BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                      



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   SB 194|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                    CONSENT


          Bill No:  SB 194
          Author:   Senate Governance and Finance Committee
          Amended:  4/7/11
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE  :  9-0, 04/27/11
          AYES:  Wolk, Huff, DeSaulnier, Fuller, Hancock, Hernandez, 
            Kehoe, La Malfa, Liu


           SUBJECT  :    Local government:  omnibus bill

           SOURCE  :     Author


           DIGEST  :    This bill, the Local Government Omnibus Act of 
          2011, proposes 18 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.

          Legislators respond by combining several of these minor 
          topics into an annual "omnibus bill."  In 2010, for 
          example, the local government omnibus bill was SB 894, 
          Chapter 699 (Senate Local Government Committee) which 
          contained 20 noncontroversial statutory changes, avoiding 
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 194
                                                                Page 
          2

          about $350,000 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), it is 
          an expeditious and relatively inexpensive way to respond to 
          multiple requests.

          This bill, the "Local Government Omnibus Act of 2011," 
          proposes 18 changes to the state laws affecting local 
          agencies' powers and duties:

              1.   Repeal an obsolete library tax  .  In response to 
               library funding cuts and multiple library closures in 
               the late 1980s, the Legislature passed the Shasta 
               County Regional Library Facilities and Services Act 
               (Government Code Section 26170, et seq., added by AB 
               4083, Statham, 1990).  Shasta County officials could 
               create a new countywide commission to fund and 
               administer libraries.  This law became inoperative on 
               January 1, 1995 (Government Code Section 26170.24).  
               Subsequently, Shasta County received funding for a new 
               library through the California Reading and Literacy 
               Improvement and Public Library Construction and 
               Renovation Bond Act of 2000.  In 2006, Shasta County 
               and the City of Redding designated the City as the 
               operator of the Shasta Public Library System.  As a 
               result, the Committee's staff notes that the 1990 
               Statham bill's provisions for library funding and 
               administration are not only inoperative, but 
               unnecessary.  This bill repeals the Shasta County 
               Regional Library Facilities and Services Act. ŬSee 
               Section 1.5 of the bill.]

              2.   Delegation for unclaimed funds  .  Cities and 
               counties collect money for various services, programs, 
               and penalties.  Sometimes payments are inadvertently 
               more than the amount due, requiring local treasurers 
               to keep track of the unclaimed funds.  After three 
               years, a local treasurer can publish a notice of the 
               unclaimed funds and, if no one claims the money, it 
               becomes the local agency's property (Government Code 
               Section 50050 & Section 50052).  For amounts of less 
               than $15, the legislative body can transfer the money 
               to its general fund after a year, without publishing 







                                                                SB 194
                                                                Page 
          3

               notice (Government Code Section 50055).  A county 
               board of supervisors may authorize its county 
               treasurer to act on its behalf regarding unclaimed 
               items worth $1,000 or less, provided that the 
               treasurer informs the county auditor (Government Code 
               Section 50057, added by SB 1165, Senate Local 
               Government Committee, Chapter 118, Statutes of 2004).  
               The California Association of County Treasurers and 
               Tax Collectors requested the 2004 statute which allows 
               county supervisors to delegate these duties to county 
               treasurers.  However, the Association now believes 
               that the $1,000 ceiling is too low, requiring county 
               supervisors to act on small matters which could be 
               reliably delegated to the county treasurers.  The 
               Association wants the Legislature to raise the 
               ceiling.  This bill raises the statutory ceiling on 
               the amount of unclaimed funds that county supervisors 
               may delegate to county treasurers from $1,000 to 
               $5,000. ŬSection 2]
           
             3.   Investment of public funds  .  Since 1913, state law 
               has authorized local officials to invest a portion of 
               their temporarily idle funds in a variety of financial 
               instruments (Government Code Section 53601).  Among 
               those eligible investments are certificates of deposit 
               issued by a nationally or state-chartered bank, 
               savings associations, credit unions, or a 
               state-licensed branch of a foreign bank (Government 
               Code Section 53601 Ŭi]).  The California Association 
               of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors notes that 
               changes in banking regulations have resulted in the 
               establishment of federally chartered branches of 
               foreign banks ("Yankee banks"), but that state law 
               doesn't recognize those institutions' certificates of 
               deposit.  The Association wants the Legislature to 
               allow local officials to invest their funds in CDs 
               issued by federally chartered branches of foreign 
               banks.  This bill adds the federally chartered 
               branches of foreign banks to the list of financial 
               institutions whose certificates of deposit are 
               eligible for local agencies' investments. ŬSection 3]
           
