HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/1991 [3 A K E R S F I E L D
Patricia DeMond, Chair
Lynn Edwards
Patricia Smith
Staff:
Legislative: Trudy Thornton
Litigation: Larry Lunardini
AGENDA
LEGISLATIVE AND.LITIGATION
Thursday, March 21, 1991
12:00 noon
City Manager's Conference Room
1. SB 169 (Boatwright) - Local Government'Financing (Repeal SB 2557)
2. SB 203 (Maddy) - Local Government Financing (Implement SB 2557)
3. Legislative Bulletin/Legislation Issues
4. County Legislative Platform
5. Legislative Lobbying
6. Comparison of AB 3 and the Governor's Interagency Council
7. AB 3158 - Fish and Game Fees
8. SB 463 (McCorquodale) - State Wetlands
9. SB 27 (Kopp) - Charters: Cities and Counties
10. Set Next Meeting
DRAFT
LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 3-91
HARCH 27. 1991
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SENATE BILL 169 (BOATWRIGHT)
At the City Council meeting of January 30, 1991, the City Council
referreO to the Legislative and Litigation Committee a request for review of
Senate Bill 169, sponsored by Senator Boatwright and the League of
California Cities.
Senate Bill 169 repeals the provisions of SB 2557 which i~stituted
booking fees and property tax administration charges upon cities and school
and special districts. As an aiterna~ive, SB 169 changes the method of
calculating the annual depreciation for vehicle license fees. Additional funds
gained from this change will go directly to the County Assistance Fund to
assist counties in funding those programs which are no longer financially'
supported by the State.
Senate Bill 169 is a viable al'ternative to SB 2557, as opposed to SB 203
whici~ im,Blements the bad public policy created in SB 2557. SB 169 repeals
the double taxation imposed upon municipal citizens through SB 2557 and
furhter provides a stable anf growing funding source for counties to support
needed programs no longer paid for by the State and provides an end to
local fighting for revenues.
Therefore, the Legislative and Litigation Committee requests that the
City Council of Bakersfield accept this report, pass the attached resolution
and endorse SB 169 as submitted on the floor of the Legislature on January
t4, 1991. Further, the Committee recommends the City Council direct the City
Clerk to forward the resolution of endorsement to Senator BoatWright,
8aF, ersfield's state elected officials, members of the Senate Local Government
Committee, to.the Sacramento office of the League of California Cities, and to
the South San Joaquin Yatley Division. In addition, it is recluested that the
City Council have the City Manager's staff track the status of the bill as it
makes its way through the State iegisiative process, making periodic reports
as needed.
Resoectfully submitted,
Patricia DeMond, Chair
Lynn Edwards
Patricia Smith
(. L&L03912)
DRAFT
A RESOLUTION ENDORSTNG SENATE B]:LL 169 (BOATWRTGHT) WH];CH
REPEALS THE BAD PUBL]:C POLlrCY CREATED ]:N SB 2557 AND
PROV];DES A STABLE AND GROWfNG FUNDTNG SOURCE FOR COUNT]:ES
TO SUPPORT NEEDED PROGRAMS NO LONGER PA];D FOR BY THE
STATE.
WHEREAS, with the passage of SB 2557, the State directed counties to
charge cities, scnooi districts and special districts for the county function of
administering the property tax and authorized counties to ci~arge cities for
booking prisoners arrested by city employees; and
WHEREAS, these shifts of city revenues to counties were specifically
enacted to replace cuts in state revenue for counties that should have funded
state responsibilities carried o~t by counties, and imposes double taxation upon
city residents for services for which they already pay; and
WHEREAS, SB 2557 legalized fiscal irresponsibility, is poor public policy,
robs from one iocai government to finance another, and results in no real
solution to the continuing financial problems facing all levels of government in
California; and
WHEREAS, SB 169 repeals the inequities created through SB 2557 and, as
currently constituted, provides a stable and growing funding source for
counties to support needed programs no longer paid for by the State and
provides an end to local fighting for revenues;
WHEREAS. SB ~03, another bill designed to clarify SB 2557, merely
implements the i~ad public policy created in SB 2557;
NOW, THEREFORE. BE TT RESOLVED, by' the Council of the City of
BaKersfield that the City of Bakersfield endorses SB 169 as currently
constituted as a viable .alternative to SB 2557.
]; HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted
by the Counci of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
, by the following vote: (etc., etc.)
(m0221912)
CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
MEBTING OF:
REFERRED TO: LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION COMMITTEE T THORNTON. L. LUNA
RDINZ
ITEM: RECORD~ 7575
Legislative Bulletin. Demond~ Legisiatzon
Issues. (McDermott)
ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
fA) ~IRECT STAFF TO GIVE COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS
AND PERHAPS DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION. (B) MOTION TO DIRECT ALL I~UE¢
REGARDING LEGISLATION TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO
COMMITTEE AND STAFF TO PREPARE PROPER DOCUMENTS.
APPROVED.
BACKUP. MATERIAL ATTACHED: NO
DATE FORWARDED BY CITY CLERK: 02/15/91
,...,.., '---,- -. LEGISLATIVE . BULLET:
aaimml ,~'
California Cities Work Together ' [
~ ~" {~AR Z u ~:;;: ¢10-1991
March 1~, 1991 cn'Y MANAGERS OFFICE
**************************** *--***********************
1. Repeal of SB 2~?. SB 169 (Boatwright). Hearing: Senate Local Governmcm
Committee, Wednesday, April 10, 19P1. Support-Sponsor.
2. AB 939. S~x Month Planrdng Extension Introduced. AB 2092 (Shcr). Support.
3. Water Mel;¢rs. SB 229 (Boatwr~ght). Hearing: Tuesday, ~arch 19, 1991, Senate
Agriculture and Wa~¢r Resources CommJtt¢¢. Review and Comment.
4. State Planning. AB 76 (Farr). Informatiom
5. Maintenance Of Effoq. Proposition 111. Oas Tax Funds. Action.
6. Maintenance of Effort Relief Bill Introduced. SB 751 (Dcddch). Support.
'7. Transportation Cap,to! Improvements. Fundinf. AB 271 (SpeWer). Informutiom
8. Snow Rcmov~l AllOcations. SB 503 (~onard ~d Rogers). Infommtiom
9. Section 415. Action: .Suppo~.
Billboard Reform. Action: Suppo~.
Cable Tele~sion. Infomation.
Permit Application Requirements for Stomwater Discharges. Infomation.
***************************
I,EGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
1. SUPPORT-SPONSOR R~peal of SB 2557, SB 169 (B0atwri~ht). Hearing:
Sengte Local O0v~mm~nt Committee, Wednesday.
Senator Marian Bergeson, Chair of the Senate Local Government Committee, has indicated
that on Wednesday, April 10, 1991, the Committee will schedule for hearing ali Senate bills
affecting last year's SB 2557. The bills scheduled for hearing in the Senate Local
Government Committee are: SB 169 (Boatwright), ~ (Maddy), SB 40 (Ha-t), 5B 6!
(C. Green), and SB 76 (Beverly). Cities are encouraged to continue to seek Committee
members' opposition to ~ and support of SB 169. Committee members are: Bergeson
(Chair), Ayala (Vice Chair), Calderon, Craven, Cecil Green, Hill, Kopp, RUSsell, and
Thompson. (SB 169 previously referred to in Bulletins #6-1991, 7-1991, and 9-i99~,; SB 20_3
previously referred to in Bulletins #5-1991,-6-1991, and 9-1991; SB 76 previously re/erred
to in Bulletins #1-1991 arid 4-1991).
2. SUPPORT AB 9)9, Six-Month Planning Exten~i0n in. troduced.
AB 2092 (Sher).
At long last, the measure to provide a six-month extension to the initial AB 939 planning
deadlines has been introduced! The delay was due to a backlog of bills awaiting action by
the. Legislative Counsel, who is responsible for putting proposed language in "official bill
form."
AB 2092, an urgency measure, would extend the July 1, 1991 deadline for completion of the
source reduction and recycling elements and hoUSehold hazardous waste elements by six
months until January 1, 1992. The January 1, 1992 completion deadline for the first group
of Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans would be extended until July 1, 1992.
In addition, by July 1, 1991, cities and counties would be required to provide the Waste
Board with information on their progress in preparing the elements. AB 209.¢. does nothing
to change the recycling goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000.
As introduced, AB 2092 will require several minor amendments, such as applying the same
CEQA extension provision to the household hazardous waste elements currently available
for the source reduction and recycling elements. In addition, AB 2092 will include other
urgency matters unrelated to the six-month extension issue. Cities should be aware that
AB 2092 will be a consensus vehicle. Assembly Member Sher has said to the League that
he is committed to the extension and that any amendments included in AB 2092 that slow
it down or threaten the consensus will be deleted from the bill. Thus, the League is
confident that AB 2092 will be enacted well before July 1, 1991.
AB 2092 will be heard in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, whose members are:
2 March 15, 1991
Sher (Chair), Allen, Bates, Bentley, Brulte, Chandler, Connelly, Farr, Friedman, Frizzelle,
Gotch, Hauser, Hayden, Margolin, and Quackenbush. (Subject matter referred to previously
· in Bulletins #1-1991, and 8-1991.)
3. REVIEW & COMMENT Water Mg~r~, SB 229 (I}oatwright), Hearing:
Tuesday. March 19. 1991. Senate Agriculture and Water
Resources Committee.
SB 229, which would require water meters for new residential, commercial, agricultural and
industrial users after January 1, 1992, will be heard by the Senate Agriculture and Water
Resources Committee on Tuesday, March 19. Members are: Ayala (Chair), Mello (Vice
Chair), Craven, Cecil Green, McCorquodale, Presley, Roberti, Rogers, Thompson, and
Vuich. (Previously referred to in'Bulletin #4-1991.)
4. INFORMATION State Planning. AB 76 (Farr).
AB 76 was introduced by Assembly Member Farr to improve and coordinate' state, regional
and local planning responsibilities to better manage the state's rapid growth. This is another
of the major growth management bills introduced this session. The bill does the following:
State Planning
AB 76 creates a State Planning Agency with the Departments of Permit Assistance;
Environmental and Plan Review; Mediation and Conflict Resolution; and, Environmental
Data and Geographic Information Center. The agency also assumes the responsibilities of
the Office of Planning and Research and creates a Governor's Office of Research.
The agency would be guided by a State Planning Advisory Council and must prepare a State
Planning Report including, among other things, a comprehensive state plan relating to
agriculture and open space lands, transportation, housing, wildlife habitats, and state
buildings and facilities. State capital outlay projects, such as those of the University of
California, Department of Corrections, Caltrans and. Department of Water Resources must
be consistent with the plan. The State Planning Report, including state policy, must be
presented for approval by the Legislature and the Governor in 1992.
Regional p1;~nning
AB 76 amends the Regional Planning District Law by requiring districts to prepare a
comprehensive regional plan which integrates other state and federal regional plans. The
plan inciudes various elements, a capital improvement program, a remediation program, as
well as a consolidation program with recommendations for merging various single-purpose
regional planning entities. The district would be governed by the Regional Planning Board,
3 March 15, 1991
made up of city and county representatives, as provided under current law.
Existing COGs would assume the planning district responsibilities unless otherwise
designated by the State Planning Agency. Subregional plans are 'allowed. The
' comprehensive regional plan, with goals and policies that are consistent with the state plan.
must be adopted in 1994.
Local governments must currently report to the state on how general plans comply with the
state's general plan guidelines. AB 7(i would also provide: the opportunity to explain any
inconsistencies with regional and state plans. Prior to the adoption of a comprehensive
· regional plan by the regional planning entity, local governments must make findings
regarding the consistency of approved development projects with state and regional policies.
After adoption of the comprehensive regional plan, and no later that 1996, locai
governments must certify that their general plans are consistent with the regional plan. The
Regional Planning Board would also make a determination of consistency regarding plans,
. plan amendments, capital improvement programs, and proposed bond issuances. The board
would annually report on these matters.
Assembly Member Fan' is involving local, regional and state entities, as well as. the public
and other organizations, in.developing a consensus on this often controversial and divisive
issue.
Other issues to be addressed by AB 76, at a later date, include a clarified and consistent
state policy, more detailed review processes for state and regional plans, possible revisions
to the state and regional board composition, and more detailed plan
consistency/concurrency procedures.
This bill will be reviewed at the next meeting Of the League's Growth Management and
Regional Issues Committee. It is assigned to the Assembly Local Government Committee.
No hearing date has yet been set.
5. ACTION Maintenance of Effort. Proposition 111. Gas Ta.,; Fun~s.
Citiey should immediately locate, complete and mail in their Proposition ! 11 reporting form2
whict'., were mailed to all cities March 1, 1991. The forms which cities will use to compute
their Maintenance of Effort or "MOE" were sent attention: City Officials Responsible for.
the Preparation .of the Annual Street Report to the State Controller. Cities must provide
on these forms, detailed information regarding their "discretionary" expendituxes on streets
and road projects for fiscal years 1987-88, 88-89, and 89-90. It is from this informatiOn that
the Controllers Office will certify a city's average base year expenditure or MOE. A city
4 March 15, !991
must spend at least the same amount or maintain the "effort" of discretionary funds for
street and road purposes to avoid suffering the penalty; Under current law, jurisdictions
which miss their MOE by as little as one cent will lose all their Prop 111 gas tax
subventions for that year.
Although the forms are not due until July 1. 1991. it is a city's best interest to complete
these' f0rm~ ASAP. Funds will be withheld if the reporting forms are either delinquent or
incomplete. The Controller's Office must conduct a "field audit" of all grant recipients in
order to continue to receive Prop 111 gas tax subventions. Once established, a city's MOE
remains constant through the 10 year life of Prop 111.
Disputes over exactly what funds are to be included as part of a jurisdiction's expenditure
base may radically effect your MOE requirement. A city may find out through the audit
process that a major expenditure in one of the base funding years will be unexpectedly
counted as part of their base. The result could be that a city's current year streets and roads
expenditures may be significantly short of the amount required to meet it's Prop 111 MOE.
