BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 894| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 894 Author: Senate Local Government Committee Amended: 6/7/10 Vote: 21 SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 5-0, 4/19/10 AYES: Cox, Aanestad, Kehoe, DeSaulnier, Price SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8 SENATE FLOOR : 30-0, 5/10/10 AYES: Aanestad, Alquist, Ashburn, Calderon, Cedillo, Cogdill, Correa, Cox, DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Florez, Hancock, Hollingsworth, Huff, Kehoe, Leno, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Romero, Runner, Simitian, Steinberg, Walters, Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee NO VOTE RECORDED: Corbett, Denham, Dutton, Harman, Liu, Oropeza, Strickland, Wiggins, Vacancy, Vacancy SUBJECT : Local Government Omnibus Act of 2010 SOURCE : Author DIGEST : This bill, the Local Government Omnibus Act of 2010 proposes 24 changes to the state laws affecting local agencies powers and duties. Assembly Amendments add four more minor noncontroversial changes dealing with city boundary lawsuits, county boundary lawsuits, securitized limited obligation notes and CONTINUED SB 894 Page 2 Permit Streamlining Act clean up. 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 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. City boundary lawsuits . The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (Act) of 2000 controls cities' boundaries, including the incorporation of new cities, city annexations, and city consolidations (Government Code Section 56000, et seq.). The Act explains that any lawsuits challenging boundary changes must be filed under the standard Code of Civil Procedure methods which set a 60-day statute of limitations (Government Code Section 56103). However, the Senate Local Government Committee's staff notes that an older, separate provision in the Code of Civil Procedure sets a 90-day statute of limitations for filing lawsuits that challenge city in-corporations, annexations, and consolidations (Code of Civil Procedure Section 349). The last time that the Legislature amended that section was 1957; it appears to have been forgotten when legislators rewrote the city boundary laws in 1977, 1985, and 2000. To avoid confusion over two different SB 894 Page 3 deadlines, the Senate Local Government Committee's staff wants the Legislature to repeal the contradictory provision in the Code of Civil Procedure. This bill repeals the outdated deadline for filing lawsuits affecting city incorporations, annexations, and consolidations. [Section 1.3] 2. 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 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 SB 894 Page 4 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). 3 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 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 SB 894 Page 5 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] 4. 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] 5. County boundary lawsuits . State law spells out the procedures for changing county boundaries, either as minor boundary changes (Government Code Section 23200, et seq.), boundary changes (Government Code Section 23230, et seq.). State law also spells out the procedures for forming new counties (Government Code 23300, et seq.) and for consolidating counties SB 894 Page 6 (Government Code 23500, et seq.). Unlike the statute that controls boundary changes for cities and special districts (Government Code 56103), state law doesn't set a deadline for filing lawsuits to challenge county boundary changes, formations, and consolidations. The standard statute of limitations for lawsuits that challenge government decisions is 60 days (Code of Civil Procedure Section 860, et seq.). The Senate Local Government Committee's staff wants the Legislature to apply the standard statute of limitations to lawsuits that challenge county boundary changes, formations, and consolidations. This bill requires lawsuits that challenge county boundary changes, formations, and consolidations to follow the standard procedures and deadlines for lawsuits that challenge government decisions. [Section 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, & 4.7] 6. Securitized limited obligation notes (SLON) cross-references . The California Constitution prevents counties and cities from creating multi-year general obligation debt without 2/3-voter approval. Because this constitutional ban doesn't mention special districts, the Legislature has allowed some districts to borrow money without voter approval by issuing "promissory notes." Special districts' promissory notes are not backed by a guaranteed source of revenue. This lack of security makes them a relatively risky investment which drives up their borrowing costs. Because promissory notes do not require voter approval, they are attractive financing tools. In 1994, as a more secure and less expensive alternative to potentially risky promissory notes, the Legislature allowed all special districts to issue SLONs (Government Code Section 53835, et seq., added by SB 1770, Senate Local Government Committee, 1994). SLONs are like promissory notes in that they don't require voter approval, but a special district must secure its SLONs by pledging a dedicated stream of revenues. It takes a 4/5 vote of a district's governing board to issue SLONs. The authority for districts to issue SLONs sunsets on December 31, 2014 (SB 1124, Senate Local Government Committee, 2008). Although the SLON law applies to all special districts, none of the districts' principal acts contains cross-references to the SLON statute. An SB 894 Page 7 experienced public law attorney wants the Legislature to cross-reference the SLON law in the special district statutes that list the districts' short-term borrowing powers. This bill inserts references to the SLON law in the special district statutes that list the districts' short-term borrowing powers: A. Government Code Section 25214.2 for County Service Areas. [Section 4.9] B. Government Code Section 61116 for Community Services Districts. [Section 18.5] C. Health & Safety Code Section 2074 for Mosquito Abatement Districts. [Section 25.1] D. Health & Safety Code Section 9074 for Public Cemetery Districts. [Section 25.2] E. Health & Safety Code Section 13897 for Fire Protection Districts. [Section 25.3] F. Health & Safety Code Section 40526 for the South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. [Section 29.3] G. Public Resources Code Section 5788.17 for Recreation and Park Districts. [Section 35.5] H. Public Utilities Code Section 29236 for the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. [Section 37.3] This bill says that this cross references is declaratory of existing law. [Section 42] 7. Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) and & Community 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 SB 894 Page 8 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] 8. 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 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. SB 894 Page 9 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. 9. 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 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 SB 894 Page 10 Section 25.7] 10. Permit Streamlining Act clean-up . More than 30 years ago, the Legislature passed the Permit Streamlining Act (Act) after the Dow Chemical Company dropped its plans to build a plant in Solano County. Once a public agency receives a development permit application, officials have 30 days to determine if it's complete. If the application isn't complete, the agency must explain what's missing. If the agency fails to determine an application's completeness, the Act declares that the application is deemed complete (Government Code Section 65943). The Act also sets deadlines for public officials to act on development permit applications (Government Code Sections 65950 & 65952). For applications pending when the Legislature passed the Act, those time limits are measured from January 1, 1978 (Government Code Section 65924). The Senate Local Government Committee's staff notes that this 33-year old section is obsolete and wants the Legislature to repeal it. This bill repeals the outdated time limits in the Permit Streamlining Act. [Section 22.5] 11. 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] 12. 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 SB 894 Page 11 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 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] 13. 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] SB 894 Page 12 14. 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 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] 15. 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 SB 894 Page 13 113, 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 summaries of the changes to their watershed rules and regulations for reservoirs. [Section 30] 16. 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] 17. 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 SB 894 Page 14 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. 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] 18. 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 SB 894 Page 15 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 33] 19. 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] 20. 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 SB 894 Page 16 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 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] 21. 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 SB 894 Page 17 voluntarily transfer property tax revenues by inserting language suggested by an Attorney General's opinion, and using consistent statutory terms. [Section 37.5] 22. Publishing California water districts' regulations . 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] 23. 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 SB 894 Page 18 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' 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] 24. 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] 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. SB 894 Page 19 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 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 8/12/10) 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 East Bay Municipal Utility District Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Irvine Ranch Water District Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District South Coast Air Quality Management District Washington Hospital Healthcare System AGB:do 8/17/10 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****