BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 894|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: SB 894
Author: Senate Local Government Committee
Amended: 4/12/10
Vote: 21
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 5-0, 4/19/10
AYES: Cox, Aanestad, Kehoe, DeSaulnier, Price
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : Local Government Omnibus Act of 2010
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill, the Local Government Omnibus Act of
2010, proposes 20 changes to the state laws affecting local
agencies' powers and duties.
ANALYSIS : 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 (Committee) responds
by combining several of these minor topics into an annual
"omnibus bill." For example, SB 113 (Senate Local
Government Committee), Chapter 332, Statutes of 2009, the
CONTINUED
SB 894
Page
2
Committee's omnibus bill, 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.
This bill, 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 Section 66030, et seq., added by SB 517
(Bergeson), Chapter 300, Statutes of 1994). A judge can
invite the litigants to use a mediator to resolve their
case before it goes to trial (Government Code Section
66031 [d]). Judges can use these mediation procedures
for lawsuits that affect 10 specified statutes
(Government Code Section 66031 [a]):
A. Development projects.
B. California Environmental Quality Act decisions.
C. Time limits in the Permit Streamlining Act or
Subdivision Map Act.
D. School districts' developer fees.
E. Developer fees.
F. The adequacy of general plans or specific plans.
G. Local agency formation commission decisions.
H. The adoption or amendments of redevelopment
plans.
I. Zoning decisions.
J. 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. This bill
inserts the statutory cross-reference to the existing land
CONTINUED
SB 894
Page
3
use and environmental dispute mediation law in each of the
affected statutes. This bill also corrects the references
to the existing laws that describe school districts'
developer fees and the Mitigation Fee Act. The changes in
this bill 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:
A. Section 2 School fees (Education Code Section
17624.5).
B. Section 18 Local Agency Formation Commission
decisions (Government Code Section 56103.5).
C. Section 20 General and specific plans (Government
Code Section 65107).
D. Section 21 Zoning (Government Code Section 65801).
E. Section 22 Permit Streamlining Act (Government
Code Section 65920).
F. Section 23 Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code
Section 66000.5).
G. Section 24 Mediation law clean-up (Government Code
Section 66031).
H. Section 25 Subdivision Map Act (Government Code
Section 66499.38).
I. Section 27 Redevelopment plans (Health & Safety
Code Section 33501.9).
J. Section 37 California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21167.9).
K. Section 38 Airport land use commissions (Public
Utilities Code Section 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. The Commission on State Mandates
(Commission) 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 Section 17600). In 2007, the
CONTINUED
SB 894
Page
4
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), Chapter 329, Statutes of
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. This bill 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. [Section 2.5]
3. Fresno and Merced counties' boundaries . The state
statutes recite the official boundary descriptions of
all 58 counties (Government Code Sections 23101-23158).
State law also allows counties to adjust their mutual
boundaries (Government Code Section 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. SB 1326 (Senate Local Government
Committee), Chapter 454, Statutes of 2002, corrected the
counties' statutory boundary descriptions. 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 Section
23110 & Section 23124) to match the new legal reality.
This bill amends the statutory boundary descriptions for
Fresno County and Merced County to conform to the
counties' current boundaries. [Sections 3 & 4]
4. Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) and & Community
CONTINUED
SB 894
Page
5
Services Districts (CSD) . MAC is an appointed or
elected body that advises county supervisors on topics
that affect an unincorporated community (Government Code
Section 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 Section 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
Section 31010.5; added by SB 767, [Senate Local
Government Committee], Chapter 1226, Statutes of 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 Section 5784 [d]; added by SB 707 [Senate Local
Government Committee], Chapter 15, Statutes of 2001).
In 2005, when the Legislature revised the state laws
that govern CSDs, it also declared that service on a CSD
board was not incompatible with serving on a MAC
(Government Code Section 61040 [d]; added by SB 135
[Kehoe], Chapter 249, Statutes of 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. This bill adds community services
districts to the statute that declares that service on a
municipal advisory council is not an incompatible
office. [Section 5]
5. Gender-specific city council references . All general
law cities have city councils with at least five members
(Government Code Section 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 Section 36815; amended
by SB 1685 [Bergeson], Chapter 982, Statutes of 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
CONTINUED
SB 894
Page
6
laws that refer to city councilmembers. This bill
changes the statutory references to city "councilman"
and "councilmen" to city "councilmember" and
"councilmembers." See these sections of the bill:
