Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CSAC outlines limits and options for counties considering a charter; presenters say water and environmental laws are typically statewide concerns
Summary
A CSAC legislative advocate told the Siskiyou County Board that charters provide local flexibility on governance but are limited where state law addresses matters of statewide concern such as many environmental and water regulations.
The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) presented to the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors on the powers and limits of county charters, including constitutional provisions, court precedents and recent examples from around California.
Eric Lawyer, a legislative advocate for CSAC, summarized the legal framework: a county charter can alter governance structures (for example, how vacancies are filled, whether certain officials are elected or appointed, or expanding the number of supervisors), but it cannot override state law on matters that courts treat as "matters of statewide concern." Lawyer cited Wilkinson v. Lund and later cases as precedents that limit charter authority where the constitution or state law requires county compliance.
Lawyer reviewed practical examples: Orange County (2002) where a narrowly written charter provision was upheld and general law filled gaps; Los Angeles County voters' recent charter amendments expanding the board from five to nine members and creating an elected county CEO; Shasta County's recent charter adoption addressing vacancy-filling procedures; and Fresno County's court loss when a charter attempted to conflict with state election-timing requirements for sheriff and district attorney.
During Q&A, board members pressed about whether environmental and water statutes (the member referenced AB 263 explicitly) could be preempted by a charter. Lawyer said he was "a little wary to speak on specifics" but that in "almost every instance" courts treat water and environmental regulations as matters of statewide concern that a charter would not supersede. He recommended the board obtain legal counsel analysis for specific questions about regulatory preemption and revenue-sharing arrangements with cities.
Lawyer also noted administrative pitfalls: adopted charters and amendments must be properly transmitted and certified (for example, by the Secretary of State) to take full effect and avoid procedural problems.
The presentation closed with an offer to provide further research and counsel was suggested for targeted questions about energy, sanitation, intergovernmental revenue-sharing and water-regulation issues.