             4.   Community services districts' governing boards  .  
               Community services districts (CSDs) can provide a wide 







                                                                SB 194
                                                                Page 
          4

               range of public services and facilities within their 
               boundaries (Government Code Section 61000, et seq.).  
               When the Legislature revised the CSD Law (SB 135, 
               Kehoe, Chapter 249, Statutes of 2005), it learned that 
               most of the 325 CSDs' governing boards had five 
               members, but a few districts still relied on 
               three-member boards of directors.  The revised CSD Law 
               required all of the districts to have five-member 
               boards and provided a transition rule for CSDs to 
               expand their boards by adding two more directors at 
               the next election after January 1, 2006 (Government 
               Code Section 61041).  Because that transition period 
               has expired, the Committee's staff wants the 
               Legislature to repeal the obsolete transition 
               language.  This bill repeals the obsolete section of 
               the Community Services District Law that requires the 
               districts to expand the membership of their boards of 
               directors. ŬSection 4]

              5.   Planning law cross-reference  .  Before a city or 
               county planning commission holds its public hearing on 
               the adoption or amendment of a general plan, local 
               officials must give public notice to the affected 
               property owners.  The statute refers to specific 
               procedural requirements (Government Code Section 
               65353).  In 2006, the Legislature expanded the notice 
               requirements for certain types of subdivisions which 
               consequently changed the format of Government Code 
               Section 65091, the section to which this public notice 
               requirement refers (AB 2867, Torrico, Chapter 363, 
               Statutes of 2006).  Planners note that these statutory 
               cross-references are no longer valid and they want the 
               Legislature to correct those errors.  This bill 
               corrects the erroneous statutory cross-references in 
               the law that requires planning commissions to give 
               notice of their public hearings on general plan 
               adoptions and amendments. ŬSection 5]
           
             6.   Subdivision clarification  .  The Subdivision Map Act 
               (Government Code Section 66410, et seq.) controls how 
               counties and cities approve requests to convert large 
               properties into marketable parcels.  When a major 
               subdivision creates five or more parcels, state law 
               requires a two-stage process involving both a 







                                                                SB 194
                                                                Page 
          5

               tentative map and a final map (Government Code Section 
               66426).  A minor subdivision with fewer parcels needs 
               only a parcel map, but local officials can require a 
               tentative parcel map and a final parcel map 
               (Government Code Section 66428).  Counting the number 
               of parcels determines if a proposed subdivision is a 
               major subdivision or a minor subdivision.  The Map Act 
               excludes certain types of divisions when counting 
               parcels.  For example, land conveyed to (or from) a 
               government agency, public entity, public utility, or 
               land conveyed to a subsidiary of a public utility for 
               conveyance to the public utility doesn't count as a 
               parcel (Government Code Section 66428 Ŭa]Ŭ2]).  
               Similar, but not identical, language appears in the 
               section relating to parcel maps.  This lack of 
               precision might result in confusion, according to an 
               assistant city attorney who specializes in land use 
               law.  He wants the Legislature to conform the language 
               in the parcel map section to the language in the 
               tentative map section.  This bill amends the exclusion 
               of parcels for major subdivisions to match the 
               language that excludes parcels for minor subdivisions. 
               ŬSection 6 & Section 7]
           
             7.   Subdivision improvements  .  Tentative subdivision 
               maps are usually good for 24 months.  However, if 
               local officials require a subdivider to spend $178,000 
               or more on off-site public works, state law extends 
               the life of the tentative map by another 36 months.  
               The Legislature set the original $125,000 threshold in 
               1989 and allowed the limit to increase each year by a 
               designated inflation rate (AB 1963, Cortese, 1989).  
               Each January, the State Allocation Board computes the 
               annual inflationary adjustment for the statewide cost 
               index for Class B construction (Government Code 
               Section 66452.6 Ŭa]).  In 2004, the Legislature reset 
               the statutory amount to reflect the State Allocation 
               Board's actions (SB 1165, Senate Local Government 
               Committee, Chapter 118, Statutes of 2004).  After more 
               annual changes, the threshold is now $236,790.  Some 
               builders say that it's hard to figure out the current 
               threshold because it requires knowing years of 
               inflation rates.  They want the Legislature to once 
               again recalibrate the statute.  This bill changes the 







                                                                SB 194
                                                                Page 
          6

               dollar limit that triggers a longer life for tentative 
               maps from $178,000 to $236,790, conforming the 
               statutory threshold to amount set by the State 
               Allocation Board in January 2011. ŬSection 7.5]
           
