BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Lois Wolk, Chair
BILL NO: SB 194 HEARING: 4/27/11
AUTHOR: Governance & Finance CommitteeFISCAL: No
VERSION: 4/7/11 TAX LEVY: No
CONSULTANT: Detwiler
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMNIBUS ACT OF 2011
Proposes 18 changes to the state laws affecting local
agencies' powers and duties.
Background and Existing Law
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.
Legislators respond by combining several of these minor
topics into an annual "omnibus bill." In 2010, for
example, the local government omnibus bill was SB 894
(Senate Local Government Committee) which contained 20
noncontroversial statutory changes, avoiding about $350,000
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), it is an expeditious and relatively
inexpensive way to respond to multiple requests.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 194, the "Local Government Omnibus Act of
2011," proposes 18 changes to the state laws affecting
local agencies' powers and duties:
1. Repeal an obsolete library tax . In response to library
funding cuts and multiple library closures in the late
1980s, the Legislature passed the Shasta County Regional
Library Facilities and Services Act (Government Code
SB 194 -- 4/7/11 -- Page 2
�26170, et seq., added by AB 4083, Statham, 1990). Shasta
County officials could create a new countywide commission
to fund and administer libraries. This law became
inoperative on January 1, 1995 (Government Code �26170.24).
Subsequently, Shasta County received funding for a new
library through the California Reading and Literacy
Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation
Bond Act of 2000. In 2006, Shasta County and the City of
Redding designated the City as the operator of the Shasta
Public Library System. As a result, the Committee's staff
notes that the 1990 Statham bill's provisions for library
funding and administration are not only inoperative, but
unnecessary. Senate Bill 194 repeals the Shasta County
Regional Library Facilities and Services Act. �See �1.5 of
the bill.]
2. Delegation for unclaimed funds . Cities and counties
collect money for various services, programs, and
penalties. Sometimes payments are inadvertently more than
the amount due, requiring local treasurers to keep track of
the unclaimed funds. After three years, a local treasurer
can publish a notice of the unclaimed funds and, if no one
claims the money, it becomes the local agency's property
(Government Code �50050 & �50052). For amounts of less
than $15, the legislative body can transfer the money to
its general fund after a year, without publishing notice
(Government Code �50055). A county board of supervisors
may authorize its county treasurer to act on its behalf
regarding unclaimed items worth $1,000 or less, provided
that the treasurer informs the county auditor (Government
Code �50057, added by SB 1165, Senate Local Government
Committee, 2004). The California Association of County
Treasurers and Tax Collectors requested the 2004 statute
which allows county supervisors to delegate these duties to
county treasurers. However, the Association now believes
that the $1,000 ceiling is too low, requiring county
supervisors to act on small matters which could be reliably
delegated to the county treasurers. The Association wants
the Legislature to raise the ceiling. Senate Bill 194
raises the statutory ceiling on the amount of unclaimed
funds that county supervisors may delegate to county
treasurers from $1,000 to $5,000. ݧ2]
3. Investment of public funds . Since 1913, state law has
authorized local officials to invest a portion of their
temporarily idle funds in a variety of financial
SB 194 -- 4/7/11 -- Page 3
instruments (Government Code �53601). Among those eligible
investments are certificates of deposit issued by a
nationally or state-chartered bank, savings associations,
credit unions, or a state-licensed branch of a foreign bank
(Government Code �53601 �i]). The California Association
of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors notes that changes
in banking regulations have resulted in the establishment
of federally chartered branches of foreign banks ("Yankee
banks"), but that state law doesn't recognize those
institutions' certificates of deposit. The Association
wants the Legislature to allow local officials to invest
their funds in CDs issued by federally chartered branches
of foreign banks. Senate Bill 194 adds the federally
chartered branches of foreign banks to the list of
financial institutions whose certificates of deposit are
eligible for local agencies' investments. ݧ3]
