BILL ANALYSIS
AB 174
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 174 (Carter)
As Amended July 15, 2009
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |75-0 |(May 14, 2009) |SENATE: |35-0 |(August 17, |
| | | | | |2009) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
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
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)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
AB 174
Page 2
environmental impact report, approval of a negative
declaration, or a determination that the project is exempt
from CEQA.
The Senate amendments :
1)Delete the proposed requirement 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.
2)Clarify definitions of specific actions that may be taken to
reorganize school districts.
3)Make technical changes in statutory construction and
numbering.
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
AB 174
Page 3
to a vote of the affected electorate; also subjects these
petitions to review under CEQA.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version passed by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,
pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
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
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 came forward in the SBE hearing to express the
state's interest and testify that the reorganization could, by
AB 174
Page 4
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.
AB 2243 (Carter), vetoed in 2008, was substantially similar to
this bill; no substantive reasons for the veto were provided.
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0001987