BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Patricia Wiggins, Chair
BILL NO: SB 113 HEARING: 4/15/09
AUTHOR: Committee on Local GovernmentFISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 4/2/09 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMNIBUS ACT OF 2009
Background and Existing Law
Each year, local officials discover problems with the state
statutes that affect counties, cities, special districts,
and redevelopment agencies, as well as the laws on land use
planning and development. These minor problems do not
warrant separate (and expensive) bills. According to the
Legislative Analyst, in 2001-02 the cost of producing a
bill was $17,890.
The Senate Local Government Committee responds by combining
several of these minor topics into an annual "omnibus
bill." For example, the Committee's 2008 omnibus bill was
SB 1124 which contained 15 noncontroversial statutory
changes, avoiding over $250,000 in legislative costs.
Although this practice may violate a strict interpretation
of the single-subject and germaneness rules as presented in
Californians for an Open Primary v. McPherson (2006) 38
Cal.4th 735, it is an expeditious and relatively
inexpensive way to respond to multiple requests.
Proposed Law
The "Local Government Omnibus Act of 2009" proposes 28
changes to the state laws affecting local agencies' powers
and duties:
1. School facilities improvement districts . School
districts can finance improvements with district-wide
voter-approved general obligation bonds (Education Code
15100, et seq.). School districts can also finance
improvements with voter-approved general obligation bonds
issued by "school facilities improvement districts" that
are less than district-wide (Education Code 15300, et
seq., added by AB 3747, Quackenbush, 1994 and recodified by
SB 161, Greene, 1997). School districts can't use the
school facilities improvement district law unless the
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 2
county board of supervisors adopts a resolution (Education
Code 15303). In 2008, the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors gave the Alhambra Unified School District
permission to ask its voters to approve general obligation
bonds by using a less than district-wide school facilities
improvement district. Los Angeles County officials say
that the statutory language is ambiguous. They want to
clarify that the county supervisors' approval to use the
school facilities improvement district statute could be
either countywide or could be limited to particular school
districts. Senate Bill 113 allows a county board of
supervisors' approval to use the school facilities
improvement district statute to be either countywide or
limited to particular school districts. [See 1.5 of the
bill.]
2. Appropriations limits for new local governments .
Public agencies must adopt annual appropriations limits and
the voters must establish the initial appropriations limit
for new local governments (Article XIII B, 1 & 4). State
law explains how to set the appropriations limits for new
local governments (Government Code 7907.2, added by SB
813, Bergeson, 1987), with specific procedures for new
counties (Government Code 23332), new special districts
(Government Code 56811), and new cities (Government Code
56812). There are also special procedures for cities that
incorporated in the late 1980s (Government Code 7902.7).
Local officials note that the special procedures for those
new cities have become irrelevant because the cities now
adopt annual appropriations limits. Further, they note
that the statutory cross-references to the specific
procedures are incorrect, referring to code sections that
no longer exist after the Legislature revised the
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act
(AB 2838, Hertzberg, 2000). They want the Legislature to
repeal the obsolete provisions relating to cities that
incorporated in the late 1980s and to correct the statutory
cross-references. Senate Bill 113 repeals the obsolete
provisions relating to cities that incorporated in the late
1980s and corrects the statutory cross-references in the
statute that explains how new local governments set their
appropriations limits. [2]
3. County boundary change cross-reference . State law
spells out the procedures that counties follow when making
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 3
minor boundary changes (Government Code 23200, et seq.).
These changes are not subject to review by local agency
formation commissions (LAFCOs) (Government Code 23232).
The Committee's staff notes that the cross-reference to the
LAFCO statutes is obsolete and wants the Legislature to
correct the citation. Senate Bill 113 corrects the
citation to the LAFCO statute in the state law that spells
out the procedures for counties' minor boundary changes.
