County of Orange County Executive Office

Transcription

1 County of Orange County Executive Office Attachment C AGENCY/DEPARTMENT: Registrar of Voters LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL Legislative Session SUBJECT: Ballot Argument Priority PROPOSAL SUMMARY: This proposal proposes to clarify the priority order of determining who may submit a ballot argument to support or oppose a local ballot initiative when one or more arguments are submitted to a County Registrar-Recorder s office simultaneously. Currently California Election Code 9166 stipulates the following: If more than one argument for or more than one argument against any county measure is submitted to the county elections official within the time prescribed, the county elections official shall select one of the arguments in favor and one of the arguments against the measure for printing and distribution to the voters. In selecting the argument the county elections official shall give preference and priority in the order named to the arguments of the following: (a) The board of supervisors or a member or members of the board. (b) The individual voter, or bona fide association of citizens, or combination of voters and associations, who are the bona fide sponsors or proponents of the measure. (c) Bona fide associations of citizens. (d) Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure. Legislation that provides a clear and reasonable definition of a bona fide association of citizens is necessary for an elections official to select an argument in the instance when two bona fide associations of citizens provide arguments either in favor or against a measure, particularly in a ballot argument qualification process. Specific criteria is essential in these instances. PROBLEM: When you have an instance of two or more bona fide associations that submit arguments either in favor or against a measure, the elections official is to choose one. The problem arises when special interests or individuals form bona fide association s days or hours before their arguments are filed. Defining the criteria is essential for elections officials to make appropriate selections on the arguments. SOLUTION: California Election Code 9166 is clear in explaining how an elections official is to select an argument if more than one is submitted for or against a county measure within a prescribed time is unclear on what a bona fide association of citizens entails. The Code simply states bona fide association of citizens. Such wording is open to interpretation on a multitude of levels and provides no safeguards in representing the citizens by legitimate bona fide associations of citizens. 1

2 Establishing clarity in what a bona fide association of citizens is, or establishing a timeline for forming one, will assist and support the citizens of the state and county elections officials. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: N/A DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT LAW/REGULATION: California Election Code 9166 lists that a bona fide association of citizens may submit arguments of measures but fails to list the criteria of what a bona fide association of citizens requires. FISCAL IMPACT: Non-Fiscal LIKELY ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT: Orange County Registrar of Voters. It is currently unknown what other organizations would support the proposal. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: 1. To provide elections officials a clearly defined criteria regarding bona fide association of citizens. 2. Better representation of citizens by legitimate citizens groups. 3. Clarity in criteria for all that are interested in creating a bona fide association of citizens. LIKELY ORGANIZATIONAL OPPOSITION: Special interest groups or individuals who are able to use the current non-clarified criteria to their advantage. Their ability to create a bona fide association of citizens is a method that may not likely represent the citizens. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: 1. Defined criteria will be too restrictive for legitimate citizens groups. 2. Will not deter individuals and special interest groups who are looking to further agendas. 3. Should not be determined by elections officials, whose role in this process is primarily ministerial. 2