             8.   Map Act cross-reference  .  The Subdivision Map Act 
               (Government Code Section 66410, et seq.) controls how 
               counties and cities convert large properties into 
               marketable parcels.  The Map Act allows Orange County 
               and its cities to charge special subdivision fees to 
               pay for bridges and major thoroughfares (Government 
               Code Section 66484.3, added by AB 2431, Young, 1984).  
               That language refers to another statute governing 
               subdivision fees which the Legislature renumbered in 
               1986 (Government Code Section 53077.5 renumbered to 
               Section 66007 by AB 3314, Leonard, 1986).  The 
               Committee's staff wants the Legislature to correct 
               this erroneous statutory cross-reference.  This bill 
               corrects the erroneous statutory cross-reference in 
               the Map Act provision relating to special subdivision 
               fees for bridges and thoroughfares. ŬSection 8]
           
             9.   Sanitation districts' employees' cross-reference  .  
               The County Sanitation District Act governs the powers 
               and duties of more than 70 special districts (Health & 
               Safety Code Section 4700, et seq.).  The state laws 
               that prohibit state employees from engaging in 
               inconsistent or conflicting activities also apply to 
               county sanitation districts' employees (Health & 
               Safety Code Section 4768).  When the Legislature 
               codified the Governor's Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 
               1981, the bill renumbered the Government Code section 
               that prohibits those activities, but failed to correct 
               the cross-reference in the County Sanitation District 
               Act (former Government Code Section 19251 renumbered 
               to Section 19990 by SB 668, Dills, 1981).  A Los 
               Angeles County official wants the Legislature to 
               correct the cross-reference.  This bill corrects the 
               cross-reference in the County Sanitation District Act. 
               ŬSection 8.5]

              10.  Obsolete redevelopment "blight" definition  .  The 
               Community Redevelopment Law governs how local 
               officials can use redevelopment powers to eradicate 







                                                                SB 194
                                                                Page 
          7

               physical and economic blight (Health & Safety Code 
               Section 33000, et seq.).  Because the statutory 
               "blight" definition is crucial, the Legislature 
               defined and amended that term in 1993 and 2006 (Health 
               & Safety Code Section 33030 & Section 33031, amended 
               by AB 1290, Isenberg, 1993 and SB 1206, Kehoe, 2006).  
               However, a section adopted in 1963 still refers to 
               blight in temporary government-owned wartime housing 
               projects, presumably referring to World War II which 
               ended in 1945.  The Committee's staff wants the 
               Legislature to repeal this obsolete reference.  This 
               bill repeals the redevelopment law's reference to 
               blight in wartime housing. ŬSection 9]
           
             11.  Military base redevelopment cross-reference  .  The 
               earliest special legislation for closed military bases 
               benefited Norton AFB and George AFB in San Bernardino 
               County (Health & Safety Code Section 33320.5 & Section 
               33320.51, added by AB 419, Eaves, 1989).  Later bills 
               placed the military base redevelopment provisions in a 
               separate chapter (Health and Safety Code Section 33492 
               et seq., added by SB 915, Johnston, 1993).  In 1997, 
               the Legislature moved most of the provisions for 
               Norton AFB and George AFB to a new article within that 
               separate chapter (Health & Safety Code Section 
               33492.40, et seq., added by SB 320, Senate Housing & 
               Land Use Committee, 1997), but left one provision 
               behind (Health & Safety Code Section 33320.51).  The 
               Committee's staff wants the Legislature to renumber 
               this section, moving it to the article with the rest 
               of the provisions.  This bill renumbers and amends a 
               cross-reference in a provision relating to the 
               redevelopment of the Norton AFB and George AFB. 
               ŬSection 10]
           
             12.  County highway contracts' change orders  .  State law 
               spells out the procedures that local officials must 
               follow when contracting for public works projects 
               (Public Contract Code Section 20100, et seq.).  For 
               county highway projects, a board of supervisors may 
               authorize county employees to make contract changes, 
               provided that they don't exceed specified dollar 
               amounts.  For contracts over $250,000, change orders 
               can't exceed $25,000 plus 5% of the amount over 







                                                                SB 194
                                                                Page 
          8