[3]
4. Latent power cross-reference . Both the County Service
Area Law (Government Code Section 25210, et seq., added by
SB 1458, Senate Local Government Committee, 2008) and the
Community Services District Law (Government Code Section
61000, et seq., added by SB 135, Kehoe, 2005) explain how
local agency formation commissions (LAFCOs) control these
special districts' "latent powers." LAFCOs must rely on
inventories of the districts' services and functions
prepared as part of their spheres of influence (Government
Code 25210.2 [g] & 61002 [h], referring to Government
Code 56425). A practitioner notes that both of these
statutes contain an incorrect cross-reference to the
special districts' spheres of influence and she wants the
Legislature to correct the citations. Senate Bill 113
corrects the citation to special districts' spheres of
influence in the County Service Area Law and the Community
Services District Law. [4 & 70]
5. County service contracts . Nine counties have the
statutory authority to provide a limited list of services
by contract to private firms that require special
experience, education, and training, including training
materials and facilities, law enforcement, fire protection,
and public health (Government Code 25332, added by AB
2665, Murray, 1992). Nine counties now have this
authority: Butte, Kings, Los Angeles, Merced, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Clara, and Ventura. The
Legislature added Riverside County to the list in 1997 (SB
883, Senate Local Government Committee, 1997) and in 1998,
legislators added Kings County (SB 1649, Senate Local
Government Committee, 1998). Sonoma County wants the
Legislature to add it to this statutory list and to expand
the range of authorized services to include maintenance and
construction services. Senate Bill 113 allows Sonoma
County to provide county services to private firms by
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 4
contract. Senate Bill 113 expands the list of authorized
services to include maintenance and construction services.
[5]
6. County purchasing agents . State law allows county
boards of supervisors to hire purchasing agents to act
without separate authorizations when buying supplies,
renting equipment, and contracting for services (Government
Code 25500, et seq.). In counties with a population of
less than 200,000, the county supervisors can authorize
their purchasing agents to contract for services when the
"aggregate cost" doesn't exceed $50,000, adjusted by the
Consumer Price Index (Government Code 25502.3). In
counties with populations over 200,000 the "aggregate cost"
limit is $100,000 (Government Code 25502.5). Napa County
officials say that their County Counsel believes that the
term "aggregate cost" implies a lifetime accrual, not an
annual limit. They want the Legislature to clarify that
these statutory limits apply annually. Senate Bill 113
clarifies that the statutory limits on county purchasing
agents are annual aggregate amounts. [5.3 & 5.5]
7. Revisions to the county budget act . State law spells
out the procedures that county officials must follow when
adopting their annual budgets (Government Code 29000, et
seq.). The statute has remained relatively unchanged since
the Legislature revised these procedures nearly 25 years
ago (AB 820, Cortese, 1985). Starting in January 2007, a
subcommittee of the State Controller's Advisory Committee
on County Accounting Procedures reviewed the statutory
requirements and recommended numerous changes. The
Advisory Committee looked for ways to reduce the counties'
costs of complying with redundant reporting and filing
requirements. The State Controller wants the Legislature
to revise the County Budget Act to reflect these
recommendations. Senate Bill 113 revises the state
statutes that spell out the procedures that county
officials must follow when adopting their annual budgets.
Senate Bill 113 includes changes to more than 55 code
sections that:
Formally name the County Budget Act (29000).
Clarify the statutory definitions and their
consistent uses (29001).
Clarify outdated statutory language (e.g., 29006).
Sort out the duties of county administrators and
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 5
county auditors (e.g., 29040).
Advance county officials' deadlines for acting
(e.g., 29040).
Repeal obsolete sections (29004, 29065.5, 29066,
29088.1, 29091, 29129, 29140).
[6 to 64 & 67]
8. Obsolete property tax reduction fund . Before
Proposition 13 (1978), every local government set its own
annual property tax rate. Now the California Constitution
sets a uniform 1% property tax rate (Article XIIIA, 1),
although local officials can set a lower property tax rate
for their own jurisdiction (Revenue & Taxation Code 96.8).
Since 1965, state law has allowed a county board of
supervisors to put aside money into a "property tax
reduction fund" and spend the money to lower the county
government's property tax rate (Government Code 29520, et
seq., added by SB 1190, Rees, 1965). The Committee's staff
believes that no county currently has a property tax
reduction fund and that the statute is obsolete because of
Proposition 13. They want the Legislature to repeal this
obsolete statute. Senate Bill 113 repeals the
authorization for a county property tax reduction fund.
