Loading...
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)