BILL ANALYSIS
AB 174
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 18, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 174 (Carter) - As Introduced: January 29, 2009
[This bill is double referred to the Assembly Natural Resources
Committee and will be heard as it relates to the issues under
its jurisdiction]
SUBJECT : School district reorganization
SUMMARY : Streamlines the process for specified school district
reorganizations. Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes the county committee on school district
organization (county committee) to approve petitions to create
one or more new school districts, where the governing boards
of the affected school districts consent to the petition,
where the county superintendent of schools with jurisdiction
over the affected school districts grants approval to the
county committee and the county committee chooses to accept
that authority, and where the county committee enters into an
agreement to share the costs of complying with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) on behalf of any or all affected school districts
(eligible petitions).
2)Requires the county committee, for any eligible petition that
it approves, to notify the county superintendent of schools
who is required to call for an election at which the petition
is put to a vote of the affected electorate; requires an
eligible petition that is disapproved by the county committee
to be transmitted to the SBE for hearing.
3)Designates the State Board of Education (SBE) as the lead
agency for purposes of CEQA for each eligible petition
disapproved by the county committee, including those petitions
where the project is determined to be exempt from CEQA, and
names the county committee as the lead agency for purposes of
CEQA for other eligible petitions.
4)Requires that a mutual agreement between affected counties
determines the lead agency for purposes of CEQA in cases where
multiple counties are involved, and designates the county
AB 174
Page 2
committee for the county with the greatest enrollment as the
lead agency if no mutual agreement can be reached within 30
days of the filing of a petition to reorganize one or more
school districts.
5)Provides that the 120 day period within which a county
committee is required to make a recommendation on a
reorganization proposal commences after certification of an
environmental impact report, approval of a negative
declaration, or a determination that the project is exempt
from CEQA.
EXISTING LAW
1)States the intent of the Legislature that local educational
needs and concerns serve as the basis for future
reorganizations of districts in each county.
2)Establishes a process whereby locally developed reorganization
petitions dealing with a transfer of territory are reviewed by
the county committee for approval or disapproval in a public
hearing, and allows for the county committee decision on a
petition dealing with a transfer of territory to be appealed
to the SBE for review and consideration.
3)Establishes a process whereby locally developed reorganization
petitions dealing with all other district organizational
issues are reviewed by the county committee in public hearing
and submitted with a recommendation to the SBE, and requires
the SBE to hear such petitions in public hearing, receive a
recommendation from California Department of Education (CDE)
staff, and formally approve or disapprove those petitions.
4)Requires the return of approved petitions to the local
jurisdiction, where the county superintendent of schools is
required to call for an election at which the petition is put
to a vote of the affected electorate.
5)Subjects these petitions to review under CEQA.
FISCAL EFFECT : A substantially similar bill in 2008 was found
to have minor state costs, with the possibility of some savings
at the state level.
COMMENTS : This bill simplifies the approval process for local
AB 174
Page 3
reorganization petitions to create one or more new school
districts if the affected school districts and county
superintendent of schools consent and if an agreement to share
costs related with CEQA exists. The proposed simplification
occurs by eliminating approval or disapproval at the state level
by the SBE, and by clarifying responsibilities with respect to
CEQA.
The author argues that this bill will result in cost savings to
local education agencies, and will reduce long delays in
approval that result, according to the author, from low staffing
levels and high workload in the CDE. According to the sponsor,
the Superintendent of Public Instruction, county committees
review unification proposals carefully before making a
recommendation regarding the unification to the SBE. These
reviews "include public hearings and analyses of the same
conditions that the SBE considers. Although many unifications
are locally controversial (i.e., one or more affected districts
are opposed to the unification), a number of unifications are
supported by all affected districts as well as by the county
committee."
According to the CDE, a total of 85 reorganization petitions
were heard by the SBE over the twelve years prior to 2008. This
included 21 petitions consolidating existing districts such that
it would qualify as an eligible petition for county committee
approval/disapproval under this proposal; all 21 of these
petitions were approved by the SBE, and 19 were approved when
put to a vote of the affected electorate. Opposition was voiced
at the SBE hearing on a small number of these petitions,
primarily from teachers, parents, and other interested residents
of the affected school districts; these parties would have also
had the opportunity to testify as the county committee was
hearing the petition. In a small number of these cases, the
Department of Finance (DOF) came forward in the SBE hearing to
express the state's interest and testify that the reorganization
could, by having an impact on resulting district(s) revenue
limits, increase costs to the state.
Two concerns could be voiced with the simplification proposed in
this bill: 1) the loss of review at the state level may mean
that the state's interest in any eligible school district
reorganization is not represented; and, 2) although the author
represents eligible petitions as non-controversial
reorganization proposals, support from the governing boards of
AB 174
Page 4
affected school districts and any affected county superintendent
is not a guarantee that no local controversy over a petition
exists. Despite these concerns, there is clear benefit from
simplifying and expediting the existing process for local school
district reorganization, and from empowering the local county
committee to make local decisions on petitions that are eligible
under this proposal.
The author carried a substantially similar bill in 2008. The
Governor vetoed that bill, but provided no substantive reasons
for that action in his veto message.
Related legislation: AB 2243 (Carter), vetoed in 2008, was
substantially similar to this bill. AB 1642 (Salinas), Chapter
344, Statutes of 2005, makes changes to the school district
reorganization process, including authorizing a county committee
on school district reorganization to abolish a common governing
board of an elementary district and a high school district upon
a vote of the electors of the respective districts. AB 780
(Cogdill), Chapter 652, Statutes of 2004, authorized Fresno,
Humboldt and Ventura counties to locally approve school district
unifications through January 1, 2009 without receiving the
further approval of the SBE; it also required the approval of
the SBE in the event that the county decision on a unification
proposal was appealed. AB 2841 (Salinas), vetoed in 2004,
proposed streamlining changes to the process similar to AB 1642.
SB 977 (Solis), Chapter 599, Statutes of 2000, prohibits an
action to reorganize the boundaries of a school district without
the consent of a majority of the members of the governing board
of the school district if the school district has obtained an
emergency loan from the state, and the school district has a
pupil population from low income households.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell (Sponsor)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087