[65]
9. Sonoma County's obsolete tax . In 1977, the Legislature
authorized Sonoma County to raise the local transactions
and use tax ("sales tax") for public transit, with
majority-voter approval (Government Code 29560, et seq.,
added by AB 562, Wornum, 1977). Proposition 13 (1978) and
Proposition 218 (1996) require 2/3-voter approval before
local governments can levy special taxes to raise revenue
for special purposes (California Constitution Article XIIIA
4 & Article XIIIC 2 [d]). With 2/3-voter approval, any
county can levy a higher transactions and use tax rate as a
special tax (Revenue & Taxation Code 7285.5). The
Committee's staff believes that the Legislature should
repeal the 1977 Sonoma County sales tax statute because
Proposition 13 and Proposition 218 made it obsolete.
Senate Bill 113 repeals the statute which allows Sonoma
County to raise its transactions and use tax for public
transit with majority-voter approval. [66]
10. City council members' salaries . City council members
in general law cities can receive monthly salaries based on
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 6
a statutory schedule (Government Code 36516). The bigger
the city, the higher the maximum salary:
Population Statutory
Limit
Less than 35,000 $300/month
35,001 - 50,000 $400/month
50,001 - 75,000 $500/month
75,001 - 150,000 $600/month
150,001 - 250,000 $800/month
More than 250,000 $1,000/month
City councils can raise their salaries above these
statutory limits by up to 5% a year by ordinance. Further,
the voters can approve salaries that are different from the
statutory schedule. All salary adjustments must be adopted
by referendable local ordinances. The law prohibits
automatic future increases in salary. Changes to city
council members' salaries are operative only after the next
election; once a salary ordinance becomes operative, then
all council members are eligible for pay raises. The last
time the Legislature raised the city council members'
salary schedule was in 1984 (AB 2281, Hauser, 1984). By
2007, the California Consumer Price Index had increased by
108%. When the Legislature tried to reset the statutory
salary schedule to reflect inflation, Governor
Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 701 (De La Torre, 2007). The
Committee's staff wants the Legislature to reformat the
current statute to clarify how city councils and local
voters can set and change city council members' salaries.
Senate Bill 113 reformats the statute governing city
council members' salaries for clarity. Unlike the 2007
bill, Senate Bill 113 does not change the current statutory
schedule. Senate Bill 113 also clarifies that city council
members may waive their compensation. [68]
11. Surplus funds cross-reference . Local officials can
invest their temporarily idle funds in various financial
instruments (Government Code 53601). In 2006, the
Legislature allowed local agencies to invest some of their
surplus funds in certificates of deposit issued by a
private sector placement service that meet specified
conditions (Government Code 53601.8, added by AB 2011,
Vargas, 2006). County treasurers note that the new
authorization includes an incorrect cross-reference to
certificates of deposit and they want the Legislature to
correct this error. Senate Bill 113 corrects the citation
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 7
to certificates of deposit in the state law that allows for
the investment of temporarily idle funds. [68.3]
12. Obsolete reporting requirement . The California Debt
and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC) is the state's
information clearing house for state and local government
debt (Government Code 8855). The State Treasurer chairs
this nine-member commission. After the Orange County
bankruptcy, the Legislature required local treasurers to
provide annual statements of investment policies and
quarterly investment reports to their legislative bodies
(Government Code 53646, added by SB 564, Johnston, 1995).
