HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 04/25/1996 I
C `Cly 'K$
CrFJ C E
ft - ::::::: :':':':':�::%:: I 1.1-1- I--, I I � . � I� I - �� , I.- 11 .. ,-1
1
I
i
Agenda P1.1.a1.1.cket
11, .
{
I .11, --] "1-.1 I .1 1.1.� I..
Special 1Vleeting of
City Gounells of San 1.Luls Obispo Coun11 -ty
Thursday, April 25, 199'61IIIIII
7:00 p.m.
...,..",.,.."...'�I.I.....�..�..:��:1-1 0 �:.,...."..."I..-�,:..........,..........-�*.�.:..:....,..I�-:.............:.......:......-.�,.,,:.........*'..:..:.,....�...........,.."...:...:.,....."..;..........,...:.�.:'.....'.....�.....�.,....:.�.:.'....:�:::::..,::'.:...:..::.:::�:.::...:::...:.::::.:..:..:::.:�,::.:::.:..!::..::.::.,:::.::.,::..::.-:::"�.:�:.:::�:..:,:.-.:�:..::..::�:..,::.:�::,�:.:-�:::.,;!,.-:�,.::',::�.:::�..�;:::X.�,:�:.:-:.:-�:::.I.:,I.,:.I,:.-���-:�.::�;.:�:-.:�-:,.:.�::.I:,:-.::::,:�,:.:::-:!-�.:::I:.:.:,"....:,:�.::�:,'.,.:�:".:--::.:.:.:.:�:-�::..'::.:�.,-..:.:::'�,-::�:..�:.:..,:,:
Embassy Suites, 3'33 Madonna Road
S`an Luis Obispo, California I
�1 inner 1 1 Jnieception
3
1 .11.11
council::: 1l tubers, staff and'speco guests are in1.vited 1
to &reception milb'.J9! buffet at 5:30 p.m. in the eos �sos to om.
111.1
of .......'��.��.::i�i�:�ii��:�i�����:���]������������ii]��:i���������:��:�:::�:�..,.....��.".........,.���..",�...'�..�.....�l"........::-:.-,:::::::::::::.: . 'I',".. ,I
4
I.
AGENDA
City Councils of -
San Luis Obispo County
Y
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL MEETIN0
Thursday, April 25, 1996 - 7:00 p.m.
Embassy Suites - 333 Madonna Road
San Luis Obispo, California
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
City of Arroyo Grande City of Atascadero Ci!X of Grover
Mayor A.K. "Pete" Dougall Mayor George Highland Mayor Ron Arnoldsen
Mayor Pro Tem James Souza Mayor Pro Tem Ray Johnson Mayor Pro Tem Marcia Hamilton
Council Member Drew Brandy Council Member George Luna Council Member Fred Monroe
Council Member Michael Fuller Council Member R. David Bewley Council Member Gene Gates
Council Member Michael Lady Council Member Hal Carden Council Member Lowell Forister
City of Morro Bay City of Paso Robles City of Pismo Beach
Mayor Bill Yates Mayor Wait Macklin Mayor Paul Bailey
• Vice Mayor Cathy Novak Mayor Pro Tem James Heggarty Mayor Pro Tem Karl Stahl
Council Member Rodger Anderson Council Member Duane Picano Council Member John Brown,
Council Member Colby Crotzer Council Member Steve Martin Council Member Hal Halldin
Council Member Ahnawake Unger Council Member Chris Iversen Council Member Marian Mellow
City of San Luis Obispo
Mayor Allen K. Settle
Vice Mayor Dodie Williams
Council Member Bill Roalman
Council Member Dave Romero
Council Member Kathy Smith
SPECIAL MEETING PROTOCOL
• San Luis Obispo Mayor Allen Settle will chair the meeting.
• The meeting will begin promptly at 7:00 p.m.; and adjourn no later than 11:00 p.MI .
• Public Comment will be limited to three minutes per speaker with a total of 30 minutes.
• Due to the large number of City Council Members, Mayors and Council Members are respectfully requested to limit
their comments and/or questions to two minutes. If a Mayor or Council Member+vishes to be recognized by the
Chair, he or she may indicate so by raising their hand. j
Staff presentations will be limited to ten minutes.
• Motions will need to be ratified by each Council. Mayor Settle will recognize each of the respective Mayors, who
in turn will put the item to a vote of his/her Council. In order to facilitate this process, discussion by individual
Council Members should be limited to a minimum due to the large number of elected officials present.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS:
Board of Supervisors: Laurence L. Laurent, Chairperson, 2nd District •
Harry L. Ovitt, Supervisor, 1st District
Evelyn Delaney, Supervisor, 3rd District
Ruth E. Brackett, Supervisor 4th District
David-Blakely, Supervisor, 5th District
State Senator Jack O'Connell, 18th District
Assemblyman Tom J. Bordonaro, Jr., 33rd District
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: (Limited to 30 Minutes)
At this time, members of the audience may address the Joint City Councils. When recognized by
Mayor Settle, please come forward to the podium and state your name and city of residence for the
record. Comments will be limited to three minutes.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Proposed Annexation Tax Exchange Agreement between SLO County and the Cities in SLO
County.
Proposed Action: Adopt resolution
Presentor: Bob Hunt, City Manager •
City of Arroyo Grande
2. Support SLO County efforts to ensure Unocal compliance with State and Federal law, and
adherence to environmental standards.
Proposed Action: Adopt resolution
Presentor: Allen Settle, Mayor
City of San Luis Obispo
3. Support of SB 1590 carried by Senator Jack O'Connell responding to the Guardino decision
Pro osition 62
( .P )
Proposed Action: Adopt resolution
Presentor: Pete Dougall, Mayor
City of Arroyo Grande
4. Impact to local agencies of PG&E request before the Public Utilities Commission to modify
depreciation schedule on Diablo Canyon and other power plants.
Proposed Action: Adopt resolution
Presentor: Bob Hendrix, County Administrator
County of San Luis Obispo
i
�WNFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
5. Discussion on Supporting a Tax Override for Safety Improvement� to Highway 46 East.
Presentor: Walt Macklin, Mayor
City of Paso Robles
6. Foundation for Community Design (successor to Designing the Future):
Presentor: Bud Laurent, Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Rob Rossi, Rossi Enterprises
7. Recommendation of the Planning Directors to:
a) Develop land use strategies for improving general plan land use compatibilities, and
b) Joint planning of the spheres of influence and planning impact areas around the cities.
Presentor: Bob Lata, Community Development Director
City of Paso Robles
8. Recommendations of the California Constitution Revision Commission.
• Presentor: John Dunn, City Administrator
City of San Luis Obispo
ADJOURNMENT
i
ITEM NO. 1
%/i%i///�% /#//L?///
•
Date: April 15, 1996
To: Mayors and City Councils of SLO County
From: City Manager Subcommittee on Tax Exchange
Subject: ADOPTION OF COUNTYWIDE POLICY FOR PROPERTY TAX
EXCHANGE
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution establishing a countywide policy for property 'tax exchange upon
annexation.
