BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
SB 244 (Wolk)
Hearing Date: 05/16/2011 Amended: 05/03/2011
Consultant: Mark McKenzie Policy Vote: G&F 6-3
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 244 would require local agencies to plan for
specified disadvantaged communities through the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) planning process and general plan
updates.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Local planning mandate significant local costs, not
reimbursableLocal
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act creates a LAFCO in each county to
control the boundaries of cities and most special districts. To
plan for the future boundaries and service areas of the cities
and special districts, the LAFCO prepares a municipal service
reviews for each entity and use the information to adopt a
sphere of influence for each city and special district every
five years. Boundary decisions by the LAFCOs must be consistent
with the spheres of influence of the affected cities or
districts. Many disadvantaged unincorporated communities, such
as county islands, fringe communities, and isolated inhabited
communities, lack many basic public services, such as domestic
water, sanitary sewers, paved streets, storm drains, and street
lights. With respect to the LAFCO process, this bill would:
Define a "disadvantaged inhabited community" as inhabited area
that is all or a portion of a community in which the median
household income is less than 80 percent of the statewide
average, as specified.
Require a LAFCO, when preparing municipal service reviews, to
include a written statement determining the location and
SB 244 (Wolk)
Page 1
characteristics of any disadvantaged inhabited community,
including specified infrastructure needs and deficiencies in
disadvantaged inhabited communities within or adjacent to a
sphere of influence.
Require a LAFCO, when reviewing and updating a city or special
district sphere of influence that occurs after July 1, 2012,
to include the present and probable needs for public
facilities and services of disadvantaged inhabited
communities. This would apply to the sphere of influence of a
city or special district that provides sewer, municipal and
industrial water, or structural fire protection services or
facilities.
Require a LAFCO to assess various alternatives, including
consolidation of governmental agencies, for improving
infrastructure and services within or adjacent to a sphere of
influence.
SB 244 would place new burdens on counties and LAFCOs to plan
for addressing service deficiencies in disadvantaged inhabited
communities. LAFCO operations are funded by the cities,
counties, and special districts, and boundary decisions are
considered local land-use planning activities. Staff notes that
the additional identification and mapping, and quantification
and analysis of service and facility deficiencies by LAFCOs in
the municipal service review and sphere of influence process
would come at a substantial cost to LAFCOs. These costs are
passed on to local agencies.
Under current law, cities and counties are required to adopt
general plans that incorporate seven mandated elements - land
use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and
safety. The only element of a general plan that must be
regularly updated is the housing element; a total of 478 cities
and 58 counties must submit housing elements to the state once
every 5 years, or an average of 107 per year. Major land use
decisions must be consistent with a city or county's general
plan.
SB 244 would require cities and counties, upon the next general
plan revision and any subsequent housing element update, to
review and update elements of the general plan to include data
and analysis, goals, policies, and implementation measures to
address unincorporated island, fringe, or legacy communities.
Updated plans would include:
SB 244 (Wolk)
Page 2
Identification and mapping of each unincorporated island or
fringe community located within or adjacent to a city, and
each legacy community located in a county.
Quantification and analysis of seven specified conditions
regarding deficient services, facilities, and housing
conditions.
Analysis of current programs and activities that address those
conditions, and an evaluation of the feasibility of annexation
of identified island or fringe communities.
A statement of specific, quantified goals for eliminating or
reducing those conditions, and feasible implementation
measures to achieve these goals, including an identification
of resources and timelines.
General plan updates require extensive analysis and policy
development, and considerable planning staff resources. Staff
notes that the additional identification and mapping,
quantification and analysis of deficiencies, and formulation of
strategies to address the problems facing these disadvantaged
communities would come at a substantial cost to local agencies.
By imposing these additional requirements on local governments,
this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
Typically, bills that include new planning mandates include the
standard "local fee disclaimer" language, indicating that the
mandate is not reimbursable because affected agencies have the
authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments
sufficient to pay for the bill's requirements. Staff notes that
AB 244 includes non-standard language disclaiming the authority
for state reimbursement while recognizing that local agencies
may seek reimbursement pursuant to existing law. Staff
recommends an amendment to delete the existing mandate
reimbursement language (Section 6 of the bill), and replace it
with the standard "local fee disclaimer" language, to remove any
ambiguity about state reimbursement for mandated costs.
Local governments have broad fee authority to cover costs
associated with planning duties, including general plan updates.
Specifically, existing law authorizes local agencies to impose
zoning and permit fees that include costs reasonably necessary
to prepare and revise plans and policies that a local agency is
required to adopt before it can make any necessary findings and
determinations. Case law and previous decisions by the
Commission on State Mandates support the position that local
SB 244 (Wolk)
Page 3
governments' planning costs are not reimbursable when the state
imposes new planning mandates. The costs of mandates imposed
upon LAFCOs must ultimately be passed on to counties and the
cities and special district whose boundary decisions a LAFCO
handles. Any new costs to local agencies as a result of new
LAFCO and general plan mandates would have to be absorbed by
local governments.
Proposition 84, approved by the voters in 2006, authorized $5.4
billion in state general obligation bonds and specifically set
aside $90 million for "planning grants and planning incentives."
The Strategic Growth Council, established by SB 732
(Steinberg), Chapter 729 of 2008, manages these programs and
intends to award planning grants to cities and counties worth
$22 million a year in 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13. The Council
has awarded $26 million of these funds to date and has set aside
20% of each year's grants for work that benefits economically
disadvantaged communities. To the extent these funds are
available when local governments are performing general plan
updates, these funds could offset some of the planning mandate
costs associated this bill.