In 2000, the Legislature required local officials to send
copies of their quarterly reports to CDIAC until January 1,
2007 (AB 943, Dutra, 2000). The Local Government Omnibus
Act of 2008 deleted most of these obsolete requirements (SB
1124, Senate Local Government Committee, 2008), but
neglected to repeal the requirement for local officials to
send their quarterly reports to CDIAC. On behalf of CDIAC,
State Treasurer Bill Lockyer requests that the Legislature
eliminate this obsolete provision. Senate Bill 113 deletes
the obsolete requirement for local officials to send their
quarterly investment reports to CDIAC. [68.5]
13. Obsolete special municipal tax districts . State law
allows cities to create "special municipal tax districts"
and levy an ad valorem property tax with majority-voter
approval to pay for maintenance and operations or special
local services (Government Code 60000, et seq., added by
AB 1952, Baker, 1919 and codified by SB 1027, Roy
Cunningham, 1951). However, Proposition 13 (1978) and
Proposition 218 (1996) prohibit additional ad valorem
property taxes for services and require 2/3-voter approval
before local governments can levy special taxes to raise
revenue for special purposes (California Constitution
Article XIIIA 4 & Article XIIIC 2 [d]). Consistent with
these constitutional requirements, cities can levy special
taxes with 2/3-voter approval (Government Code 37100.5 and
50075, et seq.). The Committee's staff believes that the
Legislature should repeal the 1919 special municipal tax
district statute because Proposition 13 and Proposition 218
made it obsolete. Senate Bill 113 repeals the statute
which allows cities to set up special municipal tax
districts. [69]
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 8
14. CSD name change . The Community Services District Law
allows community services districts (CSDs) to change their
names, provided that they keep the words "community
services district" in the new name. When a CSD changes its
name, it must notify the Secretary of State, the county
clerk, the county board of supervisors, and the local
agency formation commission (Government Code 61061).
Local officials want CSDs with new names to also notify the
State Board of Equalization and the county
auditor-controllers because those officials are responsible
for allocating property tax revenues. Senate Bill 113
requires a community services district that changes its
name to also notify the State Board of Equalization and the
county auditor in each county where the CSD is located.
[70.5]
15. Map Act and biogas projects . The Subdivision Map Act
governs how counties and cities approve the division of
larger properties into smaller lots, including subdivision
design and improvements (Government Code 66410, et seq.).
The Map Act defines a "subdivision" as the division of land
for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing (Government
Code 66424). However, the Map Act specifically exempts
several types of land divisions, including leases and
easements for windpowered electrical generation devices,
provided that the project is subject to local discretionary
approval (Government Code 66412 [i], AB 2474, Rogers,
1984), and leases and easements for solar electrical
generation devices, if the project is subject to other
local agency ordinances regarding design and improvement,
or if the project is subject to local discretionary
approval (Government Code 66412 [l], SB 1124, Senate Local
Government Committee, 2008). Sempra Energy wants a similar
exemption for biogas projects. This exemption was in AB
1510 (Plescia, 2008) which the Legislature passed and
Governor Schwarzenegger signed, but the change was
chaptered-out. Sempra wants legislators to try again.
Senate Bill 113 exempts from the Subdivision Map Act leases
and easements for biogas projects that use agricultural
waste or byproducts from the land where the project is
located and which reduce greenhouse gas emissions, if the
project is subject to other local agency ordinances
regarding design and improvement, or if the project is
subject to local discretionary approval. [71]
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 9
16. Lot line adjustment deadlines . The Subdivision Map
Act (Government Code 66410, et seq.) contains deadlines
for local officials to act on applications for tentative
maps. The Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code 65920,
et seq.) sets deadlines, which are coordinated with CEQA
reviews, for public officials to approve or disapprove
development projects:
180 days after certifying an environmental impact
report (EIR).
90 days after certifying an EIR for an affordable
housing project.
60 days after adopting a negative declaration.
60 days after certifying that the project is exempt
from CEQA review.
The Permit Streamlining Act's deadlines can't extend the
Map Act's deadlines. The Map Act doesn't apply to lot line
adjustments, which involve four or fewer parcels, approved
by local officials, where land taken from one parcel is
added to an adjoining parcel without creating any new
parcels (Government Code 66412 [d]). Surveyors and
engineers say that their applications for lot line
adjustments can be delayed because there's no clear
statutory time limit by which local officials must act.
