BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 912|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 912
Author: Gordon (D)
Amended: 5/27/11 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE : 9-0, 6/22/11
AYES: Wolk, Huff, DeSaulnier, Fuller, Hancock, Hernandez,
Kehoe, La Malfa, Liu
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 5/31/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Local government: organization
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill establishes an expedited dissolution
process for a district recommended for dissolution by a
prior action of a local agency formation commission, in
specified conditions.
ANALYSIS : The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act controls how
local officials change the boundaries of cities and special
districts, putting local agency formation commissions
(LAFCOs) in charge of the proceedings. LAFCOs' boundary
decisions must be consistent with "spheres of influence"
that LAFCOs adopt to show the future boundaries and service
areas of the cities and special districts. Before LAFCOs
can adopt their spheres of influence, they must prepare
"municipal service reviews" which review population growth,
public facilities, and service demands. LAFCOs may also
CONTINUED
AB 912
Page
2
conduct special studies of local governments.
Most boundary changes begin when a city or special district
applies to LAFCO, or when registered voters or landowners
file petitions with a LAFCO. In limited circumstances,
LAFCO can initiate some special district boundary changes:
consolidations, dissolutions, mergers, subsidiary
districts, or reorganizations �AB 1335 (Gotch), Chapter
1307, Statutes of 1993]. Boundary changes, including
district dissolutions, require four (sometimes five) steps:
1. There must be a completed application to LAFCO,
including a petition or resolution, an environmental
review document, and a property tax exchange agreement
between the county and the district.
2. LAFCO must hold a noticed public hearing, take
testimony, and may approve the proposed district
dissolution. LAFCO may impose terms and conditions that
spell out what happens to the district's assets and
liabilities. If LAFCO disapproves, the proposed
dissolution stops.
3. LAFCO must hold another public hearing to measure
protests. In general, LAFCO must order an election on
the proposed dissolution, but there are many statutory
exemptions. For example, if a district has been
inactive for three years, no election is required.
4. If state law requires an election, it occurs among the
district's voters. A successful dissolution requires
majority-voter approval.
5. LAFCO's staff files formal documents to complete the
dissolution.
Responding to perceived problems, legislators required
voter approval to dissolve local hospital districts �AB
1015 (Johnston), Chapter 382, Statutes of 1985] and made it
easier for the voters in the Newhall County Water District
to force a dissolution election �SB 609 (Costa), Chapter
606, Statutes of 2001]. The courts have consistently
explained that there is no constitutional right to vote on
local governments' boundaries. Elections on district
CONTINUED
AB 912
Page
3
dissolutions are statutory opportunities, but not
constitutionally required.
This bill, if the proposed dissolution of a special
district is consistent with a prior action of a LAFCO
regarding a special study, a sphere of influence, or a
municipal service review, allows a LAFCO to do either of
the following:
Without an election or protest proceedings if the
dissolution was initiated by the district's board, or
After holding a noticed public hearing and protest
proceedings if the dissolution was initiated by an
affected local agency, LAFCO, or a petition. If a
majority-protest exists at the hearing, LAFCO must stop
the dissolution. Absent a majority-protest, LAFCO must
order the dissolution without an election.
Comment
Most of California's 3,300 special districts deliver the
public facilities and services that their communities want,
matching community services to community needs. But some
districts have simply outlived their usefulness. Using
special studies, municipal service reviews, and spheres of
influence, LAFCOs have identified vestigial districts that
linger because no one wants to take the time to get rid of
them. Even when LAFCO uses the 1993 Gotch law to initiate
the dissolution of a special district, the statutory
hearing and protest requirements make it hard to do the
right thing. This bill creates an expedited procedure for
dissolving special districts. If a district's boards asks
for permission to dissolve, the bill avoids protest
hearings and elections altogether. If someone else
(including LAFCO) initiates the proposed dissolution, the
bill still requires the protest hearing. Absent
majority-protest, the dissolution occurs without an
election. For district dissolutions that are consistent
with LAFCO policies, the bill trumps special statutory
provisions, including those for hospital districts. This
bill effectively shifts the statutory default from
requiring dissolution elections, with exceptions, to
avoiding elections.
CONTINUED
AB 912
Page
4
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/24/11)
California Association of Local Agency Formation
Commissions
California Special Districts Association
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 5/31/11
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Grove,
Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger
Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones,
Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor,
Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande,
Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez,
Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gorell
AGB:mw 6/24/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED