BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1090|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: SB 1090
Author: Senate Governance and Finance Committee
Amended: 4/11/12
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE : 9-0, 4/18/12
AYES: Wolk, Dutton, DeSaulnier, Fuller, Hancock,
Hernandez, Kehoe, La Malfa, Liu
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : Local government: omnibus bill
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill, the Local Government Omnibus Act of
2012, proposes nine changes to state laws affecting local
agencies' powers and duties.
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.
Legislators respond by combining several of these minor
topics into an annual "omnibus bill." In 2011, for
example, the local government omnibus bill was SB 194
CONTINUED
SB 1090
Page
2
(Senate Governance & Finance Committee) which contained 22
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.
This bill, the "Local Government Omnibus Act of 2012,"
proposes the following changes to the state laws affecting
local agencies' powers and duties:
Archaic voter approval requirements for special taxes .
Proposition 13 (1978), Proposition 62 (1986), and
Proposition 218 all require voter approval for new and
increased local taxes. Proposition 218 specifically
requires special taxes to be approved by a 2/3 vote
(California Constitution, Article XIIIC, Section 2(d)).
Some older statutes which were enacted before the
constitutional voter-approval requirements took effect
appear to allow local governments to impose special taxes
with only majority voter approval. The Committee's staff
wants the Legislature to update these archaic statutes by
cross-referencing the statutory requirements for voter
approval of special taxes. This bill deletes archaic
majority voter approval language and inserts
cross-references to voter approval requirements for special
taxes into a statute authorizing cities to impose charges
for sidewalk installation (Government Code Section 40471,
as enacted by SB 1036, Whetmore, Chapter 350, Statutes of
1971).
Property and business improvement districts . The Property
and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 allows
property owners to petition a city (or county) to set up an
improvement district (PBID) and levy assessments on
property owners, business owners, or both, to pay for
promotional activities as well as for physical improvements
(AB 3754, Caldera, Chapter 897, Statutes of 1994).
Practitioners who work with PBIDs have identified errors
and ambiguities in the 1994 Act. They want the Legislature
to amend four code sections to make the following
corrections and clarifications:
CONTINUED
SB 1090
Page
3
1.Management district plans . State law requires each
PBID's management district plan to include specified
information (Streets & Highways Code Section 36622, as
amended by AB 1208, Silva, Chapter 114, Statutes of
2007). Among other things, every management plan must
contain:
The improvements and activities proposed for each
year of operation of the district.
The total annual amount proposed to be expended for
improvements, maintenance and operations, and debt
service in each year of operation of the district.
This bill permits a management plan to contain only a
description of the proposed improvements and activities
for a PBID's first year of operation if the plan states
that the improvements and activities proposed for each
year of operation are the same. Similarly, this bill
permits a management plan to contain only the amount
proposed to be expended for improvements, maintenance and
operations, and debt service in the PBID's first year of
operation if the plan states that the amount proposed to
be expended in each year of operation is not
significantly different.
1.District name correction . This bill corrects an
erroneous reference to a "parking and business
improvement area" by replacing that phrase with "property
and business improvement district" (Streets & Highways
Code Section 36629, as amended by AB 944, Steinberg,
Chapter 763, Statutes of 2003).
2.Disposition of revenues after a PBID expires . State law
requires PBIDs to be established for a limited initial
term and specifies the procedures by which PBIDs can be
renewed for subsequent terms of up to 10 years (Streets &
Highways Code Section 36660). State law also specifies
procedures by which a city council or board of
supervisors can disestablish a PBID and imposes
requirements on the disposition of revenues remaining
after a disestablishment (Streets & Highways Code
Sections 36670 and 36671). This bill clarifies that
district revenues remaining after a district expires
without renewal are subject to the same requirements that
CONTINUED
SB 1090
Page
4
apply to revenues remaining after a disestablishment.
Water and sewer districts' lien priority . State law
authorizes local governments that provide water or sewer
service to collect specified charges for services and
infrastructure using the same laws that apply to the levy,
collection, and enforcement of property taxes. Statutes
authorizing water and sewer service providers to collect
charges using property tax billing procedures typically
allow a public agency to impose a levy on real property for
delinquent taxes and charges. The levy becomes a lien - or
"encumbrance" - on the property when that property is sold.
The statutes, however, provide an exception to this
encumbrance, when the sale occurs before the charge becomes
delinquent (AB 1342, Knox, Chapter 861, Statutes of 1973).
This exception was intended to cover only sales and new
mortgage liens occurring in the "gap period" after the
agency submits the charge for placement on the tax bill and
before the tax bill becomes due. However, a 1981 court
decision, County of Butte v. North Burbank Public Utility
District , interpreted the exception more broadly. That
decision expanded the exception to cover any existing
mortgage lien. The court held that, when a lender holding
an existing mortgage forecloses and sells the property,
later-added unpaid tax liens for delinquent utility charges
are wiped out, regardless of when they were added. This
interpretation of the bona fide encumbrance exception
raises questions about the priority of liens that water and
sewer providers use to collect unpaid taxes and charges.
In response to the Butte decision, the Legislature amended
the public utility district statutes involved in that
decision and the Irrigation District Law (SB 1922, Johnson,
Chapter 1137, Statutes of 1982). Those amendments narrowed
the exception to apply only to transfers and encumbrances
created during a specified window preceding the tax bill
showing the charges. That bill, however, did not amend any
of the other statutes with the bona fide encumbrance
exception to include this clarification.
Last year, the Legislature approved AB 741 (Huffman),
Chapter 106, Statutes of 2011, which authorizes sewer
service providers, at a property owner's request, to
CONTINUED
SB 1090
Page
5
construct sewer improvements on private property and charge
the property owner for the costs. Irvine Ranch Water
District officials are concerned that local governments
will face risks in implementing AB 741 unless statutes that
authorize water and sewer districts to use tax bill
collection procedures are conformed to the language enacted
by the 1982 Johnson bill. This bill narrows the bona fide
encumbrance exception to protect sewer and other water
agencies using the tax bill collection mechanisms from the
Butte decision's expansive interpretation of the exception.
Fresno and Merced counties' boundaries . State statutes
recite the official boundary descriptions of all 58
counties (Government Code Section 23101-Section 23158).
State law also allows counties to adjust their mutual
boundaries (Government Code Section 23200, et seq.). After
counties use this procedure they ask the Legislature to
revise their statutory boundary descriptions to match the
new realities. In 2007, Fresno and Merced county officials
used these procedures to shift 4,175 acres from Fresno
County to Merced County near the City of Dos Palos. After
those boundary changes took effect on January 1, 2008, the
Legislature then corrected the counties' statutory boundary
descriptions (SB 894, Senate Local Government Committee,
Chapter 699, Statutes of 2010). County officials recently
identified errors in the new boundary descriptions that
were enacted in 2010 and want the Legislature to correct
these errors. This bill corrects Fresno and Merced
Counties' statutory boundary descriptions.
Williamson Act and Photovoltaic Solar Facilities . Statutes
enacted by SB 618 (Wolk), Chapter 596, Statutes of 2011,
authorize a city or county and a landowner to
simultaneously rescind a Williamson Act contract on
marginally productive or physically impaired lands and
enter into a solar-use easement that restricts the use of
land to photovoltaic solar facilities (Government Code
Sections 51190-51192.2). Some of the statutes enacted by
last year's Wolk bill contained drafting errors and
inconsistent terminology:
One statute incorrectly refers to agricultural
"productively" instead of "productivity" (Government
CONTINUED
SB 1090
Page
6
Code Section 51191).
Two statutes incorrectly refer to the time an
easement "terminates" instead of the time it "is
extinguished" (Government Code Section 51191.3 and
Section 51192.1).
One statute incorrectly refers to an easement's
"abandonment" instead of its "termination" (Government
Code Section 51192.2).
To help local governments and land owners use SB 618's
provisions properly, Williamson Act practitioners want the
Legislature to correct these errors. This bill corrects
errors in Williamson Act statutes related to solar
facilities.
"Abuse of office" definition . State law requires a local
agency's employment contracts to contain a provision to
reimburse the local agency for specified salary, legal, and
settlement costs if an employee is convicted of a crime
involving an abuse of his or her office or position (AB
1344), Feuer, Chapter 692, Statutes of 2011). For the
purposes of this requirement, Government Code Section
53243.4 defines "abuse of office" as either:
An abuse of public authority, including, but not
limited to, waste, fraud, and violation of the law
under color of authority.
A crime against public justice, including, but not
limited to, a crime described in Title 7 (commencing
with Section 92) of Part 1 of the Penal Code.
Some law enforcement officials worry that this definition's
cross-reference to the Penal Code excludes important crimes
that are defined in Title 5 of Part 1 of the Penal Code.
This bill adds a cross-reference to the Penal Code to more
accurately define the phrase abuse of office.
Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 validations . Numerous
statutes authorize a local government to file a validation
lawsuit, asking a superior court to determine the validity
of actions the local government has taken. The Benefit
Assessment Act of 1982 (Government Code Section 54703 et
seq.) allows local governments to levy assessments on real
property to pay for the maintenance and operation costs of
CONTINUED
SB 1090
Page
7
drainage, flood control, and street lighting services.
Unlike many other benefit assessment acts, the 1982 Act
doesn't expressly authorize local governments to use
validation lawsuits to validate 1982 Act assessments. The
California Central Valley Flood Control Association wants
the Legislature to allow local governments that levy
benefits assessments under the 1982 Act to use validation
suits to confirm their actions. This bill adds language to
the 1982 Act that mirrors the validation language that was
added to the North Delta Water Agency's governing statutes
by the Local Government Omnibus Act of 2009 (SB 113, Senate
Local Government Committee, Chapter 332, Statutes of 2009).
Engineers' and surveyors' seals on subdivision maps . The
Subdivision Map Act governs how cities and counties approve
applications to convert large properties into smaller
parcels for sale, lease, or financing. 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. Final maps and parcel maps must be certified
by a licensed engineer or land surveyor, who must "indicate
his or her registration or license number with expiration
date and the stamp of his or her seal" on a certified map
(Government Code Section 66442 and Section 66450). The
Legislature recently repealed the requirement that an
expiration date appear on the seal that licensed engineers
and surveyors stamp on specified engineering and land
surveying documents (AB 645, Niello, Chapter 368, Statutes
of 2009). The California Land Surveyors Association wants
the Legislature to conform the Subdivision Map Act to these
changes. This bill deletes the requirement that final maps
and parcel maps must be stamped with a seal that indicates
the expiration date of an engineer's or surveyor's license.
Kings River Conservation District's elections . The Kings
River Conservation District (Fresno County) is a special
act special district that provides flood control, water
resource management, and power generation services to
communities within its 1.2 million acre jurisdiction. The
District is governed by a seven-member elected board of
directors. Six of the directors represent six electoral
divisions within the District and the seventh director
CONTINUED
SB 1090
Page
8
represents the entire District. Because the boundaries of
these electoral divisions are defined in the District's
special act, using metes and bounds descriptions, the
boundaries can only be adjusted by the Legislature, not by
the District's board of directors. The Legislature last
amended the statute describing the District's electoral
boundaries in 1955.
District officials worry that the antiquated statutes
governing their board of directors' electoral divisions
prevent the District from complying with federal Voting
Rights Act requirements. They want the Legislature to
repeal and amend outdated provisions of the Kings River
Conservation District Act governing the district's
electoral divisions. Specifically, this bill:
Repeals the statutory descriptions of the
District's electoral boundaries.
Repeals other antiquated statutory provisions
governing district elections.
Requires district directors to establish seven
electoral divisions that must be, as far as
practicable, equal in population, using the most
recent federal census data as a basis.
Allows directors, when establishing division
boundaries, to consider the topography, geography,
cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, compactness of
territory, and the community of interests of the
electoral divisions.
Requires directors to review and, if necessary,
adjust the District's electoral division boundaries
following each decennial census.
Requires a candidate for the board of directors to
reside in the electoral division for which he or she
is a candidate.
Requires a director to continue to reside within
the electoral division during his or her term of
office.
Prohibits a change in boundaries of an electoral
division from affecting an incumbent director's term
of office.
Establishes a schedule for conducting elections for
each division.
Defines directors' terms of office.
Requires the District to conduct elections in
CONTINUED
SB 1090
Page
9
accordance with the Uniform District Election Law.
Comments
This bill compiles nine noncontroversial changes to state
laws affecting local agencies and land use into a single
bill. Sending a bill through the legislative process costs
around $18,000. By avoiding eight other bills, the
Committee's measure avoids over $140,000 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 100 public officials, trade groups, lobbyists,
and legislative staffers see each proposal before it goes
into the Committee's bill. Should any item in this bill
attract opposition, the Committee will delete it. In this
transparent process, there is no hidden agenda.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/30/12)
Association of California Water Agencies
California Central Valley Flood Control Association
California Land Surveyors Association
Fresno County Board of Supervisors
Irvine Ranch Water District
Kings River Conservation District
Merced County Board of Supervisors
AGB:nl 5/1/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED