BILL ANALYSIS SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE Senator Dave Cox, Chair BILL NO: SB 894 HEARING: 4/19/10 AUTHOR: Committee on Local GovernmentFISCAL: Yes VERSION: 4/12/10 CONSULTANT: Detwiler LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMNIBUS ACT OF 2010 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 2009 omnibus bill was SB 113 which contained 39 noncontroversial statutory changes, avoiding about $700,000 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 Senate Bill 894, the "Local Government Omnibus Act of 2010," proposes 20 changes to the state laws affecting local agencies' powers and duties: 1. Land use mediation law clean-up . Judges can resolve land use and environmental lawsuits through mediation (Government Code 66030, et seq., added by SB 517, Bergeson, 1994). A judge can invite the litigants to use a mediator to resolve their case before it goes to trial (Government Code 66031 [d]). Judges can use these mediation procedures for lawsuits that affect 10 specified statutes (Government Code 66031 [a]): Development projects. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) SB 894 -- 4/12/10 -- Page 2 decisions. Time limits in the Permit Streamlining Act or Subdivision Map Act. School districts' developer fees. Developer fees. The adequacy of general plans or specific plans. Local agency formation commission (LAFCO) decisions. The adoption or amendments of redevelopment plans. Zoning decisions. Airport land use decisions. Although no one keeps track, practitioners say that judges don't use these mediation procedures very often. The Committee's staff believes that one reason that judges may not use the law is that the authority appears only in a general statutory location and not in each of the affected laws. The Committee's staff wants the Legislature to insert a cross-reference to the existing mediation procedures in each of the affected statutes. Senate Bill 894 inserts the statutory cross-reference to the existing land use and environmental dispute mediation law in each of the affected statutes. SB 894 also corrects the references to the existing laws that describe school districts' developer fees and the Mitigation Fee Act. The changes in SB 894 are consistent with current law and do not change state policies or result in new state-mandated local programs. See these sections of the bill: 2 School fees (Education Code 17624.5) 18 LAFCO decisions (Government Code 56103.5) 20 General and specific plans (Government Code 65107) 21 Zoning (Government Code 65801) 22 Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code 65920) 23 Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code 66000.5) 24 Mediation law clean-up (Government Code 66031) 25 Subdivision Map Act (Government Code 66499.38) 27 Redevelopment plans (Health & Safety Code 33501.9) 37 CEQA (Public Resources Code 21167.9) 38 Airport land use commissions (Public Utilities Code 21670.6). 2. Commission on State Mandates reports . The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the cost of new programs or higher levels of service mandated by the Legislature or any state agency. SB 894 -- 4/12/10 -- Page 3 The Commission on State Mandates is a quasi-judicial body which decides test claims for reimbursable state-mandates. If the Commission identifies a state-mandated program, it adopts parameters and guidelines defining what activities will be reimbursed, and adopts statewide cost estimates. The Commission reports to the Legislature semiannually on the status of state-mandate claims (Government Code 17600). In 2007, the Legislature allowed the State Department of Finance and local governments to use alternative processes to resolve claims and parameters and guidelines for state mandates (AB 1222, Laird, 2007). In October 2009, the California State Auditor questioned why public officials weren't using these alternative processes (Report 2009-501). The State Auditor recommended that the Commission on State Mandates add additional information in its semiannual report about the status of these alternative measures and any delays. The Commission agrees and wants the Legislature to require this information in the semiannual reports. Senate Bill 894 requires the Commission on State Mandates to include more information in its semiannual reports to the Legislature, specifically explaining the use of alternative processes and any delays. [2.5] 3. Fresno and Merced counties' boundaries . The state statutes recite the official boundary descriptions of all 58 counties (Government Code 23101-23158). State law also allows counties to adjust their mutual boundaries (Government Code 23200, et seq.). After counties use this procedure they ask the Legislature to revise their statutory boundary descriptions to match the new realities. For example, Kern and Los Angeles county officials used this procedure in 2000 when property owners asked to transfer about 1,000 acres near the Tejon Pass from Los Angeles County to Kern County. The Legislature then corrected the counties' statutory boundary descriptions (SB 1326, Senate Local Government Committee, 2002). In 2007, Fresno and Merced county officials used the same procedures to shift 4,175 acres from Fresno County to Merced County near the City of Dos Palos. The county boundary changes took effect on January 1, 2008 and county officials want the Legislature to conform their statutory boundary descriptions (Government Code 23110 & 23124) to match the new legal reality. Senate Bill 894 amends the statutory boundary descriptions for Fresno County and Merced County to conform to the counties' current boundaries. [3 & 4] SB 894 -- 4/12/10 -- Page 4 4. MACs & CSDs . A municipal advisory council (MAC) is an appointed or elected body that advises county supervisors on topics that affect an unincorporated community (Government Code 31010). State law prohibits public officials from holding incompatible offices, with exceptions. One exception is that state law may expressly authorize holding dual offices (Government Code 1099). In 1991, the Legislature expressly declared that service on a recreation and park district's board is not incompatible with service on a MAC (Government Code 31010.5; added by SB 767, Senate Local Government Committee, 1991). In 2001, the Legislature revised the state laws that govern park districts and restated the MAC exception in the Recreation and Park District Law (Public Resources Code 5784 [d]; added by SB 707, Senate Local Government Committee, 2001). In 2005, when the Legislature revised the state laws that govern community services districts (CSDs), it also declared that service on a CSD board was not incompatible with serving on a MAC (Government Code 61040 [d]; added by SB 135, Kehoe, 2005). However, the Legislature failed to make the parallel change in the MAC law. To avoid misunderstandings, the Committee's staff wants the Legislature to add CSDs to the list of special districts' boards that are not incompatible with serving on a MAC. Senate Bill 894 adds community services districts to the statute that declares that service on a municipal advisory council is not an incompatible office. [5] 5. Gender-specific city council references . All general law cities have city councils with at least five members (Government Code 36501 [a]). Although older statutes still refer to city councilmembers as "councilmen" or "councilwomen," state law makes it clear that any member of a city council can be called a "councilmember" (Government Code 36815; amended by SB 1685, Bergeson, 1986). Nevertheless, at least 16 older sections in the Government Code and the Health & Safety Code still use the terms "councilman" and "councilmen," or use the male pronoun "his." The Committee's staff wants the Legislature to use gender-neutral terms in the state laws that refer to city councilmembers. Senate Bill 894 changes the statutory references to city "councilman" and "councilmen" to city "councilmember" and "councilmembers." See these sections of the bill: 6 Government Code 31479.1 SB 894 -- 4/12/10 -- Page 5 7 Government Code 34873 8 Government Code 34875 9 Government Code 34900 10 Government Code 34901 11 Government Code 36508 12 Government Code 36511 13 Government Code 36515 14 Government Code 36516.1 15 Government Code 36516.5 16 Government Code 36804 17 Government Code 36811 17.5 Government Code 50271 19 Government Code 65063.7 28 Health & Safety Code 40225 29 Health & Safety Code 40326 6. Health care districts' assets . The Local Health Care District Law (Health & Safety Code 32000, et seq.) governs the 80 special districts which own and operate local public hospitals and clinics. In 1982, the Legislature authorized health care districts to transfer some of their assets to nonprofit corporations (Health & Safety Code 32121 [p], added by SB 2012, Maddy, 1982). In 1992, the Legislature required health care districts to get majority-voter approval before transferring 50% or more of their assets to nonprofit corporations (SB 1771, Russell & Kopp, 1992). In 1998, the Legislature required health care districts to get majority-voter approval before transferring or leasing 50% or more of their assets to any corporation at fair market value. That requirement would have automatically terminated on January 1, 2001 (Health & Safety Code 32121 [p] & 32126, amended by SB 460, Kelley, 1998). In 2000, the Legislature extended the sunset date to January 1, 2006, and directed the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to determine if the requirement should be permanent (SB 1508, Figueroa, 2000). A November 2004 LAO report concluded that after studying just one transfer from a district to a for-profit corporation, there was no basis to recommend a continuation of the requirement for voter approval. In 2005, the Legislature extended the sunset date to January 1, 2011 (AB 1131, Torrico, 2005). The Washington Township Healthcare District wants the Legislature to make the requirement permanent. Senate Bill 894 makes permanent the requirement that healthcare districts get majority-voter approval before they transfer or lease 50% or more of their assets to corporations. SB 894 -- 4/12/10 -- Page 6 Specifically, SB 894 deletes the sunset clauses in 32121 and 32126, and repeals the outdated versions of 32121 and 32126. [25.1, 25.3, 25.5, 25.7] 7. Redevelopment audit terms . When a redevelopment agency presents its annual report, including its annual independent financial audit report, to its underlying city council or county board of supervisors, the agency must explain any "major violations" that the auditor found (Health and Safety 33080.2). In 2003, the Legislature changed this term to "major audit violation" (Health & Safety Code 33080.8 [j]; amended by SB 109, Torlakson, 2003), but neglected to change all of the other references. To avoid confusion, the Committee's staff wants the Legislature to use the correct term. Senate Bill 894 changes statutory references to "major violations" to "major audit violations" in the state law that tells redevelopment agencies what to do with their annual reports. [26] 8. Redevelopment spending outside project areas . The Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code 33000, et seq.) allows redevelopment officials to pay for public works projects inside redevelopment project areas (Health & Safety Code 33445). Before they can pay for public works that are located outside project areas, officials must make five findings (Health & Safety Code 33445.1, added by SB 93, Kehoe, 2009). These new requirements took effect on January 1, 2010, but last year's Kehoe bill grandfathered public works projects with financing, construction, or installation underway. Redevelopment officials note, however, that state law doesn't explain that the grandfathered projects can still proceed under the former statute. They want the Legislature to clarify redevelopment law. Senate Bill 894 clarifies that when redevelopment officials pay for public works projects that are located outside a redevelopment project area, but were underway before the Legislature imposed the new requirements, they can proceed under the former statutory requirements. This language is already in SB 1287 (Ducheny, 2010). [26.5] 9. Air pollution control officers' deputies . State law governs the structure and powers of air pollution control districts (APCDs) and air quality management districts (AQMDs) (Health & Safety Code 40000, et seq.). Each SB 894 -- 4/12/10 -- Page 7 county's APCD appoints an air pollution control officer (APCO) who in turn appoints the APCD's personnel (Health & Safety Code 40750 & 40751). Formally appointed deputies have general statutory authority to perform their superiors' powers (Health & Safety Code 7). Citing Rauer v. Lowe (107 Cal. 229 [1885]), a 1987 Attorney General's opinion explained that a "government official may not appoint a deputy without appropriate legal authority" (70 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 250 [1987]). Although many APCOs designate deputies to carry out delegated duties, there is no explicit authority to appoint Deputy APCOs for APCDs. However, state law explicitly allows deputies for the South Coast AQMD, the Mojave Desert AQMD, the Antelope Valley AQMD (Health & Safety Code 40481, 41261, & 41351). County officials want the Legislature to give APCOs the explicit statutory authority to appoint deputies, subject to the APCD boards' direction. Senate Bill 894 allows air pollution control officers to appoint deputies. [29.5] 10. West Nile virus and intergovernmental cooperation . State law requires an agency that responds to an outbreak of West Nile virus or other mosquito-borne disease to either contract with a local mosquito and vector control agency that has a cooperative agreement with the State Department of Health Services, or consult directly with the Department (Health & Safety Code 116183, added by AB 1454, Canciamilla, 2004). This law would have automatically terminated on January 1, 2009, but the Legislature extended the sunset date to January 1, 2011 (SB 1124, Senate Local Government Committee, 2008). The Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California wants the Legislature to extend the sunset date for another year so that legislators will have more time to consider a permanent statute. Senate Bill 894 extends the sunset date from January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2012, for the state law that requires public agencies to work with the State Department of Health Services during an outbreak of West Nile virus or other mosquito-borne diseases. [29.7] 11. Publishing water reservoir rules . Public agencies (counties, cities, special districts) with water reservoirs that are used for fishing or recreation must publish their watershed rules and regulations at least once in a general circulation newspaper in the county where the reservoir is located (Health & Safety Code 117065). The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) operates seven drinking SB 894 -- 4/12/10 -- Page 8 water reservoirs, five of which are used for fishing and recreation; the reservoirs are in five different counties. Publishing the full text of EBMUD's watershed rules and regulations costs approximately $20,000 each time the District changes them, although it's not clear if public agencies must republish their rules and regulations when they're amended. Other statutory publishing requirements allow public officials to print only summaries of their ordinances when they change (See Public Utilities Code 11910 and Water Code 31027. Also see Public Utilities Code 11938 and Water Code 31027; as amended by SB 113, Senate Local Government Committee, 2008). Instead of publishing the full text of changes to its reservoir rules and regulations, the East Bay Municipal Utility District wants the Legislature to allow public agencies to publish summaries of the changes. Senate Bill 894 allows public agencies to publish summaries of the changes to their watershed rules and regulations for reservoirs. [30] 12. County public works contracts and change orders . State law spells out the competitive bidding procedures that counties follow when they issue public works contracts (Public Contract Code 20120, et seq.). The county board of supervisors must approve changes to these contracts by a 4/5 vote (Public Contract Code 20137), however, the county supervisors can delegate this authority to the county engineer or other county officer (Public Contract Code 20142). For a contract worth more than $250,000, the change order can't be more than $25,000, plus 5% of the amount over $250,000. In no event can the change order be more than $150,000 (Public Contract Code 20142 [b]). Los Angeles County officials note that inflation has eroded the purchasing power of the $150,000 limit since the Legislature last raised that amount (AB 683, Morrow, 1997). The equivalent of $150,000 in 1998 dollars would be $209,100 in 2009. They want the Legislature to increase the limit on