BILL ANALYSIS SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE Senator Patricia Wiggins, Chair BILL NO: SB 211 HEARING: 4/1/09 AUTHOR: Simitian FISCAL: No VERSION: 3/26/09 CONSULTANT: Detwiler SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Background and Existing Law Regional park and open space districts can sell bonds to acquire property by purchase or eminent domain. They can use general obligation bonds paid for by higher property tax rates that require 2/3-voter approval, Mello-Roos Act bonds paid for by special taxes (parcel taxes) that require 2/3-voter approval, and assessment bonds paid for by benefit assessments that require the property owners' approval with weighted-ballots. Some of these regional districts have their own directly-elected boards of directors; county supervisors govern others, ex officio. To form a new regional open space district, the proponents must first get approval from the local agency formation commission (LAFCO) and then circulate petitions which must be signed by at least 5,000 registered voters. A successful petition results in a public hearing by the county board of supervisors which can approve or disapprove the request to form the new district. If the county supervisors approve, then the matter goes to the ballot. Formation requires majority voter approval. In Santa Cruz County, four independent recreation and park districts and a county-run county service area provide park services in the unincorporated communities outside the County's four cities. Although mostly in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District also overlaps a small corner of Santa Cruz County. Open space advocates in Santa Cruz County want to form a countywide regional open space district with a directly-elected board of directors. Looking to the statutory precedents created for other counties, they want permission to expedite the proposed district's formation. Proposed Law SB 211 -- 3/26/09 -- Page 2 Senate Bill 211 allows the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors to initiate the formation of a regional park and open space district with boundaries that are coterminous with the County, except for territory within the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The county supervisors can hold a public hearing, adopt a resolution, and call the election in lieu of the usual petitions and local agency formation commission hearings and decisions. SB 211 requires the county supervisors' resolution to: Name the district and explain the reasons for its formation. Describe the district's financing methods. Specify that a directly-elected board of directors will run the district. Call the formation election. The bill allows the county supervisors to combine the formation election with other ballot measures to set the district's appropriations limit, levy special taxes, or authorize general obligation bonds. Comments 1. Small, but lovely . Although Santa Cruz County is California's second smallest county in area, its beaches, mountains, and rivers are among the prettiest. The County's agricultural land, forests, and remaining natural habitats are valuable natural resources. Although state and local parks protect some of these special areas, there is local interest in creating a strong and well-funded program to acquire and preserve more open space. SB 211 gives local voters the chance to set up an independent special district with that focus. Relying on similar legislative precedents for other counties, the bill allows Santa Cruz County officials to expedite the formation of a regional open space district. 2. Already within reach . Everything that SB 211 makes possible is already within reach of Santa Cruz County's voters and public officials. Current law already allows the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors to ask its voters to approve a countywide sales tax hike to pay for acquiring and managing more open space property. Current SB 211 -- 3/26/09 -- Page 3 law allows the county supervisors and county staff to run a countywide open space program, avoiding the creation of another independent special district with its own directly-elected board of directors and separate employees. Current law requires the county government to follow the land use policies in its own general plan when buying open space property, while a separate district would set its own acquisition priorities. The Committee may wish to consider whether legislators should encourage the creation of another local government when the county government already has these powers. 3. A hollow shell ? Irrational exuberance and SB 211 may create a new regional open space district that can't deliver on its promises. Although the bill lets the county supervisors combine the formation election with ballot measures to pay for acquiring open space, they don't have to. It's possible that the county supervisors will put only the formation, but not the financing, on the ballot. How will the new district pay for its operations, including hiring staff, setting acquisition priorities, and holding future elections? There may be local support for setting up a new open space district, but are the voters ready to pay for acquiring ranches, forests, and beaches? If legislators don't link governance and finance, they invite voters to create hollow shells --- institutions that look like they can deliver, but can't pay for their promises. The Committee may wish to consider an amendment that follows the recent state laws for setting up new community services districts and new county service areas: forming a new district is contingent on the voters' concurrent approval of the new district's revenues. 4. This land is your land . Counties' public works projects must be consistent with their own general plans. Likewise, when a special district buys property or builds public works, it must follow the general plan of the underlying county or city. However, if a county or city disapproves of a special district's land acquisition, the district can overrule the county or city's general plan. Similarly, with a 4/5-vote of its governing board, a special district can overrule a local zoning ordinance if the district's governing board finds that there are no feasible alternatives. An independent regional open space district in Santa Cruz County could use these current laws SB 211 -- 3/26/09 -- Page 4 to thwart the land use policies set by the city councils in Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville, in addition to the County's general plan for the unincorporated area. The Committee may wish to consider an amendment that requires the new regional open space district's acquisition program to follow the land use policies of the underlying general plans. 5. A silent watchdog . The courts call local agency formation commissions (LAFCOs) the Legislature's watchdogs over cities and districts' boundaries. The Legislature has delegated its inherent power to control local boundaries to the 58 LAFCOs, telling them to discourage urban sprawl, preserve open space and agricultural lands, provide efficient government services, and encourage orderly government --- all based on local conditions and circumstances. The Legislature has waived LAFCOs' control over some districts' boundaries, particularly when they are coterminous with the boundaries of a single county. SB 211 exempts the formation of the proposed Santa Cruz regional open space district from LAFCO's review. However, the proposed district would not be coterminous with the County's boundaries because the bill slices off the 765 acres that are already within the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's boundaries. The Midpeninsula District also owns the 800-acre Loma Prieta Ranch in Santa Cruz County, although that property is not yet within the District's existing boundaries. These detailed boundary questions may deserve the Santa Cruz LAFCO's careful review. The Committee may wish to consider whether the bill should exempt the formation of a noncontiguous regional open space district from LAFCO's review. 6. A smattering of precedents . The regional park and open space district law is the principal act for such well-known agencies as the East Bay Regional Parks District and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Starting in 1972, 10 special bills have allowed county supervisors to start formation proceedings for regional open space districts without the sponsors having to gather more than 5,000 signatures on petitions: Los Angeles SB 659 (Hill, 1991) Marin AB 2353 (Bagley, 1972) Napa SB 1306 (Thompson, 1992) Riverside SB 486 (Bergeson, 1989) SB 211 -- 3/26/09 -- Page 5 Sacramento SB 779 (Johnston, 1993) San Bernardino AB 775 (Eaves, 1990) Santa Barbara AB 1613 (Lempert, 2000) Sonoma AB 3630 (Filante, 1990) Ventura AB 1145 (Jackson, 2002) As the following table reports, these special bills usually required the regional open space districts to be coterminous with county boundaries, usually exempted their formations from LAFCO review because they would be coterminous, and usually required the county supervisors to govern the districts ex officio. The Legislature prohibited three independent districts from using the usual statutory power of eminent domain to condemn private property. Regional Open Space Districts With Special Legislation LAFCO ElectedEminent County Boundaries ? review ? board ? domain ? Los Angeles Coterminous ExemptSupervisorsYes Marin Coterminous ExemptSupervisorsYes Napa Coterminous Exempt YesProhibited Riverside Western part Yes SupervisorsYes Sacramento* Coterminous ExemptSupervisorsYes San Bernardino* Any territory YesSupervisors Yes San Diego* Coterminous ExemptSupervisorsYes SB 211 -- 3/26/09 -- Page 6 Santa Barbara* Any territory Yes YesProhibited Sonoma Coterminous ExemptSupervisorsYes Ventura* Any territory Yes Or appointed Prohibited - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Santa Cruz** Nearly ExemptYesYes coterminous * District never formed ** As proposed by SB 211 Support and Opposition (3/26/09) Support : Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees AFL-CIO, California Council of Land Trusts, County of Santa Cruz. Opposition : Unknown.