They want the Legislature to require cities and counties to
approve lot line adjustments pursuant to the Permit
Streamlining Act. This change was in SB 1237 (Cox, 2008)
which Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed, saying that the bill
was not a high priority. Senator Cox still wants the
Legislature to make that change. Senate Bill 113 requires
cities and counties to approve or disapprove lot line
adjustments pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act. [71]
17. Remainder parcels . Under the Subdivision Map Act
(Government Code 66410, et seq.), a major subdivision
creates five or more parcels and requires both a tentative
map and a final map. A minor subdivision (lot split)
creates four or fewer parcels and usually needs only a
parcel map. When a subdivision affects only part of a
property, the unaffected property is called a "designated
remainder parcel" or an "omitted parcel." It's illegal to
avoid a major subdivision by repeatedly using lot splits to
create many parcels, called "4x4-ing." However, the Map
Act says that state law doesn't prohibit consecutive
subdivisions of the same parcel. The Map Act sets out
detailed requirements for the size, shape, and contents of
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 10
the subdivision documents, both final maps and parcel maps.
Final maps and parcel maps must clearly designate the
subdivision's exterior boundary. A final map or parcel map
for a subdivision with a designated remainder parcel of
five or more acres doesn't have to show the remainder
parcel (Government Code 66434 & 66445). Instead of
surveying the remainder parcel, its location can be
indicated by deed reference. Surveyors and engineers say
that some cities and counties still require them to show
the remainder parcel on a final map or parcel map. They
want the Legislature to clarify that the exterior boundary
on a final map or parcel map doesn't need to include a
designated remainder parcel or omitted parcel. This change
was in SB 1237 (Cox, 2008) which Governor Schwarzenegger
vetoed, saying that the bill was not a high priority.
Senator Cox still wants the Legislature to make that
change. Senate Bill 113 declares that the exterior
boundary of the land shown on a final map or parcel map
shall not include a designated remainder parcel or omitted
parcel, but any designated remainder parcel or omitted
parcel must be labeled. [72 & 74]
18. Map Act dedications . As a condition of approving
subdivisions under the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code
66410, et seq.), cities and counties often require
subdividers to dedicate property for public purposes,
including drainage, public utilities, bicycle paths,
transit facilities, solar energy easements, parks, roads,
alleys, coastal and water access, and schools. Some of
these property dedications are in fee, while other property
dedications are public easements over private property
(Government Code 66439 & 66447). Surveyors and engineers
say that local officials use various terms for these
dedications, resulting in later confusion over whether the
property was dedicated in fee or as an easement. They want
the Legislature to standardize the language that appears on
subdivision maps to make it clear whether a property
dedication is in fee or whether the dedication is an
easement. This change was in SB 1237 (Cox, 2008) which
Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed, saying that the bill was
not a high priority. Senator Cox still wants the
Legislature to make that change. Senate Bill 113
standarizes the language on final maps and parcel maps
regarding the dedication of property in fee or as
easements. [73 & 75]
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 11
19. Interment rights in cemetery districts . In 2003, the
Legislature modernized and recodified the Public Cemetery
District Law, which governs California's 252 cemetery
districts (Health & Safety Code 9000, et seq., recodified
by SB 341, Senate Local Government Committee, 2003). Since
then, cemetery district officials have been considering
further, more substantive statutory changes. Although
their principal act explains how cemetery districts manage
interment rights, the Public Cemetery District Law does not
define this term. The California Association of Public
Cemeteries wants the Legislature to adopt a statutory
definition of "interment right." Senate Bill 113 defines
"interment right" within the Public Cemetery District Law.
[73.5]
20. Cemetery districts' funds . In 2003, the Legislature
modernized and recodified the Public Cemetery District Law
which governs California's 252 cemetery districts (Health &
Safety Code 9000, et seq., recodified by SB 341, Senate
Local Government Committee, 2003). Since then, cemetery
district officials have been considering further, more
substantive statutory changes. Although their principal
act tells cemetery districts how to manage their funds, the
California Association of Public Cemeteries notes that
state law doesn't explain where to deposit the money that
they collect. The Association wants the Legislature to
require cemetery districts to deposit the money that they
collect into the county treasury. Senate Bill 113 requires
public cemetery districts to deposit the funds that they
collect into the county treasury by the 10th of the month
following the month in which they collect the money.
