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 --