However, if that city is alerted in time, it Could conceivably increase expenditures in this
current year to correct this shortfall and thus avoid losing all it's'Prop 111 monies for the
year. Cities which wait until the last minute will undoubtedly be audited well after the end
of the fiscal year and thus miss any opportunity to correct a MOE shortfall.
A number of cities have already begun computing their MOE and have found significant
funding anomalies which occurred during one of the base years. Huge one time
expenditures of windfall funds from land sales, bond issues, or discontinued and one time
funding sources, such as Revenue Sharing spent on road purposes will cause their MOE to
be unnaturally high. These funding "blips" will cause major problems for a number of cities
required to maintain that funding level.
Cities officials who think they may be in this situation should immediately contact the
League. City of San Diego sponsored and League supported legislation has been introduced
to give some relief to cities which find themselves unable to meet the MOE requirement.
(See article on SB 751 below.)
City Managers and Finance Directors in particular should be cognizant of the Prop 111
MOE requirement when making budgetary decisions, especially this year. City streets and
road expenditures are now "locked in" at a minimum of their MOE level. Since there is no
adjustment in a city's MOE once established, it is crucially important as to what
expen..ditures are included in the base. Since the base is frozen, the MOE will become
easier to meet in the out years due t° inflation..
5 March 1.5, 1991
6. SUPPORT Maintenance of Eff°rt Relief Bill Introduced. SB 751
(Deddeh).
At the request of the City of San Diego and the League, Senator Wadie Deddeh (D-San
Diego), has introduced SB 751. The legislation is aimed at giving some relief to localities
who know they will have difficulty in meeting the Proposition 111 Maintenance of Effort
requirement or "MOE". (See article above.)
SB 751 would change the penalty pro. visions for Prop 111 funding so that cities would have
their grant reduced by the amount they missed their MOE rather than losing the entire
grant amount for the year. Cities may find that due to the economic decline their budgets
are significantly tighter. Although local governments may miss their MOE and would still
be penalized, under SB 751 the penalty would be more fitting for the severity of the crime.
SB 751 would also clarify that monies received from fees and reimbursements are to be
considered "discretionary" expenditures which can be gpent to meet your MOE in the current
and future years.
Lastly, if any discretionary revenue source is reduced below its historic average amount
'received during the base years (1987-88, 88-89, 89-90), then that fiscal year 'MOE
requirement is reduced by a similar amount. This provision.would relieve major problems
associated with discontinued revenue sources, such as Federal Revenue Sharing, one time
expenditUres of windfall type revenues, and other similar situations.
Cities should immediately contact their Senators and urge them to coauthor this important
legislation. Special attention should be focused on members of the Senate Transportation
Committee which will be hearing SB 751. Committee members are: Kopp (Cha. D,
McCorquodale (Vice Chair), Ayala, Bergeson, Boatwright, Cecil Green, Killea, Morgan,
Robbins,. Russell, and Vuich.
7. INFORMATION Transportation Capitol Improvements, Fun~ling, AB 271
(Speier).
AB,271 will be heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee on Monday March 18th.
This bill would change the allocation formula for the distribution of the funding from the
State Highway Account. AB 271 would allow exclusive mass transit guideway miles to be
included in the base for funding purposes. The current formula based on total mileage
includes only state highway mileage within your jurisdiction. This bill will clearly benefit
those communities with fixed rail systems while those without will be detrimentally affected.
6 . March 15, 1991
8. INFORMATION Snow removal allocations. SB 503 (Leonard and
Roeers].
SB 503 would increase the allocation for reimbursable costs of snow removal from its
current level of $3 million to $5.5 million. The additional $2.5 million in funding will be
taken form the Motor Vehicle Fuel License Tax and the Use Fuel Tax. Cities may wish to
check to see how this change will affect their allocations.
9. FEDI~RAL ACTIVITIES
Section 41~, Action: Sunport.
Congressman Robert Matsui (D-CA) introduced H.R. 1348 on March 7, 1991. H.R. 1348
would simplify compliance for state and local government pension plans with Section 415
of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), and enable them to pay the level of benefits promised
without jeopardizing the tax status of the trust. Fifty members of the House cosponsored
the bill. Among them twenty-one members are on the House Ways and Means Committee,
including California members: Stark (D-CA) and Thomas (R-CA).
Section'415 of the IRC limits the annual pension contribution or benefit level a public or
private employer may fund. Pension plans must comply with these limits in order to receive
or maintain their tax-qualified status. If a plan is found to be in violation of these limits,
both current and future employees would be taxed annually on the value of benefits earned
each year and the earnings of the trust would be subject to federal taxation. Under present
law, the maximum annual benefit payable from a governmental defined benefit plan is the
lesser of (1). 100 percent of the participant's average income for the highest years, or (2)
$90,000 (indexed to $108,963 in 1991), which may be actuarily reduced for retirement prior
to age 62.
The main provisions of the bill are: (1) Establish a uniform definition of compensation; (2)
Exempt governmental plans from the 100 percent of compensation test; (3) Exempt survivor
and disability benefits; and (4)' Authorize excess plans.
Senator David Pryor (D-AR) is expected to introduce a bill by the end of March that will
contain a similar Section 415' remedy.
Cities are urged to contact the author: Congressman Robert Matsui, 2353 Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, as well as other California Members to urge their
support for this bill.
7 March 15, 1991
Billboard Reform, Action: Support;
Senators John Chafee (R-RI) and Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX), and Congressman John Lewis (D-
GA), Clay Shaw (R-FL), and Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) have introduced the Visual
Pollution Control Act of 1991. The Chafee bill is S. 593 with ten cosponsors, and the Lewis
bill is H.R. 1344 with twenty-eight cosponsors.
The Visual Pollution Control Act of 1991, like the Bush Administration's proposal, restores
local control over billboard removal, restores the right to states and local governments tv
remove billboards through amortization, and prohibits the construction of new billboards
along rural highways. However, the legislation goes beyond the Administration's proposal
by including provisions which would halt the construction of new billboards along all federal
roads, and prohibit the cutting down of trees on public right-of-way for the sole purpose of
improved billboard visibility.
Interested parties 'are urged to contact the principal authors of the bills: Senator John
Chafee, 567 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 and Congressman
John Lewis, 501 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. In addition, cities
should contact their Representatives and Senators and urge their support for these bills.
Cable Television, InfOrmati0n.
CongreSsman Edward J. Markey (D-MA) and John D. Dingell (D-MI) have introduced a
comprehensive cable bill, H.R. 1303, which is identical to the bill passed by voice vote in
the House last session, H.R. 5267.
Rate Regulation: H.R. 1303 sits guidelines by which the FCC is to set a reasonable rate
for basic cable service. Franchising authorities are empowered to oversee the administration
of t-he FCC's basic rate standards. The FCC is also given the authority to establish
reasonable rates for other programming services if the rates for such programming services.
are "unreasonable or abusive." H.R..1303 limits the basic cable service tier to local
television broadcast signals and PEG channels. The bill allows a franchising authority, or
any other relevant local or state governmental entity, to file a petition with the FCC
challenging a rate as unreasonable or abusive. H.R. 1303 eliminates the "effective
competition" standard, leaving all cable programming services subject to rate regulation
regardless of the presence of competition in a cable community.
Customer ServiCe Standards: H.R. 1303 preempts cities by directing the FCC to establish
standards by which cable operators may fulfill their customer service requirements. The bill
would ali°w franchising authorities and cable operators to negotiate standards that' exceed
those set by the FCC.~
Must Carry: H.R. 1~303 mandates carriage of qualified local commercial and noncommercial
television signals on the basic cable service tier. A cable operator could satisfy requirements
8 March 15, 1991
for the carriage of noncommercial stations by carrying such stations as unused PEG
channels, subject to approval by the franchising authority.
Programming Access: H.R. 1303 prohibits a programmer from unreasonably refusing to
deal with a mulfichannel video system operator, however, the bill sanctions exclusive
programming contracts that do not "significantly impede" competition. Despite H.R. 1303's
general prohibitions on unreasonable refusals to deal, the bill includes several significant
exceptions to the prohibitions, including those contracts entered into on or before June 1,
1990, that grant exclusive distribution rights.
The bills does not include renewal or damages immunity provisions.
Also this session, Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) is expected 'to introduce a bill addressing
the telephone company entry, or "telco" issue.
Interested cities are encouraged to contact the authors: Congressman John Dingell, Chair
of House Energy and Commerce Committee, 2221 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C. 20515 and Congressman Edward Markey, Chair of Telecommunications
and Finance Subcommittee, 2133 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515.
City. officials are urged to contact California members of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee: Waxman, Lehman, Moorhead, and Dannmeyer.
Permit Application Requirements for Stormwater Discharges. Information.
An amendment was passed on Thursday, March 14, in the Senate Appropriations
Committee to H.R. 1281, the Dire, Urgent Supplemental Appropriations bill, which would
defer the March 18 deadline for six months for cities and towns to file group applications
for stormwater discharges from their municipal industrial facilities.
9 March 15, 1991
GEARY TAYLOR SCOT'r JONES
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER D,rec~or ol Buc~ge: & F,nance
JOEL HEINRICH$
MARY WEDDELL D'rector oi Pohc~ A~a~s,s
.~5is~am Cs4~t'~ A~mimstra~:'-e Off,cer ~ lntergo~ernme~ta~ Re~a~',,q~
ROBERT SEVERS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
February 19, 1991
Board of Supervisors
Kern County Civic Center
1415 Truxmn Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
1991 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
The primary purpose of the legislative platform is to provide a basis for quick response by the,
County Adrnimstradve Office and the County's legislative advocates to legislative issues as they.
arise. Tke platform also serves to identify the County's legislative priorities in order that the County
may concentrate its limked resources on areas of greatest concern.
The Counrfs position on historic .legislative issues kas essentially remained unchanged from the
adopted 1990 platform. The proposed platform format, a streamlined version of the 1990 platform,
provides general statements of the County's position regarding primary topics and an enumeration
of the specific issue areas.
In generaL, the platform highlights the County's concerns regarding the need for local decision
making, and the ability to effectively and efficiently provide local govemmant services.
Encompassed within the platform is the need to stabilize funding for local discretionary and State
mandated and required programs, equitable distribution of categorical funds and the need to
reduce, ff not eliminate, onerous reporting requirements.
The proposed legislative platform, as strUctured, captures the em'rent legislative concerns in a
simplified format. The platform can be expanded if necessary based on the forthcoming regio~ali~m
discussions and the State budget impacts.
1415 Truxtun Avenue, Room =704 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 861.2371
Board of Supervisors
February. 19, 1991
Page 2
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Board adopt the 1991 Legislative Platform.
Acting County Administrative Off-leer
MW:dr\1991plar.bos
cc: ALl Deparm~enrs
Richard Rifts
Jim Wise
KERN COUNTY 1991 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
GENERAL POLICY STATEMENTS
Support legislation which provides for governmental decision making at the level closest to the
people whenever it is most likely to produce the most effective and efficient result.
Support legislation which enhances the County's ability to finance and economically, efficiently, and
effectively provide local discretionary, and State or Federally mandated programs.
Support legislation which enhances the quality of life for California's citizens.
LOCAL CONTROL
Support and encourage legislation authorizing inter- and intra-regional planning
when it is of clear benefit to the County's citizenry.
Support and encourage legislation transferring State and Federal programs-to the
local level Lf guaranteed, independent revenue sources are provided and the transfer
is of dear benefit to the Coun .ty's citizenry.
Oppose legislation which erodes local land use decision-making authority.
FINANCES
GENERAL
Support legislation which improves local government's ability to finance
disaeriona~ programs.
Support legislation which reduces the negative financial and operational impacts of
tax increment financing on affected agencies.
Oppose the collection of fees at the local level to fund State programs.
STATE MANDATED AND STATE INTEREST PROGRAMS
Support legislation requiring the State to provide full cost reimbursement to counties
for all mandated programs and/or the elimination of mandates for programs which
are not fully funded by the State.
- Support legislation which permits the most cost-efficient management of state-
mandated programs.
Support legislation which prov/des for a more equitable distribution of categorical
funds.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
GENERAL
Support legislation which enhances local control over program scope
implementation, and funding.
Support legislation leading to the simplification of regulations and the reduction of
data gathering/reporting requirements.
- Support legislation which expands the County's ability to contract with private
entities for the provision of government services.
LABOR REEATIONS
- Support legislation modif3~g the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to permit
adjustable work schedules to meet the needs of management and labor.
- Oppose legislation which intrudes into the local collective bargaining process and
interferes with the County's ability to manage its personnel resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
- Support legislation which improves the County's ability to administer laws and
regulations concerning solid waste, hazardous waste, and air quality.
- Support legislation wkich promotes the safe, efficient, and cost-effective
management of environmental matters.
QUALITY OF LIFE
Support legislation which improves access to quality, affordable child care.
Support legislation which improves access to quality, affordable medical care.
Financial strategies to provide this care should provide revenue sources which will
relieve counties of the burden of uncompemated and undercompensated health care
COSts.
:ZTY COUNCI' REFERRAL
REFERRED TO: LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION COMMZTTEE LUNARDZNZ & THORNTO
N
ZTEM' RECORD¢ 7697
AssemO~v Bill ~158 - Fish and Game
(McDermott)
ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL'
tu POSSIBLY TAKE POSiTiON IN C, RPOSZTZON TO FE=S.
BACKUP MATERIAL ATTACHED' NO
DATE FORWARDED BY CZT'¥
~TATUS' ~
OLEASE ENTER THE~c .... ...... TUS iNTO THE ~RTM= ,COMPUTER
COUNCI~ m===RRAL TRACFTNG eVeT:M Ae PROGRESe Ic MADE
AEMORANDUM
March 21, 1991
To: J. DALE HAWLEY, CITY MANAGER /
FROM: JACK HARDISTY, PLANNING DIRECTD~ ~
SUBJECT: STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND G.A~E FEES
/
This memo is in response to the Council's question regarding the implementation
of the State Department of Fish and Game fee now required on projects subject to
the California Environmental Quality Act. The fee is required by Assembly Bill
3158 (Costa), Chapter 1607, Statutes of 1990, and became effective on January 1,
1991.
The purpose of the fee is to help defray the cost of wildlife protection and
management by the Department of Fish and Game on those projects which consume
California's wildlife resources through urbanization and development.
The fees are collected by the County Clerk at the time of posting the Notice of
Determination. The fees are $1,250 on projects for which a Negative Declaration
was prepared and $850 on projects for which an Environmental Impact Report was
prepared.
Fee exemptions are allowed for the following projects:
1. Ail projects statutoril¥ exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
2. All projects categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental document.
3. All projects found to be "de minimis" when a lead agency finds and certifies
that, as a result of its environmental review, a project has no potential for
any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife
resources.
As defined in Section 711.2(a) of the Fish and Game Code "...wildlife' means and
includes all wild animals, birds, plants, amphibians, and related ecological
communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its
continued viability..."
Staff has utilized "de minimis" findings (exempted) on approximately 30% of the
42 Notices of Determinations filed with the County Clerk since January 1, 1991.
These cases could be categorized as expansion of existing buildings, the
replacement of one building by another, or projects involving property which is
completely urbanized. This is in conformance with the direction provided by Fish
and Game at meetings with local public agencies intended to clarify
implementation of the law.
J. Dale Hawley, City Manager
March 21, 1991
Page 2
Staff now notifies all applicants of this fee requirement, and includes a letter
ex?laining the law with every development application. All discretionary
approvals include a condition of approval that this fee must be paid and no
subsequent permits will be released cn any project until proof is supplied
demonstrating that the fee has been paid. The condition on subdivisions allows
deferral of the fee to recording of the map. We have worked closely with County
Clerk to devise a system of record keeping and procedures intended to implement
this law as best we can.
Failure to pay the required fee leaves the city or developer vulnerable to legal
challenge by Fish and Game or any others, indeed, the law specifically states
that until the fees are paid no approval is operative, vested, or final.
Some applicants have requested that the fee payment be deferred as long as
possible because they have heard that the state might rescind the requirement.
The Planning Commission has conditioned tract maps to require payment to time of
final recording. This practice has caused some concern in the City Attorney's
office and it will be discussed with the commission at its next meeting. The
legal problems are that the statute of limitation is extended indefinitely and
eventual payment of the fee falls on the city as an obligation. The practical
problem is that the tracking of fee payments or non-payments over several years
introduces a factor of error or oversight.
It should be noted Department of Fish and Game may collect all monies spent in
collection of the fee from those who have not paid. The State Controller may
off-set the amount owed the state from funds the state owes the city or
individual. I did oppose imposition of the fee and supported its revision but
the law clearly requires payment of it.
In addition, the City and County are about to submit the final Habitat
Conservation Plan to the Department of Fish and Game for adoption, this program
is 3 years in the making, has cost local public agencies over $300,000, is of
vital importance to the local development community and would possibly be
jeopardized if we failed to implement State law.
mg
a:city
]r, troaucea
:3ENATE BILL No. 463
introoucea by Senator McCorauodale
February 25. 1991
An act to aOO.Cheoter 7.8 (commencing with Section 1775) to Division
'2 ,of ~he Fish and Game Code, relating to wetlands, and making an
~oorooriation therefor.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
3B 463, as introduced, McCorouoOale. State wetlands.
(1) ~xisting provisions of the Keene-Nejedly California Wetlanos
~reserv-ation Act reauire the Department of Parks and Recreation and the
Gepar~ment of Fish and Game to prepare a wetlands priority plan and
au~ns:ize the departments to acouire interests in wetlands and to enter
into operating agreements with cities, counties, and districts for the
management and control of wetiands or interests in wetlands acquired
under chat :acC.
This bill ~ould enact the Sacramento-San Joaouin Valley Wetlands'
t41tigation Bank Act of 1991.
The bii] would authorize, until January 1, 2010, the Department of
Fish and Game, with the approval of the Fish and Game Commission, to
qualify mitigation bank Sites, as del!ned, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Valley, to Drcvide incentives and financial assistance to create
wetlands in areas where wetlands are filled, or where there are
discharges into wetlands, under specified federal permits. The bill
would authorize the department tO credit wetlands created in a bank site
for wetlands lost in a qualifying urban area, as defined, through
actions by a federal permittee, and would provide for payments by that
federal ~ermittee to the oberator of the created wetlands under a
specified procedure. The bill would require an operator of a bank site,
!f it.is a public entity, to annually pay to the county in whic~ the
property is located an amount equal to property taxes, as s~ecified, and
to pay specified assessments.
~2) Ex~sting ]aw continuous'ly appropriates the money in the Fish and'
Game Preservation Fund to the department and' the commission to carry out
~heir duties under the Fish and Game 6oOe.
Because this bill would imoose additional duties on the department
and the commission with regard to mitigation bank sites and bank
creation, zones, tmereoy making the money in the fund available for..a new
2uroose. the ~i!i would make an aopromriation.
/o~_. ma.jori~ Amprooriation- yes. Fiscal committee: ','es
State-manOated local orogram: no.
The oeopie of the State of Callfornia do enact as foiiows:
SECTZON I. Chapter 7.8 (commencing with Section i775) is added to
Division '2 of the Fis~ and Game Code, to read:
CHAPTER 7.8. SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WETLANDS ~ITIGATION BANK
AOT OF t991
Article 1. General Provisions
i775. This chaoter shall be Known and may Oe cited as the.
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Wetlands Mitigation Bank Act of 1991.
1775.. The Legislature finds and declares the following:
~;a) Wetlands are an important natural resource of the Sacramento-San
Joaauin Valley because they provide critlcal' habitat for migratory
waterfowl of 'the Pacific flyway, for endangered species, and' for many
.$t~er resident wildlife and fish populations. Wetlands provide
additional public benefits, including water quality improvement, flood
mro:e.::ion, stream bank stabilization, recreation, and scientific
research.
,b) Active and voluntary involvement by private landowners is
necessar,/ fca the long-term availabiiity and productivity of wetlands in
~he Sacramento-San Joaduin Valley.
'c~ Large wetland preserves in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley,
under certain circumstances, can provide an environmentally preferable
alternative to a number of small, isolated wetland preserves-of the same
type surrounded by urban development.
(d) Zt is the policy of the state with respect to the Sacramento-San
Joaduin Valley:
(1) To provide for the protection, preservation, restoration,
enhancement, and expansion of the wetland habitat in the Sacramento-San
Joaduin ',/alley.
(2) To promote the protection, preservation, restoration,
enhancement, and expansion .of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley wetlands
in concer~ with o~her federal, s~ate, and local programs, as well as
interested parties.
(.3) To improve c0operative efforts among private, nonprofit,'and
public entities for the managemen: and protection of wetlands.
(4) To assure that no net loss of either wetland acreage or habitat
· laiues ?esults.from activities in the Sacramento-San JoaQuin Valley that
o~herwise comply with state and federal !aw through the.creation of
we%ian~s %hat ~re at least one and one-half times the size and at least
equal in i35oitat value per unit area to those wetlanQs lost.
~'5'~ To encourage and maintain a predictable, efficient regulatory
framework f,~r envit-onmen%aii¥ accep%aDie.aeve]opment.
~iE.) To assure tha~ the .;reat.ion or maintenance of wetlands in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley does no~ reduce any local tax base. does
not ccea~e any uncompensate~ increased requirement for local services,
.and ~oes no~ create conditions that have the potential to adversely
.~ffect the public health.
~17 T.:) provide an alternative for accomplishing offsite ~itigation
in the Sacramento-San JoaQuin Valley when offsite mitigation is required
under a removal or fill sermit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the
federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. ;344 and following).
,,,3_ chapter constitutes a nonexclusive alternative to other
lawful i~etnoas of mitigating project impacts upon wetlanas and
maintaining and increasing wetlands acreage and habitat values
generally. Specifically, this chapter is not intended to, ane shall not
be ~r,~erDreted t.~:
..~ :]'ondone ~r encourage the removal, loss, or degradation of
~'L] ~ondone or encourage the removal, loss, or degradation of
haD~ta5 for any rare, threatene~, or endangered species.
~,2~ Abrogate any other local, state, or federal law or policy
relating to wetlands, nor prohibit any city or county from prohibiting
the removal, filling, or other destruction of particular wetlands.
~;> Establish maximum or minimum standards or any other requirements
f~r '~esiaD~ fill or mitigation, except for mitigation banks established
pursuan5 to this chapter..
~]5) Have legal or necessary precedential application to any other
area of the state, or to other lands, resources, situations, or
circumstances.
(6) Preclude other forms of mitigation banking, including private or
for-profit programs, either within or outside the Sacramento-San JoaQuin
Valley.
(7) Be' the exclusive method of providing ~ompensation by ~ermittees
for the loss of wetlands within the Sacramento-San JoaQuin Valley.
'777. Unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions in
this article govern the construction of this chapter.
!777.2. "Bank site" or "mitigation Dank site" means a publicly or
privately owneo and operated site on which wetlands have been created in
accordance wi:n this chapter to compensate for adverse impacts caused by
removai cr fill permit activities authorized pursuant to Section 404 of'
the federal ~;lean Water ^ *"
~c~ ,.'33 U.S.C. Sec. 1344 and following).
~777.5. "Credit" means a numerical value shat represents the
wetlana acreage and habitat values .of a mitigation Dank sitei
!778. "Operator" means the departmen%, or a DuD]lc or private
person or entit? approved by the department, to administer a wet]ands
mitigazion Dank site.
1778.5. "Permittee" means a ouDiic or private person or entity that
meets all of the following conditions:
(a) Has received a permit from the United States Army CorDs of
Engineers under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.¢.
Sec. 1:344 and foitowing) for the removal or. filling of wetlands, suP~ect
to a condition that allows the permittee to compensate for the wetland
loss through ~articipation in a wetland mitigation bank pursuant to this
chapter.
(b) Proposes to compensate for the loss of the wetlands through
par51cipation in a wetlands mitigation bank pursuant to this chapter.
(c) Proposes the discharge at a site within a Qualifying urban area
no: more than 40 miles from a Dank si%e with sufficient acreage of the
same types of wetlands that will provide suitable replacement habitat
for the values that may be lost from the conversion of.the existing
wetlands.
1779. "Qualifying urDan area" means any of the following when they
occur within the Sacramento-San Joaqu]n Valley-
(a) A geographical area having a population of 50,000 or more
inhabitants within the jurisdiction of a city, or a town, as defined by
Sections 20 and 21 of the Government Code.
(b) A portion of any geographical area within a town, as defined in
Section 21 of the Government Code, which has a population density equal
to, or exceeding, 1,500 persons per square mile and which has a
population of 50,000 or more inhabitants.
(c) A geographical area having a population density equal to, or
exceeding, 1,500 persons per square mile, and an adjacent city, as
defined in Section 20 of the Government Code, where the combined
population of the geograpaical area and the city equals 50,000 or more
innabitants.
(d) A geographical area within the sphere of influence of a city or
community services district for which the pro3ected population of the
adopted general plan equals 10,000 or more inhabitants..
1779.5. "Sacramento-San Joaauin Valley" means the central valley
region, as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 13200 of the Water
£oae.
Article 2. Legislative Goals
1750. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that no net loss of
wecian0 acreage or habitat values within the Sacramento-San JoaQuin
Valley occurs as a result of the removal or fill permit activities
pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec,
1344 ~nO following).
1781. it is the state's goal to increase the total wetlands acreage
and values within the Sacramento-San JOaOuin Valley.
Article 3. Wetlands Mitigation Banks
t783. Subject to the amproval of the commission, the director shall
initiate and 'implement a program for tme creation and perpetual
maintenance of mitigation bank sites in the Sacramento-San Joaduin
Valley..
,8~.~. The Wildlife Conservation B~ard may purchase land for the
express puroose of creating wetland mitigation banks, i.f the director
aporcves each :separate acquisition.
~754. ,'.a) Subject to ~he aporoval of the commission, the
deoartmen~, in ccoperation with those agencies specified in Section
1726, shall adopt regulations which establish standards and criteria for
the bank slte oualification process, for the evaluation of wetland
acreage and haOitat Values created at the bank sites, and for the
ooeration and evaluation of bank sites, and any other regulations that
are necessary to implement this chaoter.
These criteria shall require, at a minimum, that the newly created
~etianO provide.the'hydrologic? vegetative,.and wildlife
characteristics? including the food web components, of a naturally
occurring wetland system.
(b) With respect'to bank site standards and operator qualifications,
the deoartment shall consider, at a minimum, all of the following.
criteria:
(!) A requirement that the bank site have a reliable, adequate, and
available water supply necessary to provide wetland values.
.(2) The relative'ease or difficulty of converting uplands into
wetlands at the bank site.
(3) The anticipated maintenance necessary to sustain the recreated
wetlands at the bank site.
(4) The proximity of the bank site to other established preserves or
natural features historically associated with abundant wildlife values.
· . (5) The oroximit'/ of the bank site to uroan or p~puiated areas that
could reduce the bank site's long-term biological values.
f6.) The demonstrated ability of the bank site operator to create,
~dminister, ;na~ntain, and'protect the dank site in perbetuity, including ..
financial, technical, and management ability.
(7) The relative abundance or scarcity of the wetland type to be
created at the bank site.
!785. Zf any person desires to establish a wetlands mitigation bank
site under this chapter, the person s~ali apply to the department for a
determination that the bank site and the operator qualify under the
criteria established by the department pursuant to this chapter. The
determination that a bank site qualifies under this chapter is a project
for purposes of Section ZI065 of the Public Resources Code.
