BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 743
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 743 (Logue) - As Amended: April 3, 2013
SUBJECT : The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government
Reorganization Act of 2000.
SUMMARY : Makes permanent provisions of law that allow local
agency formation commissions to waive the protest hearing for
the annexation of unincorporated islands. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Deletes the January 1, 2014, sunset date that allows a local
agency formation commission (LAFCO) to waive the protest
hearing for the annexation of unincorporated islands of 150
acres or less, subject to specific requirements, thereby
making the provisions permanent.
2)Repeals a code section which specifies a process for island
annexations after the existing sunset date.
3)Makes other confirming changes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the procedures for the organization and
reorganization of cities, counties, and special districts
under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Reorganization Act of
2000 (CKH Act).
2)Requires a LAFCO to approve the annexation after notice and
hearing and waive protest proceedings for the annexation to a
city of an unincorporated island, if the following apply:
a) The change of organization or reorganization is
initiated on or after January 1, 2000, and before January
1, 2014;
b) The change of reorganization is proposed by resolution
adopted by the affected city; and,
c) The LAFCO finds that the territory in the proposed
change of organization or reorganization proposal does not
AB 743
Page 2
exceed 150 acres in area, constitutes an entire
unincorporated island located within the limits of a city,
is surrounded, is substantially developed or developing, is
not prime agricultural land, and will benefit from the
change of organization or reorganization or will benefit
from the annexing city.
3)Allows a separate property tax transfer agreement between a
city and county regarding an annexed island under the process
in 2) above without affecting any existing master tax sharing
agreement between the city and county.
4)Provides limitations on the process described in 2) above for
territory surrounded by a city after January 1, 2000, in which
annexation is proposed.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)The Legislature has delegated much of its authority over the
boundaries of cities and special districts to LAFCOs in each
county. The courts often refer to LAFCOs as the Legislature's
watchdog over local boundaries. The CKH Act establishes the
procedures for local government changes in organization
including city incorporations, annexations to a city or
special district, and city and special district consolidation,
reorganization, disincorporation and dissolution. An island
annexation occurs when a city or district attaches additional
territory, an island, to its boundary.
2)Many cities in California still contain "islands" of
unincorporated pockets of land which are surrounded by cities.
Islands occur as a result of past boundary decisions, most of
which pre-date the establishment of LAFCOs to regulate city
boundaries or when an area is unincorporated or annexed and a
particular area does not want to be included. Supporters
argue that unincorporated islands can lead to difficult
service delivery problems for both cities and counties.
Additionally, islands can be expensive and inefficient for
counties to serve, as residents of these islands often use
city parks, libraries, and other services even though their
homes lie outside the city limits.
AB 743
Page 3
3)Since 1977, state law has provided an expedited annexation
process for unincorporated islands to encourage cities to
eliminate past boundary mistakes and to encourage the
efficient provision of services. Under current law, if a city
applies to annex an unincorporated island, the LAFCO must
approve the annexation after a public hearing if the island
meets specified statutory conditions. In addition, the LAFCO
must waive the protest hearing requirement. This provision
which is set to expire on January 1, 2014, has already been
amended several times by AB 2227 (Harman), Chapter 548,
Statues of 2002, and AB 2223 (Salinas), Chapter 351, Statues
of 2006.
4)This bill deletes the January 1, 2014, sunset date on the
statutes requiring LAFCOs to annex the unincorporated island
and waive protest proceedings, subject to criteria in existing
law. Additionally, the bill repeals a provision of law which
establishes a process for island annexations after the
existing January 1, 2014, sunset date expires. The author and
supporters argue that the section is no longer necessary
because this bill makes the island annexation process
permanent, and therefore, no longer requires statute to
prescribe a process beyond January 1, 2014. This bill is
author-sponsored.
5)The author argues, "With the sunset set to expire on January
1, 2014, a survey indicated that 54% of LAFCOs would benefit
if they had more time to continue annexations." An informal
poll of LAFCO executive officers conducted by the California
Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions (CALAFCO)
found support for removing the sunset date. Out of a total of
28 respondents, LAFCOs in the counties of Alameda, Butte,
Contra Costa, El Dorado, Kern, Los Angeles, Napa, Orange,
Riverside, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano,
Sonoma, Tulare, and Ventura have remaining islands that would
potentially benefit from an elimination of the sunset date.
6)According to CALAFCO, "The island annexation provisions
established are an effective tool in creating more logical
local government boundaries, increasing efficiencies in the
delivery of government services and improving the services
available to low income neighborhoods equal to their neighbors
within the city surrounding them."
7)The Committee may wish to consider the policy of removing the
AB 743
Page 4
sunset date and extending the provisions permanently. On the
one hand, needing to introduce legislation every few years to
extend a sunset date may not be an efficient use of
legislative resources, but on the other hand, statutes with
sunset dates allow for periodic oversight by legislators and
staff on the implementation and effectiveness of those
statutes.
8)Support arguments : Supporters argue that the streamlined
provisions in existing law have assisted cities, counties, and
LAFCOs to transition municipal services in these areas to the
adjacent cities, which are best able to provide those
services. This bill will make those beneficial provisions
permanent.
Opposition arguments : None on file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions
California State Association of Counties
Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission
Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Misa Yokoi-Shelton / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958