BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 743
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 743 (Logue)
As Amended April 3, 2013
Majority vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 9-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Achadjian, Levine, Alejo, | | |
| |Bradford, Gordon, | | |
| |Melendez, Mullin, | | |
| |Waldron, Atkins | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes permanent provisions of law that allow local
agency formation commissions (LAFCOs) 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 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;
AB 743
Page 2
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
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 : 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.
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,
AB 743
Page 3
as residents of these islands often use city parks, libraries,
and other services even though their homes lie outside the city
limits.
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.
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.
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.
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
AB 743
Page 4
city surrounding them."
The Legislature may wish to consider the policy of removing the
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.
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Misa Yokoi-Shelton / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0000231