BILL ANALYSIS
SB 275 -- 4/7/99 Page
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Richard K. Rainey, Chairman
---------------------------------------------------------------
|BILL NO:SB 275 |HEARING: 4/21/99 |
|--------------------------------------+------------------------|
|AUTHOR: Committee |FISCAL:No |
|--------------------------------------+------------------------|
|VERSION: 4/7/99 |CONSULTANT: Detwiler |
---------------------------------------------------------------
SB 275 -- 4/7/99 Page
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMNIBUS ACT OF 1999
Background
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 problems are relatively
minor and do not warrant separate (and expensive) bills.
According to the Legislative Analyst, the cost of producing
a bill is about $14,000.
The Senate Local Government Committee responds by combining
several of these minor topics into an annual "omnibus
bill." For example, the Committee's 1998 omnibus bill was
SB 1649 which contained 23 noncontroversial statutory
changes, saving over $300,000 in legislative costs.
Although this practice may violate a strict interpretation
of the single-subject and germaneness rules expressed in
Harbor v. Deukmejian, it is an expeditious and relatively
inexpensive way to respond to multiple requests.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 275 enacts the "Local Government Omnibus Act of
1999," and makes 15 changes:
1. County treasurers' candidates qualifications . State
law prohibits a person from becoming a candidate for
certain county offices if they lack the required
qualifications (Elections Code 13.5). Following Orange
County's bankruptcy, the Legislature allowed county boards
of supervisors to require their county treasurers and tax
collectors to meet statutory qualifications (Government
Code 27000.6 and 27000.7). Because the Elections Code
does not refer to the qualifications for county treasurers
and tax collectors, Tehama County officials fear that they
cannot disqualify unqualified candidates for those offices.
They want the Legislature to add county treasurers and tax
collectors' qualifications to the Elections Code. Senate
Bill 275 adds county treasurers and tax collectors to the
list of county officers that must meet candidates'
qualifications. [See 2 of the bill.]
2. Joint powers authorities as members of joint powers
authorities . The Joint Exercise of Powers Act allows two
or more "public agencies" to perform common functions
SB 275 -- 4/7/99 Page
(Government Code 6508). Public agencies use the Act to
form joint powers authorities (JPAs) to deliver common
services. For example, the Sacramento Regional EMS
Communication Center is a JPA created by local agencies to
run a common "911" emergency dispatch center. The Northern
California Special District Insurance Authority is a JPA
that provides a risk coverage pool, self-insuring its
member agencies for liability, health, workers'
compensation, and other risks. The Sacramento Regional EMS
Communication Center (a JPA) is a member of the Northern
California Special District Insurance Authority (another
JPA). But a recent legal opinion prepared for the
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities notes
that the Act's definition of "public agency" does not
include a "joint powers authority" (Government Code 6508).
The attorney warns that a court might rule that a JPA
lacks statutory authority to join another JPA. The
Association wants the Legislature to expand the Act's
definition of "public agency" to include joint powers
authorities that provide insurance coverage. Senate Bill
275 adds joint powers authorities to the list of public
agencies that are permitted to join joint powers
authorities for the purpose of providing insurance. [3]
3. Joint powers authorities' bonds . Joint powers
authorities (JPAs) can issue bonds to finance public works
(Government Code 6588 [c]). Using their statutory power
to lease public capital improvements, JPAs can also issue
certificates of participation (COPs) (Government Code 6588
[n]). Cities and counties want the Legislature to clarify
the statute so that a JPA can issue bonds for any purpose
where it might have used COPs with a tax-exempt
organization. Senate Bill 275 allows a joint powers
authority to issue bonds for any purpose that it could have
used certificates of participation with a tax-exempt
organization. [4]
4. County treasurers and tax collectors' continuing
education . After Orange County's bankruptcy, the
Legislature required county treasurers and tax collectors
to complete a continuing education program in treasury
management or public finance or both (Government Code
27000.8 and 27000.9). The University of Southern
California has been offering continuing education courses
for county treasurers and tax collectors. Prompted by the
Plumas County Treasurer-Tax Collector, the State
Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors says
that the statutory list of topics is too narrow. The
Association wants the Legislature to widen the scope of the
SB 275 -- 4/7/99 Page
courses that qualify for continuing education credits.
Senate Bill 275 adds public administration and governmental
accounting to the list of acceptable continuing education
courses for county treasurers and tax collectors. [5 & 6]
5. Treasurer's reports . Each month, the county treasurer
must file with the county board of supervisors a report of
funds received and disbursed (Government Code 27063). The
Orange County Treasurer-Tax Collector and others think that
the county auditor (who actually maintains the accounting
records) could more readily provide this information.
County treasurers want the Legislature to let them enter
into agreements with the auditors to provide the monthly
reports. Senate Bill 275 authorizes a county auditor to
file the monthly financial reports with the county
supervisors if the county treasurer and county auditor had
a written agreement. [7]
6. COPS hearing . Starting in 1996, the Legislature
annually appropriates $100 million to local agencies for
public safety services under the "Citizen's Option for
Public Safety" ("COPS") program (Government Code 30061, et
seq., AB 3229, Brulte, 1996). Local officials must hold a
public hearing each September to consider expenditure
requests from law enforcement agencies and to appropriate
COPS funds (Government Code 30061 [c][1]). By September 1
of each year, local officials are required to report their
prior year's COPS expenditures to a local oversight
committee (Government Code 30063 [c], as amended by AB
1584, Prenter, 1997). County auditors want to eliminate
the slightly different deadlines for holding the hearing
and issuing the report by striking the September 1 report
due date. That way, local officials can both hold the
hearing and issue the report anytime in September. Senate
Bill 275 eliminates the September 1 deadline for county
officials to report on COPS spending, and instead requires
them to file their annual reports on or before the duly
noticed public hearing on spending requests. [8]
7. Historical landmark acquisition, cross-reference .
Cities can acquire property to preserve or develop
historical landmarks. The statute contains an erroneous
cross-reference to "subdivision (d)" but there is no such
subdivision in that section (Government Code 37361). A
law firm wants the Legislature to correct the error.
Senate Bill 275 corrects the erroneous cross-reference.
[9]
8. Community services district formation error . There are
SB 275 -- 4/7/99 Page
two ways to start proceedings to form a new community
services district: by petition, and by filing a "resolution
of application" adopted by an existing local government.
The statute contains a typographical error (Government Code
61107), referring instead to a "resolution or
application." Senate Bill 275 corrects the typographical
error. [10]
9. Annual planning report, cross-reference . The Planning
and Zoning Law requires local planners to annually report
on the status of their general plans. They must provide
this annual report to their city councils and county boards
of supervisors, to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development, and to the Governor's Office of
Planning and Research (Government Code 65400, as amended
by AB 498, Torlakson, 1998). Cities and counties used to
file these reports with the Council on Intergovernmental
Relations but the Legislature dissolved the CIR in 1975
(former Government Code 34217, repealed in 1975). A law
firm notes that the Planning and Zoning Law still refers to
the repealed statute (Government Code 65307) and wants the
Legislature to correct the cross-reference. Senate Bill
275 inserts the correct statutory cross-reference to the
requirement for local planners to file their annual
planning status reports with OPR. [11]
10. Adult zoning statutory format . The Planning and
Zoning Law authorizes cities and counties to adopt zoning
ordinances (Government Code 65850). In 1994, the
Legislature specifically authorized cities and counties to
adopt ordinances that regulate "sexually oriented
businesses" (SB 1863, Leslie, 1994). Instead of creating a
new section for this purpose --- as the Legislature did for
film production (65850.1), hazardous substances
(65850.2), and solar energy (65850.5) --- the 1994 bill
placed the adult zoning provisions into the main zoning
statute. In 1998, the Legislature enacted another section
allowing cities and counties to consider the secondary
effects of adult businesses in adjacent cities and counties
(Government Code 65850.4, added by AB 2055, Gallegos,
1998). To avoid confusion with the basic zoning law and to
maintain the statutory structure, legislative staff want
the Legislature to place the adult zoning provisions in the
same section. Senate Bill 275 moves the existing adult
zoning provision from the basic section on zoning to the
new statutory location without changing its contents. [12
& 13]
11. Permit Streamlining Act, cross-reference . The Permit
SB 275 -- 4/7/99 Page
Streamlining Act sets deadlines for public officials to act
on development projects. The failure of a project
applicant to submit requested information is grounds for
denying the project (Government Code 65956 [c]). A law
firm notes that this statute refers to code sections that
the Legislature repealed in 1993 and wants the Legislature
to correct the cross-reference. Senate Bill 275 inserts
the correct statutory cross-references in the Permit
Streamlining Act. [14]
12. Subdivision Map Act fees cross-reference . The
Subdivision Map Act allows cities and counties to charge
fees for processing subdivision applications. The fees
cannot exceed the amount reasonably required to administer
the law. Cities and counties must follow statutory
procedures when imposing these fees but the statute
contains on obsolete cross-reference (Government Code
66451.2). Legislative staff want the Legislature to
correct the outdated cross-reference. Senate Bill 275
inserts the correct cross-references to the Mitigation Fee
Act. [15]
13. Final subdivision map notices . Last year, the
Legislature allowed city councils and county boards of
supervisors to delegate approval of final subdivision maps
to the agency's engineer or surveyor (Government Code
66458, amended by SB 1660, Lewis, 1998). Among the
statutory conditions attached to that delegation of
authority was the requirement for the legislative body to
give notice of any pending approvals. A law firm notes
that giving notice is more appropriate for the city clerk
or the clerk of the board of supervisors than for the
elected officials themselves, and they want the Legislature
to clarify this language. Senate Bill 275 requires the
clerk --- not the legislative body --- to give notice of
the city engineer's pending approval of final subdivision
maps. [16]
14. Appointments to Ventura Regional Sanitation District's
governing board . Special legislation spells out the
membership of the Ventura Regional Sanitation District's
nine-member board of directors. The Ventura Regional
District covers all or parts of eight cities and nine
special districts. Of the nine special districts, five
have directly elected boards of directors, two districts
are governed ex officio by the Ventura County Board of
Supervisors. The remaining district --- the Triunfo County
Sanitation District --- has a mixed board composed of two
directly elected directors and three appointed directors.
SB 275 -- 4/7/99 Page
Each of the city councils of the eight cities within the
Ventura Regional District selects one of its members to sit
on the Ventura Regional District's board. The presiding
officers of the five "independent districts" select the
final member of the District's board who must be a directly
elected member of a district board (Health and Safety Code
4730.6). Because its governing board has both elected and
appointed board members, the Triunfo District falls outside
the statutory definition of an "independent district" and
it cannot participate in selecting a member of the Ventura
Regional District. Both the Triunfo District and the
Ventura Regional District want the Legislature to change
the appointment procedures to allow the Triunfo District to
participate in selecting a member of the Ventura Regional
District's governing board. Senate Bill 275 allows the
Triunfo County Sanitation District to participate in
selecting a special district official to serve as a member
of the board of directors of the Ventura Regional
Sanitation District. [17]
15. Boundary change negotiations . Before a proposal to
change a city or special district's boundaries - like an
annexation - is officially "initiated," the affected local
agencies must specify how they'll split the area's property
taxes (Revenue and Taxation Code 99). To facilitate
this agreement, the county auditor notifies each affected
local agency of the relevant property tax revenues and
allocation factors. The Legislature improved this process
by providing for negotiation, mediation, and arbitration
(SB 466, Rainey, 1997). The three-tier process starts 150
days from the date that an annexation is initiated. But
because a boundary change can't be initiated until local
officials complete the tax sharing agreement, LAFCO
officials note that the statute is contradictory. They
want the Legislature to clarify the language. Senate Bill
275 starts the 150-day period when the auditor provides the
property tax information necessary to begin the
discussions. [18]
16. Legislative intent . Senate Bill 275 expresses the
Legislature's intent to cut costs by combining several
local government items into a single bill. [1]
Comment
Omnibus, not ominous . SB 275 collects 15 noncontroversial
changes to the state laws affecting local agencies, land
use, and redevelopment issues into a single bill. Sending
SB 275 -- 4/7/99 Page
a bill through the legislative process costs about $14,000.
By avoiding 14 other bills, the Committee's measure saves
California's taxpayers about $196,000. 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. Should any item in
SB 275 attract opposition, the Committee will delete it
from the bill. There is no hidden agenda.
Support and Opposition (4/15/)
Support : California Association of County Treasure-Tax
Collectors, California Association of Joint Powers
Agencies, California Association of Local Agency Formation
Commissions, California Association of Sanitation Agencies,
League of California Cities, McCutchen Doyle Brown &
Enersen LLP, State Association of County Auditors, Sutter
LAFCO, University of Southern California.
Opposition :
Unknown.