3 County of Orange County Executive Office AGENCY/DEPARTMENT: CEO- Real Estate LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL Legislative Session SUBJECT: Dana Point Harbor Tidelands Grant Lease Term Extension PROPOSAL SUMMARY: This proposal proposes to extend available lease terms for Dana Point Harbor (Harbor) from 50 to 66 years as authorized in the Tideland Grant Authority. PROBLEM: The County has developed the Dana Point Harbor Revitalization Plan (Plan) over many years and through extensive outreach to and input from local stakeholders. The Plan was developed with the specific intent of promoting Coastal Act compliance to enhance public access opportunities; deliver quality recreational opportunities; update visitor serving commercial opportunities; provide water quality improvements; and, promote coastal resource preservation. While the County has obtained many of the approvals required to implement the Plan the revenue generated by the Harbor is not sufficient to fund the revitalization effort. This bill would support the County s efforts to revitalize the Harbor by allowing the County to enter into a financeable and financially viable 66-year Master Ground Lease Agreement with a Developer with sufficient experience, financial resources, and personnel to successfully plan, design, permit, fund, construct, renovate, market, operate, manage, and maintain the revitalization effort, both on the land and on the water. SOLUTION: Amend Chapter 321 of the Statutes of 1961 to read as follows: Chapter 321 of the Statutes of 1961 was an act of the state legislature which grants certain tidelands and submerged land of the State of California (including the harbor area) to the County of Orange. (a) That said lands shall be used by said county, and its successors, only for the establishment, improvement and conduct of a harbor, and for the construction, maintenance and operation thereon of wharves, docks, piers, slips, quays and other utilities, structures, facilities and appliances necessary or convenient for the promotion and accommodation of commerce and navigation, and for use, public park, parking, highway, playground, and business incidental thereto; and said county, or its successors, shall not, at any time, grant, convey, give or alien said lands, or any part thereof, to any individual, form or corporation for any purposes whatsoever; provided, that said county, or its successors, may grant franchises thereon for limited periods (but in no event exceeding years), for wharves and other public uses and purposes and may lease said lands, or any part thereof, for limited periods (but in no event exceeding years), for purposes consistent with trust upon which said lands are held by the State of California, and with the requirements of commerce and navigation at said harbor, and collect and retain rents from such leases. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The foundation of the common law public trust doctrine is that there is an affirmative duty of the state to protect the people's common heritage in navigable waters for their common use. The traditional uses allowed under the public trust doctrine were water-related commerce, navigation, and fisheries. As a common law doctrine, however, the public trust doctrine has evolved and been extended by the 3

4 courts. The courts have found that the public uses to which sovereign lands are subject are sufficiently flexible to encompass changing public needs. These include preservation of these lands in their natural state and as environments that provide food and habitat for birds and marine life. Sovereign lands subject to the public trust cannot be sold into private ownership. For over 100 years, the Legislature has granted public trust lands to local governments so the lands can be managed locally for the benefit of the people of California. There are over 80 trustees in the state, including the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Benicia and Eureka. While these trust lands are managed locally, the commission retains oversight authority to ensure those local trustees are complying with the public trust doctrine and the applicable granting statutes. Of the 80 trustees three trusts allow 66 year leases. DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT LAW/REGULATION: Existing law protects, pursuant to the common law doctrine of the public trust, the public's right to use California's waterways for commerce, navigation, fishing, boating, natural habitat protection, and other water oriented activities. The public trust doctrine provides that filled and unfilled tide and submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams, and other navigable waterways are to be held in trust by the state for the benefit of the people of the state. Existing law also requires the State Lands Commission (Commission) to be the steward and manager of the state's public trust lands. The commission has direct administrative control over the state's public trust lands and oversight authority over public trust lands granted by the Legislature to local governments. The Legislature has granted, in trust, public trust lands to over 80 local public agencies to be managed for the benefit of all the people of the state and pursuant to the public trust doctrine and terms of the applicable granting statutes. There local agencies include, for example, Ports of Los Angeles, and San Diego among others. Public trust lands can be leased only for those uses consistent with the public trust. The commission retains oversight authority. FISCAL IMPACT: Non-Fiscal LIKELY ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT: City of Dana Point, Dana Point Chamber of Commerce, Dana Point Harbor Merchant Association, Dana Point Boaters Association, Dana Point Yacht Club, and California State Lands Commission. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill would support adherence with the following State Tidelands Grant trusts and conditions: (a) That said lands shall be used by said county, and its successors, only for the establishment, improvement and conduct of a harbor, and for the construction, maintenance and operation thereon of wharves, docks, piers, slips, quays and other utilities, structures, facilities and appliances necessary or convenient for the promotion and accommodation of commerce and navigation, and for use, public park, parking, highway, playground, and business incidental thereto ; (b) That said lands shall be improved by the County without expense to the State and shall always remain available for public use for all purposes of commerce and navigation ; and (c) That within ten years from effective date of this act, said lands shall be substantially improve by said County without expense to the State In addition, this bill would allow for the continued protection of these sovereign lands for use and enjoyment of the public by enhancing public access opportunities; delivering quality recreational opportunities, including marine recreational amenities; updating visitor serving commercial opportunities; providing water quality improvements; and, promoting coastal resource preservation. LIKELY ORGANIZATIONAL OPPOSITION: None 4

