BILL ANALYSIS
AB 174
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 174 (Carter) - As Introduced: January 29, 2009
Policy Committee:
EducationVote:10-0
Natural Resources
9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires the county committee on school district
organizations to be the lead agency for the purposes of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for each school
district reorganization petition it considers (if all districts
are located in the same county), unless the State Board of
Education (SBE) is the designated the lead agency, as specified.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the county superintendent of schools of the affected
counties to determine, by mutual agreement, which county
committee is designated as the lead agency for purposes of the
CEQA. If an agreement is not attained within 30 days, this
measure requires the county committee that has the greatest
number of pupils under its jurisdiction affected by the
reorganization to be the lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
2)Requires the 120 day period for approving or disapproving
reorganization petitions to begin after certification of an
environmental impact report, approval of a negative
declaration, or a determination that the project is exempt
from CEQA.
3)Authorizes a county committee to approve a petition to form
one or more school districts, if the following conditions are
met: (a) each county superintendent of schools with
jurisdiction over the affected school district elects to grant
approval authority to the county committee on school district
reorganization and the county committee chooses to except this
AB 174
Page 2
authority; (b) the governing board of each of the affected
school districts consents to the petition; and (c) the
secretary of the county committee designated as the lead
agency for purposes of CEQA enters into an agreement on behalf
of the county committee for any or all of the affected school
districts to share the costs of complying with CEQA.
4)Requires a school district reorganization petition that meets
the conditions described in #3 above, but is not approved by
the county committee, to be transmitted and heard by the SBE.
This measure further requires the SBE to be the lead agency
for CEQA is this instance, including a petition disapproved by
the county committee after determining the project is exempt
from CEQA, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
Potential, reimbursable mandated costs to the county
superintendent of schools, likely less than $50,000 annually, to
be designated as the lead agency for the purposes of CEQA
requirements. The State Department of Education (SDE) estimates
it has incurred $335,000 GF in CEQA-related costs since 2004.
Of this amount, approximately $300,000 is related to a single
controversial petition to split an existing school district.
Likewise, because this bill requires the CSS to bear the burden
of CEQA costs, there will be GF administrative savings to SDE.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . Existing law contains various provisions for the
organization and reorganization of school districts and
provides for a county committee to approve or disapprove
various aspects of the reorganization, as specified.
According to the SDE, it has processed 85 school district
reorganization proposals within the past 12 years. Of these
proposals, 49 were unification proposals, 25 were proposals to
split existing districts, and 24 were consolidations of
existing high school districts into one unified district.
AB 780 (Cogdill), Chapter 652, Statutes of 2004, established a
three county pilot program that required the county committee
to pay the costs of compliance with CEQA provisions in the
case of school district reorganizations that transfer
territory and unification petitions. For all other district
AB 174
Page 3
reorganization petitions, CEQA costs are paid by SDE.
The Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), the sponsor of
the bill, argues that the current school district
reorganization process is costly and time consuming at the
state level, which leads to delays at the local level. The
SPI states, "County committees review unification proposals
carefully before making a recommendation regarding the
unification to SBE. This review includes public hearings and
analysis of the same conditions that are considered by the
SBE. Although many unifications are locally controversial
(i.e., one or more districts are proposed for unification), a
number of unifications are supported by all parties as well as
by the county committee. The SBE has never disapproved a
unification proposal that was supported by all affected
districts and the county committee."
This bill authorizes a county committee to approve a petition
for school district reorganization under certain conditions.
This measure also requires the county committee to be
designated the lead agency for the purposes of CEQA.
2)CEQA requires local lead agencies to certify the completion of
an environmental impact report on a project they intend to
carry out or approve that may have a significant adverse
effect on the environment. The local lead agency may approve a
negative declaration, if it finds that the project will not
have a significant adverse effect, and may approve a mitigated
negative declaration if it finds that project revisions would
avoid or mitigate the effect.
3)Previous legislation . AB 2243 (Carter) was vetoed in
September 2008, with the following "generic" veto message:
"The historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State Budget has
forced me to prioritize the bills sent to my desk at the end
of the year's legislative session. Given the delay, I am only
signing bills that are the highest priority for California.
This bill does not meet that standard and I cannot sign it at
this time."
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081