BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 819
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  June 27, 2007

                       ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
                             Anna Marie Caballero, Chair
                 SB 819 (Hollingsworth) - As Amended:   May 30, 2007

           SENATE VOTE  :  38-0
           
          SUBJECT  :  Local government:  consolidation.

           SUMMARY  : Deletes the sunset of the statutory provisions that  
          allow local agency formation commissions to consolidate and  
          reorganize special districts that were not formed under the same  
          principal act.  Specifically,  this bill  :   

          1)Deletes the July 1, 2008, sunset date for the statutory  
            provisions that allow local agency formation commissions  
            (LAFCOs) to consolidate and reorganize special districts that  
            were not formed under the same principal act.

          2)Allows LAFCOs to initiate the formation of new special  
            districts.

          3)Specifies that the provisions of the bill do not apply to any  
            application for a change of organization or reorganization  
            that a LAFCO has accepted for filing before January 1, 2008.

          4)Specifies that the provisions of the bill shall not affect any  
            litigation pending on January 1, 2008.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Establishes in each county a LAFCO to review proposals for the  
            formation of new local agencies and changes in the  
            organization of existing local agencies.

          2)Allows LAFCOs to consolidate and reorganize special districts  
            that were not formed under the same principal act, but only  
            through July 1, 2008.

           FISCAL EFFECT :   None

           COMMENTS  :   

          1)LAFCOs are charged with reviewing proposals for the formation  








                                                                  SB 819
                                                                  Page  2

            of new cities and special districts and changes to the  
            organization of existing cities and districts.  Besides  
            annexations and detachments of territory, other boundary  
            changes affect special districts, including:

             a)   Formation:  the creation of a new special district.

             b)   Dissolution:  the elimination of an existing special  
               district.

             c)   Merger:  the district dissolves and a city takes over  
               its duties.

             d)   Subsidiary district: the district continues, but is  
               governed by a city council.

             e)   Consolidation: two districts combine into a single  
               district.

             f)   Reorganization: two or more boundary changes go into a  
               single proposal.

          2)Most boundary changes begin when a city or special district  
            applies to LAFCO, or when registered voters or landowners file  
            petitions with LAFCO.  In limited circumstances, a LAFCO can  
            initiate some special district boundary changes, including  
            consolidations, dissolutions, mergers, subsidiary districts,  
            and reorganizations [AB 1335 (Gotch), Chapter 1307, Statutes  
            of 1993].  LAFCOs cannot initiate the annexation of territory  
            to special districts nor can they initiate the formation of  
            new special districts.

          3)Until 2005, a LAFCO could approve the consolidation of special  
            districts only when the districts relied on the same principal  
            act.  For example, a LAFCO could consolidate two fire  
            protection districts into a single fire protection district,  
            but it could not consolidate a fire protection district with a  
            municipal water district.  Practitioners convinced legislators  
            to delete the requirement that special districts must have the  
            same principal act to be eligible for consolidation [AB 2067  
            (Harman), Chapter 471, Statutes of 2004].

          4)Under the legislation that will expire on July 1, 2008, a  
            petition filed with a LAFCO that proposes to consolidate two  
            special districts not formed under the same principal act must  








                                                                  SB 819
                                                                  Page  3

            either designate which district will be the successor and  
            identify its principal act, or state that the proposal  
            requires the formation of a new district and includes a plan  
            for services.  Also until July 1, 2008, if reorganization  
            includes the consolidation of two special districts not formed  
            under the same principal act, the bill allows a LAFCO to  
            approve the proposal only if two conditions are met:

             a)   The LAFCO must be able to designate one or more  
               successors or form one or more new districts that have the  
               powers of the consolidated districts.

             b)   The LAFCO must determine that the consolidation's public  
               service costs are likely to be less than or substantially  
               similar to the alternatives, and that the boundary change  
               promotes public access and accountability.

