BILL ANALYSIS
AB 288
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 288 (Nestande) - As Introduced: February 13, 2009
Policy Committee: Local
GovernmentVote:7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill imposes new reporting and noticing requirements on
Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control Districts. Specifically,
the bill:
1)Requires the board of trustees to adopt a formal, written
response to any irregularities or accounting issues raised in
audits of the district's accounts and records.
2)Directs the districts to mail a public notice to each
trustee's appointing authority before adopting or increasing a
special benefit assessment.
3)Requires that the board make themselves or district staff
available to the appointing authorities to discuss the
proposed special benefit assessments.
FISCAL EFFECT
Minor costs to mosquito abatement and vector control districts
to comply with reporting and noticing requirements, not state
reimbursable.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Existing law authorizes the establishment of
mosquito abatement and vector control districts for the
purpose of protecting public health through the control of
mosquitoes, other insects, and rodents. Current law also (a)
establishes an appointed five-member board to govern the
districts, (b) requires that all special districts be subject
AB 288
Page 2
to annual audits, and (c) requires local governments to
provide notice to each property owner regarding any proposed
special benefit assessments. District revenues come from
property tax revenue allocations, special taxes, fees and/or
benefits assessments.
2)Purpose . The bill is intended to help build public trust in
mosquito abatement and vector control districts by (a)
requiring the districts' boards to respond to problems
identified in regular audits, and (b) by requiring districts
to inform their appointing authorities about pending changes
in special benefit assessments. The author's office notes some
cases where districts have raised benefit assessments despite
having stable costs and rising reserve funds.
3)Prior legislation . This bill is identical to SB 1326 (Ducheny)
from 2008. That measure was vetoed by the governor, who cited
the delayed budget and lack of time for review.
Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081