BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 174|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 174
Author: Carter (D)
Amended: 7/14/09 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 9-0, 6/17/09
AYES: Romero, Huff, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Maldonado,
Padilla, Simitian, Wyland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 5/14/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : School district reorganization
SOURCE : Superintendent of Public Education
DIGEST : This bill authorizes a County Committee on
School District Organization to approve petitions to create
new school districts without having to submit the proposal
to the State Board of Education when the governing boards
of the affected districts consent and the county
superintendent(s) with jurisdiction over the affected
districts approve, and where there is an agreement to share
the costs of complying with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires lead agencies
with the principal responsibility for carrying out or
CONTINUED
AB 174
Page
2
approving a proposed discretionary project to prepare a
negative declaration, mitigated declaration, or
environmental impact report for this action, unless the
project is exempt from CEQA. School district
reorganization petitions are subject to CEQA.
This bill:
1.Authorizes a county committee on school district
organization to approve or disapprove a petition to form
one or more school districts without further review by
the State Board of Education (SBE), provided that:
A.Each county superintendent with jurisdiction over an
affected school district gives approval authority to his
county committee and the county committee accepts the
authority.
B.The governing board of each affected school district
consents to the petition.
C.The county committee designated as the lead agency for
CEQA enters into an agreement on behalf of the county
committee for all affected school districts to share the
costs of complying with CEQA.
2.Provides that a petition to form one or more school
district that is not approved by the county committee,
shall be transmitted to the SBE for their review in
accordance with current procedures. For such proposals
the SBE becomes the lead agency for CEQA.
3.Provides that a petition to form one or more school
districts that is approved by the county committee, or by
the SBE following review, shall not become effective
until approval by a vote of the people in the territory
being reorganized.
4.Provides that the county committee shall be the lead
agency for CEQA for each petition it considers, unless
the SBE has assumed that duty as noted above.
5.Provides that the 120 day period that is allowed for a
county committee to approve or disapprove a transfer of
AB 174
Page
3
territory begins only after:
A. The environmental impact report is certified, or
B. A negative declaration is approved, or
C. It is determined that the proposal is exempt from
CEQA.
6.Revises the definition of an action to reorganize
districts to mean either of the following:
A. An action to form a new school district which is
accomplished through any of, or any combination of
the following:
(1) Dissolving two or more existing school
districts of the same kind and forming one or more
new school districts of that same kind from the
entire territory of the original districts.
(2) Forming one or more new school districts of
the same kind from all or parts of one or more
existing school districts of that same kind.
(3) Unifying school districts, including the
consolidation of all or part of one or more high
school districts with all or part of one or more
component school districts into one or more new
unified school districts.
(4) Deunifying a school district, including the
conversion of all or part of a unified school
district into one or more new high school
districts, each with two or more new component
districts.
B. An action to transfer territory, including the
transfer of all or part of an existing school
district to another existing school district.
Existing law provides that any school district which has
been organized for more than three years shall be lapsed,
as provided, if the number of registered electors in the
AB 174
Page
4
district is less than six or if specified conditions are
satisfied.
For purposes of these provisions regarding lapses, this
bill defines lapse as an action to dissolve a school
district and annex the entire territory of that district to
one or more adjoining school districts. This bill provides
that an action to lapse a school district is subject to
specified general statutory provisions regarding the
reorganization of school district.
Background
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 California Department of Education (CDE),
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 school 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 reorganization petitions, CEQA costs are
paid by the CDE.
Prior 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."
AB 174
Page
5
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/13/09)
Superintendent of Public Instruction (source)
California County Boards of Education
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/13/09)
Department of Finance
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI), the sponsor of this 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."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Department of Finance
opposes this bill for the following reasons:
1.The Governor vetoed identical legislation (with the
exception of any urgency clause), AB 2243 (Carter, 2008),
stating this bill would likely accelerate the number of
district reorganizations that would result in higher
costs to the state at a time of severe fiscal uncertainty
and that this bill could create a reimbursable state
mandate to perform the additional duties proposed for
districts under the CEQA process.
2.Allowing local districts to independently approve
reorganizations without SBE review would likely result in
AB 174
Page
6
increased local reorganizations (based on the current
backlog) adopted in any given year and increased revenue
limit costs associated with these organizations, given
the enhancements and adjustments provided under current
law. These Proposition 98 General Fund costs could range
from the low millions to tens of millions annually.
3.Given current funding constraints, the existing revenue
limit advantages may be an increasingly important factor
in the local motivation to reorganize school districts.
Absent a review by the SBE, it is likely that fiscal
notification would not be revealed to any state policy
body.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill Berryhill,
Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield, Brownley,
Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,
Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore,
Duvall, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,
Fuller, Furutani, Galgiani, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman,
Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman,
Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande,
Niello, Nielsen, John A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez,
Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Silva, Skinner,
Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres,
Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, Bass
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ammiano, Fuentes, Gaines, Saldana, Smyth
DLW:cm 7/14/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****