4. Community services districts' governing boards .
Community services districts (CSDs) can provide a wide
range of public services and facilities within their
boundaries (Government Code �61000, et seq.). When the
Legislature revised the CSD Law (SB 135, Kehoe, 2005), it
learned that most of the 325 CSDs' governing boards had
five members, but a few districts still relied on
three-member boards of directors. The revised CSD Law
required all of the districts to have five-member boards
and provided a transition rule for CSDs to expand their
boards by adding two more directors at the next election
after January 1, 2006 (Government Code �61041). Because
that transition period has expired, the Committee's staff
wants the Legislature to repeal the obsolete transition
language. Senate Bill 194 repeals the obsolete section of
the Community Services District Law that requires the
districts to expand the membership of their boards of
directors. ݧ4]
5. Planning law cross-reference . Before a city or county
planning commission holds its public hearing on the
adoption or amendment of a general plan, local officials
must give public notice to the affected property owners.
The statute refers to specific procedural requirements
(Government Code �65353). In 2006, the Legislature
expanded the notice requirements for certain types of
subdivisions which consequently changed the format of
Government Code �65091, the section to which this public
notice requirement refers (AB 2867, Torrico, 2006).
SB 194 -- 4/7/11 -- Page 4
Planners note that these statutory cross-references are no
longer valid and they want the Legislature to correct those
errors. Senate Bill 194 corrects the erroneous statutory
cross-references in the law that requires planning
commissions to give notice of their public hearings on
general plan adoptions and amendments. ݧ5]
6. Subdivision clarification . The Subdivision Map Act
(Government Code �66410, et seq.) controls how counties and
cities approve requests to convert large properties into
marketable parcels. When a major subdivision creates five
or more parcels, state law requires a two-stage process
involving both a tentative map and a final map (Government
Code �66426). A minor subdivision with fewer parcels needs
only a parcel map, but local officials can require a
tentative parcel map and a final parcel map (Government
Code �66428). Counting the number of parcels determines if
a proposed subdivision is a major subdivision or a minor
subdivision. The Map Act excludes certain types of
divisions when counting parcels. For example, land
conveyed to (or from) a government agency, public entity,
public utility, or land conveyed to a subsidiary of a
public utility for conveyance to the public utility doesn't
count as a parcel (Government Code �66428 �a]�2]).
Similar, but not identical, language appears in the section
relating to parcel maps. This lack of precision might
result in confusion, according to an assistant city
attorney who specializes in land use law. He wants the
Legislature to conform the language in the parcel map
section to the language in the tentative map section.
Senate Bill 194 amends the exclusion of parcels for major
subdivisions to match the language that excludes parcels
for minor subdivisions. ݧ6 & �7]
7. Subdivision improvements . Tentative subdivision maps
are usually good for 24 months. However, if local
officials require a subdivider to spend $178,000 or more on
off-site public works, state law extends the life of the
tentative map by another 36 months. The Legislature set
the original $125,000 threshold in 1989 and allowed the
limit to increase each year by a designated inflation rate
(AB 1963, Cortese, 1989). Each January, the State
Allocation Board computes the annual inflationary
adjustment for the statewide cost index for Class B
construction (Government Code �66452.6 �a]). In 2004, the
Legislature reset the statutory amount to reflect the State
SB 194 -- 4/7/11 -- Page 5
Allocation Board's actions (SB 1165, Senate Local
Government Committee, 2004). After more annual changes,
the threshold is now $236,790. Some builders say that it's
hard to figure out the current threshold because it
requires knowing years of inflation rates. They want the
Legislature to once again recalibrate the statute. Senate
Bill 194 changes the dollar limit that triggers a longer
life for tentative maps from $178,000 to $236,790,
conforming the statutory threshold to amount set by the
State Allocation Board in January 2011. ݧ7.5]
8. Map Act cross-reference . The Subdivision Map Act
(Government Code �66410, et seq.) controls how counties and
cities convert large properties into marketable parcels.
The Map Act allows Orange County and its cities to charge
special subdivision fees to pay for bridges and major
thoroughfares (Government Code �66484.3, added by AB 2431,
Young, 1984). That language refers to another statute
governing subdivision fees which the Legislature renumbered
in 1986 (Government Code �53077.5 renumbered to �66007 by
AB 3314, Leonard, 1986). The Committee's staff wants the
Legislature to correct this erroneous statutory
cross-reference. Senate Bill 194 corrects the erroneous
statutory cross-reference in the Map Act provision relating
to special subdivision fees for bridges and thoroughfares.
ݧ8]
9. Sanitation districts' employees' cross-reference . The
County Sanitation District Act governs the powers and
duties of more than 70 special districts (Health & Safety
Code �4700, et seq.). The state laws that prohibit state
employees from engaging in inconsistent or conflicting
activities also apply to county sanitation districts'
employees (Health & Safety Code �4768). When the
Legislature codified the Governor's Reorganization Plan No.
1 of 1981, the bill renumbered the Government Code section
that prohibits those activities, but failed to correct the
cross-reference in the County Sanitation District Act
(former Government Code �19251 renumbered to �19990 by SB
668, Dills, 1981). A Los Angeles County official wants the
Legislature to correct the cross-reference. Senate Bill
194 corrects the cross-reference in the County Sanitation
District Act. ݧ8.5]
10. Obsolete redevelopment "blight" definition . The
Community Redevelopment Law governs how local officials can
SB 194 -- 4/7/11 -- Page 6
use redevelopment powers to eradicate physical and economic
blight (Health & Safety Code �33000, et seq.). Because the
statutory "blight" definition is crucial, the Legislature
defined and amended that term in 1993 and 2006 (Health &
Safety Code �33030 & �33031, amended by AB 1290, Isenberg,
1993 and SB 1206, Kehoe, 2006). However, a section adopted
in 1963 still refers to blight in temporary
government-owned wartime housing projects, presumably
referring to World War II which ended in 1945. The
Committee's staff wants the Legislature to repeal this
obsolete reference. Senate Bill 194 repeals the
redevelopment law's reference to blight in wartime housing.
ݧ9]
11. Military base redevelopment cross-reference . The
earliest special legislation for closed military bases
benefited Norton AFB and George AFB in San Bernardino
County (Health & Safety Code �33320.5 & �33320.51, added by
AB 419, Eaves, 1989). Later bills placed the military base
redevelopment provisions in a separate chapter (Health and
Safety Code �33492 et seq., added by SB 915, Johnston,
1993). In 1997, the Legislature moved most of the
provisions for Norton AFB and George AFB to a new article
within that separate chapter (Health & Safety Code
�33492.40, et seq., added by SB 320, Senate Housing & Land
Use Committee, 1997), but left one provision behind (Health
& Safety Code �33320.51). The Committee's staff wants the
Legislature to renumber this section, moving it to the
article with the rest of the provisions. Senate Bill 194
renumbers and amends a cross-reference in a provision
relating to the redevelopment of the Norton AFB and George
AFB. ݧ10]
12. County highway contracts' change orders . State law
spells out the procedures that local officials must follow
when contracting for public works projects (Public Contract
Code �20100, et seq.). For county highway projects, a
board of supervisors may authorize county employees to make
contract changes, provided that they don't exceed specified
dollar amounts. For contracts over $250,000, change orders
can't exceed $25,000 plus 5% of the amount over $250,000.
The amount of the change can't exceed $150,000 (Public
Contract Code �20395 �d], amended by AB 683, Morrow, 1997).
Los Angeles County officials note that since 1997,
inflation has eroded their purchasing power. To buy
something that cost $150,000 in 1998 (the effective date of
SB 194 -- 4/7/11 -- Page 7
the last statutory change) costs $202,000 in 2010. County
officials want the Legislature to raise the dollar limit on
county highway contracts' change orders. Senate Bill 194
raises the dollar limit on county highway contracts' change
orders from $150,000 to $210,000. SB 194 also clarifies
that these change orders may include additions to the work.
ݧ11]
13. Avigation easements and recording fees . To reduce the
potential for conflicts between airports and
noise-sensitive land uses, some cities require property
owners to grant avigation easements as a condition for
development approvals. Avigation easements must be granted
before local officials issue building permits. However, if
a project isn't built, airport officials must record a
notice of termination for the avigation easement (Public
Utilities Code �21669.5, added by SB 1333, Yee, 2010).
Since the passage of last year's bill, there has been
confusion over who should pay the fees for recording the
required notices of termination. After discussions with
the County Recorders' Association of California, airport
officials agreed that they should pay the fees. The
California Airports Council wants the Legislature to
clarify that the airports must pay the county recorders'
fees. Senate Bill 194 requires the airport owner or
operator to pay for recording a notice of termination of an
avigation easement. ݧ11.5]
14. Cities' fiscal years and state reports . State law
requires counties, cities, special districts, and school
districts to file various annual reports regarding their
financial practices. For example, local transit operators
must file annual reports regarding their operations with
transportation planning agencies and the State Controller
within 90 days after the end of their fiscal year (Public
Utilities Code �95243). Counties and cities must annually
report to the State Controller about their spending on
streets and roads for the fiscal year that ended on the
previous June 30 (Streets & Highways Code �2151). Although
the state government follows a fiscal year that starts on
July 1, state law doesn't specify a date on which a city
must begin its fiscal year. Five cities use the federal
fiscal year which begins on October 1: El Segundo,
Huntington Beach, Inglewood, Long Beach, and South Lake
Tahoe. State law recognizes Huntington Beach and South
Lake Tahoe's practices, allowing those cities to file their
SB 194 -- 4/7/11 -- Page 8
annual financial reports based on the federal fiscal year.
The Committee's staff wants the Legislature to recognize
the other three cities that use the federal fiscal year.
Senate Bill 194 adds the Cities of El Segundo, Inglewood,
and Long Beach to the list of cities that may use the
federal fiscal year when filing annual reports regarding
transit and street spending with the State Controller. ݧ12
& �13] SB 194 also explains why a special statute is
needed. ݧ23]
15. Repeal obsolete transit planning taxes . In 1966,
responding to Los Angeles County supervisors' reluctance to
seek voter approval of taxes to fund planning for a rapid
transit system, the Legislature provided a one-time
authority to impose a combination of parking taxes, vehicle
license fees, and property taxes to raise $3.9 million to
fund the Southern California Rapid Transit District's
planning efforts (Revenue & Taxation Code �36000, et seq.,
added by SB 80x, Rattigan, 1966). Later that same year,
the Legislature directly appropriated $3.9 million for
rapid transit planning in Los Angeles County (SB 2x,
Miller, 1966), making it unnecessary for the County to use
the taxing authority granted by the Rattigan bill.
Proposition 13 (1978) subsequently eliminated the County's
ability to levy a property tax to raise revenues to
contribute to a rapid transit district's planning efforts.