               $250,000.  The amount of the change can't exceed 
               $150,000 (Public Contract Code Section 20395 Ŭd], 
               amended by AB 683, Morrow, 1997).  Los Angeles County 
               officials note that since 1997, inflation has eroded 
               their purchasing power.  To buy something that cost 
               $150,000 in 1998 (the effective date of the last 
               statutory change) costs $202,000 in 2010.  County 
               officials want the Legislature to raise the dollar 
               limit on county highway contracts' change orders.  
               This bill raises the dollar limit on county highway 
               contracts' change orders from $150,000 to $210,000.  
               This bill also clarifies that these change orders may 
               include additions to the work. ŬSection 11]
           
             13.  Avigation easements and recording fees  .  To reduce 
               the potential for conflicts between airports and 
               noise-sensitive land uses, some cities require 
               property owners to grant avigation easements as a 
               condition for development approvals.  Avigation 
               easements must be granted before local officials issue 
               building permits.  However, if a project isn't built, 
               airport officials must record a notice of termination 
               for the avigation easement (Public Utilities Code 
               Section 21669.5, added by SB 1333, Yee, 2010).  Since 
               the passage of last year's bill, there has been 
               confusion over who should pay the fees for recording 
               the required notices of termination.  After 
               discussions with the County Recorders' Association of 
               California, airport officials agreed that they should 
               pay the fees.  The California Airports Council wants 
               the Legislature to clarify that the airports must pay 
               the county recorders' fees.  This bill requires the 
               airport owner or operator to pay for recording a 
               notice of termination of an avigation easement. 
               ŬSection 11.5]
           
             14.  Cities' fiscal years and state reports  .  State law 
               requires counties, cities, special districts, and 
               school districts to file various annual reports 
               regarding their financial practices.  For example, 
               local transit operators must file annual reports 
               regarding their operations with transportation 
               planning agencies and the State Controller within 90 
               days after the end of their fiscal year (Public 







                                                                SB 194
                                                                Page 
          9

               Utilities Code Section 95243).  Counties and cities 
               must annually report to the State Controller about 
               their spending on streets and roads for the fiscal 
               year that ended on the previous June 30 (Streets & 
               Highways Code Section 2151).  Although the state 
               government follows a fiscal year that starts on July 
               1, state law doesn't specify a date on which a city 
               must begin its fiscal year.  Five cities use the 
               federal fiscal year which begins on October 1: El 
               Segundo, Huntington Beach, Inglewood, Long Beach, and 
               South Lake Tahoe.  State law recognizes Huntington 
               Beach and South Lake Tahoe's practices, allowing those 
               cities to file their annual financial reports based on 
               the federal fiscal year.  The Committee's staff wants 
               the Legislature to recognize the other three cities 
               that use the federal fiscal year.  This bill adds the 
               Cities of El Segundo, Inglewood, and Long Beach to the 
               list of cities that may use the federal fiscal year 
               when filing annual reports regarding transit and 
               street spending with the State Controller. ŬSection 12 
               & Section 13]  This bill also explains why a special 
               statute is needed. ŬSection 23]
           
             15.  Repeal obsolete transit planning taxes  .  In 1966, 
               responding to Los Angeles County supervisors' 
               reluctance to seek voter approval of taxes to fund 
               planning for a rapid transit system, the Legislature 
               provided a one-time authority to impose a combination 
               of parking taxes, vehicle license fees, and property 
               taxes to raise $3.9 million to fund the Southern 
               California Rapid Transit District's planning efforts 
               (Revenue & Taxation Code Section 36000, et seq., added 
               by SB 80x, Rattigan, 1966).  Later that same year, the 
               Legislature directly appropriated $3.9 million for 
               rapid transit planning in Los Angeles County (SB 2x, 
               Miller, 1966), making it unnecessary for the County to 
               use the taxing authority granted by the Rattigan bill. 
                Proposition 13 (1978) subsequently eliminated the 
               County's ability to levy a property tax to raise 
               revenues to contribute to a rapid transit district's 
               planning efforts.  Further, under Proposition 218 
               (1996) and Proposition 26 (2010), a parking lot 
               license tax or a vehicle license fee to fund transit 
               planning needs 2/3-voter approval.  The Committee's 







                                                                SB 194
                                                                Page 
          10

               staff believes that the 1966 statutory provisions are 
               outdated.  This bill repeals the statutes authorizing 
               the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to raise 
               money, for one year only, from parking taxes, vehicle 
               license fees, and property taxes, and to appropriate 
               those funds to a rapid transit district to pay for 
                                                                             transit planning. ŬSection 12.5]
           
             16.  Benefit assessments for maintenance  .  Proposition 
               218 (1996) set limits on how local officials can use 
               benefit assessments to finance public works and 
               maintenance activities.  Benefit assessments must 
               reflect the special (not general) benefits that 
               properties receive from facilities and services.  New 
               and increased benefit assessments on property need the 
               weighted ballot approval of the affected property 
               owners (California Constitution Article XIID and 
               Government Code Section 53750, et seq.).  The 
               Legislature amended the benefit assessment statutes to 
               conform to the new constitutional limits (SB 1334, 
               Senate Local Government Committee, 2000).  Among the 
               revised statutes was the Landscaping and Lighting Act 
               of 1972 (Streets & Highways Code Section 22500, et 
               seq.).  Local officials can use the 1972 Act to 
               finance a specific list of "improvements" as well as 
               their "maintenance and servicing" (Streets & Highways 
               Code Section 22525).  The 2000 revisions to the 1972 
               Act also repealed an obsolete procedural requirement 
               for voter approval for acquiring and constructing 
               community centers, auditoriums, halls, and similar 
               facilities, shifting the authorization for those 
               facilities to the list of "improvements" (former 
               Streets & Highways Code Section 22525.5, repealed by 
               SB 1334, Senate Local Government Committee, 2000).  By 
               placing community centers at the bottom of that 
               statutory list, the 2000 bill could be read to 
               preclude the use of benefit assessments to pay for 
               their maintenance, even though the pre-2000 law 
               allowed local officials to use benefit assessments for 
               maintaining community centers.  An attorney who 
               advises on local fiscal affairs wants the Legislature 
               to amend the 1972 Act so that local officials can use 
               benefit assessments for maintaining community centers, 
               in addition to financing their construction.  This 







                                                                SB 194
                                                                Page 
          11

               bill allows local officials to use benefit assessments 
               levied under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 
               to pay for maintaining community centers as well as 
               for financing their construction. ŬSection 13.5]
           
             17.  Assessment area clarification  .  Cities use the 
               Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 
               (Streets & Highways Code Section 36500, et seq.) to 
               levy benefit assessments, when approved by the 
               affected property owners or business owners.  The 
               formation of a parking and business improvement area 
               begins when a city council adopts a formal resolution 
               that contains eight types of information about the 
               proposal and a subsequent protest hearing (Streets & 
               Highways Code Section 36522).  An assistant city 
               attorney notes that the statute incorrectly calls this 
               resolution a "notice" and wants the Legislature to 
               clarify that the resolution must describe the protest 
               provisions.  This bill clarifies the wording in the 
               statute that spells out the contents of a city's 
               resolution initiating the formation of a parking and 
               business improvement area. ŬSection 14]
           
             18.  Property and business improvement assessments  . 
               Proposition 218 (1996) set limits on how local 
               officials can use benefit assessments to finance 
               public works and maintenance activities.  Benefit 
               assessments must reflect the special (not general) 
               benefits that properties receive from facilities and 
               services.  New and increased benefit assessments on 
               property need the weighted ballot approval of the 
               affected property owners (California Constitution 
               Article XIID and Government Code Section 53750, et 
               seq.).  The Property and Business Improvement District 
               Act of 1994 allows local officials to set up property 
               and business improvement districts (PBIDs) that can 
               levy benefit assessments on real property or 
               businesses or both (Streets & Highways Code Section 
               36600, et seq.).  The California Business Properties 
               Association notes that the procedural requirements for 
               PBIDs don't always distinguish between property owners 
               and business owners.  To avoid confusion, the 
               Association wants the Legislature to adopt clarifying 
               amendments.  This bill amends the procedural 







                                                                SB 194
                                                                Page 
          12

               requirements for levying property and business 
               improvement assessments to distinguish between 
               property assessments and business assessments.  This 
               bill also clarifies that a joint powers agency that 
               forms a PBID may include the State.   ŬSection 3.5 and 
               Sections 15-21]

           Legislative intent  .  This bill expresses the Legislature's 
          intent to cut costs by combining several noncontroversial 
          items relating to local government into a single bill. 
          ŬSection 1]

           Comments
           
          This bill collects 18 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 17 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 
          150 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.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No   
          Local:  No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  4/28/11)

          American Planning Association - California Chapter
          Association of California Water Agencies
          California Airports Council
          California Association of Clerks and Election Officials
          California Association of County Treasurers and Tax 
          Collectors
          California Building Industry Association
          California Business Properties Association
          California Special Districts Association
          City of Walnut Creek
          County of Los Angeles
          Mandell Municipal Counseling







                                                                SB 194
                                                                Page 
          13




          AGB:nl  4/28/11   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****