Laserfiche WebLink
REPORT <br />To the Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />From the City Manager <br /> <br />July 25, 2016 <br /> <br />SUBJECT <br />Letter to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee Opposing AB 1362 <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />By motion, authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the State Senate Governance and <br />Finance Committee opposing AB 1362 <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br />Under existing law, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors appoints one person <br />to the San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control District Board of <br />Trustees, and the city council of each city that is located in whole or in part within <br />the district appoints one person to the Board of Trustees. As currently written, AB <br />1362, introduced by Assembly Member Richard Gordon, would allow members of the <br />Board to be appointed as follows: <br /> <br />· The Board of Supervisors may appoint two trustees. <br /> <br />· The City Selection Committee in the County of San Mateo may appoint one <br />trustee from each county supervisorial district <br /> <br />The proposed legislation apparently was intended to reduce the size of the District’s <br />governing board in order to increase oversight and accountability and reduce costs. <br /> <br />Brisbane, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City and San Bruno, and the San Mateo <br />County Mosquito and Vector Control District have all gone on record in opposing AB <br />1362. This bill would change state law to modify the governance of only one of the 62 <br />such agencies in the state. The City of Redwood City was not consulted on the <br />proposed legislation. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS <br />The San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control District Board now <br />has twenty-one members; twenty city representatives and one County representative. <br />The City of Redwood City’s current representative, appointed by the City Council, is <br />Kat Lion. As noted above, if AB 1362 becomes law, each city in San Mateo County <br />would have the opportunity to adopt a resolution requiring that future appointments <br />6.1.K. - Page 1