HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/6/2012 - STAFF REPORTS - 4.A. [PLACE ON CITY LETTERHEAD]
April 25, 2012
The Honorable Barbara Boxer
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Support for H.R. 872 "The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011"
Dear Senator Boxer:
I am writing on behalf of the City of Palm Springs to declare the City's support
for legislation that exempts public health pesticides from additional regulation under the Clean
Water Act. The City is disappointed that a recently proposed bill to provide such an exemption,
H.R. 872, has not been able to come to a vote in the Senate after receiving overwhelming
bipartisan support in the House. This new layer of regulation will not provide any foreseeable
protection to our nation's waters beyond that already mandated under the Federal Insecticide
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and practiced by mosquito control agencies since their
inception.
We are very concerned that without H.R. 872, the regulations imposed by a new
Clean Water Act NPDES permit requirement will have a significant impact on the public health
of the people who live, work, and recreate our community. This will ultimately compromise the
delivery of critical public health vector control services.
If our local mosquito and vector control district is not able to seek relief from the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the district will be unable to
continually provide the same high level of public health protection that our region has come to
rely on and which has been extremely effective.
Under the NPDES permit, the Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control
District will have to divert money and manpower away from providing direct services and public
health protection toward costly and labor-intensive reporting and monitoring activities, resulting
in slower vector abatement response times and reduced disease surveillance and prevention,
ultimately increasing the level of public health risk from new species infestations, West Nile
virus outbreaks and other mosquito-borne diseases.
From past and current collaborations, we have found that the Coachella Valley
Mosquito and Vector Control District has been a productive and responsive community partner
and a responsible steward of the environment. For decades, mosquito and vector control districts
have implemented a wide variety of Integrated Vector Management strategies to control for
disease vectors and protect public health, while minimizing environmental impacts.
ITEM NO.
We encourage you to support bringing H.R 872 to the floor of the Senate for
debate to educate U.S. legislators about the true impact these new regulations will have on the
public health of all Americans.
In the interest of public health and the long-term health of the environment, we
ask you to urge Senator Reid to bring H.R. 872 to a vote.
Very truly yours,
02
[PLACE ON CITY LETTERHEAD]
April 25, 2012
The Honorable Diane Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Support for H.R. 872 "The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011"
Dear Senator Feinstein:
I am writing on behalf of the City of Palm Springs to declare the City's support
for legislation that exempts public health pesticides from additional regulation under the Clean
Water Act. The City is disappointed that a recently proposed bill to provide such an exemption,
H.R. 872, has not been able to come to a vote in the Senate after receiving overwhelming
bipartisan support in the House. This new layer of regulation will not provide any foreseeable
protection to our nation's waters beyond that already mandated under the Federal Insecticide
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and practiced by mosquito control agencies since their
inception.
We are very concerned that without H.R. 872, the regulations imposed by a new
Clean Water Act NPDES permit requirement will have a significant impact on the public health
of the people who live, work, and recreate our community. This will ultimately compromise the
delivery of critical public health vector control services.
If our local mosquito and vector control district is not able to seek relief from the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the district will be unable to
continually provide the same high level of public health protection that our region has come to
rely on and which has been extremely effective.
Under the NPDES permit, the Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control
District will have to divert money and manpower away from providing direct services and public
health protection toward costly and labor-intensive reporting and monitoring activities, resulting
in slower vector abatement response times and reduced disease surveillance and prevention,
ultimately increasing the level of public health risk from new species infestations, West Nile
virus outbreaks and other mosquito-borne diseases.
From past and current collaborations, we have found that the Coachella Valley
Mosquito and Vector Control District has been a productive and responsive community partner
and a responsible steward of the environment. For decades, mosquito and vector control districts
have implemented a wide variety of Integrated Vector Management strategies to control for
disease vectors and protect public health, while minimizing environmental impacts.
03
We encourage you to support bringing H.R 872 to the floor of the Senate for
debate to educate U.S. legislators about the true impact these new regulations will have on the
public health of all Americans.
In the interest of public health and the long-term health of the environment, we
ask you to urge Senator Reid to bring H.R. 872 to a vote.
Very truly yours,
04
Go�ohelta ya>Bgy
l
min
�c4or
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Palm Springs
From: Sharon Lock, President
Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District
Date: April 24, 2012
Re: Laboratory Expansion Project
As the City's representative to the Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District
("District"), I want to provide you some background information on a laboratory
expansion project that has recently garnered media attention.
Last month, the District approved $2.6 million in capital expenditures in order to
enhance the District's mosquito, vector and disease testing service. These expenses
will be used to expand and upgrade the District's laboratory, not build a new facility.
On April 15, the Desert Sun published a lengthy article in which some questioned this
expenditure. Also, on April 20, there was a Desert Sun editorial that raised the same
issues set forth in the article, neither of which addressed the upgrade in public health
and safety issues. This memorandum is intended to clarify the necessity for expansion
of the laboratory which was unanimously approved by the Board of Trustees, and to
explain the procedures through which it was determined that the expansion was
necessary and in the best interests of the District and its residents —your constituents.
Preliminarily, I want to reassure you that the District is starkly aware of the importance
of not only safeguarding public funds, but also of bolstering public confidence in the
District—while at the same time ensuring that the District is able, to carry out its core
mission of reducing the risk of disease transmission through mosquitoes and vectors.
The District has reduced its annual homeowner assessment by over 80% since 2007.
The Project
Unfortunately, the Desert Sun misrepresented the project by stating a new lab building
is to be constructed. In fact, this is a remodel and expansion of existing facilities.
05
The Desert Sun correctly indicated that a major reason for the laboratory expansion was
to expedite mosquito testing, which is currently outsourced to the University of
California, Davis. While this is one of the critical reasons the expansion is necessary,
there are a number of other reasons that should be explained.
Expansion Proiect
The District currently has professional and technical staff in place to provide rapid
molecular surveillance services to District residents. However, the District relies on an
outside agency for certain necessary testing, which causes a delay in response times.
Additionally, the current testing prices are expensive and incur additional shipping costs
to UC Davis.
The upgraded facility will resolve all the problems with the current facility listed above,
and allow for anticipated future growth. It will allow the District to provide enhanced
surveillance of a broad range of vector borne pathogens that cause human and animal
disease. It will result in cost savings of approximately $37,000 per year in controlling
arbovirus transmission and testing. (Initial equipment costs are approximately $70,000,
which will be paid off in less than two years). This increased expediency will result in
less pesticide use, savings on chemicals and labor, and reduced environmental risk.