A. Section 6 Government Code Section 31479.1.
B. Section 7 Government Code Section 34873.
C. Section 8 Government Code Section 34875.
D. Section 9 Government Code Section 34900.
E. Section 10Government Code Section 34901.
F. Section 11 Government Code Section 36508.
G. Section 12 Government Code Section 36511.
H. Section 13 Government Code Section 36515.
I. Section 14 Government Code Section 36516.1.
J. Section 15 Government Code Section 36516.5.
K. Section 16 Government Code Section 36804.
L. Section 17 Government Code Section 36811.
M. Section17.5 Government Code Section 50271.
N. Section 19 Government Code Section 65063.7.
O. Section 28 Health & Safety Code Section 40225.
P. Section 29 Health & Safety Code Section 40326.
6. Health care districts' assets . The Local Health Care
District Law (Health & Safety Code Section 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 Section 32121 [p], added by SB
2012 [Maddy], Chapter 1594, Statutes of 1982). In 1992,
the Legislature required health care districts to get
majority-voter approval before transferring 50 percent
or more of their assets to nonprofit corporations (SB
1771 [Russell & Kopp], Chapter 1359, Statutes of 1992).
In 1998, the Legislature required health care districts
to get majority-voter approval before transferring or
leasing 50 percent 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 Section 32121 [p] & Section 32126,
amended by SB 460 [Kelley], Chapter 18, Statutes of
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
CONTINUED
SB 894
Page
7
should be permanent (SB 1508 [Figueroa], Chapter 169,
Statutes of 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. This
bill makes permanent the requirement that healthcare
districts get majority-voter approval before they
transfer or lease 50 percent or more of their assets to
corporations. Specifically, this bill deletes the
sunset clauses in Sections 32121 & 32126, and repeals
the outdated versions of Section 32121 and Section
32126. [Sections 25.1, Section 25.3, Section 25.5, and
Section 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 Section 33080.2). In 2003, the
Legislature changed this term to "major audit violation"
(Health & Safety Code Section 33080.8 [j]; amended by SB
109 [Torlakson], Chapter 318, Statutes of 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. This bill 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. [Section 26]
8. Redevelopment spending outside project areas . The
Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code
Section 33000, et seq.) allows redevelopment officials
to pay for public works projects inside redevelopment
project areas (Health & Safety Code Section 33445).
Before they can pay for public works that are located
outside project areas, officials must make five findings
(Health & Safety Code Section 33445.1, added by SB 93
[Kehoe], Chapter 555, Statutes of 2009). These new
CONTINUED
SB 894
Page
8
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. This bill
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). [Section
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 Section 40000,
et seq.). Each county's APCD appoints an air pollution
control officer (APCO) who in turn appoints the APCD's
personnel (Health & Safety Code Section 40750 & Section
40751). Formally appointed deputies have general
statutory authority to perform their superiors' powers
(Health & Safety Code Section 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 Sections
40481, 41261, & 41351). County officials want the
Legislature to give APCOs the explicit statutory
authority to appoint deputies, subject to the APCD
boards' direction. This bill allows air pollution
control officers to appoint deputies. [Section 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
CONTINUED
SB 894
Page
9
vector control agency that has a cooperative agreement
with the State Department of Health Services, or consult
directly with the Department (Health & Safety Code
Section 116183, added by AB 1454 [Canciamilla], Chapter
41, Statutes of 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], Chapter
709, Statutes of 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. This bill 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. [Section
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
Section 117065). The East Bay Municipal Utility
District (EBMUD) operates seven drinking 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 Section 11910 and Water Code
Section 31027. Also see Public Utilities Code Section
11938 and Water Code Section 31027; as amended by SB
113, Senate Local Government Committee, 2009). Instead
of publishing the full text of changes to its reservoir
rules and regulations, the EBMUD wants the Legislature
to allow public agencies to publish summaries of the
changes. This bill allows public agencies to publish
CONTINUED
SB 894
Page
10
summaries of the changes to their watershed rules and
regulations for reservoirs. [Section 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 Section 20120, et seq.). The
county board of supervisors must approve changes to
these contracts by a 4/5 vote (Public Contract Code
Section 20137), however, the county supervisors can
delegate this authority to the county engineer or other
county officer (Public Contract Code Section 20142).
For a contract worth more than $250,000, the change
order can't be more than $25,000, plus five percent of
the amount over $250,000. In no event can the change
order be more than $150,000 (Public Contract Code
Section 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], Chapter 215, Statutes of 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. This bill raises
the limit on change orders for public works contracts
that county supervisors delegate to county officials
from $150,000 to $210,000. [Section 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 Section
20400, et seq.). The county board of supervisors must
approve changes to these contracts by a 4/5 vote (Public
Contract Code Section 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 Section 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
CONTINUED
SB 894
Page
11
same thresholds as change orders for other county. This
bill allows county boards of supervisors to delegate
their authority to approve change orders on county
bridge and subway construction contracts to county
officers:
A. For contracts of $50,000 or less, the maximum
amount is $5,000.
B. For contracts worth between $50,000 and
$250,000, the maximum amount is $25,000.
C. For contracts worth more than $250,000, the
maximum amount is $25,000 plus five percent of the
amount over $250,000. In no event can the change
order be more than $210,000. [Section 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
Section 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 Section 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 Section 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. This bill 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:
A. For contracts of $50,000 or less, the maximum
amount is $5,000.
CONTINUED
SB 894
Page
12
B. For contracts worth between $50,000 and
$250,000, the maximum amount is $25,000.
C. For contracts worth more than $250,000, the
maximum amount is $25,000 plus five percent of the
amount over $250,000. In no event can the change
order be more than $210,000. [Section 33]
15. Redevelopment agencies' design-build cross-reference .
Redevelopment agencies can use the design-build
contracting method until January 1, 2016 (Public
Contract Code Section 20688.6; added by SB 4XX
[Cogdill], Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009). In describing
the public works projects to which the language applies,
the statute incorrectly cites Health & Safety Code
Section 33455 instead of Section 33445. Also, the
Legislature created a new provision for public works
projects outside redevelopment project areas (Health &
Safety Code Section 33445.1, added by SB 93 [Kehoe],
Chapter 555, Statutes of 2009), but current law doesn't
recognize the new provision. The Committee's staff
wants the Legislature to correct these statutory
cross-references. This bill corrects the statutory
cross-references in the state law that allows
redevelopment agencies to use the design-build
contracting method. [Section 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 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
CONTINUED
SB 894
Page
13
change orders for county construction contracts. This
bill 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:
A. For contracts of $50,000 or less, the maximum
amount is $5,000.
B. For contracts worth between $50,000 and
$250,000, the maximum amount is $25,000.
C. For contracts worth more than $250,000, the
maximum amount is $25,000 plus five percent of the
amount over $250,000. In no event can the change
order be more than $210,000. [Section 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 Section 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 Section 99.02, originally added by AB 241
[McClintock], Chapter 1204, Statutes of 1985 and
recodified by AB 3347 [Gotch], Chapter 1167, Statutes of
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. This bill
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. [Section 37.5]
18. Publishing California water districts' regulations .
CONTINUED
SB 894
Page
14
California water districts can adopt "equitable rules
and regulations" that govern the sale and distribution
of water (Water Code Section 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 Section 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
Section 11910 and Water Code Section 31027. Also see
Public Utilities Code Section 11938 and Water Code
Section 31027, as amended by SB 113 [Senate Local
Government Committee], Chapter 332, Statutes of 2009).
Instead of publishing the full text of its amended water
rules and regulations, the Irvine Ranch Water District
wants the Legislature to allow California water
districts to publish summaries. This bill allows
California water districts to publish summaries of the
changes to their water rules and regulations. [Section
38]
19. Reclamation districts' seals . State law recognizes
public agencies' seals as formal signs of executing
documents (Code of Civil Procedure Sections 14, 1930, &
1931). State law allows many types of special districts
to adopt and alter official seals. For example,
community services districts (Government Code Section
61060 [i]), mosquito and vector control districts
(Health & Safety Code Section 2040 [j]), and county
water districts (Water Code Section 31003) can adopt and
alter seals. A reclamation district must adopt a seal
which contains its number and its county's name (Water
Code Section 50655). All reclamation district documents
that require the board of trustees' approval need the
district's seal (Water Code Section 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. This bill allows
rather than requires a reclamation district to adopt and
alter a seal. This bill requires reclamation districts'
CONTINUED
SB 894
Page
15
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.
[Section 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 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. This bill 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. [Section 41]
21. Legislative declarations . This bill expresses the
Legislature's intent to cut costs by combining several
noncontroversial items relating to local government into
a single bill. [Section 1]
Comments
This bill 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
CONTINUED
SB 894
Page
16
the Committee's bill. Should any item in this bill attract
opposition, the Committee will delete it. In this
transparent process, there is no hidden agenda.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/3/10)
Association of California Water Agencies
California Central Valley Flood Control Association
California Redevelopment Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
Commission on State Mandates
Counties of Fresno, Los Angeles, Merced
Irvine Ranch Water District
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California
Washington Hospital Healthcare System
AGB:do 5/4/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED