BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2910| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING 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: Author 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, Chapter 763, Statutes of 2015). SB 239 only replaced some AB 2910 Page 2 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 landowner that owns all parcels in the affected territory from AB 2910 Page 3 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 $17,890. AB 2910 Page 4 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 Association of California Water Agencies AB 2910 Page 5 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 6/16/16 14:22:40 AB 2910 Page 6 **** END ****