BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 184|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 184
Author: Senate Governance and Finance Committee
Amended: 8/8/13
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE : 7-0, 04/17/13
AYES: Wolk, Knight, Beall, DeSaulnier, Emmerson, Hernandez, Liu
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR : 35-0, 5/2/13 (Consent)
AYES: Anderson, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Calderon, Cannella,
Corbett, De León, DeSaulnier, Emmerson, Evans, Fuller, Gaines,
Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson,
Knight, Lara, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Monning, Nielsen, Padilla,
Pavley, Price, Roth, Steinberg, Wright, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Correa, Walters, Wolk, Vacancy, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 8/19/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Local government: omnibus bill
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill, the Local Government Omnibus Act of 2013,
proposes 13 non-controversial changes to state laws governing
local governments' powers and duties.
Assembly Amendments add four more non-controversial changes and
make clarifying and technical changes.
CONTINUED
SB 184
Page
2
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 2012, for example, the local
government omnibus bill was SB 1090 (Senate Governance and
Finance Committee, Chapter 330) which contained 12
noncontroversial statutory changes, avoiding about $200,000 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 2013," proposes
the following changes to the state laws affecting local
agencies' powers and duties:
Subdivided Lands Act clarification . Existing law requires any
person who intends to sell or lease subdivided lands to file
with the Department of Real Estate an application for a public
subdivision report making various disclosures relevant to the
sale or lease of the property. Existing law also specifies that
a person who intends to sell or lease subdivided lands is not
required to file a notice of intention with the Department if
the proposed offering of subdivided land satisfies specified
criteria. Among the criteria is a requirement that each lot,
parcel or unit of the subdivision must be sold or offered for
sale improved with a completed residential structure and with
all other improvements completed that are necessary to
occupancy. According to the author, practitioners note that a
bulletin issued by the Department of Real Estate in 1981
clarified that a subdivider who intends to sell lots with
residential dwellings could enter into contracts to sell the
lots with residences before construction is complete.
This bill clarifies that a lot, parcel or unit satisfies the
requirement that it be improved with a completed residential
CONTINUED
SB 184
Page
3
structure if it is improved with a completed residential
structure at the time it is conveyed by the subdivider.
Facsimile signatures on recorded government liens . A county
recorder must accept for recordation any document that is
authorized or required by law to be recorded. With some
exceptions, current law generally requires that each instrument,
paper, or notice must contain an original signature or be a
certified copy of the original. However, existing law allows a
county recorder to accept facsimile signatures on liens recorded
by government agencies that have officially adopted those
signatures. According to the author, Napa County's Recorder
notes that ambiguity in current statutory language creates
confusion about how agencies should submit facsimile signatures
to county recorders.
This bill clarifies that a government agency must provide an
officially adopted facsimile signature to a county recorder by
letter and that a facsimile signature remains valid until the
governmental agency notifies the county recorder that the
facsimile signature is revoked.
State collection of debts owed to special districts . If a
person or entity owes money to a city, county, or court that
city, county or court can request that the Controller withhold
money that the person or entity would otherwise receive from a
personal income tax refund, corporate income tax refund, sales
tax refund, state lottery winnings, or a claim for payment of
money from unclaimed property held by the state (Government Code
Section 12419.8). The Controller can withhold money only when
the debt:
Has been reduced to a judgment,
Is contained in a court order,
Is from a bench warrant for a fine, penalty, or assessment, or
Is a lien for delinquent unsecured property taxes.
Special districts can only ask the Controller to withhold money
from tax refunds, lottery winnings, or unclaimed property
payments to collect debts from unpaid bridge tolls,
high-occupancy toll lane fees, or other charges on account of
nonpayment of bridge toll or high occupancy toll lane fees
(Government Code Section 12419.12, enacted by AB 1175,
Torlakson, Chapter 515, Statutes of 2009). California Special
CONTINUED
SB 184
Page
4
Districts Association staff notes that special districts could
benefit from the same revenue collection efficiency that
benefits cities and counties when they ask the Controller to
collect debts by withholding state payments.
This bill expands special districts' existing authority to use
the Controller's debt collection program, giving special
districts the same statutory authority that cities, counties and
courts have to request that the Controller withhold state
payments to collect debts.
Recording requirements for Mills Act contracts . The Mills Act
authorizes property owners and local officials to preserve
historical properties with voluntary contracts that restrict the
use of qualified historical properties in historic zones, and
reduced property tax assessments for the contracted properties,
based on statutory formulas instead of their acquisition prices.
AB 654 (Hueso, Chapter 278, Statutes of 2011) repealed language
requiring property owners to send copies of their historical
property preservation contracts to the State Office of
Historical Preservation. AB 654 replaced the repealed language
with a requirement that a property owner must, within six months
of entering into a contract, record the contract with the county
where the property is located. Other statutory language that
was enacted as part of the original Mills Act already requires
the clerk of a city council or board of supervisors, no later
than 20 days after a city or county enters into a contract with
a property owner, to record a copy of the contract with the
county recorder.
This bill repeals the duplicative requirement that a property
owner must record a Mills Act contract, leaving in place the
long-standing requirement that city or county officials must
record a contract within 20 days of entering into the contract.
Gender-neutral references to city attorneys . Some statutes that
govern city attorneys have not been amended for many decades and
use the masculine pronouns "he" and "him" to refer to a city
attorney (Government Code Section 41802, Section 41803, and
Section 41805). The League of California Cities' General
Counsel notes that this gender-specific language does not
conform to current usage.
CONTINUED
SB 184
Page
5
This bill replaces outdated references to "he" and "him" with
the gender-neutral term "the city attorney."
"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/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 5 (commencing with Section 67) or
Title 7 (commencing with Section 92) of Part 1 of the Penal
Code.
The Local Government Omnibus Act of 2012 (SB 1090, Senate
Governance and Finance Committee, Chapter 330) added the
cross-reference to Title 5 of the Penal Code. Assembly Local
Government Committee staff notes that the current definition
excludes important crimes that are contained in Title 6 of the
Penal Code.
This bill adds a cross-reference to Title 6 of the Penal Code to
more accurately define the phrase "abuse of office."
Counties and Infrastructure Financing Districts . Cities and
counties can create Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs)
and issue bonds to pay for community scale public works:
highways, transit, water systems, sewer projects, flood control,
child care facilities, libraries, parks, and solid waste
facilities. To repay the bonds, IFDs divert property tax
increment revenues from other local governments, but not
schools, for 30 years. California State Association of Counties
staff notes that the statutes governing IFDs only use the term
"city" because "city" is defined, for the purposes of the IFD
statutes, as including a county and a city and county. The
exclusive use of the term "city" throughout the IFD statutes may
mislead some readers into thinking that counties are not
CONTINUED
SB 184
Page
6
authorized to use IFDs.
This bill removes counties from the definition of a city and
inserts the term "county" throughout the statutes governing
IFDs.
Subdivision Map Act Update . The Subdivision Map Act (Government
Code Section 66410, et seq.) controls how local officials
approve the division of property into smaller parcels. To
approve a major subdivision, local officials approve a
"tentative map," the subdivider fulfills the conditions, and
then local officials issue the "final map." For a minor
subdivision ("lot split"), the local officials approve and issue
a final "parcel map." When the county surveyor or city engineer
approves a parcel map, he/she must sign the map, indicate
his/her registration number, and stamp the map with his/her seal
(Government Code Section 66450 [a]). When the county surveyor
or city engineer approves a final map, he/she must sign the map
and indicate his/her registration number, and stamp the map with
his/her seal. Additionally, state law requires the licensed
professional who prepared a parcel map or final map to include a
specified statement on the map. The California Land Surveyor's
Association wants this statement to provide additional
information about the timing of a map's completion and the
identification of the licensee who prepared a map.
This bill amends Government Code Sections 66442.5 and 66449 to
provide more complete information of the licensee who prepared a
map by including the "date signed" and the actual "seal" of the
licensee.
Subdivision Map Act Correction . The Subdivision Map Act
controls how counties and cities approve requests to convert
large properties into marketable parcels. When a major
subdivision creates five or more parcels, current law requires a
two-stage process involving both a tentative map and a final
map. 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. 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. To address inconsistent statutory
language, SB 194, (Senate Governance & Finance Committee,
Chapter 382, Statutes of 2011) amended a section of the
CONTINUED
SB 184
Page
7
Subdivision Map Act that excluded 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 from being counted as a parcel. County
officials found that SB 194 inadvertently eliminated the
statute's frequently-used exemption for specified real property
transactions involving local governments and public utilities.
This bill repeals the changes made by SB 194 and restores the
exact wording of the statute as it read before January 1, 2012.
Public Cemetery District Law's Definition of "Family Member. "
In 2003, the Legislature modernized and recodified the Public
Cemetery District Law, which governs California's 250 cemetery
districts (Health & Safety Code 9000, et seq., recodified by SB
341, Senate Local Government Committee, Chapter 57, Statutes of
2003). The Public Cemetery District Law defines the term
"family member" as: any spouse, by marriage or otherwise, child
or stepchild, by natural birth or adoption, parent, brother,
sister, half-brother, half-sister, parent-in-law,
brother-in-law, sister-in-law, nephew, niece, aunt, uncle, first
cousin, or any person denoted by the prefix "grand" or "great,"
or the spouse of any of these persons.
State law establishes a statewide domestic partnership registry
(AB 26, Migden, Chapter 588, Statutes of 1999) and requires that
registered domestic partners have the same rights, protections,
and benefits as are granted to spouses (AB 205, Goldberg,
Chapter 421, Statutes of 2003). Cemetery District officials
note that the Public Cemetery District Law's definition of
"family member" omits domestic partners.
This bill clarifies that a domestic partner is included in the
Public Cemetery District Law's definition of "family member."
Ventura Resource Conservation District's Board of Directors .
The 98 resource conservation districts (RCDs) in California
conserve soil and water, control runoff, stabilize soil, protect
water quality, reclaim water, and develop water storage
facilities and distribution systems. RCDs are governed by
five-, seven-, or nine-member boards. The number of directors
may be changed by resolution adopted by a majority of the
members of the board of directors. The special act governing
the Ventura County Resource Conservation District splits the
CONTINUED
SB 184
Page
8
District into three divisions and requires that three members of
the board of directors must be elected from each division.
This bill eliminates the District's three divisions and reduces
the size of the governing board to seven directors who are
elected at-large which will allow the District to follow general
current laws that govern the size and election of a resource
conservation district's board of directors.
Baldwin Hills Conservancy Governing Board . Existing law
establishes the Baldwin Hills Conservancy to acquire and manage
public lands within the Baldwin Hills area, and to provide
recreational, open space, wildlife habitat restoration and
protection, and lands for educational uses within the area. The
Conservancy's governing board consists of 13 voting members and
seven nonvoting members. One of the voting members is the member
of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors whose district
the majority of the Baldwin Hills area is located within. Some
of the Board's voting members, including the Secretary of the
Resources Agency, the Director of Parks and Recreation, the
Director of Finance, and the Director of the Los Angeles County
Department of Parks can name a designee to sit on the board. The
Los Angeles county supervisor who sits on the Conservancy's
board is not authorized to name a designee to sit on the board.
This bill authorizes the Los Angeles County supervisor who sits
as a voting member of the Baldwin Hills Conservancy's governing
board to name a designee to sit on the board.
Property and Business Improvement District Assessments on
Tax-Exempt Property . Proposition 218 (1996) requires owners of
real property to approve benefit assessments in a weighted
ballot protest proceeding; property owners vote in proportion to
their proposed assessments, which reflect how much their
property benefits from the proposed public works or public
services. 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 certain
improvements and activities. Current law allows a PBID's
management plan to provide that "real property which is exempt
by law from real property taxation may nevertheless be included
within the boundaries of the district but shall not be subject
to assessment on real property." According to the author,
CONTINUED
SB 184
Page
9
practitioners that work with PBIDs note that this language is
ambiguous and appears to conflict with Proposition 218's special
benefit requirements by allowing tax-exempt parcels that benefit
from PBID activities and improvements to be excluded from the
assessment.
This bill deletes the ambiguous language in the Property and
Business Improvement District Law that conflicts with
Proposition 218.
Kings River Conservation District's elections . The Kings River
Conservation District (Fresno County) is a special district
established by a special act that provides flood control, water
resource management, and power generation services. The District
is governed by a seven-member elected board of directors. SB
1090 (Governance & Finance Committee, Chapter 330, Statutes of
2012) included amendments to the District's statutes governing
its board elections and inadvertently reenacted some antiquated
statutory language that had been repealed by AB 1892 (Porter,
1965). According to the author, district officials want to
repeal the statute that contains the outdated language and add
some cross-references to more modern statutes governing district
elections.
This bill repeals outdated statutory language relating to the
King's River Conservation District's elections, requires the
District's board to fill board vacancies pursuant to a specified
section of the Government Code, and specifies that the
District's elections to approve bonded indebtedness must be
conducted pursuant to the statutes that govern irrigation
districts' bond elections.
Comments
This bill compiles 13 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
CONTINUED
SB 184
Page
10
any item in this bill attract opposition, the Committee will
delete it. In this transparent process, there is no hidden
agenda. If it's not consensus, it's not omnibus.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/20/13)
California Association of Public Cemeteries
California Land Surveyors Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
Civitas Advisors, Inc.
County of Los Angeles
County Recorders Association of California
Kings River Conservation District
Napa County Recorder, John Tuteur
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 8/19/13
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier,
Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell,
Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,
Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mitchell, Morrell,
Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson,
Perea, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner, Stone,
Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams,
Yamada, John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: V. Manuel Pérez, Vacancy, Vacancy
AB:nl 8/21/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
SB 184
Page
11
CONTINUED