BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 244
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 244 (Wolk)
As Amended August 30, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :25-14
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6-3 HOUSING 7-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Skinner, Bradford, |Ayes:|Torres, Atkins, Bradford, |
| |Campos, Davis, Gordon, | |Cedillo, Hueso, Jeffries, |
| |Hueso | |Miller |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Smyth, Knight, Norby | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |Ayes:|Alejo, Bradford, Campos, |
| |Bradford, Charles | |Davis, Gordon, Hueso |
| |Calderon, Campos, Davis, | | |
| |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, | | |
| |Mitchell, Solorio | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |Nays:|Smyth, Knight, Norby |
| |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires cities, counties, and local agency formation
commissions (LAFCOs) to plan for disadvantaged communities.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines, for purposes of LAFCO law, the term "disadvantaged
unincorporated community" to mean inhabited territory with 12
or more registered voters, or as determined by LAFCO policy,
that constitutes all or a portion of a "disadvantaged
community," which is defined in the Water Code to be "a
community with an annual median household income that is less
than 80% of the statewide annual median household income."
SB 244
Page 2
2)Prohibits, in specified circumstances, a LAFCO from approving
an annexation to a city of any territory greater than 10
acres, or as determined by LAFCO policy, where there exists a
disadvantaged unincorporated community that is contiguous to
the area of proposed annexation, unless an application to
annex the disadvantaged unincorporated community to the
subject city has been filed with the executive officer.
3)Specifies that an application to annex a contiguous
disadvantaged community is not required if either of the
following apply:
a) A prior application for annexation of the same
disadvantaged community has been made in the preceding five
years; or,
b) The LAFCO finds, based upon written evidence, that a
majority of the residents within the affected territory are
opposed to annexation.
4)Requires the LAFCO, in determining the sphere of influence of
each local agency, to additionally consider, for a city or
special district that provides public facilities or services
related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or
structural fire protection, the present and probable need for
those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged
unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of
influence, beginning with the next sphere of influence update
on or after July 1, 2012.
5)Allows the LAFCO, in determining a sphere of influence, to
assess the feasibility of governmental reorganization of
particular agencies and recommend reorganization of those
agencies when reorganization is found to be feasible and if
reorganization will further the goals of orderly development
and efficient and affordable service delivery.
6)Requires the LAFCO, in the written statement of its
determinations for a municipal service review to additionally
consider the following:
a) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged
unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the
sphere of influence; and,
SB 244
Page 3
b) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and
adequacy of public services, and deficiencies including
needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and
industrial water, and structural fire protection in any
disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or
contiguous to the agency's proposed sphere of influence.
7)Allows the LAFCO, in conducting a municipal service review, to
assess various alternatives for improving efficiency and
affordability of infrastructure and service delivery within
and contiguous to the sphere of influence, including, but not
limited to, the consolidation of governmental agencies.
8)Requires, on or before the due date for the next adoption of
its housing element, each city or county to review and update
the land use element of its general plan to include all of the
following:
a) In the case of a city, an identification of each
unincorporated island or fringe community, within the
city's sphere of influence;
b) In the case of a county, an identification of each
legacy community within the boundaries of the county, but
not including any area within the sphere of influence of
any city;
c) Requires that the identification include a description
of the community and a map designating its location;
d) For each identified community, an analysis of water,
wastewater, stormwater drainage, and structural fire
protection needs or deficiencies; and,
e) An analysis, based on then existing available data, of
benefit assessment districts or other financing
alternatives that could make the extension of services to
identified communities financially feasible.
9)Requires, on or before the due date for each subsequent
revision of its housing element, each city or county to
review, and if necessary amend, its general plan to update the
analysis, as specified.
SB 244
Page 4
10)Defines, for purposes of general plan law, the following
terms:
a) "Community" to mean an inhabited area within a city or
county that is comprised of no less than 10 dwellings
adjacent or in close proximity to one another;
b) "Disadvantaged unincorporated community" to mean a
fringe, island, or legacy community in which the median
household income is 80% or less than the statewide median
household income;
c) "Unincorporated fringe community" to mean any inhabited
and unincorporated territory that is within a city's sphere
of influence; and,
d) "Unincorporated island community" to mean any inhabited
and unincorporated territory that is surrounded or
substantially surrounded by one or more cities or by one or
more cities and a county boundary of the Pacific Ocean.
11)Allows, subject to all applicable constitutional
restrictions, a county, a city, or a special district that
provides, or intends to provide, wastewater treatment
facilities or services, to borrow money and incur indebtedness
pursuant to provisions in the Water Code related to the State
Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund.
12)Provides that no reimbursement is required by the bill's
provisions because a local agency or school district has the
authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments
sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated
by the bill's provisions.
13)Makes legislative findings and declarations.
14)Contains chaptering out provisions in order to avoid
conflicts with AB 54 (Solorio).
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the procedures for the organization and
reorganization of cities, counties, and special districts
SB 244
Page 5
under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Reorganization Act of
2000.
2)Provides that a LAFCO shall determine the sphere of influence
of each local governmental agency within the county and enact
policies designed to promote the logical and orderly
development of areas within the sphere, and provides that a
LAFCO shall, as necessary, review and update each sphere of
influence every five years.
3)Provides for the process of determining the sphere of
influence, and specifies the different factors that a LAFCO
shall consider and prepare in a written statement of its
determinations.
4)Provides, in order to prepare and to update spheres of
influence, that a LAFCO shall conduct a municipal service
review (MSR) of the municipal services provided in the county
or other appropriate area as designated by the LAFCO, and
requires that a written statement of its determinations
include all of the following:
a) Growth and population projections for the affected area;
b) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and
adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs
or deficiencies;
c) Financial ability of agencies to provide services;
d) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities;
e) Accountability for community service needs, including
governmental structure and operational efficiencies; and,
f) Any other matter related to effective or efficient
service delivery, as required by commission policy.
5)Defines "disadvantaged community," as that term is used in the
Water Code as added by Proposition 50, to mean a community
with an annual median household income that is less than 80%
of the statewide annual median household income.
6)Requires every city and county to adopt a general plan with
SB 244
Page 6
seven mandatory elements including land use, circulation,
housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill has a negligible state fiscal impact.
There would be significant local planning costs, but these are
not a state mandated local program and would not be
reimbursable.
COMMENTS : According to the author, many disadvantaged
unincorporated communities lack public services and even public
facilities like domestic water, sanitary sewers, paved streets,
storm drains, and street lights. Some cities and special
districts are reluctant to annex these areas. The intent of
this bill is to require local officials to include disadvantaged
communities in their long-range planning for land use and public
facilities.
The sponsor of the bill, the California Rural Legal Assistance
Foundation, argues that "these communities are systematically
underserved in the overall allocation of public resources and
are frequently left out of local planning processes?this neglect
and deprivation prevents these neighborhoods from realizing
their potential as livable and economically viable communities."
This bill takes a two-pronged approach to new requirements for
local officials to consider disadvantaged communities. First,
the bill requires LAFCOs to consider these types of communities
in both their sphere of influence updates and municipal service
reviews (MSRs), starting after July 1, 2012. Second, the bill
requires cities and counties to review and update the land use
element within the general plan with specified data and analyses
of community needs, upon a city or county's next revision of its
housing element.
This bill establishes a process for the identification of
service deficiencies in disadvantaged communities through the
LAFCO planning process, therefore adding new duties to LAFCOs in
the preparation of MSRs and when reviewing and updating a city
or a special district's sphere of influence. Provisions in the
bill require a LAFCO, when preparing an MSR, to include a
written statement determining the location and characteristics,
including infrastructure needs and deficiencies in disadvantaged
unincorporated communities. Additionally, any update to a
SB 244
Page 7
sphere of influence occurring on or after July 1, 2012, must
include the needs for public facilities and services in
disadvantaged unincorporated communities.