[75.5]
21. Cemetery districts' revolving funds . In 2003, the
Legislature modernized and recodified the Public Cemetery
District Law which governs California's 252 cemetery
districts (Health & Safety Code 9000, et seq., recodified
by SB 341, Senate Local Government Committee, 2003). Since
then, cemetery district officials have been considering
further, more substantive statutory changes. State law
lets cemetery districts set up revolving funds,
cross-referencing the state law that allows all special
districts to establish revolving funds to make change and
pay small bills directly (Health & Safety Code 9074 &
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 12
Government Code 53950, et seq.). State law caps special
districts' revolving funds at $1,000 (Government Code
53952), but cemetery districts' revolving funds may be as
much as 110% of one-twelfth of a district's annual budget
(Government Code 53961). The California Association of
Public Cemeteries says that having statutory authority in
both the principal act and in the state law that applies to
all special districts is confusing. The Association wants
the Legislature to put this authority within the Public
Cemetery District Law and make it clear that a cemetery
district can set up a revolving fund that is either (a) a
$1,000 petty cash fund or (b) the larger amount, based on
its adopted budget. Senate Bill 113 revises the state laws
governing public cemetery districts' revolving funds,
clarifying that a cemetery district can set up a revolving
fund that is either (a) a $1,000 petty cash fund or (b) the
larger amount, based on its adopted budget. [68.7 & 75.7]
22. Air pollution control districts' boards . Most air
pollution control districts (APCDs) cover just one county
and the county board of supervisors is the APCD's governing
board (Health & Safety Code 40100). However, a county
board of supervisors and the cities in that county may
agree to include city representatives on an APCD's
governing board. The city selection committee (composed of
the mayors of each city in that county) selects the city
representatives. If the agreement provides for
representation by each city, then each city selects its own
representative. The city representatives must be mayors or
council members and the county representatives must be
county supervisors (Health & Safety Code 40100.5). There
is no statutory authority for either the city selection
committee or the individual cities to select alternate
representatives to serve when the regular city
representatives are absent or disqualified from
participating. Under its own statutory formula, the
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District has
a 14-member board of directors. When the Sacramento
Metropolitan AQMD had trouble achieving a quorum because
enough city representatives couldn't attend, it received
legislative permission for the cities to appoint alternate
members (Health & Safety Code 40980, as amended by SB 144,
Senate Local Government Committee, 2007). The Butte County
AQMD has a 10-member governing board composed of all five
county supervisors and a city representative from each of
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 13
the five cities: Biggs, Chico, Gridley, Oroville, and
Paradise. Because the Butte County APCD's board meets
during the day, sometimes it's hard for all of the city
representatives to attend. As part-time city council
members, they work regular jobs. When a city's
representative can't attend, that community lacks
representation during policy discussions and regulatory
decisions. The Butte County AQMD wants legislators to
allow cities to appoint alternates, similar to what the
Legislature did for the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD.
Senate Bill 113 allows the city selection committee and the
city councils to appoint alternates to their
representatives on the governing boards of county air
pollution control districts. [75.9]
23. Archaic requirements for local taxes . Proposition 13
capped the maximum ad valorem property tax rate at 1% of
full cash value. Extraordinary property tax rates above
the 1% limit are possible only for certain types of
voter-approved debt (California Constitution Article XIII
A, 1). With 2/3-voter approval, local officials may levy
special taxes (Government Code 50075, et seq.). Despite
the 30-year old constitutional cap on property tax rates, a
few older statutes still allow counties and cities to levy
special taxes with higher ad valorem rates. These statutes
are probably unconstitutional. In Revenues And
Responsibilities (December 2007), the staff of the Senate
Local Government Committee identified several statutory
authorizations for special taxes that fall outside the 1%
limit. The Local Government Omnibus Act of 2008 revised
four of these obsolete taxes for county musical
performances, county trade and commerce programs, county
public airports, and city hospitals (SB 1124, Senate Local
Government Committee, 2008). The Committee's staff has
identified additional obsolete references to ad valorem
property tax rates, and wants the Legislature to substitute
the cross-reference to the statute that requires 2/3-voter
approval for special taxes. Senate Bill 113 deletes
obsolete references to separate property tax rates and
instead inserts the appropriate cross-references to local
special taxes for:
County special tax for sanitary purposes in
unincorporated areas (Health & Safety Code 101350).