DISCUSSION:
Background
In 1995, the mayors of San Luis Obispo County referred to their respective city managers
• the issue of negotiating an equitable annexation property tax exchange policy with the
county. The city managers appointed the following three persons to represent the cities
in these negotiations:
• Bob Hunt, City Manager, Arroyo Grande
• Richard Ramirez, City Manager, Paso Robles
• Ken Hampian, Assistant CAO, San Luis Obispo
On September 22, 1995, the subcommittee met with county staff to begin the dialogue
concerning annexation property tax exchange policies. During this meeting, several key
principles were established, as outlined in the attached summary. At the first meeting of
the city councils of San Luis Obispo County held in Morro Bay on September 27, 1995,
these principles were reviewed, along with position papers prepared by both the cities and
the county. A motion was ultimately adopted to direct the city manager subcommittee "to
continue negotiations with County staff to establish a consistent, predictable, and
equitable countywide property tax exchange policy at the earliest possible time."
In order to provide objective data upon which to develop an agreement that would be
consistent with the principles outlined in Attachment 1, the cities commissioned an
independent fiscal study of the impact of annexation and urban development on County
•
r
1-1
Memo
April 15, 1996
Page 2
government. This study was completed by the firm of Crawford, Multari & Starr, and has
previously been distributed to all cities. The results of the study were also summarized
by Michael Multari at the SLOCOG workshop on intergovernmental relations held on
February 3, 1996.
Recommended Resolution
After several months of difficult negotiations, a resolution has been drafted which attempts
to address the interests of both the cities and County government. This resolution, if
adopted, will establish a standard property tax exchange policy for at least the next five
years. (It should be noted that on April 16, the City of Paso Robles indicated a
preliminary position in opposition to the proposed resolution.)
While under the new policy cities will be required to share more property tax than in the
past, the study demonstrated that this added amount is necessary in order to achieve
Principle No. 2, as outlined in the first attachment. At the same time, consistent with this
principle, the County has agreed to discontinue its pursuit of sales tax sharing. For
commercial and industrial annexation areas already substantially developed, tax
exchange will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, consistent with Principle No. 4. •
It is anticipated that the Board of Supervisors will adopt the attached resolution on April
23, 1996. Therefore, with the adoption of the attached resolution by the city councils, a
new countywide property tax exchange policy will become effective.
Attachments:
1. Negotiation Principles
2. Recommended Resolution
•
1-2
MEMORANDUM
•
September 25 1995
To: Mayors and City Councilmembers
From: City Manager Property Tax Exchange Subcommittee
Subject: Outcome of September 22, 1995 Meeting with the County
On September 22, 1995, the Subcommittee, consisting of city mangers Richard Ramirez
(Paso Robles) and Bob Hunt (Arroyo Grande), and assistant city administrator Ken
Hampian, met with Bob Hendrix, CAO, and Lee Williams, Assistant CAO, to begin the
City-County dialogue concerning annexation property tax exchange policies. During this first
meeting the following main principals were established to guide future discussions:
1. Change in the current approach to determining property tax exchange is necessary. The
extent and nature of such change will be determined through a process of negotiation
between the cities and the County, the goal being to produce modifications that are fair
to all parties.
• 2. The County should not 'profit"from annexations, nor should a tax exchange approach
be instituted that undermines good land use planning by discouraging cities from
pursuing logical and appropriate annexations. On the other hand, annexations should
not result in a net fiscal loss to the County. Any modifications to the current approach
should achieve these respective goals.
3. A new approach should include a threshold under which the less complex annexations
will proceed consistent with some preestablished, simple, and consistently applied
formula. Thresholds can be defined, for example, based on annexation size and/or
whether or not the property is already developed. More than one threshold is a
possibility.
4. For the more complex annexations (those above the threshold),;.. an impartial fiscal
impact analysis should be completed based on a model pre-agreed upon by the cities and
the County. The development of such a model will be pursued through these discussions.
5. A key point of future discussion shall be the length of time that will be considered in
projecting and recognizing fiscal impacts through property tax exchange. City
representatives strongly prefer to limit the timeframe to the time of,annexation. County
staff wishes to discuss alternatives for a longer time period.
1-3
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITIES
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ESTABLISHING •
A COUNTYWIDE POLICY FOR PROPERTY
TAX EXCHANGE UPON ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, changing governmental fiscal relationships have required a modification to
the earlier approach to determining property tax exchange between cities and the County
upon annexation; and
WHEREAS, the extent and nature of this modification has been agreed upon through a
process of negotiation between the cities and the County based upon a shared goal of
producing a countywide tax exchange agreement that is fair to all parties; and
WHEREAS, a fair agreement is one that respects the following two principles: (1) that
the County should not "profit" from annexations, nor should annexations result in a net
fiscal loss to the County; (2) that tax exchange practices should not undermine good land
use planning by discouraging cities from pursuing logical and appropriate annexations;
and
WHEREAS, in order to provide objective data upon which to develop an equitable
agreement, the cities commissioned an independent fiscal study of the impact of
annexation and development of vacant lands around cities on County government; and
WHEREAS, the results of this study assisted in the development of a new countywide tax •
exchange agreement; and
WHEREAS, upon adoption of the agreement, the County and the cities will continue to
collaborate on related matters of shared importance, including: (a) following adoption by
the Board of Supervisors, reconsidering a countywide development impact fee program,
which may include appropriate city impact fees for county development occurring in the
unincorporated fringe of cities for which a clear City impact can be determined; and (b)
support existing policies which encourage urban-like development within the boundaries
of cities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Councils of the Cities of San Luis
Obispo County:
1. For "raw land" annexations prezoned commercial or industrial, the County
retains the existing property tax base and all of the future property tax
increment.
2. For annexations prezoned residential, the County retains the
existing property tax base and two-thirds (66%) of the future property tax
increment.
•
1-4
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
3. For commercial and industrial annexation areas already substantially
developed, tax exchange will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis
between the annexing city and the County to determine an appropriate
property tax-sharing arrangement, based upon the principle of fiscal
neutrality for the County.
4. For annexations prezoned agricultural, the County retains the existing
property tax base and all of the future property tax increment.
5. The County and the cities agree to re-examine the above policies at five-
year intervals to assure that they remain appropriate and current for all
parties.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1996.
• MAYOR OF ARROYO GRANDE
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR OF ATASCADERO
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
•
1-S
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
MAYOR OF GROVER BEACH
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR OF MORRO BAY
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR OF PASO ROBLES
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR OF PISMO BEACH
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK •
1-6
ITEM NO. 2
•
Date: April 17, 1996
To: City Councils of SLO County
From: Allen K. Settle, Mayor of San Luis Obispo
Subject: Countywide Environmental Contamination - Unocal Corporation
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution to support the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors in the
enforcement of all laws regarding the handling, clean-up and disposal of hazardous
substances belonging to the Unocal Corporation.
DISCUSSION:
• All cities in San Luis Obispo County have the potential to be adversely affected by
contamination brought on by Unocal Corporation. It is reasonable that these cities should
adopt a resolution in supporting County efforts to enforce the laws and regulations
pertaining to hazardous substances.
The thrust of this resolution of support is twofold. First, the long- and short-term
protection of our environment which will safeguard the health and welfare of our
communities. Second, to protect against the possibility of cities incurring legal and
financial liabilities due to the current corporate restructuring, and continued reluctance by
Unocal to address environmental responsibilities.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Significant costs to residents of San Luis Obispo cities are possible if Unocal Corporation
is not held accountable for clean-up of their current environmental hazards. It is
important not to defer required clean-up activities. Any delay would increase the
probability of long-term liability.
ATTACHMENT:
Proposed resolution
2-1
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series) •
IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ENFORCEMENT OF
ALL LAWS REGARDING THE HANDLING, CLEAN-UP AND DISPOSAL OF
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES BELONGING TO UNOCAL CORPORATION
WHEREAS, at the April 25, 1996 meeting of all City Councils of San Luis Obispo
County have convened and determined that all cities will support environmental protection
within this County, and
WHEREAS, Unocal Corporation is responsible for mitigating hazardous spills, and
WHEREAS, Unocal Corporation is obligated to provide prompt, acceptable removal
of contaminated soils and polluted waters, and
WHEREAS, Unocal Corporation's failure to abate all environmental pollution will
create long-term liabilities and costs for the citizens of this County, and
WHEREAS, the cities have an obligation to provide protection from hazardous
spills within their own communities, and
WHEREAS, Unocal should demonstrate a greater commitment to work with and
keep the cities and County informed as to their proper contamination abatement
measures,
WHEREAS, the Cities in the County of San Luis Obispo hereby agree to support
the following resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Cities of San Luis Obispo County do
formally support the County Board of Supervisors in their efforts to enforce all laws
regarding the handling, clean-up and disposal of hazardous substance contaminations
belonging to Unocal. Successful efforts in this regard will protect the health and safety
of our citizens, and will further mitigate legal and financial impacts on our communities.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1996.
2-2
o�PRROVOC� ITEM NO. 3
�. NCORPORATED 9Z
~ v
• "' MEMORANDUM
* JULY 10. 1911
C���fORN`P
TO: CITY COUNCILS
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ADOPTION OF A VALIDATING ACT IN
RESPONSE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
V. GUARDINO
DATE: APRIL 25, 1996
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Councils of San Luis Obispo County adopt the attached resolution
supporting the adoption of a validating act in response to the Guardino decision.
DISCUSSION:
On September 28, 1995, the California Supreme Court invalidated a one-half cent sales tax to fund
local transportation projects. The Court determined the sales tax was a "special tax" because the funds
• were dedicated for a specific purpose and required a two-thirds voter approval to impose the special
tax. The Court relied upon Proposition 62 to invalidate the Santa Clara County tax. The result, the
Guardino decision, has left many local governments in a state of limbo on whether or not certain tax
revenues are secure.
Without a legislative solution, cities throughout California will be exposed to potential retroactive
rebates totalling approximately $400,000,000. Clearly, if this amount of revenue is rebated, it will
dramatically impact the financial health of most, if not all, California cities.
Through the hard work of the League of California Cities and State Senator lack O'Connell, SB 1590
(O'Connell) has been introduced into the Legislature. SB 1590 will protect cities from the retroactive
impacts of the Guardino decision and apply the impacts of Proposition 62 beginning from the date of
the Supreme Court's final decision (December 14, 1995).
SB 1590 has bipartisan support in the Legislature and needs additional support from all the cities in
California to ensure passage. Senator O'Connell has requested the cities of San Luis Obispo County
support his legislative efforts to correct and clarify the Guardino decision. The attached resolution was
prepared to indicate the Cities' strong support for the adoption of SB 1590. If approved by the City
Councils, this resolution will be sent to Senator O'Connell so it can be added to resolutions of support
from other agencies. These resolutions will help build support in the Legislature to clarify the
Guardino decision and save local agencies from the negative impacts of refunding tax revenues
imposed in good faith based on multiple appellate court rulings.
• jv
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILS OF THE CITIES
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SUPPORTING ADOPTION
OF A VALIDATING ACTIN RESPONSE TO SANTA CLARA
COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY VS.
GUARDINO
WHEREAS, the California Supreme Court recently issued a decision in the case of Santa
Clara Local Transportation Authority vs. Guarding, the effect of which decision is to require
voter approval for the imposition or increase of a special or general tax as set forth in
Proposition 62 (Government Code Section 53273); and
WHEREAS, the Guardino decision reverses prior court decisions that previously found the
voter-approval requirements of Proposition 62 for a general tax were unconstitutional; and
WHEREAS, if the collection of new taxes or tax increases adopted by elected boards,
subsequent to the effective date of Proposition 62 and prior to the effective date of the Guardino
decision, is prohibited and/or, if the retroactive refund of tax collections is mandated, then the
Cities of San Luis Obispo County and a large number of other local governments will
experience severe financial crises, necessitating major reductions in public safety and other vital
public services; negating contractual commitments; and, quite possibly, leading to default on
credit obligations or, at the very least, substantially reducing the credit-worthiness of local •
governments; and
WHEREAS, extensive costs, fiscal uncertainty, and a major threat to public services are
certain to arise from retroactive application of the Guardino decision and from the confusion that
will result if clear and timely policy direction is not forthcoming from the State in the aftermath
of the announcement of the Guardino decision, thereby decimating services provided through
the Cities' General Funds; and
WHEREAS, a bill has been introduced in the California State Senate, SB 1590
(O'Connell), which would provide for the prospective application of Proposition 62, so that it
does not apply to taxes instituted without voter approval between the date of adoption of
Proposition 62 and the date it was validated by the California Supreme Court, December 14,
1995.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Councils of the Cities of San Luis
Obispo County as follows:
1. That the California State Senate and Assembly are urged to actively support the
passage of SB 1590 or any similar legislation requiring that the Guardino decision be
applied prospectively; and
2. That the passage of SB 1590 or similar legislation be adopted as soon as possible; and •
3-2
• RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
3. That the City Clerk is directed to forward this Resolution to State Senator Jack
O'Connell and State Assembly Member Tom Bordonaro at the earliest date possible
after its adoption and to distribute copies to the Board of Supervisors.
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this day of , 1996.
MAYOR OF ARROYO GRANDE
ATTEST:
• CITYLE
C RK
MAYOR OF GROVER BEACH
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR OF PISMO BEACH
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
i
3-3
RESOLUTION NO. •
PAGE 3
MAYOR OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR OF MORRO BAY
ATTEST:
•
CITY CLERK
MAYOR OF PASO ROBLES
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR OF ATASCADERO
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK •
1-4
ITEM NO. 4
.•teso
County of San Luis Obispo ` `"'
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,RM.370■SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408■(805)781-5011
April 17, 1996
OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
To: Representatives Attending All Cities Meeting
Re: Resolution Asking Pacific Gas & Electric Co. To Address Community Impacts
Most of you will recall recent news coverage of a PG&E proposal to write-off the value
of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Facility on an accelerated basis and to sell out-right or
accelerate write-off on its oil- or gas-fired generating plants as well. PG&E has made
this proposal in the context of a number of maneuvers before the California Public
Utilities Commission in response to the Commission's decision to pursue a restructuring
of the electric utility industry in California. One effect of these proposals will be to
reduce the amount of property taxes paid by PG&E. Those reductions come at the
expense of several local agencies including school districts, the harbor district, the library
and the county itself.
