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 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 194
Author: Senate Governance and Finance Committee
Amended: 6/13/11
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE : 9-0, 04/27/11
AYES: Wolk, Huff, DeSaulnier, Fuller, Hancock, Hernandez,
Kehoe, La Malfa, Liu
SENATE FLOOR : 40-0, 05/05/11 (Consent)
AYES: Alquist, Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Calderon,
Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Dutton,
Emmerson, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Hancock, Harman,
Hernandez, Huff, Kehoe, La Malfa, Leno, Lieu, Liu,
Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio,
Runner, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Vargas, Walters,
Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 08/25/11 (Consent) - See last page
for vote
SUBJECT : Local government: omnibus bill
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill, the Local Government Omnibus Act of
2011, proposes 22 changes to the state laws affecting local
agencies' powers and duties.
Assembly Amendments add four more items and make technical
CONTINUED
SB 194
Page
2
changes.
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
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. County donations and credit cards . County
governments can accept gifts and bequests for public
purposes (Government Code Section 25355). Counties,
cities, and other public agencies can accept credit
cards, debit cards, or electronic fund transfers for
seven specific purposes, including bail, fines, court
fees, family support, and taxes (Government Code
Section 6159). County officials want legislators to
add county donations to the list of purposes for which
counties can accept credit cards, debit cards, or
electronic fund transfers. This bill adds county
donations to the list of purposes for which counties
can accept credit cards, debit cards, or electronic
fund transfers. ŬSee Section 1.1 of the bill.]
2. Clean-up state mandate procedures . The California
Constitution requires the state to pay for the costs
of new state-mandated local programs (Article XIII B,
CONTINUED
SB 194
Page
3
Section 6). State law spells out the procedures for
filing, reviewing, paying, and reporting about local
officials' reimbursement claims (Government Code
Section 17500, et seq.). Until 2008, local officials
could file estimated claims for future reimbursement,
but a Budget trailer bill deleted those provisions (AB
8xxx, Assembly Budget Committee, 2008). The State
Controller must file an annual report with legislative
committees regarding the reimbursement payments for
state mandates, including a comparison of the
estimated annual costs to the actual amounts
(Government Code Section 17562 Ŭb] Ŭ1]), even though
the Legislature repealed the ability of local
officials to file estimated claims. The State
Controller's Office wants the Legislature to delete
the obsolete reference to estimated claims from its
reporting requirement. This bill deletes the obsolete
reference to local officials' estimated claims for
reimbursement from the statute that requires the State
Controller file annual reports with legislative
committees. ŬSection 1.2]
3. 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.]
CONTINUED
SB 194
Page
4
4. County recorders and veterans' documents . To
receive veterans' benefits, an applicant must present
the original or a certified copy of his or her
discharge papers, called a DD214 form. To protect
their documents, many veterans record DD214 forms with
county recorders. County recorders must accept lawful
documents for official recording and index them for
future retrieval (Government Code Section 27201, et
seq.). State law prohibits county recorders from
charging fees to record or copy these documents.
County recorders can provide certified copies only to
the veterans, their families, legal representatives,
and veterans' officials (Government Code Section 6107,
amended by AB 1179, Parra, 2004). Veterans who record
their DD214 forms must declare that they're aware that
the information is open to public inspection
(Government Code Section 27337, added by SB 544,
Chesbro, 2004). Concerned about identify theft, the
Legislature limited the use of Social Security numbers
in public records. County recorders must truncate
Social Security numbers from documents recorded after
July 1, 2008, by redacting the first five digits
(Government Code Section 27301, added by AB 1168,
Jones, 2007). A county recorder can publicly disclose
an official record only with a court order (Government
Code Section 27303). County recorders say that
veterans want complete copies of their DD214 forms
with full Social Security numbers so that they can
claim veterans' benefits. County recorders want the
authority to provide veterans with DD214 forms with
full Social Security numbers. This bill allows a
county recorder to provide a copy of a DD214 official
record if the requester certifies that a full Social
Security number is needed to receive benefits and that
he or she is authorized to receive a copy. ŬSection
1.4]
5. Revisions to the County Budget Act . The County
Budget Act spells out the procedures that county
officials must follow when adopting their annual
budgets (Government Code §29000, et seq.). A
subcommittee of the State Controller's Advisory
Committee on County Accounting Procedures has been
reviewing the statutes and recommending changes.
CONTINUED
SB 194
Page
5
Based on the subcommittee's recommendations, the
Legislature amended more than 55 code sections of the
County Budget Act (SB 113, Senate Local Government
Committee, 2009). The Governmental Accounting
Standards Board (GASB) has adopted Statement No. 51
(Accounting and Financial Reporting for Intangible
Assets) and Statement No. 54 (Fund Balance Reporting
and Governmental Fund Type Definitions). Those new
GASB standards are effective beginning with the
2010-11 budgets. To help county auditors consistently
apply the new GASB standards, the State Controller's
Office wants the Legislature to amend the County
Budget Act so that state law reflects the new GASB
standards and terms. This bill amends nine sections
of the County Budget Act to conform state law to the
new standards promulgated by the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board. ŬSections 1.5-1.13]
6. 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
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
CONTINUED
SB 194
Page
6
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]
7. 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]
8. Community services districts' governing boards .
Community services districts (CSDs) can provide a wide
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
CONTINUED
SB 194
Page
7
the Community Services District Law that requires the
districts to expand the membership of their boards of
directors. ŬSection 4]
9. 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]
10. 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
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
CONTINUED
SB 194
Page
8
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]
11. 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
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]
12. 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
CONTINUED
SB 194
Page
9
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]
13. 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]
14. Obsolete redevelopment "blight" definition . The
Community Redevelopment Law governs how local
officials can use redevelopment powers to eradicate
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]
15. Military base redevelopment cross-reference . The
CONTINUED
SB 194
Page
10
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]
16. 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
$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]
17. Avigation easements and recording fees . To reduce
CONTINUED
SB 194
Page
11
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]
18. 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
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
CONTINUED
SB 194
Page
12
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]
19. 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
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]
20. 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
CONTINUED
SB 194
Page
13
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
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]
21. 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
CONTINUED
SB 194
Page
14
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]
22. 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
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
CONTINUED
SB 194
Page
15
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 8/25/11)
State Controller John Chiang
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
County Recorders' Association of California
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Mandell Municipal Counseling
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 08/25/11 (Consent)
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley,
Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter,
Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Grove,
Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger
Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones,
Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor,
CONTINUED
SB 194
Page
16
Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande,
Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez,
Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bonilla, Gorell
AGB:nl 8/26/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED