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Additionally, this section deletes a reference to a repealed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 ****