• Briefly, PG&E's property is treated differently than other private property for purposes
of levying property taxes. The whole of PG&E property is valued as a "unit" across the
whole service territory of the company. The determination of value for property tax
purposes and the subsequent apportioning of it back to the counties is accomplished by
the State Board of Equalization in Sacramento. The more utility holdings in the county
the greater the value apportioned to the county and of course the more property taxes
collected. In our case the value of the two power plants along with the rest of PG&E
assets in the county is very significant. There are obviously other utility assets in the
county. The Gas Company for example has value here. But on the whole the PG&E
assets far outweigh any others. Almost 92% of all the unitary value in this county is
PG&E property.
Just how important is this change to the County and other local agencies? I happen to
think that it is more significant than the PG&E leadership has indicated. The PG&E
managers in estimating the impact made certain assumptions. Those assumptions limited
the estimate to changes dealing with Diablo Canyon power plant only. They assumed no
change in depreciation for Morro Bay or other assets and they assumed that no plant
would be sold. These assumptions tend to minimize the estimate of financial impact on
local agencies. Change the assumptions and the loss becomes more severe. For instance
the estimates considered "no change" in circumstance for the Morro Bay Generating
plant. We know, however, that the Company has proposed to accelerate the write-down
on half its oil and gas plants and sell the rest outright. That will have an impact not
• shown in the PG&E estimates.
These reductions would also come in violation of an agreement entered into by all the •
counties in the state, the utilities, and the State Board of Equalization in 1992. That
agreement stabilized these taxes when procedures of the State Board of Equalization
were called into question. In addition to that agreement PG&E management entered
into a separate agreement with San Luis Obispo County that acknowledged the
seriousness of the issue and spread these adjustments over ten years. We are now about
midway through that agreement period.
I think the issue may even run deeper than that. When PG&E located the nuclear plant
here years ago they created certain expectations in the community for creation of jobs,
tax base and a long-term asset to the community. The accelerated write off might just
place the management of PG&E in San Francisco in the position shut down the plant
outright. The share holders would be protected at that point if a decision to close were
made, but our community's economy and the folks holding related jobs would not.
So how bad is it? The impact on public agencies would increase over five years to a loss
of about $9.6 million annually. Of that annual loss, about $3.3 million would fall to the
county each year. In order to get an idea what that means, the amount is about three
quarters of the entire Library budget, or 85% of the County Fire Protection budget. To
the county government our loss is very serious when the true amount of discretionary
money is considered. Our discretionary funds are about $20 million. This loss takes
almost a quarter of those funds.
We have discussed these issues with PG&E and remain open to working with them to •
minimize the impacts. I hope the leadership of PG&E will find it in the interest of the
company to work actively with the County on this as well. In that regard, I hope you will
support and encourage that work through adoption of the proposed resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert E. Hendrix
County Administrator
c: Members of the Board of Supervisors
•
- RESOLUTION NO.
• A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND ALL CITY COUNCILS
ASKING PACIFIC GAS &ELECTRIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMUNITY
IMPACTS OF ITS PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE VALUATION OF
HOLDINGS AROUND THE STATE
The following resolution is hereby offered and read:
WHEREAS, the State of California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has ordered the
restructuring of the electric utility industry in California; and
WHEREAS,the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), in response to this order, has
submitted a proposal to the PUC which includes both the concept of accelerating the depreciation on
the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Facility(Diablo)and, in addition, the selling out-right or accelerating the
depreciation on its oil- or gas-fired plants as well; and
WHEREAS,one effect of this proposal will be to significantly reduce the amount of property
taxes paid by PG&E, which will come at the expense of several local agencies including school
districts, the harbor district, the library and the County; and
• WHEREAS, in estimating the financial impact of its proposal, PG&E management made
certain limiting assumptions which had the effect of artificially minimizing the full scope of the that
impact on local agencies,which would impact increase over five years to a loss of about $9.6 million
annually; and
WHEREAS,the proposed reductions come in direct violation of an agreement entered into
in 1992 by all of the counties in the state, the utilities and the State Board of Equalization (SBE),
which stabilized taxes when the valuation procedures of the SBE were called into question; and
WHEREAS,a moral covenant between PG&E and the citizens of San Luis Obispo County
as regards siting the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Facility in this county has been established, and
WHEREAS, a separate agreement, was created by PG&E with San Luis Obispo County
which acknowledged changes in valuation procedures the seriousness of the property tax loses
resulting from them and spread the resulting adjustments over ten years, and which said agreement
is only midway through its term.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the San Luis Obispo County Board of
Supervisors and the City Councils of the Cities of Paso Robles, Atascadero, San Luis Obispo,Morro
Bay,Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and Arroyo Grande that PG&E is urged to work with the County
to develop alternatives for mitigating the impacts of their proposal on the County and the community:
is
The foregoing resolution is hereby adopted.
County of San Luis Obispo City of Paso Robles
City of Atascadero City of San Luis Obispo
City of Morro Bay City of Pismo Beach
City of Grover Beach City of Arroyo Grande
Date:
•
adm\pgereso
ITEM NO. 5
(This item will be an oral report only.)
5. Discussion on Supporting a Tax Override for Safety Improvements to Highway 46 East.
Presentor: Walt Macklin, Mayor
City of Paso Robles
•
•
S_1
ITEM NO. 6
Foundation for Community Design
of the County of San Luis Obispo
FACT SHEET
Future Communities Project:
Today's Choices, Tomorrow's Communities
The Purpose of the Future Communities Project is threefold:
• To involve more people than ever before in developing a public voice that reflects county
residents' vision for their future.
• To increase awareness of the interrelationship among our communities'environment,
economy, and social fabric.
• To influence decision-makers by communicating this public voice, thus strengthening the
potential for realization of the public's vision.
The Project:
• The Future Communities Project will reach out to all residents,particularly those who have
not previously participated.
• A broad cross-section of the public will be asked to identify their hopes, dreams, and desires
for the future and the future of their communities in a county-wide series of resident gather-
ings
• A second series of resident gatherings will ask if we correctly heard and understood partici-
pants' input.
• A"Compact for the Future"will be developed based on the resident gatherings to guide
decision-makers as they create policy.
• The Future Communities Project is unique:
• Nothing like this has been done in our county before.
• The process is not conducted by government, but by a broad-based coalition of private
residents.
• It goes beyond traditional planning and political processes.
• It will involve greater numbers of people than ever before,particularly those whose
voices have not yet been heard.
• It encourages residents to consider the effects of their preferences on inter-related aspects
of the community.
The Philosophy:
• To create, we must first envision. Then, we must believe that our voices will count.
• We are responsible for the communities we create for future generations.
• There will be change in the future. These changes will affect you. These resident gatherings
provide an opportunity to make your voice heard and create what you want.
• Everyone is important: the vision belongs to each of us and every person makes a difference.
6-1
• It is an interrelated world, an interrelated county. The relationship among the societal,
environmental, and economic aspects of our communities should be considered in making
decisions about our future. Any change in one affects the others.
• The future is now: how we live today creates the future and how we envision and plan for
the future affects the choices we make in our lives today.
• Planning cannot occur by any one group: we need to step outside traditional disciplines,
reach beyond traditional boundaries, and invite.involvement beyond traditional participants.
The best vision and direction for the future will come from talking to each other neighbor-to-
neighbor.
The Result of the process will be the creation of a public voice,reflected in a compact for the
future that will act as a guide for San Luis Obispo County's entry into the 21st Century. It will
be based upon:
• wide-spread public input developed through broad participation in small group discussions
about the future
• a realistic relationship among social, environmental, and economic visions
Who:
• The Foundation for Community Design is a 501(C)3 non-profit corporation formed in No-
vember, 1994 by members appointed from the Economic Advisory Committee and the
Designing the Future.Steering Committee.
• The Board is chaired by Don Parham, selected for his balanced views and leadership experi-
ence.
• The Board represents a variety of stakeholders,reflecting the first time such a broad-based
group has come together without someone's personal or political agenda driving the process.
The Timeline for the project is April, 1995 through November, 1996.
Funding:
• A$100,000 grant has been received from The James Irvine Foundation.
• Additional matching and in-kind funds are being sought primarily from other private founda-
tions,PG&E, local businesses, and private citizens. Public-private partnerships will also be
pursued.
6-2
ITEM NO. 7
• TO: CI'T'Y COUNCILS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
FROM: BOB LATA, REPRESENTING PLANKING DIRECTORS
SUBJECT: LAND USE COMPATIBILM AND SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
DATE: 17 APRIL 1996
P
To summarize the basis for a recommendation by the City and County Planning Directors.
Background:
As indicated by the attached letter, at their meeting of February 16, 1996, the City and County
Planning Directors formulated the following recommendation:
City and County Planning Directors recommend that authorization be provided for us to
work together on: (1) developing land use strategies for improving General Plan land use
compatibilities and, (2) joint planning of the Spheres of Influence and Planning Impact
• Areas around the cities. It is further recommended that this work occur at the same time
that the City Managers and the County Administrator are worldng on resolving fiscal issues.
Basi far Rei mmendation:
• Land use policy conflicts in the areas around the cities are a significant source of concern for
both the County and the respective cities.
• The lack of an up-to-date Spheres of Influence contributes to these concerns in many instances.
• The Planning Directors believe that policy coordination between the respective agencies could
be improved, minimizing and perhaps eliminating certain conflicts.
• Fiscal issues are perhaps one of the greatest source of concern. Any agreements that can be
reached on fiscal issues will help facilitate resolving land use conflicts.
The Planning Directors do not want to invest time, energy and resources in trying to reach
agreements between the Cities and the County on land use / Sphere issues unless they have
authorization from their legislative bodies, and unless it appears that fiscal issues will not continue
to thwart any efforts toward cooperation.
• hAbob\60\s1oco\1up17apr.doo
7-1
i
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY AND- COUNTY
PLANNING DIRECTORS
Arroyo Grande, Paso Robles
Doreen Libeno-Blanck Bob Isla
itseadero Pismo Beach
At
Stader Camlyn Johnson
Groveycnr Decamp Situ itu Luis Obispo-CRy
Amold Jonas
Thomas Sullivan
Stu Luis Obispo•County
MoSay
Shauna Nauman Alcx Hinds
March 7, 1996 _ _. ...
TO: CITY MANAGERS and COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
At the February 16, 1996 meeting of the Cities/County Planning Directors meeting, a,vote was
unanimously taken, with Directors De Camp and Johnson absent, to approve the following and
forward to the city managers and county administrator:
City and County Planning Directors recommend that authorization be provided
for us to work together on: 1) developing land use strategies for improving
general plan land use compatibilities and, 2) joint planning of the spheres of
influence and planning impact areas around the cities. Itis further recommended
that this work occur at the some time that the city managers and the county
administrator are working on resolving fiscal issues,
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
ALEX HINDS, DIRECTOR
SLO County Planning and Building
e:lvpdocalahtdir.lV
7-2
ITEM NO. 8
���IIIII�II IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIII IIIIIII
IIIIII
city of sAn tuiS OBISPO
• OHM
.i
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Date: April 18, 1996
To: Mayors and Council Members of San Luis Obispo County Cities
From: John Dunn, San Luis Obispo City Administrative Offi(�:D---_
Subject: Recommendation of the California Constitution Revision Commission Regarding
a New State/Local "Realignment Plan"
The almost two-year effort of the California Constitution Revision Commission will soon come
to a close, as they will pass on their recommendation to the State Legislature, which in turn will
review the recommendation and presumably pass the majority of them on to the voters for
approval.
Changing the State Constitution is not that difficult, as it is done quite often by the Initiative
process. However, use of the initiative process is "one rain drop at a time", whereas the current
• effort is an attempt to change the governmental climate of the State.
The idea of "Community Charters" has been around for almost a year. In the minds of some
critics, including myself, the Commission was earlier quite daring in its proposed changes to the
State government, but more timid in its recommendation for local government change. The
earlier Community Charter idea was voluntary, available to use if you desired, but you didn't
have to use it. However, more recently the voluntary "Community Charter" idea has been
converted to a mandatory Home Rule Community Charter, with a mandatory Commission to be
formed for each County in 1997.
The Home Rule Community Charter would provide for the assignment of local government
services and their financing. To develop the Charter within a County, a Citizens Charter
Commission would be appointed. The Commission, after their review, would adopt a
Governmental Services and Financing Plan for the County. No later than November of 2000, a
new Home Rule Community Charter that implements the Governmental Services and Financing
Plan must be submitted to the voters of the County for their approval.
The State Legislature would establish an "oversight" commission to advise the Governor and the
Legislature on the state/local realignment process.
Home Rule Powers, previously limited to Charter Cities, would be granted to the entities
operating within the new charter.
•
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
8-1
CCRC Recommendations
Page 2
The Recommendation of the Commission, if ultimately approved by the voters, will be viewed
as a historical threat by some and as a historical opportunity by others. As explained by Fred
Silva, the Executive Secretary of the Commission, the Commission is seeking a re-invigoration
of local government in the State as we face the new century. He also indicated that the private
sector speakers before the Commission believe that the current system of government and
government financing operate as obstacles to growth and vitality within the State.
My purpose at this time is neither to fear nor to welcome the proposed change, but to inform you
that chance in local government structure and finance is being sought by the CCRC and that local
governments and others must become knowledgeable and become participants in this major
forthcoming dialogue.
•
8-2
04102/1996 16:21 9163233927 CRC PAGE 02
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION
I so i K STREET. SUITE i 74o
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
REVISION COMMISSION
STATE/LOCAL RELATIONS
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
MARCH 25, 1996
8-3
04/02/1996 16:21 9163233927 CRC PAGE 03
PAGE 6
IV. STATE/LOCAL RELATIONSHIP
New State/Local Realignment plan
The Constitution should require the Governor to submit a State/Local Realignment
Plan for the alignment of state and local services in mid 1997. The plan may be revise
by the Legislature and must be adopted by September 15, 1997. The objective of the
plan would be to clarify roles, responsibilities and financing of state and local
government.
V. ESTABLISHING A NEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND
FINANCE SYSTEM
Recognizing the state's diversity, the commission recommends establishing a new
constitutional authority for the structure and financing of local government. The
commission recommends that a new authority be established that would improve
the accountability and efficiency of local government. The new authority would
consist of a "Home Rule Community Charter" which would provide for the
assignment of local government services and their financing.
A. Process for Developing a Charter
In early 1997, a Citizens' Charter Commission would be appointed, in each county, •
or if desired, multi-county area. The commission would be made up of
representatives of existing governmental agencies as well as members of the public.
A majority of the membership would be non-governmental. The job of the charter
commission would be to examine the current local government structure, methods
of service delivery, and assignment of responsibilities and powers. At the conclusion
of the examination, the commission would adopt a Governmental Services and
Financing Plan for the territory covered by the charter. No later than the November
election in 2000, a new home rule community charter that implements the
governmental services and financing plan must be submitted to the voters for
approval. The charter may include both countywide and sub-county charters. This
process will achieve the commission's goals of improved service delivery, efficiency,
and accountability. Full disclosure of the financing of local government services
would also be required.
B. Establishment of an Oversight Commission
The Legislature should establish, in statute, a state commission that would be
limited to providing technical assistance to the citizens commissions, monitoring
their progress and advising the Governor and Legislature on the state/local
realignment process.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION
8-4
04/02/1996 16:21 9163233927 CRC PAGE 04
PAGE 7
C. Contents of the Charter
The countywide charter and/or sub-county charters would include the following
components:
• Identify the territory to be covered by the charter;
• Provide methods for reducing the number and cost of local
government;
• Allocate local services and regulatory responsibilities;
• The charter could also provide for the organization and
reorganization, as well as the boundaries of local agencies; and,
• Allocate general purpose state-authorized local revenues and
provide for'full financial disclosure.
D. Strengthening Home Rule
One of the incentives for general law cities, counties and other local entities to
participate in the Home Rule Community Charter is that home rule powers,
previously limited to charter cities would be granted to the new community charter
and to the entities operating within the charter. This provision will strengthen local
governments ability to govern local affairs. Additionally, once the charter for a given
is adopted the state would be prohibited from reallocating the non-school share
,area
of the property tax or other general purpose local taxes allocated by the charter.
With respect to charter cities, the provisions of the constitution governing the Home
Rule Communtly Charter may not Interfere with or abrogate the authority of a
charter city.
E. Vote Requirements for Local Taxes
The authority to raise taxes would be subject to a majority vote of the governing
board and a majority of the voters unless the charter provided for a higher
threshold. This would apply to all locally levied taxes except the ad valorem property
tax. Additionally, general obligation bonds for projects consistent with a capital
outlay plan for the area covered by the charter could be approved with a majority
vote.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION
8-5
■fit
League of California Cities
111®-IL 1400 K STREET• SACRAMENTO,CA 95814• (916)658-8200- •
Califomia Cities
Work Together
DATE: April 8, 1996
TO: Mayors
FROM: Sedalia Sanders
President,League of California Cities
Bill Hauck
Chair, California Constitution Revision Commission
Dr. Kevin Starr
California State Librarian
The League of California Cities is embarking on an exciting statewide program to engage
communities in a dialogue on restructuring state and local government. During summer and fall
public forums on the future of governance in California will be held in your community. We are •
requesting your help and participation in this great effort.
The subject of the forums will be the recommended changes to the structure and operation of our
state and local government made by the California Constitution Revision Commission. During
the spring and summer of 1996,the California Legislature will be in an intense debate over these
recommendations which include changes in the state's governance structure,budget process,
education and local government structure and finance. A summary of the Commission's work to
date is attached.
Public awareness and participation in the revision process is essential. Public forums will give
the citizenry an opportunity to speak out about ways to help make state and local government
more accountable, more responsive, and more efficient.
Trained facilitators and background materials will be made available to public libraries that elect
to sponsor community discussion forums. We are enlisting the support of newspapers
throughout the state to help publicize and report on the forums. And we are asking for your help
and support in this great effort by supporting the libraries in your community and helping to
publicize these discussions.
This is an excellent opportunity to influence the future of our state and local governments. This
is an effort that includes the participation of the League,League of Women Voters, ConstitutionRevision Commission;California State Association of Counties, and libraries acro &AT=. 1N1EE*
mt
(Ove 12 1996
CITYCOUNCI CA
SAN 8-6
We look forward to your involvement in the Constitution revision process -- a process that can
help make our government serve all of California better.
Maintaining a representative government that works cam-lot be done if we are all spectators
your participation is vital.
Sincerely,
7 Se alia Sanders Dr. Kevin Starr Bill Hauck, Chair
ayor, El Centro State Librarian California Constitution
resident, League of California Cities Revision Commission
libltr.doc
•
8-7
•
Con tI Ution
Revision Commission ispoised tooffer a bold
revamp of the state constitution. out is an
election-40ar Legislaturereadu to receive it.
bu Steve Scott
•
I;Picture, if you will, a latter-day Gulliver — a tempest-tossed traveler
deposited, over the course of his voyages, onto the shores of three very
different,uncharted kingdoms.The first is a land riled entirely by architects
— a veritable Oz of structural sculpture. Nobody inhabits any of these
majestic palaces of masonry,steel and glass—built to be seen,after all—
but the view is magnificent. The second kingdom is also marked by its
architecture—row after row of practical,uninspired strictures,each looking remarkably like the
other. Here, the general contractors rile. Nobody's moved into these buildings either, as none
of them are quite finished,but the contractor-kings promise the city will be done as soon as the
weather clears.
Having seen the first two kingdoms,it is inevitable that our inveterate traveler will alight on
the land of the sub-contractors. Here is perhaps the strangest sight of all. Despite an army of
technicians skilled in every phase of constriction, the land is practically bare—no houses,no
offices, not even a gas station. The only stricture to be seen for miles is a large insane asylum
in the center of town.
Housed within the asylum?Why,architects and general contractors,of course.After all,only
crazy people would keep asking them to do things that everyone knows can't be done. •
For most of the last two years,the California Constitution Revision Commission has occupied
the policy equivalent of the land of the architects.Convened in 1994 with a mandate to fix n-hat's
15
8-8
broken ahout the state's Rube Goldberg of the commission's work Nvill be placed than a; year guiding the commission
system of governance, the 20-member before voters on the November ballot,or through what may have been the long-
commission has produced a set of rec- whether any will be placed there at all.' est-running policy seminar in the his-
onunenclations remarkable in its breadth "It would be much easier to do this tory of state government.Every internal
. and sophistication. But as the commis- job in Nevada,"conceded Commission -organ ;of the state constitution was
cion prepares its final reform package Chairman William Hauck. examined, dissected, reassembled and
this month, its role has changed. No For most of the revision commis dissected again. Commission meetings
longer mere architects,the commission sion members, the journey they have were taken on the road,public hearings
members must noxv find a way to get taken over the last two years must seem were held via satellite,and every inter-
the thing built despite a growing chorus every bit as long as Gulliver's travels, if est group with a stake in the system
of special-interest doomsayers, each not quite as strange. Hauck —a vice weighed in, often several times.
with their own particular nit to pick, president for StateNet, Ccdiforuici Out of that process emerged a re-
They must also make believers of the Journals parent company — and ex- markable level of consensus and a thick
Legislature,which will decide how much ecutive director Fred Silva spent more set of preliminary recommendations.
o nst�ituti®nal Checklist
heu recommendations of the-Coostirutiohal Revision Commission
Legislative Branch
• Lengthen term limits,giving legislators state interest"
three, four-year terms in each house. •Allow override of Prop. 13 property tax
• Shorten legislative sessions limits for school spending
• Forfeit pay when budget is late •Authorize local sales tax for schools on
• Provide state retirement benefits for leg- majority vote
• islators •Give Leg.and governor greater flexiblityto
adjust Prop. 98
Exeeutive Branch • Remove authority for state Bd. of Educa-
tion and local county Bds. of Education
• Gov. and Lt. Gov. run together as ticket from constitution
•Gov. still in power, even when out of state •Establish authority for local school boards
-Treasurer, Ins. Comm.Supt. of Pub. Instr.
appointed, rather than elected Local Govt.
•Consolidate Bd.of Equalization and Fran-
chise Tax Bd. -Authorize Multi-Agency"Community Char
• Reduce terms of UC Regents ters"to consolidate local govt. functions
•Authorize additional revenue stream as an
incentive to consolidate
State Budget Require governor and Leg.todraft astate/
'
• Majority vote to pass budget local realignment plan, detailing specific
•Two-year budget,with rebalancing act functions of each level of govt.
after first year
•Authorize single trailer bill for budget
Initiative Process
• Require phased-in 3% budget reserve
• Limit short-term borrowing authority Put all constitutional amendments on the£
• Outcome-based performance criteria November ballot
• Five-year capital outlay plan • Allow Leg. to amend initiatives prior to
election,provided amendments are"con
H-12 Education sistent with the purpose of the initiative.
• •Allow Leg.to amend any statutory initiative'
• Declare K-12 education a "fundamental after six years
16 CALIFORNIA JOURNAL
8-9
While many of the suggestions reflected real change in tax policy." perintendent of public instruction—all
ideas that had been kicking around the In truth, it seems that for every oppose the move. "I have a $27 billion
Legislature for years, some bear the reconunenclation,there is a force resist- checkbook," said state Treasurer Mat-
commission's own unique stamp. Al- ing the recommendation. Anti-tax and thew Fong."The voters have every right
most from the moment the findings were anti-government activists object to the to have that office be directly account-
released,however,fax machines started call for a majority vote on the state able to them."Perhaps most vociferous •
spitting out notices praising the process budget. The initiative industry bitterly in their objections are term-limit advo-
and scorning the specifics. The earliest opposes plans to let the Legislature cates, who object to the commission's
casualty was the commission's most vis- tinker with initiatives before they go to proposal to allow both Assembly and
ible suggestion—movement from a two- the ballot.The three constitutional offic- Senate members to run for up to three
house to a one-house legislature.Many ers whose functions would become ap- four-year terms.
commission members saw the unicam- pointed rather than elected—treasurer, "I think it is unfortunate that the
eral legislature as a magnet to draw insurance commissioner, and state su- commissionwould essentially pit itself
media attention to their efforts,but most
of the serious attention came from recal-
citrant legislators, who let it be known
unicameral meant certain death for the CALIFORNIA 39X 5'
commission's efforts. Another area in
which little headway appears possible is STATE MADE IN
in expanding the state's ability to con- FLAG CAUFOR*U nZueuc VSA
tract services with the private sector11
.
:.
venwithout aunicameral leg- NOCI11al COSI: $39.00 Sale Price: $10.00 + S&H $3.50
islature,the commission's rec- Manufacturer of State, U.S. Flag Kits, Miniature (Desk)
ommendations, which were Flag Sets, Flags of the World, etc.
scheduled to be finalized at the end of Catalogue Available for custom flags and banners and emblems.
March,remain extensive,reaching into Call 1-800-250-9895
every cranny of governmental structure
(see page 16)."You've got to give them Trident Distributing Co. PO Box 104,6122 Lincoln Avenue,cypress,CA 90630
high marks for gaining a modicum of
consensus that has escaped the Legisla
ture,"said Assemblyman Phil Isenberg
(D-Sacramento), a commission mem-
ber until he was dumped off by new PageMaster
� OOGOP Speaker Curt Pringle.While reaching consensus among
20 board members of varying philoso- "We Make It Easy To Stay In Touch"
phies is, indeed, an accomplishment, 16507 Arminta Street Van Nuys,CA 91406
the degree of difficulty pales in com-
parison with the challenge of gaining tL,e[>tSe " `��
consensus among 120 lawmakers, one Neuer Ren All Service Includes
governor and a phalanx of interest •Statewide Coverage
groups. Since thyear began, the guy Another pager including designated ;':
b P oeNiaster Corporation
commission's findings have been picked areas in Arizona,
Let Pab to ou and
at by critics from both ends of the give FREE PAGERS Y Nevada and Mexico
political spectrum. The Howard Janis S Each pager Unlimited Paatng
Taxpayers Association,guardian of that your Staff members. g
g wires a 12 month service -New Motorola
political sacred cow, Proposition 13, agreement at 58.50 per month Rene ade or Bravo
sees danger lurking in the commission's with Pag eMaster Corporation. g
retreat from atwo-thirds vote require- A11 airtime is billed annually. Classic Pagers
ment on local school bonds and its planServicGet Superior •90 Day Warranty
to give local school districts more tax- pagei•Taster Corporation is a
ing authority. "What happens when the company`dedlcated to p o,ding " ,nd Additional Optionss
police come in and say, `Hey, what alit}service ? P a g -Pager Replacement r
clog otznty endendable
Plan
about us?'" noted HJTA President Joel pt ent fa alk Dep
g�ymm ����
Fox.And what about the school commu- -Nationwide Pagmg
nity,guardians of that other sacred cow -Alpha Numeric Paging l
known as Proposition 98?They're even -Voice Maul
less impressed than the Jarvis folks. -Secondary Numbers
"There definitely is an anti-Prop. A I R T o U C H -Local and Nationwide..'