Increased processing capabilities will allow the District to not only combat West Nile
virus, but also St. Louis encephalitis virus, western equine encephalomyelitis virus, and
potentially new, emerging diseases such as Dengue and Chikungunya fever. If an
arbovirus is detected early in mosquitoes then the virus transmission can be controlled,
human health may be preserved, and money can be saved from trying to control a
widespread outbreak. With its improved capabilities, the District will have the ability to
test for multiple viruses, and costs to test for new viruses would be reduced and
controlled.
Allowing for on-site testing has other benefits as well. In late January, it was announced
at a meeting of the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California that the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have reduced supporting states with
arbovirus testing, including West Nile Virus surveillance. This was not a surprise, as the
CDC has undergone major budget cuts recently.
The District lacks control over funding or reporting time at UC Davis. With uncertainties
in future state funding for the University of California (which has recently suffered major
budget cuts), testing time could potentially increase—especially since UC Davis is not
mandated by the State to perform the testing.
The upgraded facility will consolidate all laboratory functions into one building. Having a
single work and office space for staff in the surveillance and integrated vector and
2
06
quality control groups will facilitate collaborations between the groups and streamline
some of the experimental procedures. This will increase productivity, and allow the
District to improve response time and effectiveness.
From a planning perspective, the floor plan principally groups program functions into
three zones: laboratories, offices and support services. New mechanical and electrical
spaces are located in or near the new addition for improved, cost-effective utility
distribution.
Inadequacy of Current Facilities
The District's laboratory is currently housed in two locations (the Biocontrol Building and
the Operations Building). Although the buildings are within walking distance from one
another, having separate facilities causes workflow inefficiencies and hinders
communication and collaboration between staff.
Both buildings fail to comply with the standards set forth by the United States
Department of Health and Human Services as established in its handbook on "Biosafety
in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories." Currently, workers must pass through
the workrooms to access rearing rooms, restrooms, janitor rooms, and the
storage/archive/office room. This potentially puts science work and staff at risk. In
addition, some of the areas are underutilized, while others are inefficient.
Space in a number of rooms is inadequate. There is inadequate space for essential
equipment, such as incubators and chemical storage cabinets. There are exposed
pipes which pose a potential hazard to staff. From an environmental conditioning
standpoint, temperature and relative humidity are not reliable in certain areas, making it
difficult to maintain natural outdoor conditions which are needed. Some of the rooms
are not suited for the wet conditions present and lack vermin control.
Due to lack of space, some work areas are being used for purposes for which they were
not intended. At least one of the rooms is overflowing with tools, parts, supplies, boxes,
and carts and does not provide appropriate ventilation for storage of batteries.
In the Operations Building, there is a problem with insufficient exit egress near a
laboratory hood, which is not in compliance with the standards promulgated by the
National Fire Protection Association.
The expanded facility will also allow for expansion of the District's Information
Technology ("IT") Department—which will have to be expanded somehow in any event.
Under the plan, the existing laboratory office space in the Operations building is to be
utilized by IT, allowing for improved communication and collaboration on issues
affecting software end-users.
3
07
Procedures
In 2011, the District updated its Strategic Plan. The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to
address key issues and present guidelines on how to meet the District's professional,
ethical and legal obligations successfully. It provided a disciplined effort to produce
fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what the District is, what it
does, and why it does it. The major goal of the Strategic Plan was to prepare the
District for known issues and at the same time provide guidance in areas where future
conditions may be more difficult to anticipate. A Strategic Planning Workshop was held
with the Board of Trustees, District Management, and representative employees on
March 19, 2011.
With respect to capital improvement programs, the District endeavored, with the
implementation of the Strategic Plan, to: (1) establish elements for a capital
improvement needs assessment policy and procedure; (2) conduct a complete and
accurate inventory of capital assets; (3) complete a space inventory within one year;
and (4) establish a list of future capital improvements and timetables.
Subsequently, the District commissioned a Laboratory Feasibility Study which included
an existing facility assessment, site analysis, and conceptual floor plan. A Needs
Assessment was also prepared which also examined the necessity for improved
laboratory facilities. Ultimately, this led to unanimous approval of the project by the
Board of Trustees last month.
We have an outstanding and professional staff at the District. The General Manager
and District staff endeavored to keep the entire Board fully apprised of the planning for
this project at every step. I can assure you that all the Trustees were intimately involved
in the planning phase, and that involvement and concern has resulted in a better project
which has increased the public benefit that will be derived from the project.
I am confident that this project will be sufficient to serve the District's needs for many
years. This project is reasonable and necessary to ensure the District's scientific
operations staff has sufficient resources and capabilities to protect the public from the
threat of mosquito and vector borne diseases. I am also confident that this project will
be completed on time and within budget. The proposed budget accounts for inflation
through the year 2013, assuming an 18 month completion date.
4
08
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of California
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General
OPINION No. 09-502
of August 22, 2011
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General
DIANE E. EISENBERG
Deputy Attorney General
THE HONORABLE BILL EMMERSON, MEMBER OF THE STATE SENATE,
has requested an opinion on the following question:
May a city council remove its appointee to the Board of Trustees of a Mosquito
and Vector Control District at the council's pleasure?
CONCLUSION
A city council may not remove its appointee to the Board of Trustees of a
Mosquito and Vector Control District at the council's pleasure.
I
09-502
09
ANALYSIS
Since 1915, mosquito abatement and vector control districts ("mosquito abatement
districts") have protected California communities against the threats of vector-bome
diseases.' In 2002, the Legislature enacted the Mosquito and Vector Control District
Law' ("Mosquito District Law") in order "to create and continue a broad statutory
authority for a class of special districts with the power to conduct effective programs for
the surveillance, prevention, abatement, and control of mosquitoes and other vectors."'
Each mosquito abatement district is governed by a board of trustees consisting of
at least five members.' The board is a legislative body charged with establishing policies
for the operation of the district and providing for the faithful implementation of those
policies by the employees of the district.' The composition of the board of trustees
depends on whether the district is located in one or more than one county, and on whether
the district consists of only unincorporated territory, or of both unincorporated and
incorporated territory.' Trustees of mosquito abatement districts are appointed, not
' Health and Safety Code § 2001(b)(4). Unless otherwise indicated, all further
statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.
' §§ 2000-2093 (2002 Stat. ch. 395 § 6 (Sen. 1588)).
' § 2001(c). A vector is "any animal capable of transmitting the causative agent of
human disease or capable of producing human discomfort or injury, including, but not
limited to, mosquitoes, flies, mites, ticks, other arthropods, and rodents and other
vertebrates." § 2002(k).
