BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 1318 (Wolk) - Local government: drinking water
infrastructure or services: wastewater infrastructure or
services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 12, 2016 |Policy Vote: GOV. & F. 5 - 1, |
| | E.Q. 5 - 2 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 23, 2016 |Consultant: Mark McKenzie |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill does not meet the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 1318 would require a local agency formation
commission (LAFCO) to identify disadvantaged unincorporated
communities that lack adequate drinking water and wastewater
services and plan for the provision of services to those
communities, as specified.
Fiscal
Impact:
Significant local costs which are not reimbursable from the
state. (see staff comments)
Minor costs to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) to post maps of certain disadvantaged unincorporated
SB 1318 (Wolk) Page 1 of
?
communities on its website. (General Fund)
Background: Existing law, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, establishes a
LAFCO in each county to control the boundaries of cities, county
service areas, and most special districts. To plan for the
future boundaries and service areas of the cities and special
districts, a LAFCO must adopt a sphere of influence for each
local entity, which must be updated at least every five years.
To inform decisions about an agency's sphere of influence,
LAFCOs prepare "municipal service reviews" (MSRs), which include
an analysis of services provided in a particular area, and
determinations with respect to seven specified factors. Among
these are the location and characteristics of any disadvantaged
unincorporated communities, and the present and planned capacity
of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and
infrastructure needs and deficiencies, including those related
to sewers, water, and fire protection in any disadvantaged
unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of
influence.
The LAFCOs' boundary decisions must be consistent with the
spheres of influence of the affected cities or districts. Local
governments can only exercise their powers and provide services
within their boundaries and spheres of influence, as determined
by the LAFCO, but they can also provide services outside their
spheres if necessary to address a major threat to public health.
LAFCOs are responsible for the orderly development and
coordination of local agencies and the promotion of logical and
orderly development, including the effective and efficient and
delivery of services. However, some communities continue to
lack adequate public services, including safe drinking water and
functioning wastewater systems. These communities are often
poor and located in the unincorporated area of a county. In
some cases these "disadvantaged unincorporated communities"
(DUCs) are remote and far from other communities with better
public services, but in others, a city may share a border with a
DUC that has been excluded from its boundaries.
Existing law, as enacted by SB 244 (Wolk), Chapter 513/2011,
prohibits a LAFCO from approving a city annexation of territory
greater than 10 acres if a DUC is contiguous to the area of the
proposed annexation, unless there is an application with the
LAFCO to annex the unincorporated area or if the residents of
SB 1318 (Wolk) Page 2 of
?
the affected territory oppose annexation. SB 244 also expanded
the MSR requirements as noted above to require the inclusion of
the location and characteristics of any DUCs within or
contiguous to the sphere of influence and to consider the water,
sewer, or fire protection needs of those communities within the
sphere when considering updates. SB 244 also authorized LAFCOs
to assess options for governmental reorganizations or
consolidations that improve the efficiency and affordability of
service delivery and to review whether water systems in the area
are in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Finally, SB
244 required cities and counties to review the water and fire
service needs of DUCs in their general plans.
Proposed Law:
SB 1318 would require LAFCOs to plan for the provision of
adequate drinking water and wastewater services to DUCs.
Specifically, this bill would:
Prohibit a LAFCO from approving an annexation of over 10 acres
to a qualified special district with more than 500 water or
wastewater service connections if a DUC is contiguous to the
area of proposed annexation, unless the district has applied
to LAFCO to annex the DUC or the residents of the DUC oppose
annexation.
Prohibit a LAFCO from approving a sphere of influence update
that removes a DUC from a city or special district, unless the
LAFCO finds that the removal of the community will result in
improved service delivery.
Require a LAFCO, when conducting an MSR and there is a DUC
that lacks adequate drinking water and wastewater services and
infrastructure, to assess alternatives for improving
efficiency and affordability of those services and
infrastructure, which may include an extension of those
services.
Require a LAFCO conducting an MSR to include a review of
whether the subject agency is in compliance with the
California Safe Drinking Water Act only if the information is
available from the State Water Resources Control Board or
other sources.
Require a LAFCO, on or before January 1, 2022 and every five
years thereafter, to conduct service reviews sufficient to
have reviewed the entire territory of the county.
Require a LAFCO to file a map of the county that identifies
SB 1318 (Wolk) Page 3 of
?
DUCs that lack safe drinking water and adequate wastewater in
electronic format to OPR, and require OPR to post the maps on
its website.
Require a LAFCO to recommend a plan based upon alternatives
analyzed and to adopt any actions necessary to implement the
plan within two years of identifying a DUC that lacks safe
drinking water or adequate wastewater services, as specified.
Specify that a LAFCO is not required to adopt or implement a
plan if it finds that there is no technical or economically
feasible way of connecting the DUC to an existing system, as
specified.
Prohibit a LAFCO from changing the sphere of influence of a
qualifying city or special district, or authorizing an
extension of services by those entities, on or after January
1, 2022, unless the LAFCO has conducted the analysis or
adopted a plan, as specified.
Prohibit a LAFCO from changing the sphere of influence of a
qualifying city or special district, or authorizing an
extension of services by those entities, if the city or
district has been designated in the plan to provide water or
wastewater services and the entity has not started providing
those services within three years of the designation, except
as specified.
Staff
Comments: SB 1318 would place new burdens on LAFCOs to plan for
addressing water and wastewater service deficiencies in DUCs.
LAFCO operations are funded by the cities, counties, and special
districts, and boundary decisions are generally considered local
land-use planning activities. The additional identification and
mapping of DUCs with service deficiencies, assessing
alternatives for service efficiency and affordability
improvements, and taking specified actions to implement action
plans in the municipal service review and sphere of influence
process would come at a substantial cost to LAFCOs. These costs
are passed on to the local agencies that fund LAFCO activities.
Legislative Counsel has identified this bill as a state-mandated
local program because it imposes new duties on local officials
in the LAFCO process. Staff notes, however, that LAFCOs
themselves do not appear to be eligible claimants for
state-reimbursement because they are not vested with taxing
authority, and their revenues are not subject to the
appropriations limits, as specified in Article XIII B of the
SB 1318 (Wolk) Page 4 of
?
California Constitution. In addition, although the bill would
result in increased costs to cities, counties, and special
districts because they fund LAFCO activities, the bill does not
place any new direct requirements on those local agencies, so it
would not appear to impose a higher level of service on them.
Rather, the mandates in the bill are imposed on LAFCOs. The
California Supreme Court has opined that "simply because a state
law or order may increase the costs borne by local government in
providing services, this does not necessarily establish that the
law or order constitutes an increased or higher level of the
resulting service to the public under article XIII B, section 6,
and Government Code section 17514." (San Diego Unified School
Dist. v. Commission on State Mandates (2004) 33 Cal.4th 859,
877.)
Moreover, local governments have broad fee authority to cover
costs associated with planning duties. Specifically, existing
law authorizes local agencies to impose zoning and permit fees
that include "costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise
plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt
before it can make any necessary findings and determinations."
Case law and previous decisions by the Commission on State
Mandates support the position that local governments' planning
costs are not reimbursable when the state imposes new planning
mandates. The costs of mandates imposed upon LAFCOs must
ultimately be passed on to counties, cities, and special
districts whose boundary decisions a LAFCO handles. These new
costs would have to be absorbed by local governments.
Any costs related to the requirement that OPR post maps of DUCs
that have water and wastewater service and infrastructure
deficiencies on its website would be minor.
-- END --