BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 275|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: SB 275
Author: Senate Local Government Committee
Amended: 5/3/99
Vote: 21
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 5-0, 5/12/99
AYES: Baca, Johannessen, Monteith, Schiff, Rainey
NOT VOTING: Perata, Polanco
SUBJECT : Local Government Omnibus Act of 1999
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill enacts the Local Government Omnibus
Act of 1999, and makes clarifying and minor
non-controversial changes to local government law. (See
analysis for specifics.)
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
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.
CONTINUED
SB 275
Page
2
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.
This bill enacts the "Local Government Omnibus Act of
1999," and makes 13 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 Section 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 Section 27000.6 and Section 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. This bill adds
county treasurers and tax collectors to the list of
county officers that must meet candidates'
qualifications. [See Section 2 of the bill.]
2. 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
Section 27000.8 and Section 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 courses that qualify for
continuing education credits. This bill adds public
administration and governmental accounting to the list of
acceptable continuing education courses for county
treasurers and tax collectors. [Section 3 and Section 4]
SB 275
Page
3
3. 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 Section
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. This bill
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.
[Section 5]
4. 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 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. This bill 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. [Section 6]
5. 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 Section
37361). A law firm wants the Legislature to correct the
error. This bill corrects the erroneous cross-reference.
[Section 7]
SB 275
Page
4
6. Community services district formation error . There are
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 Section 61107), referring instead to a
"resolution or application." This bill corrects the
typographical error. [Section 8]
7. 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 Section 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 Section 34217,
repealed in 1975). A law firm notes that the Planning
and Zoning Law still refers to the repealed statute
(Government Code Section 65307) and wants the Legislature
to correct the cross-reference. This bill inserts the
correct statutory cross-reference to the requirement for
local planners to file their annual planning status
reports with OPR. [Section 9]
8. Adult zoning statutory format . The Planning and Zoning
Law authorizes cities and counties to adopt zoning
ordinances (Government Code Section 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 (Section 65850.1),
hazardous substances (Section 65850.2), and solar energy
(Section 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 Section 65850.4, added by AB 2055,
SB 275
Page
5
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. This bill
moves the existing adult zoning provision from the basic
section on zoning to the new statutory location without
changing its contents. [Section 10 and Section 11]
9. Permit Streamlining Act, cross-reference . The Permit
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 Section 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. This
bill inserts the correct statutory cross-references in
the Permit Streamlining Act. [Section 12]
10. 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 Section 66451.2). Legislative staff want the
Legislature to correct the outdated cross-reference.
This bill inserts the correct cross-references to the
Mitigation Fee Act. [Section 13]
11. 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 Section 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. This bill requires the clerk -- not the
SB 275
Page
6
legislative body -- to give notice of the city
engineer's pending approval of final subdivision maps.
[Section 14]
12. 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. 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 Section 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. This bill 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. [Section
15]
13. 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 Section 99).
To facilitate this agreement, the county auditor
notifies each affected local agency of the relevant
SB 275
Page
7
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. This bill starts
the 150-day period when the auditor provides the
property tax information necessary to begin the
discussions. [Section 16]
14. Legislative intent . This bill expresses the
Legislature's intent to cut costs by combining several
local government items into a single bill. [Section 1]
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/12/99)
California Association of County Treasure-Tax Collectors
California Association of Local Agency Formation
Commissions
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
McCutchen Doyle Brown and Enersen LLP
State Association of County Auditors
Sutter LAFCO
University of Southern California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to Senate Local
Government Committee analysis, this bill collects 13
noncontroversial changes to the state laws affecting local
agencies, land use, and redevelopment issues into a single
bill. Sending a bill through the legislative process costs
about $14,000. By avoiding 12 other bills, this bill saves
California's taxpayers about $168,000. Although the
practice may violate a strict interpretation of the
single-subject and germaneness rules, the Senate Local
Government Committee insists on a very public review of
each item. Should any item in this bill attract
SB 275
Page
8
opposition, the committee will delete it from the bill.
There is no hidden agenda.
LB:sl 5/13/99 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****