[76]
County special tax for veterans' homes (Military &
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 14
Veterans Code 1121). [77]
County special tax for veterans memorial halls
(Military & Veterans Code 1262). [78]
24. County recorders and federal vital records . County
recorders may record birth certificates and death
certificates issued by federal agencies to authenticate
births and deaths of U.S. citizens outside of the United
States (Health & Safety Code 103500). A certification of
birth outside of the United States must be indexed in the
county recorder's birth index (Health & Safety Code
103501). County recorders say that confusion can result
when an individual seeking a certified copy of a
federally-issued vital record requests a copy of that
document from a county recorder's office. Copies of
federally-issued documents that have been recorded with a
county cannot be used as authorized vital records to
establish a person's identity; they are merely copies of
the county's official records. To obtain authorized copies
of federal vital records, individuals must contact the
federal agency that issued the original document. To avoid
confusion, county recorders want to prohibit the recording
and indexing of federally-issued foreign birth and death
records and clarify that copies of such documents already
recorded are to be issued by county recorders only as
official --- but not vital --- records. Senate Bill 113
repeals county recorders' authority to record federal birth
certificates and death certificates, and instead requires
county recorders to issue certified copies of foreign
births or deaths only as official records and not as vital
records. Senate Bill 113 repeals the requirement for
county recorders to index federal birth certificates in the
county recorder's birth index, except for court ordered
documents that establish foreign births and deaths. [76.3,
76.5 & 76.7]
25. Archaic reimbursement for special districts . Most
special districts operate under a series of "principal
acts" that govern their powers, duties, and procedures.
For example, the seven resort improvement districts operate
under the Resort Improvement District Law (Public Resources
Code 13000, et seq.) and the eight water storage districts
operate under the California Water Storage District Law
(Water Code 39000, et seq.). It is common for special
districts' principal acts to spell out the types and
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 15
amounts of compensation that the districts can pay to their
governing boards. However, state law also generally limits
the compensation that special districts can pay their
governing boards, including allowing districts to pay for
their "actual and necessary expenses" (Government Code
53232, et seq., added by AB 1234, Salinas, 2005).
Further, local officials must take ethics training if they
receive compensation (Government Code 53234, et seq.,
added by AB 1234, Salinas, 2005). The California Special
Districts Association notes that both the Resort
Improvement District Law and the California Water Storage
District Law contain archaic mileage reimbursement rates.
Resort improvement districts can pay only 15
a mile š (Public Resources Code 13041) and water storage districts
can pay only 10
a mile (Water Code 40355). The š Association wants the Legislature to repeal these archaic
mileage limits and let the districts pay for actual and
necessary expenses. Senate Bill 113 repeals the specific
mileage reimbursement rates for resort improvement
districts and water storage districts. Senate Bill 113
also explicitly requires resort improvement districts to
comply with the statewide laws on compensation and ethics
training. [79 & 90]
26. County special road maintenance districts . Counties
can form special road maintenance districts in
unincorporated areas and levy ad valorem property taxes
without voter approval to pay for highways and roads
(Streets & Highways Code 1550, et seq.). This authority
is more than 125 years old (Chapter 10, Statutes of 1883).
However, Proposition 13 (1978) and Proposition 218 (1996)
prohibit additional ad valorem property taxes for services
and require 2/3-voter approval before local governments can
levy special taxes to raise revenue for special purposes
(California Constitution Article XIIIA 4 & Article XIIIC
2 [d]). Consistent with these constitutional
requirements, counties can levy special taxes with
2/3-voter approval (Government Code 50075, et seq.). The
Committee's staff believes that the Legislature should
revise the statutes on counties' special road maintenance
districts to comply with Proposition 13 and Proposition
218. Senate Bill 113 revises the statutes which allow
counties to set up special road maintenance districts, and
allows them to levy special taxes with 2/3-voter approval.
[80 to 87]
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 16
27. Clarify 1911 Act dredging authority . The Improvement
Act of 1911 (Streets & Highways Code 5000, et seq.) allows
local officials to levy benefit assessments with the
approval of property owners to pay for a wide variety of
public works projects, including harbor improvements on
tidelands that the state has granted or leased to cities
(Streets & Highways Code 5100). The 1911 Act specifically
allows local officials to use benefit assessments to pay
for harbor channel improvements and maintenance (Streets &
Highways Code 5101 [m], amended by SB 1916, Marks, 1988
and SB 683, Marks, 1991). The Contra Costa County Water
Agency and the Stockton Port District use 1911 Act benefit
assessments to pay for their share of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' channel dredging. The local agencies have
not acquired or leased the channel from the state. Local
officials want to clarify that they can use 1911 Act
benefit assessments for channel projects on property that
the state has not granted or leased to a local government.
Senate Bill 113 allows local officials to use 1911 Act
benefit assessments to pay for channel improvements on
tidelands for which a permit, license, or easement has been
issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the state.
[88]
28. Publishing water conservation ordinances . Local
governments that provide water can adopt water conservation
programs by enacting urgency ordinances or resolutions
(Water Code 375, et seq., added by AB 1954, Gualco, 1978).
Within 10 days, the local government must publish its
water conservation ordinance or resolution "in full" in a
general circulation newspaper that is printed, published,
and circulated within the agency (Water Code 376). County
water districts have their own separate statutory authority
to adopt emergency water restrictions (Water Code 31026).
County water districts must also publish their water
restriction ordinances in full in general circulation
newspapers. However, a county water district may instead
publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five
days before its adoption and publish a summary of the
adopted ordinance within 15 days after its adoption. The
full text must be available to the public at the district's
offices. Alternatively, if it's not feasible to publish
summaries, a county water district can publish a
quarter-page display advertisement both five days before
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 17
and within 15 days after the adoption of the ordinance
(Water Code 31027, as amended by AB 3181, Norman Waters,
1990). The water conservation ordinance adopted by the
North Marin Water District, a county water district, is 10
pages long. The District has amended its water
conservation ordinance 35 times. Each amendment triggers
the statutory requirement to publish the ordinance "in
full," which is expensive without much public benefit. As
an alternative to publishing the full water conservation
ordinance, the District wants the Legislature to allow
local governments to publish summaries or display
advertisements, following the approach in the County Water
District Law. Senate Bill 113 allows local governments to
publish summaries or display advertisements of their water
conservation ordinances, both before and after their
adoption, provided that the full text is available to the
public. [89]
29. Legislative declarations . Senate Bill 113 expresses
the Legislature's intent to cut costs by combining several
noncontroversial items relating to local government into a
single bill. [1]
Comments
If it's not consensus, it's not omnibus . SB 113 collects
28 noncontroversial changes to the state laws affecting
local agencies and land use into a single bill. Sending a
bill through the legislative process costs over $18,000.
By avoiding seven other bills, the Committee's measure
avoids over $475,000 in legislative costs. Although the
practice may violate a strict interpretation of the
single-subject and germaneness rules, the Committee insists
on a very public review of each item. More than 125 public
officials, trade groups, lobbyists, and legislative
staffers see each proposal before it goes into the
Committee's bill. Should any item in SB 113 attract
opposition, the Committee will delete it. In this
transparent process, there is no hidden agenda.
SB 113 -- 4/2/09 -- Page 18
Support and Opposition (4/9/09)
Support : State Controller John Chiang, State Treasurer
Bill Lockyer, American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees AFL-CIO, California Association of
County Treasurers and Tax Collectors, California
Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions,
California Association of Public Cemetery Districts,
California Special Districts Association, Butte County Air
Quality Management District, Contra Costa County Water
Agency, Counties of Los Angeles, Napa, and Sonoma; Friant
Water Authority, North Marin Water Agency, Sempra Energy,
Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission.
Opposition : Unknown.