BILL ANALYSIS
AB 174
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 174 (Carter)
As Introduced January 29, 2009
Majority vote
EDUCATION 10-0 NATURAL RESOURCES 9-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Nestande, |Ayes:|Skinner, Gilmore, |
| |Ammiano, Arambula, | |Brownley, Chesbro, De |
| |Buchanan, Carter, Eng, | |Leon, Hill, Huffman, |
| |Garrick, Miller, | |Knight, Logue |
| |Torlakson | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, | | |
| |Ammiano, | | |
| |Charles Calderon, | | |
| |Krekorian, Duvall, | | |
| |Fuentes, Monning Harkey, | | |
| |Miller, John A. Perez, | | |
| |Price, Skinner, Solorio, | | |
| |Audra Strickland, | | |
| |Torlakson | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 an eligible
petition that creates 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
AB 174
Page 2
affected school districts.
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; and, requires an
eligible petition that is disapproved by the county committee
to be transmitted to the State Board of Education (SBE) for
hearing.
3)Designates 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 determines the lead agency
for purposes of CEQA in cases where multiple counties are
involved; and, designates the county 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
AB 174
Page 3
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; also subjects these
petitions to review under CEQA.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, there are 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; some of these costs will be offset by
General Fund administrative savings to CDE.
COMMENTS : This bill simplifies the approval process for local
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 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 12 years prior to 2008. This
AB 174
Page 4
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 few 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
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.
According to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, "The
provisions relating to CEQA do not amend CEQA or otherwise
impact CEQA standards, they merely designate which public agency
will be lead for CEQA review for the specific projects impacted
by the bill."
Related legislation: AB 2243 (Carter), vetoed in 2008, was
substantially similar to this bill; no substantive reasons for
the veto were provided. 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,
AB 174
Page 5
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. 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0000650