L.A.'s Valley Secession Movement Is Not Unique: Santa Barbara County Mulls North-South Split

In May of this year, Governor Schwarzenegger appointed a fivemember Mission County Formation Review Commission. Share with our readers the mandate of this commission and the issues that it is currently studying.

A petition of about 34,000 County citizens, calling for the setting up of a new Mission County, was certified. Geographically, it would take in most of the north portion of Santa Barbara County. By law, the Governor appoints a five-member commission whose job it is to examine the feasibility of the new county. State law spells out 11 determinations which the Commission must make, some of which are very significant and a few which are less critical. Interestingly, the Commission does not make a specific recommendation either for or against the formation of a new county; but its role is to examine the key aspects of the new county's viability of function. The question is then submitted to the electorate at a general election, presently scheduled for March 2006. The Mission County question will require concurrent approvals of both the county voters at-large as well as the citizens within the newly approved Mission County.

While we have 11 tasks to complete, I'll give you an idea of the most important ones. The most critical one is the fiscal and economic viability of the new county. We will structure the costs of services for Mission County, as well as tax revenues to support those services, of course. But, a critical issues will be how we structure the distribution of existing debt between the new Mission County and the remaining Santa Barbara County. Over the years, Santa Barbara County has issued debt for most physical needs and it's our job to come up with a fair and equitable way to distribute the paying off of the remaining debt.

We will also make a determination of the final boundary of Mission County, as well as the five Supervisor's Districts for Mission County. There are 137 properties that straddle the new boundary lines and the Commission must decide, based upon convincing interest of the owner, whether the new property will be in the new or stay in the existing County.

Another significant issue lies with what happens to all of the 37 special districts that may be split by the new boundary lines, such as school, judicial, drainage, fire, etc. Fortunately, we have found that existing State Law will allow these entities to work out their situations, and our Commission supports that approach.

You are both chair of the formation commission and a former city manager of San Jose in the years preceding Prop. 13. How has Prop. 13 and its progeny affected the financial viability and priorities of local government?

Prop. 13, in my opinion, forced cities to pursue irrational fiscal and development policies as they tried to figure out how they would continue to provide important, needed services, like public safety, facilities maintenance, parks, libraries, etc. We've all witnessed instances when a city battled with another city or county to get at sales tax dollars for its coffers.

Further, cities have become creative in developing new ways of charging fees for almost everything citizens need, and to be it is an annoying and self-defeating way to finance local government. But, if I were still sitting in a city manager's chair, and there was a stream of people who wanted more and more services, and property taxes were somehow capped, I might end up doing the same thing too. At least, before Prop. 13, cities had the flexibility in trying to balance income with expenses. If Prop. 13 had been willing to recognize that less money meant less service, then it might have mad sense. But, 1978 was a nutty time in local government, and simplicity carried the day. Most urban observers would say that California cities, where people actually live and work and need basic services, are funded in a very irrational way.

And on that theme, many have said that counties are even more thinly funded –more dependent on the state than are cities. As your commission looks into the viability of a Mission County, how financial viable are counties?

Counties, in general, are not financially strong. One consequence is the many special taxing districts that have been formed. Essentially, counties have little discretion left to provide services to non-city residents. About all that's left is public safety, which seems to consume most of a county's property tax income. Most of the rest of the services are mandated by the State and counties are reimbursed by the State. To the extent counties try to provide urban-type services to non-city residents, it puts them in a real box they're not able to deal with very well. The result has been for counties to play the zoning game outside city limits by allowing so-called "big box" stored to be placed in non-sensible places just to get the tax income for their coffers. These "go-for-the-bucks" planning approvals have further aggravated the irrational fiscal and development decisions by local governments . . . and citizens suffer the consequences.

Which brings us back to the fact that this will be, historically, the seventh public vote on the division of Santa Barbara County. Since 1978 and Prop 13 taking effect, is there really all that much value to being your own county today?

Certainly, in Santa Barbara County and the unincorporated areas outside cities, a county can do rational land planning to preserve the rural nature people desire, and at the same time, lessen the need to try to provide the array of tax-supported services accept in that setting. With the huge agricultural and wine interests in Santa Barbara County, it is essential that these important economic engines are supported and encouraged. At the same time, these land interests must have confidence that the County is not in the business of impinging on valuable lands with plans for residential, expansion policies, irrespective of the purpose. Counties are not funded to provide efficient urban services in vast, rural settings. Mostly, counties are really acting of agents of the State in carrying out social services and providing public safety functions and road maintenance.

You said one of the matters your commission is considering is county boundaries. In drawing of the proposed new supervisorial district boundaries, the commission has apparently made an effort to include a stretch of coastal access and some farmland in every district. What's the rationale behind that decision?

Initially, one of the criteria was that each of the five new supervisor's districts in Mission County would have some coastal access, but the Commission has determined that it is not possible to do so. The district lines will adhere to legal requirements as set in law; i.e. one person-one vote.

Ted, many people say it's not county but regional boundaries that are important-re air quality, transportation, economic development and investment. You've been part of a discussion lately regarding a new passenger rail line between Santa Barbara County and Ventura County to relieve some of the awful congestion on Route 101. Is the current debate about splitting Santa Barbara county relevant to having the region pragmatically focused on how to best allocate its infrastructure resources?

I think that if a new county is formed in the north part pf Santa Barbara County, in my opinion, any discussion of regional issues will dissipate, with the possible exception of air pollution and some other special and unique functions. When you examine an issue like increasing capacity on the highway 101, there are major disagreements between North and South County, which seem impossible to resolve. For the congestion that occurs when the 101 passes through Santa Maria, the proposal is to build more roads, ASAP. Santa Barbara takes a totally different view by using alternative like light rail rather than construction more lanes.

For regional issues, I don't know whether there is a mechanism for resolving them that is effective. Presumably, Councils of Government, a long-time Federal mandate, play that role in each county; but I don't think they really do very much in serving as a forum for regional decision-making. Once you get beyond the talking stage of issues, the most popular mechanism seems to be special taxing districts, such as the ones set up for building and operating transit systems.

I think more and more people are upset with seeing thieir quality of lige being eroded. A recent survey place transportation congestion as the #1 priority., with all other issues given less attention. If that's true, and I think it is, imagine what, and how long, will it take to get some Santa Barbara County Government unit, with taxing authority, to plan and allocate our money to improve the present situation with a modest, regional transportation network?

In November, the commission will present its findings to the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors, who will then write a ballot measure for March 2006. How do you think the ultimate debate will be framed as you move towards a March 2006 election on this matter?

At that time, I believe the residents of Mission County will know that if they want to have a separate county of their own, they will have to pay a higher tax bill than they are paying today. Generally, we find that 66% of tax revenues come from South County but 65% is spent for services in proposed Mission County. Without that extra source of tax income or subsidy, if you will, Mission County, at this point, it seems that something will have to be done to make up the difference. So, self-determination or independence for Mission County is going to come with a price tag that they will have to debate among themselves, primarily.

People in South County are going to have to think about whether they will continue to be comfortable sending their tax funds North, while at the same time, being accused of having too much influence or too much "power," which is one of the real issues being talked about anyway.