It should be noted, however, that some areas considered
"disadvantaged communities" actually prefer the more rural
nature of their community's environment. Not all disadvantaged
communities wish to be part of a city or desire to receive
additional services beyond what they already have. The
Legislature may wish to consider whether this bill contemplates
those communities and the will of the residents.
This bill contains language that prohibits a LAFCO, in specified
circumstances, from approving an annexation to a city of any
territory greater than 10 acres where there exists a
disadvantaged inhabited community that is contiguous to the area
of proposed annexation, unless the annexation application
includes a separate application to annex the disadvantaged
unincorporated inhabited territory to the subject city. The
Legislature may wish to consider whether this language ties the
LAFCO's hands and has the unintended consequence of limiting
annexations from occurring in the future.
This bill requires each city or county to update the land use
element of its general plan to address the presence of these
types of communities, and for each identified community, the
city or county is required to do an analysis of water,
wastewater, stormwater drainage, and structural fire protection
needs or deficiencies.
The League of California Cities (League), in opposition,
believes that local agencies do not have the legal authority to
impose fees to recover the costs of the new duties mandated in
the bill. The bill's provisions right now include a fee
disclaimer that says that "no reimbursement is required by this
act?.because a local agency has the authority to levy service
charges, fees or assessments sufficient to pay for the program
or level of service mandated by this act." The League is
concerned that cities, under the new rules dictated by
Proposition 26, cannot charge current residents of the city for
the costs associated with the considerable analysis required by
the bill's provisions since the residents of the city are not
being provided a service.
SB 244
Page 8
Additionally as part of this year's budget package, SB 89
(Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), Chapter 35, Statutes of
2011, stripped approximately $186 million from Vehicle License
Fee (VLF) funding for local governments, part of which had been
used to assist cities with the costs of annexing a new territory
or incorporating a new city. The League argues that one of the
main goals of this bill is to annex disadvantaged communities,
thus there is a clear disconnect between SB 89 (Budget and
Fiscal Review Committee), and the stated goals of this bill.
The County of Los Angeles opposes this bill because the County
believes it to be both costly and burdensome. They argue they
already have a long term plan for all unincorporated areas and
that the bill does not adequately address the fiscal strains the
bill would place on already distressed counties, cities,
communities and taxpayers.
This bill is the latest in a series of bills to insert the
concerns of disadvantaged communities into land use planning
statutes. SB 1174 (Wolk) of 2010 concentrated on local general
plans; the bill died on the Assembly Appropriations Committee's
suspense file. AB 853 (Arambula) of 2010 focused on the LAFCOs'
municipal service reviews, spheres of influence, and city
annexation procedures; Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill
as "unnecessary." SB 194 (Florez) of 2010 looked at
disadvantaged communities' needs for public works funding;
Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill as "unnecessary."
The most recent amendments to the bill add in provisions that
provide explicit statutory authority for cities, counties, and
special districts to borrow money and incur indebtedness
pursuant to statutes in the Water Code relating to the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program, for wastewater
treatment facilities or services. This would enable
disadvantaged communities, like those in the bill, to gain
financial assistance for planning costs. The author notes that
often these are the same communities that are unable to obtain
funding necessary to conduct planning for wastewater
infrastructure projects.
Support arguments: Supporters argue that few local government
land use plans focus on the existence of disadvantaged
unincorporated communities, much less how to solve their many
challenges. This bill will result in greater awareness of these
SB 244
Page 9
communities and their needs in local government planning
documents.
Opposition arguments: Opposition groups argue that while the
intent of the bill is laudable, there is no identified funding
source for the new duties mandated in the bill's provisions for
cities, counties and LAFCOs. This comes at a time when local
agencies are already strained with existing fiscal pressures.
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0002522