BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1532| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONSENT Bill No: AB 1532 Author: Committee on Local Government Amended: 5/22/15 in Assembly Vote: 21 SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/24/15 AYES: Hertzberg, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Lara, Moorlach, Pavley ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/28/15 - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Local government: omnibus SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill proposes several changes to laws affecting local government organization and reorganization. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Establishes the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Reorganization Act of 2000, which: a) Delegates the Legislature's power to control the boundaries of cities and special districts to local agency formation commissions (LAFCOs). AB 1532 Page 2 b) Specifies the procedures for the organization and reorganization of cities, counties, and special districts. This bill: 1) Updates a reference to the "State Department of Health Services" to its current name of the "State Department of Health Care Services," corrects the location of the Licensing and Certification Division; and deletes a reference to the "California Medical Assistance Commission," which was eliminated in 2012. [See SEC. 1 of the bill.] 2) Standardizes terminology by uniformly applying the word "appoint" to identify the means by which commissioners are appointed to LAFCOs. Current law uses a variety of other terms, including "selected," "designated," and "appointed." [SEC. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11.] 3) Corrects a reference to the composition of the Santa Clara LAFCO. As authorized by current law, Santa Clara LAFCO added two special district members to the Commission in 2013. Therefore, the composition of the commission is now a seven-member commission, including one public member. This change updates Government Code Section 56327, which states that the public member is appointed by the other four members of the commission. This proposed change will reflect the current composition of the commission. Additionally, this section deletes a reference to a repealed code section and replaces it with the correct reference for the process by which a LAFCO provides special districts with representation on the commission. [SEC. 5 and 6.] 4) Clarifies a code section that lists the circumstances under which a LAFCO must approve a change of organization or reorganization of a city without allowing for a protest proceeding. This change makes the subdivision easier to AB 1532 Page 3 read and emphasizes that there are two cases in which the subdivision does not apply. [SEC. 10.] 5) Inserts a reference to "updating" a sphere of influence, in addition to "amending," when describing the fees that a LAFCO may levy for its services. This addition is consistent with other references in LAFCO law to "amending or updating" a sphere of influence. [SEC. 12.] 6) Expands the circumstances where a LAFCO may appoint an alternate legal counsel due to a conflict of interest that affects staff counsel. Current law authorizes a commission to appoint alternate legal counsel if there is a financial conflict of interest as defined in the Political Reform Act. The current definition of "conflict of interest" does not include instances when legal counsel represents clients with potentially adverse interests. This bill expands the definition of "conflict of interest" to authorize the commission to appoint alternate legal costs and recover their costs for doing so. The definition of "conflict of interest" in Rule 3-310 is currently used in statute in instances when county counsel or a district attorney may have a conflict of interest in representing an assessor or sheriff. [SEC. 13] 7) Adds a missing cross-reference to an additional circumstance when the commission can approve a change of organization or reorganization without notice, hearing, and election. [SEC. 14.] 8) Makes technical changes to two sections that govern the actions LAFCOs must take at the end of their proceedings. These changes format the two sections in the same way and make statute more consistent. [SEC. 15 and 16.] 9) Corrects the terminology used to describe the document a commission prepares to indicate that a proposal for a change AB 1532 Page 4 of organization or reorganization was terminated. [SEC. 17.] 10) Clarifies the section that orders LAFCO to terminate proceedings if a change of organization or reorganization does not receive a majority of the votes cast by the electorate. This bill restructures this section to be consistent with other sections in LAFCO law, which clearly state that anything other than a majority of votes cast in favor of the proposal results in termination of proceedings. Background As practitioners find problems with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, they ask for statutory improvements. 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." 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. Comments Purpose of the bill. Even the best written statutes contain minor flaws. When statutory problems appear in the state law affecting LAFCOs, the Assembly Local Government Committee avoids legislative costs by combining several changes to the state laws into a single, consensus bill. This bill compiles, into a single bill, noncontroversial statutory changes to ten parts of LAFCO law. By carefully reviewing each item with the affected parties, the Committee also avoids controversy. Should any item in this bill attract opposition, the Committee will delete it. AB 1532 Page 5 In this transparent process, there is no hidden agenda. If it's not consensus, it's not omnibus. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:NoLocal: No SUPPORT: (Verified6/25/15) Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission Butte Local Agency Formation Commission California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Los Angeles Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission of Yolo County Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission San Benito Local Agency Formation Commission San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission Santa Cruz Local Agency Formation Commission Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission OPPOSITION: (Verified6/25/15) None received ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/28/15 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, AB 1532 Page 6 Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins NO VOTE RECORDED: Bloom, Grove Prepared by:Anton Favorini-Csorba / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119 6/26/15 13:31:12 **** END ****