HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05261987 - 1.17 To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Phil Batchelor Contra
County Administrator
Costa
DATE: May 20, 1987 County
SUBJECT:
Legislation: Assembly Bill 647 ( Stirling)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a position in opposition to AB 647 by Assemblyman Larry
Stirling which would require that whenever the Board of
Supervisors decides to go to bid to construct a county building,
expand an existing building, or enter into a lease of an existing
building, the Board must give 60 days ' advance notice to each
member of the city council in the city where the building is to
be constructed, expanded, or leased. The Board would also have
to provide each member of the city council notice in writing,
within 60 days of the construction, expansion, or lease of a
building whenever the County is exempt from the bidding process.
BACKGROUND-
Under existing law, public bidding processes provide for
extensive notice requirements before the county constructs or
expands a building. Normally, courtesy requires that a city
council be advised if a county intends to construct or expand a
major facility within a city. In the absence of such notice it
is unlikely that the county could successfully build or expand
within a. city. Leases generally do not require the same level of
public notice, but it is our experience that the county would
never attempt to lease space within a city without fully briefing
the city council of the county' s intentions.
To require advance notice to each member of the city council
seems to impose a major legalistic requirement which ought to be
unnecessary. We believe this type of city-county relationship is
best left to local officials to work out among themselves without
the need for state law. In the case of projects which are exempt
from bid requirements, the requirement to advise each member of
the city council within 60 days of the construction, expansion,
or lease of a facility seems totally unnecessary. The bill is
not clear on when in the construction or lease process the 60-day
period begins to run. If the intent is that the members of the
city council be notified 60 days after the building has been
constructed, this is probably unnecessary as it will be clear
that a building has been built or expanded.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT. _'YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE _ OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)' 6wd g�l ✓/,�/��"Vp^7 5�
7
ACTION OF BOARD ON May 26, / APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT tZ� AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CCCounty Administrator ATTESTED MAY 2 .6 1987
: _
General Services Director
Public Works Director PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Jackson/Barish & Associates
CSAC Director BY .DEPUTY
M382/7-83 Assemblyman Stfrlina
Page 2
The purpose of the bill is unclear in terms of what problem it is
attempting to solve. It appears to substitute state law for
common courtesy between elected bodies and, to this extent, we
believe the bill is unnecessary, burdensome, and intrusive. We
recommend that the Board oppose AB 647 . The Director of General
Services joins us in this recommendation.