BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 113|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 113
Author: Senate Local Government Committee
Amended: 6/25/09
Vote: 21
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 5-0, 4/15/09
AYES: Wiggins, Cox, Aanestad, Kehoe, Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR : 35-0, 5/6/09 (Consent)
AYES: Alquist, Ashburn, Benoit, Calderon, Cogdill,
Corbett, Correa, Cox, Denham, Ducheny, Dutton, Florez,
Hancock, Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff, Kehoe, Leno, Liu,
Lowenthal, Maldonado, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Padilla,
Pavley, Romero, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Walters,
Wiggins, Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Aanestad, Cedillo, DeSaulnier, Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 8/17/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Local Government Omnibus Act of 2009
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill enacts the Local Government Omnibus
Act of 2009, and makes 39 changes to the state laws
affecting local agencies' powers and duties.
Assembly Amendments added 11 items, made technical changes
CONTINUED
SB 113
Page
2
and added double-jointing language for SB 251 (Senate
Transportation and Housing Committee).
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
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 39 changes to the state laws affecting local
agencies' powers and duties:
1. County law libraries . Nearly 120 years ago, the
Legislature set up a system of county law libraries
(Business & Professions Code 6300, et seq., enacted
by AB 691, Mathews, 1891, and recodified by SB 364,
Kenny, 1941). Each county law library has an
appointed board of trustees which supervises its
operations and finances. The Council of California
County Law Librarians has reviewed these statutes and
wants the Legislature to make 16 changes.
Governance in San Diego County . Most county law
libraries have boards of trustees composed of six or
seven members, appointed by the superior court judges
and the county board of supervisors (Business &
Professions Code 6301). Special legislation for the
board of trustees of the San Diego County law library
calls for four judges and three local attorneys
(Business & Professions Code 6301.1). According to
SB 113
Page
3
the Council, the San Diego law library says that seven
trustees are too few to handle the work in San Diego
County. This bill increases the number of judges from
four to up to five and the number of attorneys from
three to up to four on the board of trustees of the
San Diego County law library. [See 1.1 of the bill.]
Vacancies . A board of trustees may remove a trustee
"who neglects to attend or absents himself" from board
meetings (Business & Professions Code 6305). The
Council wants the Legislature to clarify the standard
for removing trustees who don't participate. This
bill allows a board of trustees to remove a trustee
who is absent from three consecutive meetings. [1.2]
Insert gender neutral language . The Council wants the
Legislature to eliminate the statute's references to
males with gender neutral language in two sections:
A. The board's secretary must certify documents
"under his hand" (Business & Professions Code
6307).
B. The board's secretary must verify the financial
report "by his oath" (Business & Professions Code
6350).
This bill inserts gender language into those sections.
[1.3 & 1.17]
Correct fees for law library funds . In 2005, the
Legislature adopted a uniform civil filing fee
schedule which combined various surcharges and add-on
fees into one filing fee so that the same fee will be
charged for the same services in every county (AB 158,
Assembly Budget Committee, 2005). Some of that fee
revenue goes to the county law libraries, but the
amount varies by county (Business & Professions Code
6321) and fee increases were allowed through 2007
(Business & Professions Code 6322.1). The Council
wants the Legislature to change the listed amounts to
reflect the current fees for 39 county law libraries.
This bill changes the amount of court filing fees that
go to the county law libraries in 39 counties. [1.4]
SB 113
Page
4
Increase the limits on revolving funds . The board of
trustees may create a revolving fund to pay for
smaller items (Business & Professions Code 6326). In
2005, the Legislature raised the limit on these
revolving funds from $7,500 to $30,000, and raised the
limit on paying for single items by check from $750 to
$3,000 (AB 145, Assembly Budget Committee, 2005).
Between 2005 and 2009, the Consumer Price Index
increased 12%. The Council says that these statutory
limits are outdated and wants the Legislature to
increase them. This bill increases the limit on
county law libraries' revolving funds from $30,000 to
$50,000, and the limit on single payments by check
from $3,000 to $10,000. [1.5]
Payment vouchers . When the board of trustees wants to
spend money, current law requires the board's
president and secretary to certify a voucher (Business
& Professions Code 6342). The Council says that many
counties have changed the approval process for issuing
payments and the use of signed vouchers is now
outdated. This bill deletes the requirement that the
president and secretary of a county law libraries'
boards of trustees sign payment vouchers. [1.6]
Employee titles . The board of trustees can appoint
and remove the librarian and other officers and
assistants (Business & Professions Code 6345), as
well as set their salaries and require bonds (Business
& Professions Code 6346). The Council says that
these job titles are outdated and wants the
Legislature to use modern terms. This bill refers to
a county law library's employees as the law librarian
and law library employees. [1.7 & 1.8]
Retirement benefits . Since 1943, the board of
trustees has been able to provide retirement benefits
to its employees by contracting with the Board of
Administration of the State Employees' Retirement
System (Business & Professions Code 6346.5). The
Council wants the statute to use the correct name of
the state's retirement program. This bill inserts the
name of the California Public Employees' Retirement
SB 113
Page
5
System. [1.9]
Allow more service contracts . A board of trustees can
contract with a law library association to make use of
its library as a public law library (Business &
Professions Code 6347). The Council wants the
Legislature to allow county law libraries to contract
with a wider range of entities. This bill allows the
board of trustees to also contract with another law
library board, superior court, or legal-related entity
(including a self-help group or other organization
that provides a similar service) to provide law
library services. [1.10]
Repeal the limit on real property spending . A board
of trustees can acquire, lease, or build a law library
building with its surplus funds, but the board can't
spend the first $10,000 of its surplus funds for these
purposes (Business & Professions Code 6348). The
Council notes that the Legislature imposed the reserve
amount in 1941, but has never increased it. The
Council says that because a board of trustees has full
authority to manage its trust funds, the statutory
reserve is unnecessary. This bill repeals the $10,000
reserve on the law libraries' spending for acquiring,
leasing, or building law library buildings. [1.11]
Repeal the limit on courtrooms . When a board of
trustees erects a building to house the law library,
it can include courtrooms, but state law limits the
number of courtrooms to four (Business & Professions
Code 6348.3). The Council says that there's no
reason to limit the number of courtrooms in a building
that houses the county law library and wants the
Legislature to repeal that limit. This bill deletes
the limit on the number of courtrooms that can be in a
building that houses a county law library. [1.12]
Ease the limits on real property sales . Except for
real property that a county law library acquired by
dedication, the board of trustees can sell its
property to the state or any other government agency,
with the proceeds going to the law library fund
(Business & Professions Code 6348.4). The Council
SB 113
Page
6
says that these statutory restrictions are not
necessary and it wants the Legislature to allow county
law libraries to sell their real property to anyone,
provided that the proceeds go to the law library fund.
This bill repeals the prohibition on county law
libraries selling real property that they acquired
through dedications. This bill repeals the
requirement that county law libraries sell their real
property to the state or other governmental agencies.
[1.13]
Expand surplus fund investments . With the approval of
the county treasurer, the board of trustees can invest
its surplus funds in federal or state bonds (Business
& Professions Code 6348.5). The Council says that
the county treasurer's approval is unnecessary because
a board of trustees has full authority over its trust
funds. Further, the Council wants statutory authority
for law libraries to invest their trust funds in the
Local Agency Investment Fund run by the State
Treasurer (Government Code 16429.1). This bill
repeals the requirement for a board of trustees to get
the county treasurer's permission to invest its
surplus funds. This bill allows a board of trustees
to invest its surplus funds in the State Treasurer's
Local Agency Investment Fund. [1.14]
Allow more county construction contracts . A board of
trustees can contract with the county board of
supervisors to build a law library building, but this
authority applies only in counties with populations
between 400,000 and 700,000 (Business & Professions
Code 6348.6). When the Legislature passed this law
in 1957, only San Diego County met these criteria (AB
3724, Luckel, 1957. Also see Chapter 468 of the
Statutes of 1951 which amended Government Code 28020
to establish the counties' official populations.) In
2008, the State Department of Finance estimates that
seven counties had populations between 400,000 and
700,000: Monterey, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara,
Stanislaus, Solano, Sonoma, and Tulare. The Council
wants the law libraries in all counties to be able to
contract with their county boards of supervisors to
build law libraries. This bill deletes the population
SB 113
Page
7
criteria in the state law that allows law libraries to
contract with their counties to build law libraries.
[1.15]
Delay the annual reports . The board of trustees must
file an annual report with the county board of
supervisors by August 15 for the fiscal year that
ended on June 30 (Business & Professions Code 6349).
The Council says that the boards of trustees rely on
the county auditors' fiscal year end reports which may
not be available in time to meet the August 15
statutory deadline. The Council wants the Legislature
to extend the due date to October 15. This bill
extends the deadline for the boards of trustees to
file their annual reports with the county boards of
supervisors from August 15 to October 15. [1.16]
Effectiveness . County boards of supervisors have the
discretion to make the state laws that apply to county
law libraries effective in their counties (Business &
Professions Code 6364). The Legislature retained
this provision of the original 1891 statute when it
recodified the law in 1941. Because county law
libraries now exist in all 58 counties, the Council
says that this local discretion is no longer
necessary. This bill repeals the discretion of county
boards of supervisors to make the state laws apply to
their county law libraries. [1.18]
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 School
District permission to ask its voters to approve
SB 113
Page
8
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. [1.19]
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, 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, Chapter 761, Statutes of
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
SB 113
Page
9
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. Amador County's public administrator . State law
requires voters to elect 10 county officers, including
the public administrator. Counties can appoint
several other officers, including the public guardian.
County supervisors can convert elected offices into
appointed offices with voter approval. A dozen
counties can convert the public administrator's office
from an elected to an appointed position by ordinance
and without voter approval: Glenn, Lake, Lassen,
Madera, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, Solano, Sonoma,
Trinity, Tuolumne, and Ventura. Seven counties can
appoint the same person as the public administrator
and the public guardian: Glenn, Kings, Lassen,
Monterey, Solano, Sonoma, and Ventura. Eight counties
can separate the consolidated offices of district
attorney and public administrator in order to
consolidate these offices with other offices: Glenn,
Lake, Lassen, Madera, Mendocino, Napa, Trinity, and
Tuolumne (Government Code 24011, last amended by AB
2343, Caballero, Chapter 237, Statutes of 2008).
In Amador County, the elective office of public
administrator is currently consolidated with the
elective office of district attorney, while the county
board of supervisors appoints the public guardian. To
achieve management efficiencies, Amador County
officials want to combine the offices of the public
administrator and the public guardian, and allow the
district attorney to focus on law enforcement. Amador
County officials want legislative permission to
achieve this reorganization without having to hold a
local election. This bill adds Amador County to the
list of counties that can:
SB 113
Page
10
A. Convert the public administrator's office
from an elected to an appointed position by
ordinance and without voter approval.
B. Appoint the same person as public
administrator and public guardian.
C. Separate the consolidated offices of
district attorney and public administrator in
order to consolidate those offices with other
offices. [3.5 & 112]
5. 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 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]
6. 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
SB 113
Page
11
Government Committee, 1998). Sonoma County wants the
Legislature to add it to this statutory list and to
expand the range of services to include maintenance
and construction services. This bill expands the list
of authorized services to include maintenance and
construction services. [5 & 113]
7. 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
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]
8. 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
SB 113
Page
12
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]
9. 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 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]
10. 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
SB 113
Page
13
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]
11. 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
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
SB 113
Page
14
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]
12. Surplus funds cross-reference (bonds and notes).
Local officials can invest their temporarily idle
funds in various financial instruments (Government
Code 53601). When the Legislature allowed local
agencies to invest their surplus funds in registered
bonds or notes, the bill also changed the lettering of
the statutory subdivisions (AB 1745, Assembly Revenue
& Taxation Committee, 2007). As a result of that
re-lettering, an adjacent code section now contains an
incorrect cross-reference to subdivision (k) in 53601
(Government Code 53601.6). County treasurers want
the Legislature to correct the cross-reference. This
bill corrects an erroneous cross-reference in the
state law that allows for the investment of
temporarily idle funds. [68.1]
13. Surplus funds cross-reference (certificates of
deposit). 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]
14. Obsol ete reporting requirement . The California Debt
and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC) is the
SB 113
Page
15
state's information clearing house for state and local
government debt (Government Code 8855). The State
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]
15. 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]
16. CSD name change . The Community Services District Law
SB 113
Page
16
allows community services districts (CSDs) to change
their names, provided that they keep the words
"community services district" in the new name. When a
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]
17. 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. 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
SB 113
Page
17
discretionary approval. [71] This bill contains
double-jointing language with SB 251 (Senate
Transportation & Housing Committee) which also amends
Government Code 66412, but in a different way. [71.5
& 114]
18. Lot line adjustment deadlines . The Subdivision Map
Act (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]
SB 113
Page
18
19. 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
with the practice called 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]
20. 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
SB 113
Page
19
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
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]
21. 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 (Health & Safety Code
9002). 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. [75.3]
22. Cemetery districts' endowment 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
SB 113
Page
20
substantive statutory changes. Except for larger
cemetery districts that can manage their own funds,
the county treasurer serves as a cemetery district's
treasurer (Health & Safety Code 9028 [c] & 9077).
