BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1430|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 1430
Author: Assembly Local Government Committee
Amended: 6/22/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE : 9-0, 06/29/11
AYES: Wolk, Huff, DeSaulnier, Fuller, Hancock, Hernandez,
Kehoe, La Malfa, Liu
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 05/19/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government
Reorganization Act of 2000 omnibus bill
SOURCE : California Association of Local Agency
Formation
Commissions
DIGEST : This bill makes several minor, non-controversial
changes to the laws affecting local government organization
and reorganization.
ANALYSIS : The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government
Reorganization Act delegates the Legislature's power to
control the boundaries of cities and special districts to
local agency formation commissions (LAFCOs). The courts
call LAFCOs the Legislature's watchdog over local boundary
changes.
As practitioners find problems with the
CONTINUED
AB 1430
Page
2
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, they ask for statutory
improvements. The Assembly Local Government Committee
responds by authoring annual clean-up bills. Last year's
LAFCO clean-up bill was AB 2795 (Assembly Local Government
Committee), Chapter 47, Statutes of 2010. This year, the
practitioners reviewed the Act's definitions and
recommended improvements.
This bill:
1.Definitions . The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act specifically
defines 75 statutory terms that are essential to using
the Act's procedures. This bill amends nearly every
definition with editorial revisions, renumbering, and
reformatting changes.
2."Dependent special district" definition . Local officials
distinguish between independent special districts and
dependent special districts, based on who governs. The
Act says that an independent special district has a
directly elected legislative body or a legislative body
with members appointed to fixed terms. Although the Act
doesn't contain a formal definition, practitioners say
that a dependent district depends on another legislative
body for its governance. This bill defines a "dependent
special district" as a district with a legislative body
consisting of ex officio members who are officers of a
county or other local agency, or who are appointees of
those officers for terms that are not fixed. �See �19 of
the bill.]
3."District" definition . The Act's definition of
"district" or "special district" are in the same code
section, along with a complex list of exclusions.
Although most practitioners use these terms
interchangeably, a footnote in the 1995 Las Tunas
decision treated them as separate terms. In revising and
reformatting the statutory definition of "district" or
"special district," this bill says that the terms are
synonymous. ݧ23] An uncodified section in this bill
includes a statement that this change does not affect the
decision in Las Tunas Beach Geological Hazard Abatement
District v. Superior Court . ݧ86]
CONTINUED
AB 1430
Page
3
4."District of limited powers" definition . In 1965, the
Legislature repealed the boundary change provisions of
most special districts' principal acts and instead
adopted the District Reorganization Act, one of the
statutory predecessors of the current
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. The District Reorganization
Act ended the "doctrine of automatic merger," in which a
city simply took over a special district once the
district was entirely within the city limits. Instead,
the 1965 Act and the current Act spell out the steps,
including LAFCO review and approval, for a district to
merge with a city or become a subsidiary district of the
city. To make those procedures work, the Legislature
coined the term "district of limited powers." Nearly a
half-century later, that definition is archaic because no
one tries to invoke the defunct doctrine of automatic
merger. Local officials know that they need LAFCO review
and approval before a city can take over a special
district, either through merger or conversion to
subsidiary district status. This bill repeals the
definition of "district of limited powers" ݧ29] and
deletes the statutory references to that term. ݧ26, �73,
�79, �83, & �84]
5."Latent service or power" definition . Although the Act
lacks a formal definition, practitioners usually use the
term latent power to mean the powers that a special
district's principal act authorizes, but a particular
district doesn't use. For example, the Community
Services District Law lists 32 services that a CSD could
offer (SB 135, Kehoe, Chapter 249, Statutes of 2005).
The Stallion Springs CSD (Kern County) provides five
services, so the 27 other statutorily authorized but
unused services are its latent powers. This bill defines
"latent service or power" as the services authorized by a
special district's principal act but aren't being
exercised, as determined by LAFCO. ݧ39]
Technical amendments . In addition to its substantive
changes to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, this bill makes
editorial improvements and reformatting changes.
Comments
CONTINUED
AB 1430
Page
4
Even the best written statutes contain minor flaws. When
statutory problems appear in the state law affecting
LAFCOs, the Assembly Local Government Committee avoids
legislative costs by combining several changes to the state
laws into a single, consensus bill. By carefully reviewing
each item with the affected parties, the Committee also
avoids controversy. The changes made by AB 1430 don't
raise statewide policy questions. Instead, the bill makes
a complex statute easier for property owners, residents,
and local officials to use.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/30/11)
California Association of Local Agency Formation
Commissions
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 05/19/11
AYES: Achadjian, 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: Alejo, Gorell
AGB:nl 6/30/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AB 1430
Page
5
CONTINUED