BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 113|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 113
Author: Senate Local Government Committee
Amended: 4/2/09
Vote: 21
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 5-0, 4/15/09
AYES: Wiggins, Cox, Aanestad, Kehoe, Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : Local Government Omnibus Act of 2009
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill enacts the Local Government Omnibus
Act of 2009, and makes 28 changes to the state laws
affecting local agencies' powers and duties.
ANALYSIS : Each year, local officials discover problems
with the state statutes that affect counties, cities,
special districts, and redevelopment agencies, as well as
the laws on land use planning and development. These minor
problems do not warrant separate (and expensive) bills.
According to the Legislative Analyst, in 2001-02 the cost
of producing a bill was $17,890.
The Senate Local Government Committee responds by combining
several of these minor topics into an annual "omnibus
bill." For example, the Committee's 2008 omnibus bill was
SB 1124 which contained 15 noncontroversial statutory
CONTINUED
SB 113
Page
2
changes, avoiding over $250,000 in legislative costs.
Although this practice may violate a strict interpretation
of the single-subject and germaneness rules as presented in
"Californians for an Open Primary v. McPherson" (2006) 38
Cal.4th 735, it is an expeditious and relatively
inexpensive way to respond to multiple requests.
This bill enacts the "Local Government Omnibus Act of 2009"
which proposes 28 changes to the state laws affecting local
agencies' powers and duties:
1. School facilities improvement districts . School
districts can finance improvements with district-wide
voter-approved general obligation bonds (Education Code
15100, et seq.). School districts can also finance
improvements with voter-approved general obligation
bonds issued by "school facilities improvement
districts" that are less than district-wide (Education
Code 15300, et seq., added by AB 3747, Quackenbush,
1994 and recodified by SB 161, Greene, 1997). School
districts can't use the school facilities improvement
district law unless the county board of supervisors
adopts a resolution (Education Code 15303). In 2008,
the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors gave the
Alhambra Unified School District permission to ask its
voters to approve general obligation bonds by using a
less than district-wide school facilities improvement
district. Los Angeles County officials say that the
statutory language is ambiguous. They want to clarify
that the county supervisors' approval to use the school
facilities improvement district statute could be either
countywide or could be limited to particular school
districts. This bill allows a county board of
supervisors' approval to use the school facilities
improvement district statute to be either countywide or
limited to particular school districts. [See 1.5 of the
bill.]
2. Appropriations limits for new local governments . Public
agencies must adopt annual appropriations limits and the
voters must establish the initial appropriations limit
for new local governments (Article XIII B, 1 & 4).
State law explains how to set the appropriations limits
for new local governments (Government Code 7907.2,
SB 113
Page
3
added by SB 813, Bergeson, 1987), with specific
procedures for new counties (Government Code 23332),
new special districts (Government Code 56811), and new
cities (Government Code 56812). There are also special
procedures for cities that incorporated in the late
1980s (Government Code 7902.7). Local officials note
that the special procedures for those new cities have
become irrelevant because the cities now adopt annual
appropriations limits. Further, they note that the
statutory cross-references to the specific procedures
are incorrect, referring to code sections that no longer
exist after the Legislature revised the
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization
Act (AB 2838, Hertzberg, 2000). They want the
Legislature to repeal the obsolete provisions relating
to cities that incorporated in the late 1980s and to
correct the statutory cross-references. This bill
repeals the obsolete provisions relating to cities that
incorporated in the late 1980s and corrects the
statutory cross-references in the statute that explains
how new local governments set their appropriations
limits. [2]
3. County boundary change cross-reference . State law
spells out the procedures that counties follow when
making minor boundary changes (Government Code 23200,
et seq.). These changes are not subject to review by
local agency formation commissions (LAFCOs) (Government
Code 23232). The Committee's staff notes that the
cross-reference to the LAFCO statutes is obsolete and
wants the Legislature to correct the citation. This
bill corrects the citation to the LAFCO statute in the
state law that spells out the procedures for counties'
minor boundary changes. [3]
4. Latent power cross-reference . Both the County Service
Area Law (Government Code Section 25210, et seq., added
by SB 1458, Senate Local Government Committee, 2008) and
the Community Services District Law (Government Code
Section 61000, et seq., added by SB 135, Kehoe, 2005)
explain how local agency formation commissions (LAFCOs)
control these special districts' "latent powers."
LAFCOs must rely on inventories of the districts'
services and functions prepared as part of their spheres
SB 113
Page
4
of influence (Government Code 25210.2 [g] & 61002 [h],
referring to Government Code 56425). A practitioner
notes that both of these statutes contain an incorrect
cross-reference to the special districts' spheres of
influence and she wants the Legislature to correct the
citations. This bill corrects the citation to special
districts' spheres of influence in the County Service
Area Law and the Community Services District Law. [4 &
70]
5. County service contracts . Nine counties have the
statutory authority to provide a limited list of
services by contract to private firms that require
special experience, education, and training, including
training materials and facilities, law enforcement, fire
protection, and public health (Government Code 25332,
added by AB 2665, Murray, 1992). Nine counties now have
this authority: Butte, Kings, Los Angeles, Merced,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Clara, and
Ventura. The Legislature added Riverside County to the
list in 1997 (SB 883, Senate Local Government Committee,
1997) and in 1998, legislators added Kings County (SB
1649, Senate Local Government Committee, 1998). Sonoma
County wants the Legislature to add it to this statutory
list and to expand the range of authorized services to
include maintenance and construction services. This
bill allows Sonoma County to provide county services to
private firms by contract. This bill expands the list
of authorized services to include maintenance and
construction services. [5]
6. County purchasing agents . State law allows county
boards of supervisors to hire purchasing agents to act
without separate authorizations when buying supplies,
renting equipment, and contracting for services
(Government Code 25500, et seq.). In counties with a
population of less than 200,000, the county supervisors
can authorize their purchasing agents to contract for
services when the "aggregate cost" doesn't exceed
$50,000, adjusted by the Consumer Price Index
(Government Code 25502.3). In counties with
populations over 200,000 the "aggregate cost" limit is
$100,000 (Government Code 25502.5). Napa County
officials say that their County Counsel believes that
SB 113
Page
5
the term "aggregate cost" implies a lifetime accrual,
not an annual limit. They want the Legislature to
clarify that these statutory limits apply annually.
This bill clarifies that the statutory limits on county
purchasing agents are annual aggregate amounts. [5.3 &
5.5]
7. Revisions to the county budget act . State law spells
out the procedures that county officials must follow
when adopting their annual budgets (Government Code
29000, et seq.). The statute has remained relatively
unchanged since the Legislature revised these procedures
nearly 25 years ago (AB 820, Cortese, 1985). Starting
in January 2007, a subcommittee of the State
Controller's Advisory Committee on County Accounting
Procedures reviewed the statutory requirements and
recommended numerous changes. The Advisory Committee
looked for ways to reduce the counties' costs of
complying with redundant reporting and filing
requirements. The State Controller wants the
Legislature to revise the County Budget Act to reflect
these recommendations. This bill revises the state
statutes that spell out the procedures that county
officials must follow when adopting their annual
budgets. This bill includes changes to more than 55
code sections that:
A. Formally name the County Budget Act (29000).
B. Clarify the statutory definitions and their
consistent uses (29001).
C. Clarify outdated statutory language (e.g., 29006).
D. Sort out the duties of county administrators and
county auditors (e.g., 29040).
E. Advance county officials' deadlines for acting
(e.g., 29040).
F. Repeal obsolete sections (29004, 29065.5, 29066,
29088.1, 29091, 29129, 29140).
[6 to 64 & 67]
8. Obsolete property tax reduction fund . Before
Proposition 13 (1978), every local government set its
own annual property tax rate. Now the California
Constitution sets a uniform 1% property tax rate
(Article XIIIA, 1), although local officials can set a
SB 113
Page
6
lower property tax rate for their own jurisdiction
(Revenue & Taxation Code 96.8). Since 1965, state law
has allowed a county board of supervisors to put aside
money into a "property tax reduction fund" and spend the
money to lower the county government's property tax rate
(Government Code 29520, et seq., added by SB 1190,
Rees, 1965). The Committee's staff believes that no
county currently has a property tax reduction fund and
that the statute is obsolete because of Proposition 13.
They want the Legislature to repeal this obsolete
statute. This bill repeals the authorization for a
county property tax reduction fund. [65]
9. Sonoma County's obsolete tax . In 1977, the Legislature
authorized Sonoma County to raise the local transactions
and use tax ("sales tax") for public transit, with
majority-voter approval (Government Code 29560, et
seq., added by AB 562, Wornum, 1977). Proposition 13
(1978) and Proposition 218 (1996) require 2/3-voter
approval before local governments can levy special taxes
to raise revenue for special purposes (California
Constitution Article XIIIA 4 & Article XIIIC 2 [d]).
With 2/3-voter approval, any county can levy a higher
transactions and use tax rate as a special tax (Revenue
& Taxation Code 7285.5). The Committee's staff
believes that the Legislature should repeal the 1977
Sonoma County sales tax statute because Proposition 13
and Proposition 218 made it obsolete. This bill repeals
the statute which allows Sonoma County to raise its
transactions and use tax for public transit with
majority-voter approval. [66]
10.City council members' salaries . City council members in
general law cities can receive monthly salaries based on
a statutory schedule (Government Code 36516). The
bigger the city, the higher the maximum salary:
Population Statutory Limit
Less than 35,000 $300/month
35,001 - 50,000 $400/month
50,001 - 75,000 $500/month
75,001 - 150,000 $600/month
150,001 - 250,000 $800/month
More than 250,000 $1,000/month
SB 113
Page
7
City councils can raise their salaries above these
statutory limits by up to 5% a year by ordinance.
Further, the voters can approve salaries that are
different from the statutory schedule. All salary
adjustments must be adopted by referendable local
ordinances. The law prohibits automatic future
increases in salary. Changes to city council members'
salaries are operative only after the next election;
once a salary ordinance becomes operative, then all
council members are eligible for pay raises. The last
time the Legislature raised the city council members'
salary schedule was in 1984 (AB 2281, Hauser, 1984). By
2007, the California Consumer Price Index had increased
by 108%. When the Legislature tried to reset the
statutory salary schedule to reflect inflation, Governor
Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 701 (De La Torre, 2007). The
Committee's staff wants the Legislature to reformat the
current statute to clarify how city councils and local
voters can set and change city council members'
salaries. This bill reformats the statute governing
city council members' salaries for clarity. Unlike the
2007 bill, this bill does not change the current
statutory schedule. This bill also clarifies that city
council members may waive their compensation. [68]
11.Surplus funds cross-reference . Local officials can
invest their temporarily idle funds in various financial
instruments (Government Code 53601). In 2006, the
Legislature allowed local agencies to invest some of
their surplus funds in certificates of deposit issued by
a private sector placement service that meet specified
conditions (Government Code 53601.8, added by AB 2011,
Vargas, 2006). County treasurers note that the new
authorization includes an incorrect cross-reference to
certificates of deposit and they want the Legislature to
correct this error. This bill corrects the citation to
certificates of deposit in the state law that allows for
the investment of temporarily idle funds. [68.3]
12.Obsolete reporting requirement . The California Debt and
Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC) is the state's
information clearing house for state and local
government debt (Government Code 8855). The State
SB 113
Page
8
Treasurer chairs this nine-member commission. After the
Orange County bankruptcy, the Legislature required local
treasurers to provide annual statements of investment
policies and quarterly investment reports to their
legislative bodies (Government Code 53646, added by SB
564, Johnston, 1995). In 2000, the Legislature required
local officials to send copies of their quarterly
reports to CDIAC until January 1, 2007 (AB 943, Dutra,
2000). The Local Government Omnibus Act of 2008 deleted
most of these obsolete requirements (SB 1124, Senate
Local Government Committee, 2008), but neglected to
repeal the requirement for local officials to send their
quarterly reports to CDIAC. On behalf of CDIAC, State
Treasurer Bill Lockyer requests that the Legislature
eliminate this obsolete provision. This bill deletes
the obsolete requirement for local officials to send
their quarterly investment reports to CDIAC. [68.5]
13.Obsolete special municipal tax districts . State law
allows cities to create "special municipal tax
districts" and levy an ad valorem property tax with
majority-voter approval to pay for maintenance and
operations or special local services (Government Code
60000, et seq., added by AB 1952, Baker, 1919 and
codified by SB 1027, Roy Cunningham, 1951). However,
Proposition 13 (1978) and Proposition 218 (1996)
prohibit additional ad valorem property taxes for
services and require 2/3-voter approval before local
governments can levy special taxes to raise revenue for
special purposes (California Constitution Article XIIIA
4 & Article XIIIC 2 [d]). Consistent with these
constitutional requirements, cities can levy special
taxes with 2/3-voter approval (Government Code 37100.5
and 50075, et seq.). The Committee's staff believes
that the Legislature should repeal the 1919 special
municipal tax district statute because Proposition 13
and Proposition 218 made it obsolete. This bill repeals
the statute which allows cities to set up special
municipal tax districts. [69]
14.CSD name change . The Community Services District Law
allows community services districts (CSDs) to change
their names, provided that they keep the words
"community services district" in the new name. When a
SB 113
Page
9
CSD changes its name, it must notify the Secretary of
State, the county clerk, the county board of
supervisors, and the local agency formation commission
(Government Code 61061). Local officials want CSDs
with new names to also notify the State Board of
Equalization and the county auditor-controllers because
those officials are responsible for allocating property
tax revenues. This bill requires a community services
district that changes its name to also notify the State
Board of Equalization and the county auditor in each
county where the CSD is located. [70.5]
15.Map Act and biogas projects . The Subdivision Map Act
governs how counties and cities approve the division of
larger properties into smaller lots, including
subdivision design and improvements (Government Code
66410, et seq.). The Map Act defines a "subdivision"
as the division of land for the purpose of sale, lease,
or financing (Government Code 66424). However, the Map
Act specifically exempts several types of land
divisions, including leases and easements for
windpowered electrical generation devices, provided that
the project is subject to local discretionary approval
(Government Code 66412 [i], AB 2474, Rogers, 1984), and
leases and easements for solar electrical generation
devices, if the project is subject to other local agency
ordinances regarding design and improvement, or if the
project is subject to local discretionary approval
(Government Code 66412 [l], SB 1124, Senate Local
Government Committee, 2008). Sempra Energy wants a
similar exemption for biogas projects. This exemption
was in AB 1510 (Plescia, 2008) which the Legislature
passed and Governor Schwarzenegger signed, but the
change was chaptered-out. Sempra wants legislators to
try again. This bill exempts from the Subdivision Map
Act leases and easements for biogas projects that use
agricultural waste or byproducts from the land where the
project is located and which reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, if the project is subject to other local
agency ordinances regarding design and improvement, or
if the project is subject to local discretionary
approval. [71]
16.Lot line adjustment deadlines . The Subdivision Map Act
SB 113
Page
10
(Government Code 66410, et seq.) contains deadlines for
local officials to act on applications for tentative
maps. The Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code
65920, et seq.) sets deadlines, which are coordinated
with CEQA reviews, for public officials to approve or
disapprove development projects:
A. 180 days after certifying an environmental impact
report (EIR).
B. 90 days after certifying an EIR for an affordable
housing project.
C. 60 days after adopting a negative declaration.
D. 60 days after certifying that the project is exempt
from CEQA review.
The Permit Streamlining Act's deadlines can't extend the
Map Act's deadlines. The Map Act doesn't apply to lot
line adjustments, which involve four or fewer parcels,
approved by local officials, where land taken from one
parcel is added to an adjoining parcel without creating
any new parcels (Government Code 66412 [d]). Surveyors
and engineers say that their applications for lot line
adjustments can be delayed because there's no clear
statutory time limit by which local officials must act.
