BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2910|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 2910
Author: Committee on Local Government
Amended: 6/1/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/8/16
AYES: Hertzberg, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Lara, Moorlach,
Pavley
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 5/5/16 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Local government: organization: omnibus bill
SOURCE: California Association of Local Agency Formation
Commissions
DIGEST: This bill makes minor clarifying changes to laws
affecting local government organization and reorganization.
ANALYSIS: Existing law establishes the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg
Local Government Reorganization Act, which delegates the
Legislature's power to control the boundaries of cities and
special districts to local agency formation commissions
(LAFCOs).
This bill makes the following clarifying changes to state laws
affecting LAFCOs:
1)Clarifies some changes in law enacted by SB 239 (Hertzberg,
AB 2910
Page 2
Chapter 763, Statutes of 2015). SB 239 only replaced some
references to "current service area" with "jurisdictional
boundaries." AB 2910 ensures the consistent use of
jurisdictional boundaries throughout the law. It also
clarifies that the fiscal analysis required by SB 239 is not a
"comprehensive fiscal analysis," which is a specific term
within the context of LAFCO proceedings. [See SEC. 1 of the
bill.]
2)Corrects statutory language that describes LAFCO purposes.
Current law states that one purpose of a LAFCO is to
efficiently provide government services. However, a LAFCO
does not directly provide services, but instead encourages
service providers, such as special districts, to efficiently
provide those services. AB 2910 makes technical changes to
reflect this purpose. [SEC. 2]
3)Requires public members sitting on LAFCOs to be residents of
the county of the appointing commission. The composition of
LAFCOs includes the appointment of a public member and an
alternate public member. Existing law places only one
restriction on the selection of public members: that no
officer or employee of a county, city, or district within the
county may be appointed as a public member or alternate public
member. In practice, LAFCOs require these public members to
be a resident of the county of the commission that appoints
the public member. AB 2910 codifies this practice and
includes references to LAFCOs that have the composition of
their commission established separately in a stand-alone
section. [SEC. 3]
4)Exempts proposals for changes of organization that are
initiated by the sole landowner in the affected area from
certain notices. Current law requires the filing of a Notice
of Intent to Circulate Petition prior to the circulation of
any petition to initiate a change of organization. In cases
when there is only a single landowner involved, that sole
landowner must currently file this notice before they can sign
their own petition. AB 2910 exempts proposals initiated by a
AB 2910
Page 3
landowner that owns all parcels in the affected territory from
this requirement. [SEC. 4]
5)Corrects a typographical error in the statute that governs
city disincorporation and ensures that any unpaid assessments
owed to a disincorporating city are tallied along with other
financial obligations. Current law requires disincorporating
cities to determine and certify the amount of any tax levy or
other obligation outstanding. AB 2910 adds assessments to
this list to clarify that they should be counted as well.
[SEC. 5]
6)Corrects a typographical error in the statute that governs the
LAFCO decision-making process. [SEC. 6]
7)Clarifies that LAFCOs' ability to conduct an expedited
dissolution process for special districts generally also
applies to healthcare districts. Current law, enacted by AB
912 (Gordon, Chapter 109, Statutes of 2011), authorizes LAFCOs
to dissolve a special district without an election in some
cases, but it mistakenly excluded a reference to another
provision of current law that states that dissolutions of
local hospital districts are subject to approval by voters.
AB 2910 adds the requisite reference and ensures that the
expedited dissolution process applies to all special
districts. [SEC. 7]
8)Corrects a cross reference in statute governing the notice of
changes of organization or reorganization. [SEC. 8]
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
AB 2910
Page 4
$17,890.
Legislators respond by combining several of these minor
amendments into an annual "omnibus bill." In 2015, for example,
the LAFCO omnibus bill was AB 1532 (Assembly Local Government
Committee, Chapter 114, Statutes of 2015) which contained
several noncontroversial statutory changes to LAFCO law,
avoiding significant legislative costs.
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. AB 2910 compiles, into a single
bill, noncontroversial statutory changes to eight parts of LAFCO
law. Moving a bill through the legislative process costs around
$18,000. By avoiding seven other bills, the Committee's measure
avoids more than $126,000 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. By carefully reviewing each
item with the affected parties, the Committee also avoids
controversy. Should any item in AB 2910 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.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified6/10/16)
California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions
(source)
Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission
AB 2910
Page 5
Association of California Water Agencies
Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission
El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission
Imperial County Local Agency Formation Commission
Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission
Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission
San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission
San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission
Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission
Solano Local Agency Formation Commission
Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission
OPPOSITION: (Verified6/10/16)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 5/5/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker,
Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,
Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier,
Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson,
Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, 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, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting,
Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Beth Gaines
Prepared by: Anton Favorini-Csorba / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119
6/10/16 11:54:00
AB 2910
Page 6
**** END ****