' § 2020.
5 Id.
' Section 2021 provides in full:
Within 30 days after the effective date of the formation of a district,
a board of trustees shall be appointed as follows:
(a) In the case of a district that contains only unincorporated territory
in a single county, the board of supervisors shall appoint five persons to the
board of trustees.
(b) In the case of a district that is located entirely within a single
county and contains both incorporated territory and unincorporated
territory, the board of supervisors may appoint one person to the board of
trustees, and the city council of each city that is located in whole or in part
within the district may appoint one person to the board of trustees. If those
appointments result in a board of trustees with less than five trustees, the
2
09-502
10
elected.'
We are asked whether a city council that has appointed a person to the board of
trustees of a mosquito abatement district may later remove that person from the board at
the council's discretion—that is, before the expiration of the appointee's term and
without specific statutory authority for the removal. We conclude that a city council may
not remove its appointee to a mosquito abatement district board of trustees at the
council's will or pleasure!
Government Code section 1301 provides: "Every office, the term of which is not
fixed by law, is held at the pleasure of the appointing power."' We have no hesitation in
board of supervisors shall appoint enough additional persons to make a
board of trustees of five members.
(c) In the case of a district that contains only unincorporated territory
in more than one county, the board of supervisors of each county may
appoint one person to the board of trustees. If those appointments result in
a board of trustees with less than five persons, the board of supervisors of
the principal county shall appoint enough additional persons to make a
board of trustees of five members.
(d) In the case of a district that is located in two or more counties
and contains both incorporated territory and unincorporated territory, the
board of supervisors of each county may appoint one person to the board of
trustees, and the city council of each city that is located in whole or part
within the district may appoint one person to the board of trustees. If those
appointments result in less than five persons, the board of supervisors of the
principal county shall appoint enough additional persons to make a board of
trustees of five members.
' See § 2021.
' Although the request for this opinion specifically asks only about whether a city
council has the power to remove its appointee to a mosquito abatement district board at
will, the conclusion presented herein also applies to a county board of supervisors in its
capacity as an appointing authority.
' See also Brown v. Super. Ct., 15 Cal. 3d 52, 54, 57 (1975). While an appointing
power's authority to remove an appointee is broad, it is not unlimited. For example,
removal or dismissal based on the appointee's exercise of a constitutional or statutory
right is improper. See Bogacki v. Bd. of Supervisors, 5 Cal. 3d 771, 778 (1971); Ball v.
City Council of City of Coachella, 252 Cal. App. 2d 136, 141-143 (1967). Civil service
employees are subject to removal only in accordance with civil service laws and
3
09-502
1 �
determining for the purposes of this opinion that mosquito abatement district trustees are
public officers."
Whether a public office has a fixed term is determined by reference to the law
creating the office." For this purpose, the most relevant statute is section 2024, which
provides in full:
(a) Except as provided in Section 2023,1"1 the term of office for a
member of the board of trustees shall be for a term of two or four years, at
the discretion of the appointing authority. Terms of office commence at
noon on the first Monday in January.
(b) Any vacancy in the office of a member appointed to a board of
regulations. See Hanley v. Murphy, 40 Cal. 2d 572, 573 (1953).
" We have previously summarized the nature of a "public office" as "a position in
government (1) which is created or authorized by the Constitution or some law; (2) the
tenure of which is continuing and permanent, not occasional or temporary; (3) in which
the incumbent performs a public function for the public benefit and exercises some of the
sovereign powers of the state." 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 337, 342 (1985); see also Schaefer
v. Super. Ct., 113 Cal. App. 2d 428, 432 (1952). The office of trustee of the board of a
mosquito abatement district is created by statute (§ 2020), is continuing (§ 2024), and
entails the protection of the public from vectors and vectorborne diseases (see §§ 2001,
2020, 2040). A mosquito abatement district board also exercises sovereign powers of the
state. See Schaefer, 113 Cal. App. 2d at 432-433 (listing various indicia of the exercise
of state powers); §§ 2040 (district may take all necessary actions to prevent and abate
vectorbome diseases), 2041 (district may sue and be sued, acquire and dispose of
property, contract for supplies and services, and participate in land use planning), 2044
(district may enter into agreements with other public agencies), 2045 (district may
contract with other public agencies to provide services). The authority to make policy
and to act independently is also the hallmark of an officer, as opposed to an employee.
See 82 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 83, 86 (1999). Section 2022, subdivision (e) requires that
trustees exercise "their independent judgment," and section 2020 expressly distinguishes
the board of trustees, which is charged with establishing policies for the operation of the
district, from the employees of the district, who implement the board's policies.
" Boyd v. Huntington, 215 Cal. 473, 479 (1932); 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 405, 406
(1984).
1
2 Section 2023 provides for staggered terms for the initial board of trustees of a
mosquito abatement district formed on or after January 1, 2003.
4
09-502
12
trustees shall be filled pursuant to Section 1779 of the Government Code.
Any person appointed to fill a vacant office shall fill the balance of the
unexpired term.
In interpreting section 2024, we employ well-established principles of statutory
construction. As our Supreme Court has instructed:
[O]ur first task is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate
the purpose of the law. In determining such intent, [we] must look first to
the words of the statute themselves, giving to the language its usual,
ordinary import and according significance, if possible, to every word,
phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose. A construction
making some words surplusage is to be avoided. The words of the statute
must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and
statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be
harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. ...
Both the legislative history of the statute and the wider historical
circumstances of its enactment may be considered in ascertaining the
legislative intent."
The ordinary import of the words of section 2024(a) is not that the term of office
of a trustee is generally subject to the appointing authority's discretion, but rather that the
appointing authority may choose whether the term of a trustee is for two years or for four
years. We are assisted to this conclusion by the longstanding rule of statutory
construction commonly known as the "last antecedent rule," according to which
"modifying phrases are to be applied to the words immediately preceding them and are
not to be construed as extending to more remote phrases" unless the context or the
evident meaning of the statute requires a different construction." Thus, the phrase "at the
discretion of the appointing authority" refers to "a term of two or four years;" we find no
reason to favor a different construction.15 Indeed, reading section 2024(a) to mean that a
" Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Empl. & Hous. Commn., 43 Cal. 3d 1379, 1386-1387 (1987)
(citations omitted).
10 Oliva v. Swoap, 59 Cal. App. 3d 130, 138 (1976) (citations omitted); see also
Furtado v. Sierra Community College, 68 Cal. App. 4th 876, 881 (1998) ("qualifying
words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last
antecedent"); White v. Co. of Sacramento, 31 Cal. 3d 676, 680 (1982).
15 Some courts have noted that the separation of the modifying phrase from the
antecedents of the sentence by means of a comma may evince an intent that the
modifying phrase apply to all antecedents rather than only to the immediately preceding
5
09-502
13
trustee serves at the will of the appointing authority requires that the phrase "for a term of
two or four years" be accorded no significance and rendered a nullity. We consider such
a reading to be untenable.
We further find that section 2024(a) plainly provides for a fixed, not an
indeterminate, term of office. The disjunctive word "or" signifies that a term of two
years and a term of four years are alternative possibilities,16 but each alternative
nevertheless constitutes a fixed term. Indeed, as our Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he
word `term,' when used in reference to the tenure of office, means ordinarily a fixed and
definite time.""
Our view that the term of a district trustee is fixed finds further support in the
statutory context and legislative history of section 2024. Context is provided by section
2007(c), which states that a mosquito abatement district "shall be deemed an
`independent special district,' as defined by Section 56044 of the Government Code."
Government Code section 56044, in turn, defines the term "independent special district"
to include "any special districtE"l having a legislative body all of whose members are
antecedent. See e.g. White, 31 Cal. 3d at 680; In re Phelps, 93 Cal. App. 4th 451, 456
(2001). However, this exception to the "last antecedent rule" typically comes into play
when the antecedents consist of a series of syntactically equivalent terms. See e.g. In re
Marriage of Walker, 138 Cal. App. 4th 1408, 1421 (2006) (construing phrase set off by
comma to refer both to duty to make full disclosure and to duty to provide equal access to
records, rather than only to latter duty); see also People v. Steffens, 62 Cal. App, 4th
1273, 1284-1286 (1998) (concluding that final clause of a statute applied both to
alteration of access-card account information and to authorization of such alteration).
The phrase "at the discretion of the appointing authority" in the first sentence of
subdivision (a) of section 2024 is set off from the rest of the sentence by a comma.
However, this sentence is grammatically unlike those to which the comma exception has
been applied, and we find no evidence of legislative intent that the exception should
apply where, as here, its application would render the whole sentence contradictory and
incoherent.
" See Houge v. Ford, 44 Cal. 2d 706, 712 (1955) (stating that in "its ordinary
sense, the function of the word `or' is to mark an alternative such as `either this or that"');
Nieto v. Blue Shield of Cal. Life & Health Ins. Co., 181 Cal. App. 4th 60, 82 (2010)
(citing as a general principle that the Legislature's use of the disjunctive "or" indicates an
intent to designate alternative ways of satisfying statutory requirements); 88
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 196, 198 (2005) ("or" implies a disjunctive or alternative meaning).
"Boyd, 215 Cal. at 479.
a A district or special district is defined as "an agency of the state, formed
6
09-502
14
elected by registered voters or landowners within the district, or whose members are
appointed to fixed terms." Because the trustees of mosquito abatement districts are not
elected, it follows that their appointments are for fixed terms. Sections 2024 and 2007
may thus be construed together to achieve a uniform and consistent legislative purpose.19
With regard to legislative history, we note that several legislative committee
analyses of Senate Bill 1588 describe mosquito abatement districts, both under prior law20
and under the new Mosquito District Law, as having "boards of trustees composed
entirely of members who have been appointed for fixed terms by county boards of
supervisors and city councils."21
Finally, it is clear that when the Legislature wishes to create an office without a
fixed term, it knows how to do so. For example, the statute governing the duration of
service of board members of pest abatement districts does not specify a term of office.
Instead, it provides that "[t]he members of the district board shall hold office at the
pleasure of the board of supervisors."22 The chapters governing mosquito abatement
districts and pest abatement districts are both part of Division 3 of the Health and Safety
Code, titled "Pest Abatement."23 "When the Legislature uses materially different
language in statutory provisions addressing the same subject or related subjects, the
normal inference is that the Legislature intended a difference in meaning."24 We
pursuant to general law or special act, for the local performance of governmental or
proprietary functions within limited boundaries." Govt. Code § 56036.
19 See Isobe v. Unempl. Ins. Apps. Bd., 12 Cal. 3d 584, 591 (1974).
" Section 2245, which was repealed by Senate 1588, provided in relevant part:
"The first term of any member shall not exceed two years. Each subsequent consecutive
reappointment, if any, may be for a term of two or four years, at the discretion of the
appointing power."
" Sen. Loc. Govt. Comm., Analysis of Sen. 1588, 2001-2002 Reg. Sess. 5 (April
24, 2002); Assembly Comm. on Loc. Govt., Analysis of Sen. 1588, 2001-2002 Reg. Sess.
4 (June 19, 2002) (emphasis added).
22 § 2851.
2'
The Mosquito District Law is contained in Division 3, Chapter 1. The law
governing pest abatement districts (§§ 2800 et seq.) is contained in Division 3, Chapter 8.
Chapter 8 "is supplemental to any other provision of law relating to the abatement of
pests or nuisances." § 2801.
" People v. Trevino, 26 Cal. 4th 237, 242 (2001); People v. Franz, 88 Cal. App.
4th 1426, 1440 (2001) (stating that it is "a settled rule of statutory construction that where
a statute, with reference to one subject contains a given provision, the omission of such
7
09-502
15
therefore conclude that, pursuant to section 2024, a mosquito abatement district trustee
serves for a fixed term of office, and not merely at the pleasure or discretion of the
appointing authority.
Proponents of the view that a city council may remove its appointed trustee from a
mosquito abatement district board cite Government Code section 36506 as an
independent source of authority for such removal. Government Code section 36506
provides: `By resolution or ordinance, the city council shall fix the compensation of all
appointive officers and employees. Such officers and employees hold office during the
pleasure of the city council." We find this statute to be inapposite, however, because we
believe it is intended to apply to municipal officers and employees, and not to the officers
of independent special districts, such as a mosquito abatement district." We have found
no cases in which Government Code section 36506 has been applied to members of the
governing board of an independent special district. The differentiation between a
mosquito abatement district and a city that has appointing authority is reflected in the
Mosquito District Law's mandate that all 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."26
Even assuming that Government Code section 36506 encompassed a city's
appointee to a mosquito abatement district board, we would still conclude that the
appointee could not be removed at the city's pleasure. As applied to a mosquito
abatement district trustee, Government Code section 36506 conflicts with section 2024,
in that Government Code section 36506 provides for a term of office that is not fixed,
whereas section 2024 provides for a fixed term. It is a well-established rule of statutory
interpretation that when a specific and a general provision cannot be reconciled, the
specific statute controls the more general statute.z' The special statute relating to a
provision from a similar statute concerning a related subject is significant to show that a
different legislative intent existed with reference to the different statutes") (citations
omitted).
" See e.g. Cerini v. City of Cloverdale, 191 Cal. App. 3d 1471, 1477-1478 (1987)
("section 36506 grants to the Cloverdale city council the power to terminate appointed
officers or employees of the city") (emphasis added); Ellis v. City Council of City of
Burlingame, 222 Cal. App. 2d 490, 499 (1963) (Government Code sections 34856 and
36506 "provide that both the city manager and the city council shall have the power to
dismiss appointive officers and employees of the city") (emphasis added).
" § 2022(e).
" See Code Civ. Proc. § 1859 ("[iln the construction of a statute...when a general
and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former"); People
8
09-502
is
particular subject is treated as an exception to the general statute, and "will govern in
respect to that subject," as against the general statute, "although the latter, standing alone,
would be broad enough to include the subject to which the more particular provision
relates."28 Government Code section 36506 refers to a city's appointees in general,
whereas section 2024 pertains specifically to the appointees to the board of a mosquito
abatement district. Accordingly, regardless of the scope of Government Code section
36506, a city's appointed trustee to a mosquito abatement district board assumes a fixed
term of office under the provisions of section 2024.
We do not suggest that there are no circumstances under which a mosquito
abatement district trustee might be removed from, disqualified from, or deemed to forfeit
the office. Section 2024(b) addresses vacancies on the board of trustees and specifies
that any such vacancy "shall be filled pursuant to Section 1779 of the Government
Code."29 Government Code section 1770 enumerates events that effect a vacancy in an
office, including the death or resignation of the incumbent, or, pursuant to subdivision
(d), "[h]is or her removal from office." However, to say that a mosquito abatement
district trustee may be removed or disqualified from office is not the same as saying that
the appointing power may remove a trustee at its pleasure. As the court of appeal has
stated: "A person holds office subject to conditions imposed by the state, and where
cause for removal is provided by law, the person is deemed to have accepted the office on
condition he or she could be removed for that cause and in the manner provided."30
v. Super. Ct. (Jimenez), 28 Cal. 4th 798, 808 (2002); Woods v. Young, 53 Cal. 3d 315,
325 (1991); Friends of the Library of Monterey Park v. City of Monterey Park, 211 Cal.
App. 3d 358, 370-371 (1989) (detailed regulatory provisions of Municipal Libraries Act
prevail over more general provision of Government Code section authorizing city to own
and operate public libraries); 87 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 148, 152 (2004).
28 S.F. Taxpayers Assn. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 2 Cal. 4th 571, 577 (1992) (quoting
Rose v. State, 19 Cal. 2d 713, 723-724 (1942)).
29 Government Code section 1779 provides in full:
A vacancy on any appointed governing board of a special district
shall be filled by the appointing authority within 90 days immediately
subsequent to its occurrence. If no action is taken for a period of 90 days
immediately subsequent to a vacancy on such a board, the board of
supervisors of the county in which the larger portion of the district is
located shall have authority to fill the vacancy by appointment.
" Lubin v. Wilson, 232 Cal. App. 3d 1422, 1429-1430 (1991) (emphasis added).
Possible grounds for removal from an office are beyond the scope of this opinion.
9
09-502
17
Accordingly, we conclude that a city council may not remove its appointee to the
Board of Trustees of a Mosquito and Vector Control District at the council's pleasure.
10
09-502
18
RECEIVED 05/04/200S 14:38 7607701724 GDQ
MAY-04-2009 14:35 From:SENATOR JOHN BENOIT 9163272187 To:7607701724 P.218
STATE CAMTOL Calif arniK "kate lisert to
SACAAMENTO.CA 95816
918?651 6037 SENATOR
JOHN J. BENOIT
THIRTY-SEVENTH SENATE DISTRICT
tt
,%4ay 4,2009
California Attomey General
Susan Lee,Deputy Attorney General
Opinion Unit
455 Golden Gate Ave , Suite I1000
San Francisco,CA 94102
Re: Request for Attorney General's Opinion
To Whom It May Concern:
The purpose of this letter is to request an opinion from the California Attorney General
on the following question:
OUESTION PRESENTED
Under what circumstances may a city council remove its appointee to the Board of
Trustees of a Mosquito and Vector Control District("District')?
BACKGROUND
Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control Districts ("Districts") are independent
governmental entities created and governed entirely by The Mosquito Abatement and Vector
Control District Law. (Health& Saf. Code § 2000, et. seq.) Districts are governed by Hoards of
Trustees consisting of at least five members,whose appointment varies depending on the number
and type of territories located within. the District. (Health & Saf. Code § 2020.) For Districts
located entirely within one county, as is the case here, the City Council of each city within the
District's jurisdiction may appoint one member to the Board. (Health& Sa£ Code § 2021, subd.
(b).) Health and Safety Code section 2024, subdivision (a) provides, "[e]xcept as provided in
Section 20231, the term of office for a member of the board of trustees shall be for a term of two
or four years,at the discretion of the appointing authority."
I Health and Safety Code section 2023 only applies to the initial board of trustees of a district
formed after January 1,2003,and thus is not relevant to this particular set of circumstances.
is
RECEIVED 05/04/2009 14:36 7607701724 GDO
MAY-04-2009 14:35 From:SENATCR SOHN BENOIT 9163272187 To:760T?01724 P.3/8
California Attorney General
May 4, 2009
Page 2
The particular circumstances that gave rise to this request are as follows. In September
2004, the Indio City Council appointed a representative to the Board of the Coachella Valley
Mosquito and Vector Control District ("CVMVCD"). The representative was appointed to a
term of four years ("Indio Represcntative'�. In March of 2008, prior to the expiration of the
Indio Representative's term, the Indio City Council voted to terminate the term of the Indio
Representative and attempted to appoint a new representative to fill this CVMVCD Board
position. The Indio Representative initially refused to stop aside; he asserted that the Indio City
Council did not have the authority to remove him prior to the expiration of his term. However,
the Indio Representative eventually stepped aside prior to the end of his term when it was later
revealed that he had not taken the necessary oath of office. While this particular circumstance
was resolved on different grounds, this issue was highly controversial and was subject to much
debate in the local papers.
This letter seeks clarification as to whether and/or under what circumstances appointees
to the Board of Trustees of the District may be removed from office by the agency that appointed
the Trustee.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Many California cases and attorney general opinions have recognized the long standing
principle that"[e]vcry office,the term of which is not fixed by law,is held at the pleasure of the
appointing power." (Gov. Code § 1301; Brown v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 52, 55
(Members of regional coastal commission may be removed without cause where the California
Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 did not expressly or impliedly specify a term of office];
see also Boyd v. Huntington (1932) 215 Cal. 473; Brennan v. Riley (1935) 3 Cal.2d 736_) If the
Legislature creates an office with a fixed term, "the incumbent is more securely tenured since
'the mode for his or her removal must be followed' . . ." (69 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 126, 133 (1986)
(Directors of the Yuba County Water Agency Board could not be removed under any
circumstances where enabling statute specified a two year term of office, did not provide for
removal proceedings, and there were no facts to indicate good cause for removaI], citing 26
Cal.Ops.Atty.Gen. 149, 151 (1955).) If, however, the Legislature has not "fixed" the term of
office, `their tenure of office would be held at the `pleasure' or 'will' of the [appointing
authority] and they could be,with certain limitations, removable by it at any time without a need
to show judicially cognizable good 'cause."' (Id. at 132) The determination of"whether a
public officer has a fixed term of office can only be made by reference to the law creating the
office."(67 Cal.Ops.Atty.Gen. 405,409(1984))
In the case at hand,the Mosquito and Vector Control District Law specifies that Trustees
are to be appointed to either a "two or four"year term. (Health & Saf. Code §2024,subd. (a).)
It does not,however, specify whether the Trustees' terms of office are"fixed" and/or under what
circumstances or procedures a Trustee may be removed from office.
20
RECEIVED 05/04/2009 14:38 7607701724 Gpp
MAY-04-2009 14:35 From:SENATOR JOHN BENOIT 9163272127 To:7607701724 P.4/8
California Attorney General
May 4,2009
Page 3
However, the legislative history of Health & Safety Code §2024 expressly refers to
Trustees' terms of office as "fixed." On multiple occasions, the Bill Analysis to SB 1588 states
that "the mosquito abatement districts have boards of trustees composed entirely of members
who have been appointed for fixed terms." (See Sen. Local Gov. Com., cum. on Sen. Bill No.
1588(2001-2002 Reg. Sess.)April 24,2002,p.5;Assem.Com. on Local Gov., com. on Sen.Bill
No. 1588(2001-2002 Reg. Sess.)June 19,2002,p.4,emphasis added.)
Additionally, the Mosquito and Vector Control District Law specifies that once
appointed, "[a]ll 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 trustee 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." (Health & Saf.
Code §2022, subd. (e), emphasis added.) Nothing in the Mosquito Abatement and Vector
Control District Law states that Trustees serve at the pleasure of the City Council, or any other
appointing authority.
Furthermore, Health and Safety Code section 2007, subdivision(c) states that "[a] district
shall be deemed an 'independent special district,' as defined by Section 50644 of the
Government Code." Government Code section 56044 defines independent special districts as
11. . .any special district having a legislative body all of whose members are elected by registered
voters or landowners within the district, or whose members are appointed to fixed terns, and
excludes any special district having a legislative body consisting, in whole or in part, of ex
officio members who are officers of a county or another local agency or who are appointees of
those officers other than those who are appointed to fixed terms. . ." (Emphasis added.) Since
the Trustees of the Mosquito and Vector Control District are not elected by voters or landowners,
it seems logical to infer that Mosquito and Vector Control Districts qualify as "independent
special districts"because their"members are appointed to fixed terms."
Thus, it appears likely that, because the Mosquito and Vector Control District Law
specifies that Trustees are to be appointed to a two or four year term, the legislative history of
Health and Safety Code section 2024 identifies these terms as "fixed," and the definition of
"independent special district" itself recognizes that terms are "fixed," the Trustees appointed to
the Mosquito and Vector Control District serve fixed terms and cannot be unilaterally removed
from office by the appointing authority.
However, even if the Trustees terms are "fixed," it is possible that a new representative
may be appointed if the office becomes vacant. Government Code section 1770 sets forth
several circumstances which may cause a vacancy in public office. It provides:
§ 1770 Events causing vacancy before expiration of term.
21
RECEIVED 05/04/2009 14:38 7607701724 GDl
MAY-04-2009 14:36 FrOm:SENATOR SOHN BENOIT 9163272187 To:7607701724 P.5/8
California Attorney General
May 4,2009
Page 4
An office becomes vacant on the happening of any of the
following events before the expiration of the term:
(a) The death of the incumbent.
(b) An adjudication pursuant to a quo warranto proceeding
declaring that the incumbent is physically or mentally
incapacitated due to disease, illness, or accident and that there is
reasonable cause to believe that the incumbent will not be able to
perform the duties of his or her office for the remainder of his or
her term. This subdivision shall not apply to offices created by the
California Constitution nor to federal or state legislators.
(c) His or her resignation.
(d) His or her removal from office.
(e) His or her ceasing to be an inhabitant of the state, or if the
office be local and one for which local residence is required by
law,of the district,county,or city for which the officer was chosen
or appointed, or within which the duties of his or her office are
required to be discharged.
(f) His or her absence from the state without the permission
required by law beyond the period allowed by law.
(g) His or her ceasing to discharge the duties of his or her
office for the period of three consecutive months, except when
prevented by sickness, or when absent from the state with the
permission required by law.
(h) His or her conviction of a felony or of any offense
involving a violation of his or her official duties- An officer shall
be deemed to have been convicted under this subdivision when
trial court judgmeut is entered. For the purposes of this
subdivision, "trial court judgment" means a judgment by the trial
court either sentencing the officer or otherwise upholding and
implementing the plea,verdict,or finding.
(i) His or her refusal or neglect to file his or her required oath
or bond within the time prescribed.
22
RECEIVED 05/04/2009 14:38 7607701724 GDO
MY-04-2009 14:36 From:SENRTOR JOHN BENOIT 13163272187 To:7607701724 P.6/8
California Attorney General
May 4,2009
Page 5
0) The decision of a competent tribunal declaring void his or
her election or appointment.
(k) The making of an order vacating his or her office or
declaring the office vacant when the officer fails to furnish an
additional or supplemental bond.
(1) His or her commitment to a hospital or sanitarium by a
court of competent jurisdiction as a drug addict, dipsomaniac,
inebriate, or stimulant addict; but in that event the office shall riot
be deemed vacant until the order of commitment has become final.
