue as a function
the office of the Treasurer-Tax Collector.
the County Retirement Program’s administrator.
The Regional Council would have to decide, as part of t
establishment of its personnel system, the type of retireme
program that should be available to its staff. It also must,
cooperation with the semi-autonomous elected officials, decide
a retirement program for their offices as well, taking in
account, of course, the status of those employees who would rema
after the reorganization.
The Treasurer serves I
Revenue and Recovery
The functions of the Revenue and Recovery office of the Coun
should be divided appropriately among the Department of Socii
Services, the District Attorney and the Treasurer-Tax Collector.
27
W 0 ._
For example, all of the revenue associated with probation cost,
hospital and mental health costs, food stamps and other welfa.
programs, should be transferred to the Department of soci
Services. The District Attorney could be responsible for reven
from child support cases and court appointed attorney fees.
The revenue recovery associated with other types of delinquei
fines (excluding bail forfeitures in criminal cases) should be tl
responsibility of either the Treasurer-Tax Collector or the statr
Social Services
The functions of the Social Services Department (including the Arr
Agency on Aging, the Public Guardian, Public Administrator, a
Crisis Team) are another good example of the County serving as I
agent of the state. The logical alternative, therefore, is 1
transfer the responsibility to the state. With such a transfei
the employees of the Social Services Department would become stai
rather than local employees.
However, many people apparently prefer to maintain the illusion t
It local control" (which certainly pleases the state) over Socii
services responsibilities.
People shouldn't have any illusions about government. Thereforc
if it is decided to retain local control over social services, tl
control should be real: the Regional Council should either have tl
authority to establish the rules for social services expenditure:
or return the program to the state.
If it remains a local operational responsibility, the staff for
could be made part of the Regional Council's staff, under tl
overall supervision of the Council's staff directo:
Alternatively, it could be set up as a separate agency, with tl
staff director appointed by the Council and answerable directly I
it.
28
W *
4-
The first alternative is more consistent with conventional pub1
administration practices. The second reflects this service
relative isolation from other regional services that are mo
subject to local control.
Superior and Municipal Courts and Marshal of the Courts
The Regional Council would replace the Board of Supervisors as t
conduit of funds and reviewer of the annual budgets for the court
(This discussion also applies to the public defender, alterna
public defender and related off ices, and the Probation Department
Like social services, the court system is and should be a sta
responsibility, and all court staff should be state employees.
Grand Jury
Two types of "grand juriestt exist in the region. The grand ju:
for criminal cases is a part of the court system. The civil i
governmental grand jury process should be eliminated unless a wc
can be found to make it useful.
The Region's Tax Base, the County's Liabilities, and Long-Term Del
It is necessary to emphasize in this final section on the potenti$
effects of this proposal on County government that the Region<
Council would assume responsibility for the County's liabilitit
and its long-term debt.
This fact raises the issue of the distinction, for legal and fisc;
purposes, between local governments and the Regional Council.
Regional Council members would be representatives of the:
respective local agencies, acting together to achieve regioni
objectives. Regional Council decisions involving expenditures (
public money would be liabilities assumed by the region rather thz
by individual local governments.
29
w 0 .-
TO Clarify thisl di&iRetian f8Y local agencies and for the Region
Council, decision-makers should consider establishing a set (
guidelines on this issue as the Council is organized.
REPLACING AND REORGANIZING THE OTHER AGENCIES SUPERSEDED BY TI
REGIONAL COUNCIL
The other agencies to be replaced by the Regional Council are tl
County Water Authority, LAFCO, SANDAG, the recently formed Sol
Waste Management Authority, the Automated Regional Justic
Information System, and the Service Agency for Freeway Emergencier
The Regional Council also would assume the state-appointed role i
the Air Pollution Control Board for this region.
Summary observations regarding the replacement of these agencic
are presented below.
THE COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
The San Diego County Water Authority is the wholesaler of importt
water to the San Diego region. It was created by an act of tl
state legislature in 1943. The Authority currently has 23 membt
agencies, which include six cities, four water districts, nil
municipal water districts, a public utility, and a federal agenc!
Geographically, the Authority is a subregional agency. Its servic
area encompasses only the western one-third of the region, but :
serves 97 percent of the area's population.
The City of San Diego is, by far, the Authority's largest membt
and customer, usually receiving about 40 percent of the Authority'
total annual water deliveries, which now approach 600,000 acrf
feet .
CWA is governed by a Board of Directors comprised (
representatives of the 23 member agencies. Each member agency :
30
w a
represented by at least one director, plus me additional d' irecti
for each 5 percent of the region's total assessed real proper.
valuation contained within its boundaries, as determined by the TI
Assessor.
Authority Board representatives are appointed by the chic
executive officers of the respective agencies, with the approval (
the agencies' governing bodies. The Board is a mixture of elect1
officials, staff members and appointed citizens. The City of S,
Diego's 10 Board representatives, for example, are appoint!
citizens.
The Authority is one of the regional decision-making structurl
that works. In recent years, however, it has come under closer a
more frequent scrutiny as droughts and fears of water supp
shortages have become almost chronic in southern California.
The Authority's actions to make the region's water supply mo:
reliable have raised its public and political visibility, and ha
I' illustrated its importance to the area's well-being.
increased visibility also has illustrated that the agency mu:
retain the confidence of th,e region's local elected officials *
maintain its effectiveness. For these reasons, the region
decision-makers might eventually reorganize the agency's Board -
include mostly, if not all, elected officials. The proposal .
create a Regional Council recognizes that likelihood.
Nevertheless, because the current structure works, and because
is, at least geographically, a subregional agency, a reasonab
alternative is available. The relationship between the Regionl
Council and the CWA could be the same as the arrangement proposc
for the sewer agencies. That is, the Regional Council could :
made responsible for approving major Authority projects, rathl
than replacing it.
THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
31
w d
*-
SANDAG is another regimal decision-making body that works. It .
the model for the Regional Council, and the foundation upon whic
it is built.
CWA and SANDAG work because both are based on the same principle
representatives of all of the affected local agencies act togethl
to make regional decisions. Once made, the decisions are ttours,
rather than Iltheirs. It
SANDAG is organized under a joint powers agreement signed by all (
the cities and the County. A joint powers agreement (JPA) is
locally generated governmental organizational arrangement. A J1
can take on any responsibilities assigned to it by the loci
signatory agencies. With local agreement, it also can assui
functions designated by the state. SANDAG currently carries 01
both types of responsibilities.
Because it is a JPA, SANDAG would be relatively easy to replace c
reorganize. The Regional Council, as proposed in this reporl
should assume all of SANDAG's current responsibilities, mandatc
and designations.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
The Solid Waste Management Authority includes seven cities and tt
County. It was originally intended to include the County and a1
of the cities, and its original purpose was to assume from tk
County the management of the County's solid waste system. Thz
purpose is now in doubt, and the future of the authority is j
doubt as well.
The primary reason for the possible dissolution of the system :
that many city officials do not support some of the facilitif
decisions made for the system by the County Board of Supervisor:
Because the cities were not part of the decision-making process
decisions with which they do not agree. (The proposal for tk
local officials object to assuming any potential liability fc
32
w e
'- . Regional Council is intended to avoid this kind of situation in tl
future by having representatives of all of the affected communitic
at the table participating in the decision-making.)
While the current system might be breaking up, common sense ai
state law require local agencies to continue to coordinate so1
basic solid waste management decisions. The Regional Counc
should assume all of these coordinative responsibilities.
If it does, then over time, the local agencies, acting through t
Council, are likely to recreate at least some elements of
regional solid waste system.
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is a government
function created by state law. The law requires that every coun
in the state have a LAFCO. Its purpose is to establi
jurisdictional boundaries for cities and special districts.
of special districts, annexations (and deannexations) to cities a
special districts, consolidations, and related matters.
In the San Diego region, the Commission has eight member
including representatives of cities, the County, and priva
citizens.
The Regional Council should assume the LAFCO function. As wi
other topics, the Council's actions would benefit by havi
representation from all of the general purpose governments.
Special districts should provide input to the Regional Council
deliberations on these kinds of issues through the adviso
committee structure suggested in the report above.
acts on incorporations of cities and the creation of various typ
AUTOMATED REGIONAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM
33
m d
'-
w The Automated Regional Justice Information System (IARJIS) is
joint powers agreement that includes most cities and the count!
Its purpose is to coordinate the dissemination of law enforcemei
law enforcement operations.
ARJIS is governed by a Board of Directors composed of electt
and criminal justice information to increase the effectiveness I
representatives from each of the member agencies: the respecti!
city councils and the Board of Supervisors.
The Regional Council can adequately handle this function. TI
advisory committee structure suggested to assist the Council
deliberations would be well-suited to help carry out the ARJ:
responsibility.
SERVICE AGENCY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES
The Service Agency for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) is another job
powers agency. Its purpose is to install and maintain freewi
telephone callboxes, using money generated by an assessment (
local drivers' annual motor vehicle fees.
As with the ARJIS function, above, the Regional Council coul
assume SAFE'S responsibilities, again using the advisory committc
structure to assist in decision-making.
34
$
b
1
2
3
4
5 '
7
8
9
10
e - EXHl BIT
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 96-99
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE A LETTER TO THE SAN DIEGO BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS REGARDING A REPORT BY THE SAN DIEGO
REGION CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
EFFICIENCY AND RESTRUCTURING.
WHEREAS, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors has quested that the Carlsb,
City council review and comment on the report by the San Diego Region Citizer
Commission on hal Government Efficiency and Restructuring; and
WHEREAS, the report recommends a restrucaUilng of local government in Si
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
j 1. ?hat the above recitations are true and correct I I 2. ?hat the City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute a letter
the San Dego Board of Supervison regarding the council's concern ov
the above stated report's pmposed reduction of local decision makii
authority and the need to address unfunded mandates and state allocatic
of funds before the proposal can be adequately evaluated.
...
...
...
26 i
27
28
...
e 9
1
1
2
3
4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 26th day of March, 1996, by the followin!
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Lewis
ABSTAIN: None
Councilmembers Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila and Hall 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk 1
(SEAL)