Cemetery districts must collect a payment for each
interment and deposit the money in an "endowment care
fund." The districts can't spend the principal, but
the income goes into an "endowment income fund" to
care for the cemeteries (Health & Safety Code 9065).
Cemetery districts can invest the endowment care
fund's principal in high-quality paper, including
certificates of deposit or other interest bearing bank
accounts that are insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Company (Health & Safety Code 9066). The
districts can invest the endowment income fund in the
same types of high-quality paper that other local
governments can use for their temporarily idle funds
(Health & Safety Code 9067). The Senate Local
Government Committee's commentary notes that these
sections reverse the 1949 Attorney General's opinion
which had said that the county treasurer was the
repository for the endowment funds (For Years To Come:
A Legislative History of Senate Bill 341 and the
"Public Cemetery District Law," pp. 70 & 71). The
California Association of Public Cemeteries wants the
Legislature to clarify that the cemetery districts can
withdraw their endowment funds from the county
treasuries and invest them on their own. This bill
clarifies that cemetery districts can invest their
endowment funds in certificates of deposit or other
interest bearing bank accounts of any state or
federally-chartered bank or savings association that
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insures.
[75.4]
23. 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 manage their funds, the California
SB 113
Page
21
Association of Public Cemeteries notes that state law
doesn't explain where to deposit the money that they
collect (Health & Safety Code 9074). 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]
24. 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, 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]
25. Air pollution control districts' boards . Most air
SB 113
Page
22
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 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]
SB 113
Page
23
26. 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 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]
27. 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
SB 113
Page
24
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 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]
28. County waterworks districts' contracts. County
boards of supervisors are the ex officio governing
bodies for most of the 29 county waterworks districts
that operate under the County Waterworks District Law
(Water Code 55000, et seq.). The Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works manages five county
waterworks districts for which the Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors is the governing body. County
waterworks districts must award contracts worth more
than $3,500 to the lowest responsible bidder. The
districts can use informal bidding procedures to award
contracts worth less than $7,500. The districts can
delegate contracting duties to county or city
purchasing agents for contracts worth less than $3,500
(Public Contract Code 20601 & 20602). Los Angeles
SB 113
Page
25
County officials explain that these state laws don't
distinguish between contracting for public works
projects and contracting for professional services.
As a result, County officials must follow public
bidding procedures for the county waterworks
districts' service contracts. They want legislators
to distinguish between public works contracts and
professional service contracts, allowing the districts
to award contracts for professional services just like
counties. This bill clarifies that county waterworks
districts must follow public bidding procedures when
awarding contracts for public works. This bill allows
county waterworks districts to contract for
professional services and special services by
following the statutes that apply to counties and
other public agencies. [78.1, 78.2 & 78.3]
29. Alquist-Priolo Act exemption for state historic
structures . After the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake
destroyed two hospitals, the Legislature passed the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act to prevent
building on top of active faults (Public Resources
Code 2621, et seq.). The State Geologist publishes
maps which are the basis for development regulations
within the Earthquake Fault Zones. Before they can
approve a project within an Earthquake Fault Zone,
cities and counties must require a geologic report
(Public Resources Code 2623). The Alquist-Priolo Act
exempts five types of projects:
A. Condominium conversions.
B. Structures built before May 4, 1975,
unless the alterations or additions are more than
50% of a structure's value.
C. Alterations or additions where the value
is less than 50% of a structure's value.
D. Structures damaged by the 1991
Berkeley-Oakland Hills fire that get state
waivers.
E. Alterations that include seismic
retrofitting on three specified types of
structures built before May 4, 1975, if:
(1) The local building permit
SB 113
Page
26
doesn't permit a greater human occupancy
load.
(2) Local officials require
seismic retrofitting to strengthen the
structure for increased resistance to
ground shaking.
Local officials report their exemptions to the State
Geologist within 30 days.
Qualified historic buildings within earthquake fault
zones can be exempt from the Act's requirements and
instead retrofitted under the State Historical
Building Code, provided that those buildings get the
local approvals required by the fifth exemption
(Public Resources Code 2621.7). The Hayward Fault
passes directly under the California Memorial Stadium
on the University of California-Berkeley campus.
Originally built in 1923 and now on the National
Register of Historic Places, the stadium seats over
72,000 people. After a 1998 seismic safety study gave
the Memorial Stadium a "poor" rating, campus officials
started planning seismic and disabled access
improvements. UC officials say there's ambiguity in
how the Alquist-Priolo Act may apply to retrofitting
Memorial Stadium. For example, the Act exempts
alterations where the value is less than 50% of the
structure's value; how could UC officials calculate
the value of an 85-year old stadium? The Act also
exempts seismic retrofitting that involves local
building permits; UC is exempt from the City of
Berkeley's building permit system. To avoid
controversy and lawsuits, the University of California
wants the Legislature to create another exception to
the Alquist-Priolo Act. This bill exempts from the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act alterations
to structures owned and operated by state entities and
agencies that are listed on the California Register of
Historical Resources or the National Register of
Historic Places, including the California Memorial
Stadium. [78.5]
30. Archaic reimbursement for special districts . Most
special districts operate under a series of "principal
SB 113
Page
27
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]
31. Municipal utility districts' annual reports . All
special districts, including municipal utility
districts (MUDs), must send annual financial
transactions reports to the State Controller
(Government Code 53890, et seq.). The Municipal
Utility District Law requires a MUD's general manager
to publish the annual financial report in a general
circulation newspaper, once a week for two successive
weeks (Public Utilities Code 11938). Recognizing the
cost of publishing entire ordinances, the Legislature
allowed MUDs to publish summaries of their ordinances
SB 113
Page
28
(Public Utilities Code 11534 & 11910, amended by SB
1165, Senate Local Government Committee, 2004). The
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) says that
publishing all 66 pages of its annual financial report
would have cost $30,000 if it ran in the Sacramento
Bee. Instead, SMUD paid $4,000 to publish it in the
lower-circulation Sacramento Gazette. SMUD officials
want the Legislature to allow MUDs to publish
summaries of their annual reports. This bill allows
municipal utility districts to publish summaries of
their annual financial reports instead of publishing
the full reports. [79.1]
32. Property tax exchanges for city annexations . Before
a city can annex territory, it must negotiate a
property tax exchange agreement with its county
(Revenue & Taxation Code 99). The property tax
exchange agreement specifies the future allocation of
property tax revenues generated in the annexation
area. Cities and counties can adopt master property
tax exchange agreements, otherwise state law gives
them 60 days to negotiate a property tax exchange. If
they fail to agree, the city annexation can't proceed.
In effect, a county can veto a city annexation by
refusing to agree to a property tax exchange. In
1997, the Legislature created a three-step alternative
dispute resolution process involving a consultant, a
mediator, and an arbitrator, but it automatically
terminated on January 1, 2005 (SB 466, Rainey, 1997).
The Legislature extended the sunset date to January 1,
2010 (AB 818, Leslie, 2005). Although no one has ever
used this alternative dispute resolution procedure,
the California Association of LAFCOs says that the
prospect of mandatory
consultation-mediation-arbitration may have prompted
some counties to reach agreements with their cities.
The LAFCOs want the Legislature to extend for another
five years the sunset date for the mandatory
consultation-mediation-arbitration process. This bill
extends the sunset date for the mandatory
consultation-mediation-arbitration process for
reaching a property tax exchange agreement for city
annexations from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2015.
[79.5]
SB 113
Page
29
33. 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 (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]
34. 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
SB 113
Page
30
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]
35. Publishing water conservation ordinances . Local
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
SB 113
Page
31
the full text is available to the public. [89]
36. County waterworks districts' extraterritorial
services . County boards of supervisors are the ex
officio governing bodies for most of the 29 county
waterworks districts that operate under the County
Waterworks District Law (Water Code 55000, et seq.).
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
manages five county waterworks districts for which the
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is the
governing body. County waterworks districts supply
water for irrigation, domestic, industrial, and fire
protection purposes (Water Code 55330). Before a
special district can deliver services beyond its
boundaries, it needs the approval of the local agency
formation commission (LAFCO) (Government Code 56133).
If its governing body finds that a county waterworks
district has a surplus of water, it can sell the
surplus water outside its boundaries (Water Code
55336). To avoid failures, Los Angeles County's
waterworks districts have connected their water
distribution systems to the water distribution systems
of adjacent water systems that are owned by a variety
of public agencies, mutual water companies, and
private firms. When Los Angeles County officials
wanted to install a connection between a county
waterworks district and a mutual water company in the
Antelope Valley, the County Counsel's office pointed
out that state law required local officials to
determine that surplus water was available before the
district could sell water outside its boundaries.
There is no surplus water in Southern California. Los
Angeles County officials want statutory permission to
sell water beyond their districts' boundaries if the
water is needed for public health, public safety, or
emergency purposes. This bill clarifies that a county
waterworks district must obtain the local agency
formation commission's approval before it can sell
water outside its boundaries and deletes the
requirement that the water must be surplus. This bill
also allows a county waterworks district to sell water
outside its boundaries in response to a defined
emergency. [90.1]
SB 113
Page
32
37. County waterworks districts' real property . County
boards of supervisors are the ex officio governing
bodies for most of the 29 county waterworks districts
that operate under the County Waterworks District Law
(Water Code 55000, et seq.). The Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works manages five county
waterworks districts for which the Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors is the governing body. When
Lancaster officials needed a piece of land owned by a
county waterworks district to improve city sidewalks,
Los Angeles County officials discovered that the
districts' governing statute made it hard to cooperate
with the City. Los Angeles County officials want
legislators to give them more flexibility in how they
dispose of county waterworks districts' property:
A. County waterworks districts can sell or
lease surplus property (Water Code 55371). This
bill allows the districts to exchange surplus
property. This bill allows the districts to
sell, exchange, or lease surplus property rights.
[90.2]
B. Without public notice, county waterworks
districts can sell or lease surplus property to
another county waterworks district that it
governs (Water Code 55371.5). This bill allows
county waterworks districts to exchange property
with other county waterworks districts without
public notice. This bill allows county
waterworks districts to sell, exchange, or lease
property and property interests with overlapping
public agencies. [90.3]
C. Without public notice, a county
waterworks district's board can sell or lease
property that's worth $100 or less (Water Code
55372). For property worth more than $100, the
county waterworks district's board must post
public notices before it sells or leases the
property to the highest bidder (Water Code
55373). This bill increases the statutory
threshold that triggers public bidding from $100
to $5,000. This bill allows county waterworks
SB 113
Page
33
districts to exchange property and property
interests with these procedures. [90.4 & 90.5]
38. North Delta Water Agency's assessments . Formed in
1973 as one of the three successors to the Delta Water
Agency, the North Delta Water Agency operate under its
own special act (Water Code Appendix 115-1, et seq.).
The Agency's 1981 contract with the State Department
of Water Resources (DWR) requires the Agency to pay
DWR for deliveries from the State Water Project. To
make these payments, the Agency collects an annual
uniform assessment on each acre within the Agency
(Water Code Appendix 115.1 to 115.19, added by SB
1327, Garamendi, 1980). When the Agency's board of
directors started to consider an increase to the
annual assessment, the Agency's staff noted that the
1980 statute doesn't meet the constitutional
requirements of Proposition 218 (1996) and its
implementing statutes. This bill:
A. Requires the North Delta Water Agency to
follow the constitutional and statutory
procedures used by other local governments when
levying special benefit assessments (5.20).
B. Repeals and amends the outdated
provisions of the North Delta Water Agency Act
for collecting assessments (5.1 to 5.17).
C. Allows the Delta Water Agency to use
validation suits to confirm its actions (6.2).
D. Repeals and amends the outdated
provisions for the Agency's dissolution (8.1 &
8.2).
E. Revises the Agency's general powers
(4.1). [91 to 111]
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SB 113
Page
34
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/15/09)
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
Council of California County Law Librarians
County of Amador
County of Los Angeles
County of Napa
County of Sonoma
Friant Water Authority
North Delta Water Agency
North Marin Water Agency
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
San Diego LAFCO
Sempra Energy
Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission
University of California
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Conway, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,
DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, 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, Ruskin, Salas, Silva,
Skinner, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson,
Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, Bass
SB 113
Page
35
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cook, Saldana, Smyth
AGB:nl 8/18/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****