Several cases have interpreted Government Code § 1770 to provide for the emiusin
means for a public office to become vacant absent contrary legislation. (Rosborough v.
Boardman (1885) 67 Cal. 116 [referring to Pol. Code § 996, Gov. Code § 1770's predecessor];
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. City of Tulare (1947) 30 Cal.2d 832 [expressing public
policy against vacancy in office or gap between successive office holders].)
The District Board of Trustees position would likely be deemed to be a "public office"
subject to the parameters of Government Code § 1770, (Gov. Code § 1000;Schaefer v. Superior
Court (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 428,432 ["One of the prime requisites"for determining whether a
position is considered a public office `5s that the office [is] created by the Constitution or
authorized by some state statute"].) The office was created by state statute. The Mosquito
Abatement and Vector Control District Law, as previously mentioned, and further, the Act itself
cites Government Code § 1779 as the procedure to fill vacancies on the District Board. (See
Health & Saf. Code § 2024, subd. (b).) Government Code § 1779 is contained in the very same
"Vacancies" Chapter 4, Article 2,of the Government Code as is § 1770. It is likely, therefore,
that this indicates a Legislative intent for all of the rules and procedures regarding vacancies
contained in Article 2 to apply to Districts created pursuant to the Mosquito Abatement and
Vector Control District Law.
Once an appointed official validly assumes office, and in the absence of a resignation,
one possible event that could have caused a vacancy in office is "[h]is or her removal from
office." However, there is no case law or attorney general opinion that suggests that this
authorizes the appointing agency to simply to remove the representative.
The structure of the statute itself suggests it has a different meaning. Govcrnment Code
§ 1770 is located in Division 4 [Public Officers and Employees], chapter 4 [Resignations and
Vacancies], article 2 [Vacancies]. Within the same Division 4 [Public Officers and Employees]
is Chapter 7, entitled, "Removal from Office." Chapter 7 lists various articles and sections that
identify when an officer may be removed from office. For instance, under Article 1 [General],
23
RECEIVED 05/04/2009 14:38 7607701724 GDt1
t9AY-04-2009 14:37 From:SENATOR JOHN BENCIT 9163272187 To:7607701724 P.7/8
California Attorney General
May 4,2009
Page 6
Section 3000,an officer may be removed if he or she is convicted of a designated crime, Section
1001 provides that an officer may be removed if he or she is intoxicated on the job. Article 2,
Sections 3020-3040 detail the procedures for impeachment and Article 3, Sections 3060-3074
detail the procedures to remove an officer who has been accused of willful or corrupt misconduct
in writing and/or indicted by a Grand Jury. Based upon this context, it would appear likely that
the only way an officer appointed to a fixed term could be"removed" from office, so as to cause
a vacancy where a new official could be appointed is, if as described above, the officer is (1)
convicted of a crime (2) intoxicated on the job(3) impeached or(4)accused of willful or corrupt
misconduct or indicted.
In informal discussions amongst legal counsel, the Indio City Attorney had cited to
Government Code § 36506, US. v. Chaplin, (1944) 54 F.Supp, 926 and Health and Safety Code
§ 2001, subdivision(d)as the authority for the removal of the Indio Representative.
Government Code Section 36506 provides: "(b]y resolution or ordinance,the city council
shall fix the compensation of all appointive officers and employees. Such officers and
employees hold office during the pleasure of the city council." This provision is contained
within Title 4 of the Government Code, entitled "Government of Cities" Thus, by its own
terms, it likely applies only to officers and employees appointed within the city government, and
not to officers appointed to independent special districts created by state statute. Furthermore,
the inapplicability of section 36506 to the present situation is also shown by the first sentence of
the code section which provides that "the city council shall fix the compensation of all appointed
officers and employees" Compensation for the members of the District's Board of Trustees is
not fixed by the various appointing city councils, but rather, is governed by Health and Safety
Code Section 2030.
US. v. Chaplin (1944) 54 F.Supp. 926 involved a city official, who, unlike the Trustees
of the Mosquito and Vector Control District, by statute, expressly served at the city council's
pleasure.) U.S. v Chaplin primarily dealt with the immunities afforded to a city judge for
alleged misconduct in office. In dicta, however, the Court stated, "[The judge] was an
appointive official, appointed by the City Council of Beverly Hills, and as such, holds office at
the pleasure of the appointing power and is subject to removal at the pleasure of the Council."
(Id. at 933.) The judge was appointed according to a now repealed statute which specifically
stated that judges in the city court served at the pleasure of the city council. Thus, it seems
unlikely the language in Chaplin is applicable to the determination of whether a city council can
remove Trustees appointed to fixed terms at an independent special district.
Health and Safety Code Section 2001, subdivision (d) states: "It is also the intent of the
Legislature that mosquito and abatement districts cooperate with other public agencies to protect
the public health, safety, and welfare. Further,the Legislature encourages local communities and
local officials to adapt the powers and procedures provided by this chapter to meet the diversity
24
RECEIVED 05/04/2009 14:28 7607701724 GDO
rAY-04-2009 14:37 From:SENRTOR JOIN 8END1T 9163272187 To:7607701724 P.8/8
California Attorney General
May 4,2009
Page 7
of their own local circumstances and responsibilities." As the plain language indicates, this
provision merely encourages Districts to cooperate with other local agencies, and provides no
procedures or standards relating to the term, removal,or vacancies on the Board of Trustees.
As a result,the current state of the law relating to removal procedures for members of the
Board of Trustees of the Mosquito and Vector Control Districts is unclear with respect to the
specific issue presented in this request. Thus, an opinion is requested that clarifies the law as
applied to the facts contained in this request.
To the extent you would like further information on this topic, please contact me. I
would be more than happy to provide whatever additional information may be needed to obtain
an answer to this question.
Sincerely,
-5
HN I. BETdOJT
Senator,37th District
25
oo
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Palm Springs
From: Sharon Lock, President
Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District.
Date: April 24, 2012
Re: Laboratory Expansion Project
As the City's representative to the Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District
("District"), I want to provide you some background information on a laboratory
expansion project that has recently garnered media attention.
Last month, the District approved $2.6 million in capital expenditures in order to
enhance the District's mosquito, vector and disease testing service. These expenses
will be used to expand and upgrade the District's laboratory, not build a new facility.
