Merger Plan for Sacramento

Weary of “zoning for dollars”--manipulating land-use controls to compete for taxpaying commercial development--and wary of movements under way to fragment government, the city and county of Sacramento are studying a creative plan for merging into a consolidated municipality with a population of about 1.3 million. The plan of the Ad Hoc Charter Commission is a sound one and the city and county should be encouraged to approve it and present it to local voters.

The new government would have an 11-member legislative body called the Council of Supervisors and a strong independently elected mayor with veto power over council decisions. This structure is similar to consolidated county governments in a number of states. But the Sacramento government would have a unique feature in the creation of 20 local councils with authority to make land-use decisions in their areas, consistent with the city’s general plan. The 11 countywide council members would be full-time elected officials. The five members of each local council would be elected, but serve on a part-time basis.

Growth management was a major impetus behind the proposed merger charter, drafted over the last 10 months. There has been explosive growth along Sacramento’s northern and eastern borders and the wealthy unincorporated suburb of Citrus Heights had launched a cityhood campaign. Charter Commission officials say both the city and county were tired of competing for business and commercial development that would generate new tax dollars--a pattern that creates haphazard development throughout Southern California.

The most controversial feature of the proposed charter is the strong mayor. One City Council member said that was too much power for a single official. But the office would be no more powerful than mayoralties in most large cities in California and county executive positions elsewhere. The mayor’s vetoes could be overridden by the council. The greater danger would be a collective executive, or one who was too weak.

The charter commission will conduct public hearings on the proposal this summer and go to the City Council and Board of Supervisors in the fall for a decision to put the plan before voters in 1990. Approval of the state Legislature also is necessary.

The city-county decision to explore a merger was, in a sense, a defensive action. But it also is a bold step forward that other cities and counties in California should watch with interest.