          5)Until 2008, if a LAFCO initiates a reorganization that  
            includes the consolidation of two special districts not formed  
            under the same principal act, LAFCO can approve the  
            reorganization only if the LAFCO has either prepared a study  
            of governmental agencies, or conducted a municipal service  
            review that includes nine written determinations.  In  
            addition, the LAFCO must meet three conditions:

             a)   All of the services provided by the districts before the  
               consolidation will be provided after the consolidation by  
               one or more successors or by a new district that has the  
               power to provide those services.  The successor must be  
               currently providing the same service.  The LAFCO cannot  
               designate a city as the successor unless the city covers  
               70% or more of one of the districts or the combined  
               districts and 70% or more of the district or districts'  
               registered voters reside in the city.


             b)   The consolidation's public service costs are likely to  
               be less than or substantially similar to the alternatives.

             c)   The consolidation promotes public access and  
               accountability.

          6)Also until 2008, if a LAFCO intends to approve the  
            consolidation of two special districts not formed under the  
            same principal act, the LAFCO must determine whether any of  








                                                                  SB 819
                                                                  Page  4

            the districts' current services could be discontinued because  
            the successor lacks the statutory authority to provide those  
            services.  In that case, the LAFCO must consider forming a new  
            district.

          7)Skeptical that the 2004 Harman bill would result in many  
            district consolidations, the Senate Local Government Committee  
            asked for a sunset clause, terminating these provisions on 
          July 1, 2008.  However, six LAFCOs report using the statute.   
            The Lake County LAFCO, for example, consolidated two fire  
            protection districts, a community services district, and a  
            recreation and park district into a single fire protection  
            district.  Four LAFCOs say that 
          they have 20 more district consolidations in process.  Twenty  
            LAFCOs think that another 
          66 consolidations have potential.  Local officials want these  
            provisions to be permanent.  LAFCOs also say that it would  
            help consolidate districts if they could initiate the  
            formation of new districts to replace the ones they're  
            consolidating.

          8)SB 819 makes permanent the statutory provisions that allow  
            LAFCOs to consolidate and reorganize special districts that  
            were not formed under the same principal act.  SB 819 also  
            allows LAFCOs to initiate the formation of new special  
            districts, as such action is sometimes necessary as part of a  
            broader consolidation effort.

          9)Government efficiency experts have grumbled for decades that  
            California has too many special districts.  Critics have said  
            that LAFCOs, as the Legislature's watchdogs over local  
            boundaries, needed to do a better job of weeding out districts  
            that have outlived their usefulness.  Legislators decided to  
            experiment by passing the 2004 Harman bill that let local  
            officials consolidate different types of special districts.   
            Despite previous skepticism, the experiment worked and holds  
            promise for eliminating redundant and inefficient districts.  
          SB 819 makes that experiment permanent and enhances LAFCOs'  
            initiation powers.  Legislators should expect to see even  
            better performance from their watchdogs.

          10)Proposing the elimination of special districts can trigger  
            strong political reactions from established institutions that  
            resist change.  When the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water  
            District applied to the San Bernardino LAFCO for approval to  








                                                                  SB 819
                                                                  Page  5

            consolidate with the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation  
            District, there was resistance and litigation.  The Water  
            Conservation District's lawsuit to block the proposed  
            consolidation has not yet gone to trial.  The San Bernardino  
            litigation appears to be the only lawsuit related to the  
            consolidation of dissimilar districts.  Uncodified language in  
            SB 819 ensures that the provisions of the bill have no affect  
            on the pending lawsuit, or on any pending application before a  
            LAFCO. 

           




          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

           Support 
           
          Association of CA Water Agencies
          CA Association of LAFCOs
          CA Association of Special Districts
          Friant Water Authority
          Orange County LAFCO
          San Bernardino LAFCO
          San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
          San Diego LAFCO
           
            Opposition 
           
          None on File

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Anya Lawler / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958