1786. (i.a.) Before creating any wetlands on the bank site qua.lified
pursuant to Section 1785, the department shall coordinate and shall· be a
signatory to a memorandum of'understanding with the operator, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States Department
of the Interior, and the State Department of Health Services or its
designee. Any. county located in whole or in part in the Sacramento-San
Joaduin Valley may, by ordinance, require that it be a signatory to any
~lemorandum of understanding for a bank site to be established within its
boundary.
(b~ The memorandum of understanding s~all include,.but is not
limited to, all of t~e following items-
(1) Zdentification of the mitigation bank site, including the legal
property description, acreage, types, and location of existing wetlands
within the boundaries of the bank site.
~) An agreement, by each of the governmental agencies in
subdivision (al, that all new, successfully created wetland acreage
shall qualify to be credited against the approved removal or fill of
wetlands located in'the qualifying urban area within 40 miles of the
· bank site and is based on the formula and consistent with the procedures
set out in this chapter.
(3) An agreement by the operator to do both of the following:
(.Al Maintain all wetland habitat within the bank in optimum
condition in perpetuity, barring an unforeseen natural catastrophe that
precludes the viability of wetlands.
(8) Establish a trust or bond in favor of the department that
provides sufficient funds to ensure afministration, protection,
operation, and maintenance in perpetuity of the wetland habitat acreage
and values at the mitigation bank site if the operator, defaults in
performing %he duties requir'ed pursuant to subparagraph. (A).
i. 4) Z:a the case of privately ,awned bank sites, identification of the
,:ir.:umstances Shat would constitute a ma.]or breach of the agreement and
that '~ould'resu!t in replacement of the operator, including'
identification of procedures for adequate notice and opportunity for She
· 3pera~cr to ~e heard and ~o correct any breach prior to being rep]aced.
"T37. ,;a.) iF t~e bank site operator is a public entity, that entity
s~a]~ pay .~nnually to the county in w~ich the proper~y is located an
amoun~ aqua] ~o the county taxes ]evied on the property at the time
'tit~e to %ne bank site is transferred ~o that entity. The public entity
sha~ also pay' the assessments levied upon ~he property by any
irrigatlon? drainage, or reclamation district.
{b) P~yments under this section shall be made on or before December
'0~ oT'' each .... ,/ear. excep~ for newly acquired bank sites, for which
payments shall be made pursuant to subdivision (c).
:'c) Payments for newly accuired bank sites shall be made within one
,/ear of the date title to the property was transferred to the state,
2rorated For the balance of the year from the date title was transferred
to ~he 30th day of June following the date title was transferred, and,
thereafter? payments shall be made on or before December 10 of each
year.
Article 4. Wetlands
~790. ,J~on the successful creation of any wetlands of at least 20
acrss, the operator may request a determination by the department of the
~]umDer of acres in the mitigation bank site, and the relative habitat
value thereof, that qualify for credit against wetland loss in the
qua']ifying urban area.
~791. (.a) Upon receipt of a request pursuant to Section 1790, the
departmen5 shall determine the number of acres which are wetlands in the
bank site based on the criteria established ~ursuant to Section 1784,
and t~e department shall classify those wetlands according to
established biol. ogical criteria.
(b) The classifications shall include, but are not limited to, the
following wetland types:
(i) Perennial freshwater marsh.
,.¢2) Perennial brackish marsh.
3) Seasonal freshwater marsh.
4) Wet meadow.
5) Vernal pool.
(6) Riparian woodland.
~7) Riparian scrub.
~7g£. After the department determines the numPer Of wetland acres
in the bank site that qualify for credit against wetlano loss in the
qualifying urPan area, the operator shall provide to the department, and
the oeoartment shall verify, an accounting of the average cost for each
wetland acre created, by wetland type ~
· .,~r the ~urpose of determining
creditS, using the following factors'
~.a) Land costs, including the reasonaOie interest cost of hoiding
~he land.
(b) Wetland creation costs.
:i.,~) Wetland administration, maintenance, and protection costs.
~]d) Annual taxes, including all tax increases allowed under
applicable state law.
e) Costs incurred.by the department in establishing the bank site.
f) Any other information relevant to a determination of the cost of
~reserving the wetlands in perpetuity.
Article 5. Oischarge into Wetlands
1793. A permittee shall provide compensation as follows:
(a) The ~epartment shall clas£ify ~he wetlands that the permittee
will remove according to wetland type, consistent with. Article 4
<commencing with Section 1790).
~.b) The 9ermittee may select any of ~he following compensation
alternat~'¢es if the alternative selected is consistent with the terms of
~he ;ermittee's permit:
1) The perm~ttee shall pay to the operator of a bank site located
within the surrounding bank creation zone and having sufficient existing
wetland credits, an amount equal to one-half the appraised market value
if that payment is in an amount sufficient to purchase 150 percent of
the amount of wetland being removed. The market value of the wetlands
shall be appraised by an independent appraiser based on the'intended
land use following the discharge into, and removal of, the wetlands.
(2) The permittee shall pay to the operator of a bank site located
within the surrounding bank creation zone and having sufficient existing
wet'land credits, an amoun~ sufficient to purchase 200 percent of the
amount of wetland being removed.
(3) Zf wetlands have been constructed at a bank site located within
the surrounding bank creation Zone, but the. department has not
determined that the constructed wetlands are functioning in accordance
with the requirements of Section 1791, the permittee shall pay to the
operator an amount sufficient ~o purchase 300 percent of the amount of
~onstructea wetlana expec~ea to function as the type of wetlanO being
removea. .
!794. Compensation pursuant to Section i793 is subject to the
conaition ~hat she operator establish the trust or Dona reouireO by
subparagraph (3) of paragrap~ ~]3) of suPOivision (b) of Section 1786
..
and, in addition? is subject to the following conditions:
(a) The full payment shall be'used to purchase credits in the
mitlgation bank site? based upon the costs determined pursuant to
Section 1792.
(b) The payment shall provide for purchase of wetland acreage
reduireO by ~he applicable provision of Section 1793 of the wetland
acreage being removed or filled ano having the same hydrologic,
vegetative, and other characteristics as the system for w~ich it will
serve as mitigation.
(c) A permitted shall not participate in a wetlands mitigation bank
if a ne~ loss of wetland haUita% values occurs.
(d) A permittee may pay an amount grea:er than is 'required by
subdivision (b) of Section 1793 in order to meet the requirements of
subdivisions (b) and (c).
~795. After payment to the opera,or pursuant to this article, the
permittee has no further obligations with respect to the operation of
the Oank site to which payment was made.
!796. -No Dank'site shall be oualifieo under Section 1785 on or
after January 1, 2010. The department shall report to the Legislature on
or before FeDruary 1, 1993, and once annually thereafter with a
description .and evaluation of each mitigation bank site approved
pursuant to this chapter, including, but not limited to, the number of
wetland acres and habitat values created, the number of credits issued.,
an csses,sment of the biolog.ical productivity of the-created wetlands, a
comparison of the wetlands acreage and values that were created in the
mitigation bank and those that were lost by the various projects for
which credits were obtained, and any recommendations for improving the
program.,
CORRECTIONS
Text -- Page 2.
END OF REPORT
am= League of Caiifo ia Cities
TO: Mayors, Ci~ Managers, and .Ci~ Cler~ in Cheer Cities
~OM: Clark ~oeckcr, ~sistant Di;ector
S~B~E~: Charier ~cndments by Idtiativc - SB 27 (Kopp)
Your immediate attention is required to defeat legislation Senator Kopp has once again
introduced modifying signature requ!rements for charter amendments by initiative.
SB 27 substantially reduces the number of signatures required to qualify a charier
amendment bv initiative. Currently, initiative~to amend'the charter require 15 percent ot
the registered voters. 8B 27 woUld require 15 percent of those voting for all candidates for
Governor in the last election (a number of which, unfortunately, is decreasing each year).
SB 27 was heard in the Senate Committee on Elections and Reapportionment on
Wednesday, March 6. As was the case last year with SB 1785, the Senator argues support
of his legislation, not on the merits of the bill, but rather that the Legislature was not
informed by its staff of "hidden provisions" in the 1988 legislation.
The i988 legislation referred to by Senator Kopp was the result of a two year study on the
part of city. clerks and city attorneys from charter cities to clean up conflicting and
overlapping provisions in both the Gove .rnment Code and the Elections Code relative to city
charters. The League's goal in supporting, this legislation was to ensure that both the
electorate sponsoring charier amendments and those officials responsible' for conducting
elections clearly understand the statutes as they pertain to the establishment of charter
commissions, amendments by initiative and to make consistent the timeframes relating to
charter amendments with the existing Election Code provisions.
It is important for city officials to immediately contact their Senators offering compelling
reasons relative to the substance of the proposed legislation. Some arguments for opposing
SB 27 are:
1) In all but a few charter cities, the signature requirement for an initiative or
referendum has historically been 10/15 percent of "registered voters" unlike
counties or the State which base their threshold on "votes cast" in the last
OVER ......
'election. It is not good public policy for an initiative to amend the city's
charter requiring fewer signatures than an initiative or referendum to approve
or overturn an ordinance.
2) Nor, is it .a good public, policy for there to be different methods for
determining petitions signature requirements in cities. It is confusing and
deceptive to the electorate who should have a common method for citizens
sponsored ballot measures.
3) The city's charter is, in effect, the city's constitution. And, as with the State
Constitution, a higher signature requirement may be appropriate to modi~
the Constitution/charter than required for an initiative to adopt a
statutes/ordinance. Certainly, a lower signature requirement is not
appropriate.
Finaily, as occurred last year, a wide assortment of grassroots organizations will support this
legislation. Therefore, it is important now to personally discuss SB 27 with your Senator to
obtain his commitment to oppose SB 27 on the Senate floor. Also, if your local newspaper
shares your concerns for this measure, it will be helpful if the newspaper editorializes
against SB 27.
Should you have any questions regarding this important measure, please feel free to call me
in the Sacramento office of the League at 916/444-5513, extension 238.
L:'\leg\ms\sb27.mmo
CA SB 27 03/19/91 Pag~ t
introduced
SENATE BILL No. 27 '.
introduced. Dy Senator KoDD
December 3. 1990
An ac~ to amend Section 4080 of the Elections Code, relating to
eiections.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 27, as introauceO, KopD. Charters: cities and counties.
Existing taw requires Shat a proposal to amend or repeal a city
charter or a city and county charter whicn is proposed by a petition be
signea by !5% or 10% of the registered voters of the city or city and
county, respectively, it requires that the total number of registered
voters of the city be determined according to the cQunty clerk's last
official report 3f registration to the Secretary of State.
This bill would delete this latter requirement, and would instead
require that each such proposal be signed by registered voters of the
city or city and county equal to 15% or 10% of the total numPer, of Votes
cast in the city or city and county, respectively, for.all candidates
for Governor at the. last general election at which a Governor was
electeD.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
Sta~e-manaated local program: no.
The Deople of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 4080 of the Elections CoOe is amended to rea~:
~080. (a) The following city or city and county charter proposals
shall be suDm~tted to the voters at either a special election called for
that purpose; at any established municipal election date, or at any.
estaPlished election date pursuant to Section 2500, provided that there
are at least 88 days before the election:
(!.) A charter Proposed by a char~er commission, whether elected or
appointed by a governing body. A charter commission may also submit a
char~er pursuant to Section 34455 of the Government Code.
(2) An amendment or repeal of a charter proposed by the governing
body of a city or a city and county on.its own mo%ion.
(3) An amenament or repeal of a city charter proposed by a petition
signed by iD> ~5 percent of the registered voters of the city
IA> [egis~ered vo~ers of the city eaua] in numPer to 15 percent of the
total number of votes cast in the city for ail candidates for Governor
at'the last 9eneral election at which a Governor was elected
(4) An amenament or repeal of a city ana county charter proposed by
a petition s]gneQ by [D) 10 percent of the registered vo~ers of the city "
an~ county ~6] iA> ~'egistereo vo~ers of the city and county equal in
number ~o 10 percent of ~he total number of votes cast in t. he city and
~ounty for ail canoidates for Governor at the las: general election at
which a Governor was elected <AJ
{5) A recodification of the charter Droposeo Dy the governing body
on its own mo~ion, provided ~hat the recooification does not, in any
manner, substantially change the provisions of the charter.
Lb.) Charter proposals. Dy the governing body and charter proposals by
~etition cf the voters may De submitted at the same election.
iD> ~c) The total numPer of registereO voters of the city or city
and county shall be determineo accorOing to the county clerK's last
offic~ai t-eport of registration to the Secretary of State. (DJ
END OF REPORT
5ACRAM ENTO ADDRESS COMMITTEES
95814 __ HOUSING & URBAN AFFAIRS
(916) 445-0503 LOCAL GOVERNMENt
ATSS 8-485-0503 .'' REVENUE & tAXATION
D~STRICT OFf:lC ES °. MANAGEMENT
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94080 , .-', - ,. .'
(415) 952-5666 ,~, .~ -
ATSS 8-597-3706 · ..~'.;-'
'KOPP ' "' ''
QUENTIN
L.
EIGHTH SENATORIAL OISTRICT
REPRESENTING SAN FRANCISCO AND SaN MATEO COUNTIES
CiTY MANAGE,c", $
Ma'rch 18, 1991
Mr.~ J. Dale Hawley, City Manager
City of Bakersfield
515 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Dear Mr. Hawley:
Thank you for your letter of March 4, 1991, respecting
the various Senate bills relating to last session's Senate Bill
2557. As you know, these bills await further hearing in the
Senate Local Government Co~ittee of which I am a member.
I support the repeal of the empowerment of counties to
charge cities booking fees, but I do not support the repeal of
the power to charge, like any other collection agency, local
governmental entities for the cost of collecting property taxes
for those entities. It is illogical to charge cities for
carrying out the enforcement of the laws of the peOple of the
State of California; on the other hand, it would cost cities,
school districts and special districts money to collect their
respective shares of the property tax if the county didn't do it.
I previously voted in the Senate Co~ittee on Local Government
two years ago for such enabling measure for counties and my
position hasn't changed.
Thanks again for sharing your views with me and please
continue to do so.
Q~:jm '