5 County of Orange County Executive Office AGENCY/DEPARTMENT: County Counsel LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL Legislative Session SUBJECT: Incompatibility of Office Vector Control District PROPOSAL SUMMARY: This proposal would clarify eligibility requirements to allow a County Supervisor to serve on a local Vector Control District Board without having to give up his or her seat on the Board of Supervisors. This would extend the same flexibility already allowed to members of a City Council who wish to also serve as a Trustee on a local Vector Control Board District. PROBLEM: Health and Safety Code section 2022 provides that the County and each city may appoint a trustee to the Vector Control District, however in 1996 (SB ) the vector act was amended to make the office of city councilmember and trustee compatible. The law did not afford the same protection to a county supervisor appointed as a trustee. SOLUTION: Amend Health and Safety Code section 2022 as follows: (a) Each person appointed by a board of supervisors to be a member of a board of trustees shall be a voter in that county and a resident of that portion of the county that is within the district. (b) Each person appointed by a city council to be a member of a board of trustees shall be a voter in that city and a resident of that portion of the city that is within the district. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law including the common law doctrine that precludes the simultaneous holding of incompatible offices, a member of a city council or a member of a county board of supervisors may be appointed and may serve as a member of a board of trustees if that person also meets the other applicable qualifications of this chapter. (d) It is the intent of the Legislature that persons appointed to boards of trustees have experience, training, and education in fields that will assist in the governance of the districts. (e) All trustees shall exercise their independent judgment on behalf of the interests of the residents, property owners, and the public as a whole in furthering the purposes and intent of this chapter. The trustees shall represent the interests of the public as a whole and not solely the interests of the board of supervisors or the city council that appointed them. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Incompatibility of office is a common law doctrine that prevents a person from simultaneously holding two offices if the performance of the duties of either office could have an adverse effect on the other. (People ex rel. Chapman v. Rapsey (1940) 16 Cal. Ed 636, ) Offices are incompatible (in the absence of a statute indicating otherwise) if there is any significant clash of duties or loyalties between the offices. 5

6 DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT LAW/REGULATION: Government Code section 1099 (enacted in 2005) states that a public officer shall not hold incompatible offices. Health and Safety Code section(s) details the Board of Trustees and Officers for the Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control Districts. FISCAL IMPACT: Non Fiscal. LIKELY ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT: Unknown at this time LIKELY ORGANIZATIONAL OPPOSITION: Unknown at this time 6

7 County of Orange County Executive Office AGENCY/DEPARTMENT: Clerk of the Board LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL Legislative Session SUBJECT: Maddy Act PROPOSAL SUMMARY: This proposal would amend the Maddy Act by allowing a County to post online a list of appointments for all regular and ongoing boards, commissions and committees. Current law requires that a hard copy be printed and made available to the public in a designated local library. PROBLEM: Current law states that on or before December 31 st of each year each legislative body shall prepare an appointments list of all the regular and ongoing boards, commissions, and committees which are appointed by the legislative body of the local agency. The list known as the Local Appointments List, must be made available to the public at a designated public library with the largest service population within the local agencies jurisdiction. In an era where the internet is widely used this process is outdated and inconvenient to the general public. Additionally, the process is costly and time consuming for local agencies who could simply post the information on their websites. SOLUTION: Amend Government Code Section as follows: On or before December 31 of each year, each legislative body shall prepare an appointments list of all regular and ongoing boards, commissions, and committees which are appointed by the legislative body of the local agency. This list shall be known as the Local Appointments List. The list shall contain the following information: (a) A list of all appointive terms which will expire during the next calendar year, with the name of the incumbent appointee, the date of appointment, the date the term expires, and the necessary qualifications for the position. (b) A list of all boards, commissions, and committees whose members serve at the pleasure of the legislative body, and the necessary qualifications for each position The Local Appointments List shall be made available to members of the public for a reasonable fee which shall not exceed actual cost. The legislative body shall post a copy of the list on its designate website designate the public library with the largest service population within its jurisdiction to receive a copy of the list. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Local government citizen advisory boards including boards, commissions, and task forces are fundamental to the democratic process. The Maddy Act in California, 7

8 similar to other state laws across the country, was brought to inception to ensure citizens have full access to all board vacancies. DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT LAW/REGULATION: The Maddy Act is contained in Government Code Section FISCAL IMPACT: Non Fiscal. LIKELY ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT: League of Cities, California State Association of Counties LIKELY ORGANIZATIONAL OPPOSITION: Unknown at this time 8