On April 15, the Desert Sun published a lengthy article in which some questioned this
expenditure. Also, on April 20, there was a Desert Sun editorial that raised the same
issues set forth in the article, neither of which addressed the upgrade in public health
and safety issues. This memorandum is intended to clarify the necessity for expansion
of the laboratory which was unanimously approved by the Board of Trustees, and to
explain the procedures through which it was determined that the expansion was
necessary and in the best interests of the District and its residents —your constituents.
Preliminarily, I want to reassure you that the District is starkly aware of the importance
of not only safeguarding public funds, but also of bolstering public confidence in the
District—while at the same time ensuring that the District is able to carry out its core
mission of reducing the risk of disease transmission through mosquitoes and vectors.
The District has reduced its annual homeowner assessment by over 80% since 2007.
The Project
Unfortunately, the Desert Sun misrepresented the project by stating'a new lab building
is to be constructed. In fact, this is a remodel and expansion of existing facilities.
The Desert Sun correctly indicated that a major reason for the laboratory expansion was
to expedite mosquito testing, which is currently outsourced to the University of
California, Davis. While this is one of the critical reasons the expansion is necessary,
there are a number of other reasons that should be explained.
Expansion Proiect
The District currently has professional and technical staff in place to provide rapid
molecular surveillance services to District residents. However, the District relies on an
outside agency for certain necessary testing, which causes a delay in response times.
Additionally, the current testing prices are expensive and incur additional shipping costs
to UC Davis.
The upgraded facility will resolve all the problems with the current facility listed above,
and allow for anticipated future growth. It will allow the District to provide enhanced
surveillance of a broad range of vector borne pathogens that cause human and animal
disease. It will result in cost savings of approximately $37,000 per year in controlling
arbovirus transmission and testing. (Initial equipment costs are approximately $70,000,
which will be paid off in less than two years). This increased expediency will result in
less pesticide use, savings on chemicals and labor, and reduced environmental risk.
Increased processing capabilities will allow the District to not only combat West Nile
virus, but also St. Louis encephalitis virus, western equine encephalomyelitis virus, and
potentially new, emerging diseases such as Dengue and Chikungunya fever. If an
arbovirus is detected early in mosquitoes then the virus transmission can be controlled,
human health may be preserved, and money can be saved from trying to control a
widespread outbreak. With its improved capabilities, the District will have the ability to
test for multiple viruses, and costs to test for new viruses would be reduced and
controlled.
Allowing for on-site testing has other benefits as well. In late January, it was announced
at a meeting of the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California that the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have reduced supporting states with
arbovirus testing, including West Nile Virus surveillance. This was not a surprise, as the
CDC has undergone major budget cuts recently.
The District lacks control over funding or reporting time at UC Davis. With uncertainties
in future state funding for the University of California (which has recently suffered major
budget cuts), testing time could potentially increase—especially since UC Davis is not
mandated by the State to perform the testing.
The upgraded facility will consolidate all laboratory functions into one ibuilding. Having a
single work and office space for staff in the surveillance and integrated vector and
2
I
quality control groups will facilitate collaborations between the groups and streamline
some of the experimental procedures. This will increase productivity, and allow the
District to improve response time and effectiveness.
From a planning perspective, the floor plan principally groups program functions into
three zones: laboratories, offices and support services. New mechanical and electrical
spaces are located in or near the new addition for improved„ cost-effective utility
distribution.
Inadequacy of Current Facilities
The District's laboratory is currently housed in two locations (the Biocontrol Building and
the Operations Building). Although the buildings are within walking distance from one
another, having separate facilities causes workflow inefficiencies and hinders
communication and collaboration between staff.
Both buildings fail to comply with the standards set forth by the United States
Department of Health and Human Services as established in its handbook on "Biosafety
in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories." Currently, workers must pass through
the workrooms to access rearing rooms, restrooms, janitor rooms, and the
storage/archive/office room. This potentially puts science work and staff at risk. In
addition, some of the areas are underutilized, while others are inefficient.
Space in a number of rooms is inadequate. There is inadequate space for essential
equipment, such as incubators and chemical storage cabinets. There are exposed
pipes which pose a potential hazard to staff. From an environmental conditioning
standpoint, temperature and relative humidity are not reliable in certain areas, making it
difficult to maintain natural outdoor conditions which are needed. Some of the rooms
are not suited for the wet conditions present and lack vermin control.
Due to lack of space, some work areas are being used for purposes for which they were
not intended. At least one of the rooms is overflowing with tools, parts, supplies, boxes,
and carts and does not provide appropriate ventilation for storage of batteries.
In the Operations Building, there is a problem with insufficient exit egress near a
laboratory hood, which is not in compliance with the standards promulgated by the
National Fire Protection Association.
The expanded facility will also allow for expansion of the District's Information
Technology ("IT") Department—which will have to be expanded somehow in any event.
Under the plan, the existing laboratory office space in the Operations building is to be
utilized by IT, allowing for improved communication and collaboration on issues
affecting software end-users.
3
Procedures
In 2011, the District updated its Strategic Plan. The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to
address key issues and present guidelines on how to meet the District's professional,
ethical and legal obligations successfully. It provided a disciplined effort to produce
fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what the District is, what it
does, and why it does it. The major goal of the Strategic Plan was to prepare the
District for known issues and at the same time provide guidance in areas where future
conditions may be more difficult to anticipate. A Strategic Planning Workshop was held
with the Board of Trustees, District Management, and representative employees on
March 19, 2011.
With respect to capital improvement programs, the District endeavored, with the
implementation of the Strategic Plan, to: (1) establish elements for a capital
improvement needs assessment policy and procedure; (2) conduct a complete and
accurate inventory of capital assets; (3) complete a space inventory within one year;
and (4) establish a list of future capital improvements and timetables.
Subsequently, the District commissioned a Laboratory Feasibility Study which included
an existing facility assessment, site analysis, and conceptual floor plan. A Needs
Assessment was also prepared which also examined the necessity for improved
laboratory facilities. Ultimately, this led to unanimous approval of the project by the
Board of Trustees last month.
We have an outstanding and professional staff at the District. The General Manager
and District staff endeavored to keep the entire Board fully apprised of the planning for
this project at every step. I can assure you that all the Trustees were intimately involved
in the planning phase, and that involvement and concern has resulted in a better project
which has increased the public benefit that will be derived from the project.
I am confident that this project will be sufficient to serve the District's needs for many
years. This project is reasonable and necessary to ensure the District's scientific
operations staff has sufficient resources and capabilities to protect the public from the
threat of mosquito and vector borne diseases. I am also confident that this project will
be completed on time and within budget. The proposed budget accounts for inflation
through the year 2013, assuming an 18 month completion date.
4