98 tone to the work," said California O MOTOROLA I>i�irit 800 Numbers "
Teachers Association lobbyist Owen •
Waters. `Obviously, we didn't see any � � � i i � � � (1 � � � � � i i � � • �
APRIL 1996 17
8-10
I
urea given the best chance of achieving for—a guaranteed piece of the property
consensus is arguably the commission's tax andlthe ability to pass general obliga-
toughest nut—local government restruc- tion bonds by a majority, rather than a
curing.Some 7000 different governmen- two-thirds vote. The state, meanwhile,
tal agencies operate within California, _would be required to lay out a specific
• each jealously guarding its autonomy "job description"for state and local gov-
and often duplicating services.To prod ernmerlt, so each knows what it's sup-
these entities into taking advantage of posed to do, and where the money is
the economies of scale,the commission supposed to come from. While charter
` proposed that local regions establish cities remain worried their own taxing
"community authority may be restricted by the char-
charters," in ters, commission leaders are cautiously
which coun- optimistic about working out a compro-
ties, cities, mise.
school districts "What they landed on with local
andspecialdis- government was that they proposed
William Haucktricts would processes to be conducted locally in the
�9
identify cross- future, Father than imposing something
against the xyillnot simply _ jurisdictional themselves," said Steve Szalay, execu-
of a transient majority of # t functions and five director of the California State Asso-
„=
the people but what is by pool resources ciation iof Counties.
evefti- measure a gro�ying - to pay for With all but the final"i-dotting"and
majority of the people," them.Success- "t-crossing" completed, the focus now
said Alan Heslop of the fully enacted turns to state lawmakers,who must take
conservative Claremont In- charters would the commission's recommendations and
stitute, who also sits on be given a car fashion them into something that can go
the commission. rot for their beforevoters this November. The
Interestingly,the one Fred Silva good behav- Legislature's track record for embracing
• � ' California Directories
"The indispensable government reference 'tool"
ll
E'alilmtia ��' €afi orrt � ffi°t II I i i I ( I
01
State Government Lobbyists/PACs Local Government
Looseleaf including Name,address and phone numbers of Every city and county with its address
Quarterly Update service over 1,000 lobbyists,300 firms,2,000 em- and phone number and top elected and
Names,photographs,biographies,dis- ployers and 1,500 political action commit- appointed officials.Over9,000listings,320
trict descriptions, district and capital ad- tees.240 pages, 8'/2x 11,$40.00.'' pages,8'/,x 11,$60.00.
dresses,phone numbers,party affiliation,
committees, and staff of the Legislature. Also available:DOSdiskelte,a395.00
Descriptions of state departments,boards
and commissions and their top staff. In- Please add 7.75%sales tax plus 10%shipping to all orders.
dexed with over 2600 listings. Over 170 Send check,P.O. or credit card number for the correct amount to California
• pages,8'/2 x 11",$125.00. Journal,2101 K Street,Sacramento,CA 95816 For immediate orders or more
information call 916/444-2840.
lam
18 CALIFORNIA JOURNAL
8-11
big-picture government reform at any Governance Consensus Project,aims to sion sought. While such optimism may
time is,at best,mixed,and such reforms use dispute-resolution tactics to forge be excused of the commission's chair,it
are even harder to achieve in election compromise among conflicting govern- is also shared by many who havewatched
years, of which 1996 is one. "All great mental entities.Both efforts figure,to use from the outside.
changes are irksome to the human mind, the commission's findings as%a frame- "You cannot look at the CCRC as
because they have uncertain effects," work. just another think tank," said Hodson. •
conceded Silva. With special interests These signs give many commission "Even if the commission's proposals are
hounding them on both sides,the temp- members the conviction that it was worth not acted on, they've performed a great
tation for lawmakers to "cherry-pick" all the effort.Hauck says the commission service by putting many of these things
recommendations out of the has already "set the discussion in mo- on the table in a manner that it will not
commission's report will be strong. tion",that could ultimately lead to the be easy for them to be taken off the
"I'd say it's zero," said Senator Bill kind of structural change the commis- table."i
Leonard(R-Redlands)of prospects that
the commission's ideas would survive
the Legislature intact. "I think what will
happen is that members who agree with
individual recommendations will use
that to advance their on•n proposals."
D
he commission is meeting this R N OWSE'
Turge to purge head on,taking
the breadth of opposition as a 111f ner.of the
sign they are on the right track. "My `
pitch to people will be, `If everyone's 995 :HoTSH4Ts44ward :for F
screaming over the recommendations, !3
then it must be good,"' said Hauck. e.St Gouewnment .Service.
There are also some tactical advantages Presented'by the'
to pushing the report as a package.Asa tnfcrmation tndasfry Association(ItA)
package,legislators can justify voting for and Onhne Access®Magazine
things they don't like by pointing to
things they do,taking the bitter with the iiYnique■ nnoVa#�Ve. ;,DlStlnCtlYe�
sweet. Picked apart, all they get to take
a!
is bitter and nothing happens."If you try Useii rF dty. 'HIgh�Qua��tyE
to do it piecemeal, it never happens," .
said Tim Hodson,director of the Center
for California Studies at Sacramento State he judgement is in! LEGI- online information industry.
University. SLATE® for WindowsTM is Composed of top executives from
"Everyone's going to want to focus the winner of the coveted recognized information industry
on one point and change it,"said Isenberg. 1995 HOTSHOTS Award for the leaders—including Capital Cities/
"Eventually, members will have to sit "Best Government Service." You ABC, America Online, Knight
back and look at these as connected should know why LEGI-SLATE Ridder,BNA Online,and others—
issues in the sense of creating a high- topped the rest of the field. the IIA/Online Access HOTSHOTS
wire balancing act."
So what happens if nothing hap- "Innovation, value, uniqueness, panel of judges are true industry
pens and the commission sunsets as ease-of-use, technical quality, and experts.
scheduled sometime later this year?Will responsiveness to market need" The truth is, LEGI-SLATE is the
the California Constitution Revision Com- are the characteristics this premier best online legislative and stsfor regu-
missionseeitsideasbecomecatal industry award honors in online
y products and services. latory tracking service—better
broader debate about the way the state P content,better technology. Don't
is governed? Or will its report be dis- Sponsored by the Information In- just take our word for it. See for
patched to the dusty, ever-lengthening dustry Association (IIA) and yourself why senior executives
shelf of'studies that sounded good on Online Access Magazine, the from the industry's leading firms
paper but never made it into practice? HOTSHOTs Award is the benchmark businesses chose LEGI-SLATE as
Critics of the commission's findings pre- of professional distinction in the the"Best Government Service."
dict it will become another dead letter.
"It looks like another report that has a lot Call LEGI-SLATE today at(202) 898-2300 or(800)733-1131.
of pieces,none of which particularly go Let us show you why we're the best.
together,"said Waters.For supporters of
the effort, however, there are signs of W.-4171
encouragement. CSAC has launched its
own public-private council aimed at LEGI•$LATE• Digital Intelligence on
�,�a=mrmy•�n�w� ro,cc�p�y Legislation restructuring local government.An even and Regulations—
more
e ulations— .
more ambitious effort, the California g
APRIL 1996 19
8-12