They want the Legislature to require cities and counties
to approve lot line adjustments pursuant to the Permit
Streamlining Act. This change was in SB 1237 (Cox,
2008) which Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed, saying that
the bill was not a high priority. Senator Cox still
wants the Legislature to make that change. This bill
requires cities and counties to approve or disapprove
lot line adjustments pursuant to the Permit Streamlining
Act. [71]
17.Remainder parcels . Under the Subdivision Map Act
(Government Code 66410, et seq.), a major subdivision
creates five or more parcels and requires both a
tentative map and a final map. A minor subdivision (lot
split) creates four or fewer parcels and usually needs
only a parcel map. When a subdivision affects only part
of a property, the unaffected property is called a
"designated remainder parcel" or an "omitted parcel."
It's illegal to avoid a major subdivision by repeatedly
using lot splits to create many parcels, called
SB 113
Page
11
"4x4-ing." However, the Map Act says that state law
doesn't prohibit consecutive subdivisions of the same
parcel. The Map Act sets out detailed requirements for
the size, shape, and contents of the subdivision
documents, both final maps and parcel maps. Final maps
and parcel maps must clearly designate the subdivision's
exterior boundary. A final map or parcel map for a
subdivision with a designated remainder parcel of five
or more acres doesn't have to show the remainder parcel
(Government Code 66434 & 66445). Instead of surveying
the remainder parcel, its location can be indicated by
deed reference. Surveyors and engineers say that some
cities and counties still require them to show the
remainder parcel on a final map or parcel map. They
want the Legislature to clarify that the exterior
boundary on a final map or parcel map doesn't need to
include a designated remainder parcel or omitted parcel.
This change was in SB 1237 (Cox, 2008) which Governor
Schwarzenegger vetoed, saying that the bill was not a
high priority. Senator Cox still wants the Legislature
to make that change. This bill declares that the
exterior boundary of the land shown on a final map or
parcel map shall not include a designated remainder
parcel or omitted parcel, but any designated remainder
parcel or omitted parcel must be labeled. [72 & 74]
18.Map Act dedications . As a condition of approving
subdivisions under the Subdivision Map Act (Government
Code 66410, et seq.), cities and counties often require
subdividers to dedicate property for public purposes,
including drainage, public utilities, bicycle paths,
transit facilities, solar energy easements, parks,
roads, alleys, coastal and water access, and schools.
Some of these property dedications are in fee, while
other property dedications are public easements over
private property (Government Code 66439 & 66447).
Surveyors and engineers say that local officials use
various terms for these dedications, resulting in later
confusion over whether the property was dedicated in fee
or as an easement. They want the Legislature to
standardize the language that appears on subdivision
maps to make it clear whether a property dedication is
in fee or whether the dedication is an easement. This
change was in SB 1237 (Cox, 2008) which Governor
SB 113
Page
12
Schwarzenegger vetoed, saying that the bill was not a
high priority. Senator Cox still wants the Legislature
to make that change. This bill standarizes the language
on final maps and parcel maps regarding the dedication
of property in fee or as easements. [73 & 75]
19.Interment rights in cemetery districts . In 2003, the
Legislature modernized and recodified the Public
Cemetery District Law, which governs California's 252
cemetery districts (Health & Safety Code 9000, et seq.,
recodified by SB 341, Senate Local Government Committee,
2003). Since then, cemetery district officials have
been considering further, more substantive statutory
changes. Although their principal act explains how
cemetery districts manage interment rights, the Public
Cemetery District Law does not define this term. The
California Association of Public Cemeteries wants the
Legislature to adopt a statutory definition of
"interment right." This bill defines "interment right"
within the Public Cemetery District Law. [73.5]
20.Cemetery districts' funds . In 2003, the Legislature
modernized and recodified the Public Cemetery District
Law which governs California's 252 cemetery districts
(Health & Safety Code 9000, et seq., recodified by SB
341, Senate Local Government Committee, 2003). Since
then, cemetery district officials have been considering
further, more substantive statutory changes. Although
their principal act tells cemetery districts how to
manage their funds, the California Association of Public
Cemeteries notes that state law doesn't explain where to
deposit the money that they collect. The Association
wants the Legislature to require cemetery districts to
deposit the money that they collect into the county
treasury. This bill requires public cemetery districts
to deposit the funds that they collect into the county
treasury by the 10th of the month following the month in
which they collect the money. [75.5]
21.Cemetery districts' revolving funds . In 2003, the
Legislature modernized and recodified the Public
Cemetery District Law which governs California's 252
cemetery districts (Health & Safety Code 9000, et seq.,
recodified by SB 341, Senate Local Government Committee,
SB 113
Page
13
2003). Since then, cemetery district officials have
been considering further, more substantive statutory
changes. State law lets cemetery districts set up
revolving funds, cross-referencing the state law that
allows all special districts to establish revolving
funds to make change and pay small bills directly
(Health & Safety Code 9074 & Government Code 53950, et
seq.). State law caps special districts' revolving
funds at $1,000 (Government Code 53952), but cemetery
districts' revolving funds may be as much as 110% of
one-twelfth of a district's annual budget (Government
Code 53961). The California Association of Public
Cemeteries says that having statutory authority in both
the principal act and in the state law that applies to
all special districts is confusing. The Association
wants the Legislature to put this authority within the
Public Cemetery District Law and make it clear that a
cemetery district can set up a revolving fund that is
either (a) a $1,000 petty cash fund or (b) the larger
amount, based on its adopted budget. This bill revises
the state laws governing public cemetery districts'
revolving funds, clarifying that a cemetery district can
set up a revolving fund that is either (a) a $1,000
petty cash fund or (b) the larger amount, based on its
adopted budget. [68.7 & 75.7]
22.Air pollution control districts' boards . Most air
pollution control districts (APCDs) cover just one
county and the county board of supervisors is the APCD's
governing board (Health & Safety Code 40100). However,
a county board of supervisors and the cities in that
county may agree to include city representatives on an
APCD's governing board. The city selection committee
(composed of the mayors of each city in that county)
selects the city representatives. If the agreement
provides for representation by each city, then each city
selects its own representative. The city
representatives must be mayors or council members and
the county representatives must be county supervisors
(Health & Safety Code 40100.5). There is no statutory
authority for either the city selection committee or the
individual cities to select alternate representatives to
serve when the regular city representatives are absent
or disqualified from participating. Under its own
SB 113
Page
14
statutory formula, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District has a 14-member board of
directors. When the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD had
trouble achieving a quorum because enough city
representatives couldn't attend, it received legislative
permission for the cities to appoint alternate members
(Health & Safety Code 40980, as amended by SB 144,
Senate Local Government Committee, 2007). The Butte
County AQMD has a 10-member governing board composed of
all five county supervisors and a city representative
from each of the five cities: Biggs, Chico, Gridley,
Oroville, and Paradise. Because the Butte County APCD's
board meets during the day, sometimes it's hard for all
of the city representatives to attend. As part-time
city council members, they work regular jobs. When a
city's representative can't attend, that community lacks
representation during policy discussions and regulatory
decisions. The Butte County AQMD wants legislators to
allow cities to appoint alternates, similar to what the
Legislature did for the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD.
This bill allows the city selection committee and the
city councils to appoint alternates to their
representatives on the governing boards of county air
pollution control districts. [75.9]
23.Archaic requirements for local taxes . Proposition 13
capped the maximum ad valorem property tax rate at 1% of
full cash value. Extraordinary property tax rates above
the 1% limit are possible only for certain types of
voter-approved debt (California Constitution Article
XIII A, 1). With 2/3-voter approval, local officials
may levy special taxes (Government Code 50075, et
seq.). Despite the 30-year old constitutional cap on
property tax rates, a few older statutes still allow
counties and cities to levy special taxes with higher ad
valorem rates. These statutes are probably
unconstitutional. In Revenues And Responsibilities
(December 2007), the staff of the Senate Local
Government Committee identified several statutory
authorizations for special taxes that fall outside the
1% limit. The Local Government Omnibus Act of 2008
revised four of these obsolete taxes for county musical
performances, county trade and commerce programs, county
public airports, and city hospitals (SB 1124, Senate
SB 113
Page
15
Local Government Committee, 2008). The Committee's
staff has identified additional obsolete references to
ad valorem property tax rates, and wants the Legislature
to substitute the cross-reference to the statute that
requires 2/3-voter approval for special taxes. This
bill deletes obsolete references to separate property
tax rates and instead inserts the appropriate
cross-references to local special taxes for:
A. County special tax for sanitary purposes in
unincorporated areas (Health & Safety Code 101350).
[76]
B. County special tax for veterans' homes (Military &
Veterans Code 1121). [77]
C. County special tax for veterans memorial halls
(Military & Veterans Code 1262). [78]
24.County recorders and federal vital records . County
recorders may record birth certificates and death
certificates issued by federal agencies to authenticate
births and deaths of U.S. citizens outside of the United
States (Health & Safety Code 103500). A certification
of birth outside of the United States must be indexed in
the county recorder's birth index (Health & Safety Code
103501). County recorders say that confusion can
result when an individual seeking a certified copy of a
federally-issued vital record requests a copy of that
document from a county recorder's office. Copies of
federally-issued documents that have been recorded with
a county cannot be used as authorized vital records to
establish a person's identity; they are merely copies of
the county's official records. To obtain authorized
copies of federal vital records, individuals must
contact the federal agency that issued the original
document. To avoid confusion, county recorders want to
prohibit the recording and indexing of federally-issued
foreign birth and death records and clarify that copies
of such documents already recorded are to be issued by
county recorders only as official, but not vital,
records. This bill repeals county recorders' authority
to record federal birth certificates and death
certificates, and instead requires county recorders to
issue certified copies of foreign births or deaths only
as official records and not as vital records. This bill
SB 113
Page
16
repeals the requirement for county recorders to index
federal birth certificates in the county recorder's
birth index, except for court ordered documents that
establish foreign births and deaths. [76.3, 76.5 &
76.7]
25.Archaic reimbursement for special districts . Most
special districts operate under a series of "principal
acts" that govern their powers, duties, and procedures.
For example, the seven resort improvement districts
operate under the Resort Improvement District Law
(Public Resources Code 13000, et seq.) and the eight
water storage districts operate under the California
Water Storage District Law (Water Code 39000, et seq.).
It is common for special districts' principal acts to
spell out the types and amounts of compensation that the
districts can pay to their governing boards. However,
state law also generally limits the compensation that
special districts can pay their governing boards,
including allowing districts to pay for their "actual
and necessary expenses" (Government Code 53232, et
seq., added by AB 1234, Salinas, 2005). Further, local
officials must take ethics training if they receive
compensation (Government Code 53234, et seq., added by
AB 1234, Salinas, 2005). The California Special
Districts Association notes that both the Resort
Improvement District Law and the California Water
Storage District Law contain archaic mileage
reimbursement rates. Resort improvement districts can
pay only 15
a mile (Public Resources Code 13041) and � water storage districts can pay only 10
a mile (Water � Code 40355). The Association wants the Legislature to
repeal these archaic mileage limits and let the
districts pay for actual and necessary expenses. This
bill repeals the specific mileage reimbursement rates
for resort improvement districts and water storage
districts. This bill also explicitly requires resort
improvement districts to comply with the statewide laws
on compensation and ethics training. [79 & 90]
26.County special road maintenance districts . Counties can
form special road maintenance districts in
unincorporated areas and levy ad valorem property taxes
without voter approval to pay for highways and roads
SB 113
Page
17
(Streets & Highways Code 1550, et seq.). This
authority is more than 125 years old (Chapter 10,
Statutes of 1883). However, Proposition 13 (1978) and
Proposition 218 (1996) prohibit additional ad valorem
property taxes for services and require 2/3-voter
approval before local governments can levy special taxes
to raise revenue for special purposes (California
Constitution Article XIIIA 4 & Article XIIIC 2 [d]).
Consistent with these constitutional requirements,
counties can levy special taxes with 2/3-voter approval
(Government Code 50075, et seq.). The Committee's
staff believes that the Legislature should revise the
statutes on counties' special road maintenance districts
to comply with Proposition 13 and Proposition 218. This
bill revises the statutes which allow counties to set up
special road maintenance districts, and allows them to
levy special taxes with 2/3-voter approval. [80 to 87]
27.Clarify 1911 Act dredging authority . The Improvement
Act of 1911 (Streets & Highways Code 5000, et seq.)
allows local officials to levy benefit assessments with
the approval of property owners to pay for a wide
variety of public works projects, including harbor
improvements on tidelands that the state has granted or
leased to cities (Streets & Highways Code 5100). The
1911 Act specifically allows local officials to use
benefit assessments to pay for harbor channel
improvements and maintenance (Streets & Highways Code
5101 [m], amended by SB 1916, Marks, 1988 and SB 683,
Marks, 1991). The Contra Costa County Water Agency and
the Stockton Port District use 1911 Act benefit
assessments to pay for their share of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' channel dredging. The local
agencies have not acquired or leased the channel from
the state. Local officials want to clarify that they
can use 1911 Act benefit assessments for channel
projects on property that the state has not granted or
leased to a local government. This bill allows local
officials to use 1911 Act benefit assessments to pay for
channel improvements on tidelands for which a permit,
license, or easement has been issued by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers or the state. [88]
28.Publishing water conservation ordinances . Local
SB 113
Page
18
governments that provide water can adopt water
conservation programs by enacting urgency ordinances or
resolutions (Water Code 375, et seq., added by AB 1954,
Gualco, 1978). Within 10 days, the local government
must publish its water conservation ordinance or
resolution "in full" in a general circulation newspaper
that is printed, published, and circulated within the
agency (Water Code 376). County water districts have
their own separate statutory authority to adopt
emergency water restrictions (Water Code 31026).
County water districts must also publish their water
restriction ordinances in full in general circulation
newspapers. However, a county water district may
instead publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at
least five days before its adoption and publish a
summary of the adopted ordinance within 15 days after
its adoption. The full text must be available to the
public at the district's offices. Alternatively, if
it's not feasible to publish summaries, a county water
district can publish a quarter-page display
advertisement both five days before and within 15 days
after the adoption of the ordinance (Water Code 31027,
as amended by AB 3181, Norman Waters, 1990). The water
conservation ordinance adopted by the North Marin Water
District, a county water district, is 10 pages long.
The District has amended its water conservation
ordinance 35 times. Each amendment triggers the
statutory requirement to publish the ordinance "in
full," which is expensive without much public benefit.
As an alternative to publishing the full water
conservation ordinance, the District wants the
Legislature to allow local governments to publish
summaries or display advertisements, following the
approach in the County Water District Law. This bill
allows local governments to publish summaries or display
advertisements of their water conservation ordinances,
both before and after their adoption, provided that the
full text is available to the public. [89]
Legislative declarations
This bill expresses the Legislature's intent to cut costs
by combining several noncontroversial items relating to
local government into a single bill. [1]
SB 113
Page
19
Comments
This bill places 28 noncontroversial changes to the state
laws affecting local agencies and land use into a single
bill. Sending a bill through the legislative process costs
over $18,000. By avoiding 27 other bills, the Committee's
bill avoids over $475,000 in legislative costs.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/28/09)
State Controller John Chiang
State Treasurer Bill Lockyer
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
Association of California Water Agencies
Butte County Air Quality Management District
California Association of County Treasurers and Tax
Collectors
California Association of Local Agency Formation
Commissions
California Association of Public Cemetery Districts
California Special Districts Association
Contra Costa County Water Agency
County of Los Angeles
County of Napa
County of Sonoma
Friant Water Authority
North Marin Water Agency
Sempra Energy
Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission
AGB:nl 4/30/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****