BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                      



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                  SB 1090|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                    CONSENT


          Bill No:  SB 1090
          Author:   Senate Governance and Finance Committee
          Amended:  4/11/12
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE  :  9-0, 4/18/12
          AYES:  Wolk, Dutton, DeSaulnier, Fuller, Hancock, 
            Hernandez, Kehoe, La Malfa, Liu

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  Senate Rule 28.8


           SUBJECT  :    Local government:  omnibus bill

           SOURCE  :     Author


           DIGEST  :    This bill, the Local Government Omnibus Act of 
          2012, proposes nine changes to 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 2011, for 
          example, the local government omnibus bill was SB 194 
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               SB 1090
                                                                Page 
          2

          (Senate Governance & Finance Committee) which contained 22 
          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 2012," 
          proposes the following changes to the state laws affecting 
          local agencies' powers and duties:

           Archaic voter approval requirements for special taxes  .  
          Proposition 13 (1978), Proposition 62 (1986), and 
          Proposition 218 all require voter approval for new and 
          increased local taxes.  Proposition 218 specifically 
          requires special taxes to be approved by a 2/3 vote 
          (California Constitution, Article XIIIC, Section 2(d)).  
          Some older statutes which were enacted before the 
          constitutional voter-approval requirements took effect 
          appear to allow local governments to impose special taxes 
          with only majority voter approval.  The Committee's staff 
          wants the Legislature to update these archaic statutes by 
          cross-referencing the statutory requirements for voter 
          approval of special taxes.  This bill deletes archaic 
          majority voter approval language and inserts 
          cross-references to voter approval requirements for special 
          taxes into a statute authorizing cities to impose charges 
          for sidewalk installation (Government Code Section 40471, 
          as enacted by SB 1036, Whetmore, Chapter 350, Statutes of 
          1971).

          Property and business improvement districts  .  The Property 
          and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 allows 
          property owners to petition a city (or county) to set up an 
          improvement district (PBID) and levy assessments on 
          property owners, business owners, or both, to pay for 
          promotional activities as well as for physical improvements 
          (AB 3754, Caldera, Chapter 897, Statutes of 1994).  
          Practitioners who work with PBIDs have identified errors 
          and ambiguities in the 1994 Act.  They want the Legislature 
          to amend four code sections to make the following 
          corrections and clarifications: 


                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               SB 1090
                                                                Page 
          3

           1.Management district plans  .  State law requires each 
            PBID's management district plan to include specified 
            information (Streets & Highways Code Section 36622, as 
            amended by AB 1208, Silva, Chapter 114, Statutes of 
            2007).  Among other things, every management plan must 
            contain:

                 The improvements and activities proposed for each 
               year of operation of the district.
                 The total annual amount proposed to be expended for 
               improvements, maintenance and operations, and debt 
               service in each year of operation of the district.

            This bill permits a management plan to contain only a 
            description of the proposed improvements and activities 
            for a PBID's first year of operation if the plan states 
            that the improvements and activities proposed for each 
            year of operation are the same.  Similarly, this bill 
            permits a management plan to contain only the amount 
            proposed to be expended for improvements, maintenance and 
            operations, and debt service in the PBID's first year of 
            operation if the plan states that the amount proposed to 
            be expended in each year of operation is not 
            significantly different.

           1.District name correction  .  This bill corrects an 
            erroneous reference to a "parking and business 
            improvement area" by replacing that phrase with "property 
            and business improvement district" (Streets & Highways 
            Code Section 36629, as amended by AB 944, Steinberg, 
            Chapter 763, Statutes of 2003).

           2.Disposition of revenues after a PBID expires  .  State law 
            requires PBIDs to be established for a limited initial 
            term and specifies the procedures by which PBIDs can be 
            renewed for subsequent terms of up to 10 years (Streets & 
            Highways Code Section 36660).  State law also specifies 
            procedures by which a city council or board of 
            supervisors can disestablish a PBID and imposes 
            requirements on the disposition of revenues remaining 
            after a disestablishment (Streets & Highways Code 
            Sections 36670 and 36671).  This bill clarifies that 
            district revenues remaining after a district expires 
            without renewal are subject to the same requirements that 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               SB 1090
                                                                Page 
          4

            apply to revenues remaining after a disestablishment.

           Water and sewer districts' lien priority  .  State law 
          authorizes local governments that provide water or sewer 
          service to collect specified charges for services and 
          infrastructure using the same laws that apply to the levy, 
          collection, and enforcement of property taxes.  Statutes 
          authorizing water and sewer service providers to collect 
          charges using property tax billing procedures typically 
          allow a public agency to impose a levy on real property for 
          delinquent taxes and charges.  The levy becomes a lien - or 
          "encumbrance" - on the property when that property is sold. 
           The statutes, however, provide an exception to this 
          encumbrance, when the sale occurs before the charge becomes 
          delinquent (AB 1342, Knox, Chapter 861, Statutes of 1973).

          This exception was intended to cover only sales and new 
          mortgage liens occurring in the "gap period" after the 
          agency submits the charge for placement on the tax bill and 
          before the tax bill becomes due.  However, a 1981 court 
          decision,  County of Butte v. North Burbank Public Utility 
          District  , interpreted the exception more broadly.  That 
          decision expanded the exception to cover any existing 
          mortgage lien. The court held that, when a lender holding 
          an existing mortgage forecloses and sells the property, 
          later-added unpaid tax liens for delinquent utility charges 
          are wiped out, regardless of when they were added. This 
          interpretation of the bona fide encumbrance exception 
          raises questions about the priority of liens that water and 
          sewer providers use to collect unpaid taxes and charges.

          In response to the  Butte  decision, the Legislature amended 
          the public utility district statutes involved in that 
          decision and the Irrigation District Law (SB 1922, Johnson, 
          Chapter 1137, Statutes of 1982).  Those amendments narrowed 
          the exception to apply only to transfers and encumbrances 
          created during a specified window preceding the tax bill 
          showing the charges.  That bill, however, did not amend any 
          of the other statutes with the bona fide encumbrance 
          exception to include this clarification.
           
          Last year, the Legislature approved AB 741 (Huffman), 
          Chapter 106, Statutes of 2011, which authorizes sewer 
          service providers, at a property owner's request, to 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               SB 1090
                                                                Page 
          5

          construct sewer improvements on private property and charge 
          the property owner for the costs.  Irvine Ranch Water 
          District officials are concerned that local governments 
          will face risks in implementing AB 741 unless statutes that 
          authorize water and sewer districts to use tax bill 
          collection procedures are conformed to the language enacted 
          by the 1982 Johnson bill.  This bill narrows the bona fide 
          encumbrance exception to protect sewer and other water 
          agencies using the tax bill collection mechanisms from the 
           Butte  decision's expansive interpretation of the exception. 


           Fresno and Merced counties' boundaries  .  State statutes 
          recite the official boundary descriptions of all 58 
          counties (Government Code Section 23101-Section 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.  In 2007, Fresno and Merced county officials 
          used these procedures to shift 4,175 acres from Fresno 
          County to Merced County near the City of Dos Palos.  After 
          those boundary changes took effect on January 1, 2008, the 
          Legislature then corrected the counties' statutory boundary 
          descriptions (SB 894, Senate Local Government Committee, 
          Chapter 699, Statutes of 2010).  County officials recently 
          identified errors in the new boundary descriptions that 
          were enacted in 2010 and want the Legislature to correct 
          these errors.  This bill corrects Fresno and Merced 
          Counties' statutory boundary descriptions. 

           Williamson Act and Photovoltaic Solar Facilities  .  Statutes 
          enacted by SB 618 (Wolk), Chapter 596, Statutes of 2011, 
          authorize a city or county and a landowner to 
          simultaneously rescind a Williamson Act contract on 
          marginally productive or physically impaired lands and 
          enter into a solar-use easement that restricts the use of 
          land to photovoltaic solar facilities (Government Code 
          Sections 51190-51192.2).  Some of the statutes enacted by 
          last year's Wolk bill contained drafting errors and 
          inconsistent terminology:

                 One statute incorrectly refers to agricultural 
               "productively" instead of "productivity" (Government 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               SB 1090
                                                                Page 
          6

               Code Section 51191). 
                 Two statutes incorrectly refer to the time an 
               easement "terminates" instead of the time it "is 
               extinguished" (Government Code Section 51191.3 and 
               Section 51192.1).
                 One statute incorrectly refers to an easement's 
               "abandonment" instead of its "termination" (Government 
               Code Section 51192.2).

          To help local governments and land owners use SB 618's 
          provisions properly, Williamson Act practitioners want the 
          Legislature to correct these errors.  This bill corrects 
          errors in Williamson Act statutes related to solar 
          facilities.

           "Abuse of office" definition  .  State law requires a local 
          agency's employment contracts to contain a provision to 
          reimburse the local agency for specified salary, legal, and 
          settlement costs if an employee is convicted of a crime 
          involving an abuse of his or her office or position (AB 
          1344), Feuer, Chapter 692, Statutes of 2011).  For the 
          purposes of this requirement, Government Code Section 
          53243.4 defines "abuse of office" as either:

                 An abuse of public authority, including, but not 
               limited to, waste, fraud, and violation of the law 
               under color of authority.
                 A crime against public justice, including, but not 
               limited to, a crime described in Title 7 (commencing 
               with Section 92) of Part 1 of the Penal Code.

          Some law enforcement officials worry that this definition's 
          cross-reference to the Penal Code excludes important crimes 
          that are defined in Title 5 of Part 1 of the Penal Code. 
          This bill adds a cross-reference to the Penal Code to more 
          accurately define the phrase abuse of office.

           Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 validations  .  Numerous 
          statutes authorize a local government to file a validation 
          lawsuit, asking a superior court to determine the validity 
          of actions the local government has taken.  The Benefit 
          Assessment Act of 1982 (Government Code Section 54703 et 
          seq.) allows local governments to levy assessments on real 
          property to pay for the maintenance and operation costs of 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               SB 1090
                                                                Page 
          7

          drainage, flood control, and street lighting services.  
          Unlike many other benefit assessment acts, the 1982 Act 
          doesn't expressly authorize local governments to use 
          validation lawsuits to validate 1982 Act assessments. The 
          California Central Valley Flood Control Association wants 
          the Legislature to allow local governments that levy 
          benefits assessments under the 1982 Act to use validation 
          suits to confirm their actions.  This bill adds language to 
          the 1982 Act that mirrors the validation language that was 
          added to the North Delta Water Agency's governing statutes 
          by the Local Government Omnibus Act of 2009 (SB 113, Senate 
          Local Government Committee, Chapter 332, Statutes of 2009).

           Engineers' and surveyors' seals on subdivision maps  .  The 
          Subdivision Map Act governs how cities and counties approve 
          applications to convert large properties into smaller 
          parcels for sale, lease, or financing.  A major subdivision 
          creates five or more parcels and requires both a tentative 
          map and a final map.  A minor subdivision (lot split) 
          creates four or fewer parcels and usually needs only a 
          parcel map.  Final maps and parcel maps must be certified 
          by a licensed engineer or land surveyor, who must "indicate 
          his or her registration or license number with expiration 
          date and the stamp of his or her seal" on a certified map 
          (Government Code Section 66442 and Section 66450).  The 
          Legislature recently repealed the requirement that an 
          expiration date appear on the seal that licensed engineers 
          and surveyors stamp on specified engineering and land 
          surveying documents (AB 645, Niello, Chapter 368, Statutes 
          of 2009).  The California Land Surveyors Association wants 
          the Legislature to conform the Subdivision Map Act to these 
          changes.  This bill deletes the requirement that final maps 
          and parcel maps must be stamped with a seal that indicates 
          the expiration date of an engineer's or surveyor's license. 
           

           Kings River Conservation District's elections  .  The Kings 
          River Conservation District (Fresno County) is a special 
          act special district that provides flood control, water 
          resource management, and power generation services to 
          communities within its 1.2 million acre jurisdiction.  The 
          District is governed by a seven-member elected board of 
          directors.  Six of the directors represent six electoral 
          divisions within the District and the seventh director 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               SB 1090
                                                                Page 
          8

          represents the entire District.  Because the boundaries of 
          these electoral divisions are defined in the District's 
          special act, using metes and bounds descriptions, the 
          boundaries can only be adjusted by the Legislature, not by 
          the District's board of directors.  The Legislature last 
          amended the statute describing the District's electoral 
          boundaries in 1955.  
          District officials worry that the antiquated statutes 
          governing their board of directors' electoral divisions 
          prevent the District from complying with federal Voting 
          Rights Act requirements.  They want the Legislature to 
          repeal and amend outdated provisions of the Kings River 
          Conservation District Act governing the district's 
          electoral divisions.  Specifically, this bill:

                 Repeals the statutory descriptions of the 
               District's electoral boundaries. 
                 Repeals other antiquated statutory provisions 
               governing district elections.
                 Requires district directors to establish seven 
               electoral divisions that must be, as far as 
               practicable, equal in population, using the most 
               recent federal census data as a basis.
                 Allows directors, when establishing division 
               boundaries, to consider the topography, geography, 
               cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, compactness of 
               territory, and the community of interests of the 
               electoral divisions.
                 Requires directors to review and, if necessary, 
               adjust the District's electoral division boundaries 
               following each decennial census.
                 Requires a candidate for the board of directors to 
               reside in the electoral division for which he or she 
               is a candidate.
                 Requires a director to continue to reside within 
               the electoral division during his or her term of 
               office.
                 Prohibits a change in boundaries of an electoral 
               division from affecting an incumbent director's term 
               of office.
                 Establishes a schedule for conducting elections for 
               each division.
                 Defines directors' terms of office.
                 Requires the District to conduct elections in 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               SB 1090
                                                                Page 
          9

               accordance with the Uniform District Election Law.

           Comments

           This bill compiles nine noncontroversial changes to state 
          laws affecting local agencies and land use into a single 
          bill.  Sending a bill through the legislative process costs 
          around $18,000.  By avoiding eight other bills, the 
          Committee's measure avoids over $140,000 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 100 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:  Yes

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  4/30/12)

          Association of California Water Agencies
          California Central Valley Flood Control Association
          California Land Surveyors Association
          Fresno County Board of Supervisors
          Irvine Ranch Water District
          Kings River Conservation District
          Merced County Board of Supervisors



          AGB:nl  5/1/12   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****







                                                           CONTINUED