counties' change orders. Senate Bill 894 raises the limit on change orders for public works contracts that county supervisors delegate to county officials from $150,000 to $210,000. [31] 13. County bridge contracts and change orders . State law spells out the competitive bidding procedures that counties follow when they issue contracts to build or alter bridges and subways (Public Contract Code 20400, et seq.). The county board of supervisors must approve changes to these SB 894 -- 4/12/10 -- Page 9 contracts by a 4/5 vote (Public Contract Code 20405 [c]). Los Angeles County officials note that unlike the laws governing other county public works contracts, this statute doesn't allow the county supervisors to delegate the authority to approve change orders to county officials (see Public Contract Code 20142). Taking individual change orders to the county board of supervisors is time-consuming and increases the costs of bridge projects. They want the Legislature to allow county boards of supervisors to delegate change orders for bridge and subway construction contracts, following the same thresholds as change orders for other county. Senate Bill 894 allows county boards of supervisors to delegate their authority to approve change orders on county bridge and subway construction contracts to county officers: For contracts of $50,000 or less, the maximum amount is $5,000. For contracts worth between $50,000 and $250,000, the maximum amount is $25,000. For contracts worth more than $250,000, the maximum amount is $25,000 plus 5% of the amount over $250,000. In no event can the change order be more than $210,000. [32] 14. County waterworks districts' contracts and change orders . The County Waterworks District Law says that a county board of supervisors is the ex officio governing board of a county waterworks district (Water Code 55000, et seq.). State law spells out the competitive bidding procedures that county waterworks districts follow when they issue contracts to build water facilities (Public Contract Code 20600, et seq.). Los Angeles County officials note that unlike the laws governing county public works contracts, this statute doesn't allow the county supervisors to approve changes to county waterworks districts' contracts or to delegate the authority to approve change orders to county officials (Public Contract Code 20142). They want the Legislature to allow county boards of supervisors to delegate change orders for construction contracts, using the same thresholds as change orders for county construction contracts. Senate Bill 894 allows a county board of supervisors, acting as a county waterworks district's governing board, to delegate to the district manager or other district official the authority to approve change orders on construction contracts: For contracts of $50,000 or less, the maximum SB 894 -- 4/12/10 -- Page 10 amount is $5,000. For contracts worth between $50,000 and $250,000, the maximum amount is $25,000. For contracts worth more than $250,000, the maximum amount is $25,000 plus 5% of the amount over $250,000. In no event can the change order be more than $210,000. [33] 15. Redevelopment agencies' design-build cross-reference . Redevelopment agencies can use the design-build contracting method until January 1, 2016 (Public Contract Code 20688.6; added by SB 4xx, Cogdill, 2009). In describing the public works projects to which the language applies, the statute incorrectly cites Health & Safety Code 33455 instead of 33445. Also, the Legislature created a new provision for public works projects outside redevelopment project areas (Health & Safety Code 33445.1, added by SB 93, Kehoe, 2009), but current law doesn't recognize the new provision. The Committee's staff wants the Legislature to correct these statutory cross-references. Senate Bill 894 corrects the statutory cross-references in the state law that allows redevelopment agencies to use the design-build contracting method. [34] 16. Los Angeles County Flood Control District's contracts and change orders . The Los Angeles County Flood Control District Act says that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is the District's ex officio governing board (Water Code Appendix 28-1, et seq.). State law spells out the competitive bidding procedures that the District follows when they issue contracts to build water facilities (Public Contract Code 20990, et seq.). Los Angeles County officials note that unlike the laws governing county public works contracts, this statute doesn't allow the county supervisors to approve changes to the District's contracts or to delegate the authority to approve change orders to county officials (see Public Contract Code 20142). They want the Legislature to allow the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to delegate change orders for the District's construction contracts, using the same thresholds as change orders for county construction contracts. Senate Bill 894 allows the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to delegate to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District's chief engineer or other District officer the authority to approve change orders on construction contracts: For contracts of $50,000 or less, the maximum SB 894 -- 4/12/10 -- Page 11 amount is $5,000. For contracts worth between $50,000 and $250,000, the maximum amount is $25,000. For contracts worth more than $250,000, the maximum amount is $25,000 plus 5% of the amount over $250,000. In no event can the change order be more than $210,000. [35] 17. Property tax transfer clarification . Complex state laws spell out how county officials must allocate property tax revenues to counties, cities, special districts, and school districts (Revenue & Taxation Code 95, et seq.). Local officials can agree among themselves to reallocate property tax revenues, transferring revenue from one local agency to one or more other agencies, provided that four conditions exist (Revenue & Taxation Code 99.02, originally added by AB 241, McClintock, 1985 and recodified by AB 3347, Gotch, 1994). The second condition is that the transfer won't increase the ratio between the transferring agency's user charges and the revenues that the agency uses to pay for services. When interpreting this language, a 2006 Attorney General's opinion noted that words were missing from the description (89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 14 [05-809]). An attorney who works on local government topics wants the Legislature to insert the missing words identified in the Attorney General's opinion. Senate Bill 894 clarifies the state law which permits local agencies to voluntarily transfer property tax revenues by inserting language suggested by an Attorney General's opinion, and using consistent statutory terms. [37.5] 18. Publishing California water districts' regulations . California water districts can adopt "equitable rules and regulations" that govern the sale and distribution of water (Water Code 35423). After they publish these rules and regulations once a week for two weeks in a general circulation newspaper, they can enforce the regulations (Water Code 35424). The Irvine Ranch Water District says that it costs between $10,000 and $20,000 to publish its lengthy rules and regulations. Other statutory publishing requirements allow public officials to print only summaries of their ordinances when they change (See Public Utilities Code 11910 and Water Code 31027. Also see Public Utilities Code 11938 and Water Code 31027, as amended by SB 113, Senate Local Government Committee, 2009). Instead of publishing the full text of its amended water rules and SB 894 -- 4/12/10 -- Page 12 regulations, the Irvine Ranch Water District wants the Legislature to allow California water districts to publish summaries. Senate Bill 894 allows California water districts to publish summaries of the changes to their water rules and regulations. [38] 19. Reclamation districts' seals . State law recognizes public agencies' seals as formal signs of executing documents (Code of Civil Procedure 14, 1930, & 1931). State law allows many types of special districts to adopt and alter official seals. For example, community services districts (Government Code 61060 [i]), mosquito and vector control districts (Health & Safety Code 2040 [j]), and county water districts (Water Code 31003) can adopt and alter seals. A reclamation district must adopt a seal which contains its number and its county's name (Water Code 50655). All reclamation district documents that require the board of trustees' approval need the district's seal (Water Code 50656). The California Central Valley Flood Control Association says that requiring seals on reclamation districts' documents is antiquated. Instead, the Association wants the Legislature to require that a district trustee or the board secretary sign these documents. Senate Bill 894 allows rather than requires a reclamation district to adopt and alter a seal. SB 894 requires reclamation districts' documents that need the board of trustee's approval to be signed by either a district trustee or the board's secretary, instead of requiring the district's seal. [39 & 40] 20. North Delta Water Agency's elections . Formed in 1973 as one of the three successors to the Delta Water Agency, the North Delta Water Agency operates under its own special act (Water Code Appendix 115-1, et seq.). The Agency's voters are landowners within its boundaries and each landowner gets one vote for every acre owned (Water Code Appendix 115-1.3 [i] & 115-2.2). The Agency's principal act says that the board of directors has five members, one from each of the Agency's divisions. Each board member must be a property owner or a property owner's legal representative within the division that the member represents (Water Code 115-3.2). The Agency's general manager notes that the statute is unclear about which voters elect the board members. The Agency wants the Legislature to clarify that only the voters in a division elect the board member who represents that division. SB 894 -- 4/12/10 -- Page 13 Senate Bill 894 clarifies that the North Delta Water Agency's board members are elected by divisions, elected only by the voters of each division and not at-large. [41] 21. Legislative declarations . Senate Bill 894 expresses the Legislature's intent to cut costs by combining several noncontroversial items relating to local government into a single bill. [1] Comment If it's not consensus, it's not omnibus . SB 894 collects 20 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 19 other bills, the Committee's measure avoids over $300,000 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 894 attract opposition, the Committee will delete it. In this transparent process, there is no hidden agenda. Support and Opposition (4/15/10) Support : Association of California Water Agencies, California Redevelopment Association, California Central Valley Flood Control Association, California Special Districts Association, California State Association of Counties, Commission on State Mandates, Counties of Fresno, Los Angeles, Merced; East Bay Municipal Utility District, Irvine Ranch Water District, Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California, Washington Hospital Healthcare System, Alexandra M. Barnhill. Opposition : Unknown.