Further, under Proposition 218 (1996) and Proposition 26
(2010), a parking lot license tax or a vehicle license fee
to fund transit planning needs 2/3-voter approval. The
Committee's staff believes that the 1966 statutory
provisions are outdated. Senate Bill 194 repeals the
statutes authorizing the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors to raise money, for one year only, from parking
taxes, vehicle license fees, and property taxes, and to
appropriate those funds to a rapid transit district to pay
for transit planning. ݧ12.5]
16. Benefit assessments for maintenance . Proposition 218
(1996) set limits on how local officials can use benefit
assessments to finance public works and maintenance
activities. Benefit assessments must reflect the special
(not general) benefits that properties receive from
facilities and services. New and increased benefit
assessments on property need the weighted ballot approval
of the affected property owners (California Constitution
Article XIID and Government Code �53750, et seq.). The
SB 194 -- 4/7/11 -- Page 9
Legislature amended the benefit assessment statutes to
conform to the new constitutional limits (SB 1334, Senate
Local Government Committee, 2000). Among the revised
statutes was the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972
(Streets & Highways Code �22500, et seq.). Local officials
can use the 1972 Act to finance a specific list of
"improvements" as well as their "maintenance and servicing"
(Streets & Highways Code �22525). The 2000 revisions to
the 1972 Act also repealed an obsolete procedural
requirement for voter approval for acquiring and
constructing community centers, auditoriums, halls, and
similar facilities, shifting the authorization for those
facilities to the list of "improvements" (former Streets &
Highways Code �22525.5, repealed by SB 1334, Senate Local
Government Committee, 2000). By placing community centers
at the bottom of that statutory list, the 2000 bill could
be read to preclude the use of benefit assessments to pay
for their maintenance, even though the pre-2000 law allowed
local officials to use benefit assessments for maintaining
community centers. An attorney who advises on local fiscal
affairs wants the Legislature to amend the 1972 Act so that
local officials can use benefit assessments for maintaining
community centers, in addition to financing their
construction. Senate Bill 194 allows local officials to
use benefit assessments levied under the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972 to pay for maintaining community
centers as well as for financing their construction.
ݧ13.5]
17. Assessment area clarification . Cities use the Parking
and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Streets &
Highways Code �36500, et seq.) to levy benefit assessments,
when approved by the affected property owners or business
owners. The formation of a parking and business
improvement area begins when a city council adopts a formal
resolution that contains eight types of information about
the proposal and a subsequent protest hearing (Streets &
Highways Code �36522). An assistant city attorney notes
that the statute incorrectly calls this resolution a
"notice" and wants the Legislature to clarify that the
resolution must describe the protest provisions. Senate
Bill 194 clarifies the wording in the statute that spells
out the contents of a city's resolution initiating the
formation of a parking and business improvement area. ݧ14]
18. Property and business improvement assessments .
SB 194 -- 4/7/11 -- Page 10
Proposition 218 (1996) set limits on how local officials
can use benefit assessments to finance public works and
maintenance activities. Benefit assessments must reflect
the special (not general) benefits that properties receive
from facilities and services. New and increased benefit
assessments on property need the weighted ballot approval
of the affected property owners (California Constitution
Article XIID and Government Code �53750, et seq.). The
Property and Business Improvement District Act of 1994
allows local officials to set up property and business
improvement districts (PBIDs) that can levy benefit
assessments on real property or businesses or both (Streets
& Highways Code �36600, et seq.). The California Business
Properties Association notes that the procedural
requirements for PBIDs don't always distinguish between
property owners and business owners. To avoid confusion,
the Association wants the Legislature to adopt clarifying
amendments. Senate Bill 194 amends the procedural
requirements for levying property and business improvement
assessments to distinguish between property assessments and
business assessments. SB 194 also clarifies that a joint
powers agency that forms a PBID may include the State.
ݧ3.5 and ��15-21.]
19. Legislative intent . Senate Bill 194 expresses the
Legislature's intent to cut costs by combining several
noncontroversial items relating to local government into a
single bill. ݧ1]
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comment
Purpose of the bill . SB 194 collects 18 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 17
other bills, the Committee's measure avoids over $300,000
in legislative costs. Although the practice may violate a
strict interpretation of the single-subject and germaneness
rules, the Committee insists on a very public review of
each item. More than 150 public officials, trade groups,
SB 194 -- 4/7/11 -- Page 11
lobbyists, and legislative staffers see each proposal
before it goes into the Committee's bill. Should any item
in SB 194 attract opposition, the Committee will delete it.
In this transparent process, there is no hidden agenda.
If it's not consensus, it's not omnibus.
Support and Opposition (4/21/11)
Support : American Planning Association - California
Chapter, Association of California Water Agencies,
California Airports Council, California Association of
Clerks and Election Officials, California Association of
County Treasurers and Tax Collectors, California Building
Industry Association, California Business Properties
Association, California Special Districts Association, City
of Walnut Creek, County of Los Angeles, Mandell Municipal
Counseling.
Opposition : Unknown.