BILL ANALYSIS
SB 275
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 7, 1999
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
John Longville, Chair
SB 275 (Local Government) - As Amended: June 17, 1999
As Proposed to Be Amended
SENATE VOTE : 39-0
SUBJECT : 1999 Senate Local Government Committee Omnibus Bill
(URGENCY).
SUMMARY : Makes 21 relatively minor, non-controversial changes
to the laws affecting local agencies' powers and duties, as well
to the state statutes on land use and redevelopment.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Boundary changes and statutes of limitation .
Establishes a uniform 60 - day time period for litigation
relating to Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) boundary
changes. [See 2, 3, & 4 of the bill.]
The deadline for filing lawsuits that challenge boundary changes
that are subject to the Cortese-Knox Act is 60 days after
local officials complete the proceedings (Government Code
56103, referencing Code of Civil Procedure 860).
Nevertheless, laws enacted before the Cortese-Knox Act still
provide for different statutes of limitations. The deadline
for suing over city incorporations, annexations, and
consolidations is three months (Code of Civil Procedure
349). The deadline for suing over boundary changes for
cities, counties, special districts and other public
corporations is six months (Code of Civil Procedure 349.1).
Local officials can cut that six-month deadline to 60 days if
they mail notices to property owners (Code of Civil Procedure
349.4). Some legal observers think that the Cortese-Knox
Act's newer deadlines in the Government Code probably
supersede the older statutes of limitations in the Code of
Civil Procedure (see Longtin, Longtin's California Land Use,
2nd Edition , page 754; also see Selmi & Manaster, California
Environmental Law & Land Use Practice , page 73-52, footnote
13). Some attorneys want the Legislature to eliminate the
possibility of confusion.
SB 275
Page 2
2)County treasurers' candidates qualifications .
Adds county treasurers and tax collectors to the list of county
officers that must meet candidates' qualifications. [5]
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.
3)County treasurers and tax collectors' continuing education .
Adds public administration and governmental accounting to the
list of acceptable continuing education courses for county
treasurers and tax collectors. [6 & 7]
After Orange County's bankruptcy, the Legislature required
county treasurers and tax collectors 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 courses that
qualify for continuing education credits.
4)Treasurer's reports .
Authorizes a county auditor, rather than the county treasurer,
to file certain monthly financial reports with the county
supervisors if the county treasurer and county auditor have a
written agreement. [8]
SB 275
Page 3
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 to enter into agreements with the
auditors to provide the monthly reports.
5)COPS hearing .
Makes minor changes in hearing and reporting requirements for
the COPS Program [9]
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.
6)Historical landmark acquisition, cross-reference .
Corrects an erroneous cross-reference. [10]
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 (Lisa D. Weil and Daniel J.
Curtin, Jr., McCutchen Doyle Brown & Enersen, 925/975-5315).
7)Statute of limitations on LAFCO decisions .
Sets a 60-day statute of limitation on LAFCOs' decisions, other
than boundary changes. [11].
SB 275
Page 4
The deadline for filing lawsuits that challenge boundary changes
that are subject to the Cortese-Knox Act is 60 days after
local officials complete the proceedings (Government Code
56103, referencing Code of Civil Procedure 860). However,
state law does not provide a deadline for filing lawsuits that
challenge local agency formation commission (LAFCO) decisions
other than boundary changes, such as the adoption and
amendment of spheres of influence. Some attorneys want the
Legislature to adopt a clear deadline for filing lawsuits on
LAFCOs' other decisions.
8)LAFCOs' use of e-mail for notices .
Allows LAFCOs to send special district selection notices and
official resolutions by electronic mail, provided that the
other agencies agree and that the LAFCO executive office keeps
written evidence that the recipients received the messages.
[12 & 13]
The Cortese-Knox Act contains procedures for expanding a LAFCO's
membership to include two representatives of independent
special districts. When it's not feasible to convene a
meeting of these special districts, the LAFCO executive
officer may conduct the selection process in writing by either
delivering the paperwork to each district or sending the
paperwork by certified mail (Government Code 56332 [d]). The
Cortese-Knox Act also requires the executive officer to send a
copy of the LAFCO's official resolution approving boundary
changes to the local government that will conduct further
proceedings. The executive officer must send the documents by
certified mail (Government Code 56853 [c]). LAFCOs want the
Legislature to let them use e-mail to send these documents,
instead of certified mail.
9)Tolling time limits during LAFCO reconsiderations .
Expands the tolling provision in LAFCO's reconsideration
procedures to apply to all deadlines for filing lawsuits.
[14]
When someone asks a local agency formation commission (LAFCO) to
reconsider its decision, the Cortese-Knox Act suspends or
"tolls" the CEQA deadline for filing lawsuits during the time
that the LAFCO acts on the request (Government Code 56857
SB 275
Page 5
[d]). However, the Act does not toll the deadline for filing
other kinds of lawsuits. Some attorneys want the Legislature
to clarify that all statutes of limitations are tolled while
the LAFCO acts on a reconsideration request.
10)Community services district formation error .
Corrects a typographical error. [15]
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
61107), referring instead to "a resolution or application"
11) Annual planning report, cross-reference .
Corrects a statutory cross-reference. [16]
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.
12)Adult zoning statutory format .
Moves the existing adult zoning provision from the basic section
on zoning to a new statutory location without changing its
contents. [17 & 18]
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
SB 275
Page 6
(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 wants the Legislature to place the adult
zoning provisions in the same section.
13)Permit Streamlining Act, cross-reference .
Corrects statutory cross-references in the Permit Streamlining
Act. [19]
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 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.
14)Subdivision Map Act fees cross-reference .
Corrects cross-references to the Mitigation Fee Act. [20]
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 an
obsolete cross-reference (Government Code 66451.2).
Legislative staff wants the Legislature to correct the
outdated cross-reference.
15)Final subdivision map notices .
Requires the clerk, not the legislative body, to give notice of
the city engineer's pending approval of final subdivision
maps. [21]
SB 275
Page 7
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 assignment.
16)Map Act cross-references .
Corrects cross-references in the Subdivision Map Act. [22,
23, & 24]
Last year's omnibus bill moved the time limits on vesting
tentative maps from Government Code 66452.6 to a more
appropriate statutory location in Government Code 66498.5 (SB
1362, Senate Committee on Housing & Land Use, 1998). Three
sections of the Subdivision Map Act still refer to the former
location (Government Code 66498.1 [d], 66498.2, and
66498.3). Some attorneys want the Legislature to correct
these cross-references.
17)Ventura County's VLF offset for no/low cities .
Repeals the subvention language in the Trial Court Funding
statute (Government Code 77202.5), creates the calculation in
Ventura County's TEA formula (Revenue and Taxation Code 98.02
[j]) and inserts Ventura County's subvention in the VLF
allocation law (Revenue and Taxation Code 11005 [b]). [25,
28, & 31]
When the Legislature began paying counties through the Trial
Court Funding Program, it also required counties to shift some
of their property tax revenues to the no- and low-property tax
cities. Because Ventura County would have lost more money to
its no/low cities than it would have received in Trial Court
funds; the Legislature gave the County special treatment. The
no/low cities in Ventura County received only 4% of the
property taxes under a modified Tax Equity Allocation (TEA)
formula (Revenue and Taxation Code 98.02). If the difference
SB 275
Page 8
between the TEA's cost to Ventura County and the state money
received from Trial Court Funds is less than $5 million, the
County receives a special subvention from the Vehicle License
Fee revenues (Government Code 77202.5). The Legislature has
restored the County's special subvention after twice
accidentally repealing the language, once in 1993 and again in
1997 (AB 1301, Ortiz, 1998). To maintain stable funding for
Ventura County without affecting the County's duty to shift
property tax revenues to its no/low cities, County officials
want to restructure these statutes. The County wants a
special subvention of VLF revenue equal to 60% of the property
tax revenue shifted to its no/low cities.
18)Appointments to Ventura Regional Sanitation District's
governing board .
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. [26]
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 that composed of two
directly elected directors and three appointed directors.
Each of the city councils of the eight cities within the
Ventura Regional Sanitation 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 boards.
SB 275
Page 9
19)Fire district cross-reference .
Corrects a reference to the Code of California Regulations.
[27]
In 1987, the Legislature changed the name of the California
Administrative Code to the Code of California Regulations (AB
2540, Leonard, 1987). The Fire Protection District Law
requires fire districts to adopt budgets that conform to state
regulations called the "Accounting Procedures for Special
Districts" and "Budgeting Procedures for Special Districts."
The statute refers to specified portions of the California
Administrative Code (Health and Safety Code 13890).
Observers note that the statute should refer to the Code of
California Regulations.
20)Boundary change negotiations .
Changes the starting date of a 150-day period for discussion of
property tax sharing to the date when the auditor provides the
property tax information needed to begin the discussions.
[29]
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.
21)Cancellation of property taxes .
Defines "city" to include counties, cities, special districts,
school districts, and joint powers agencies for the purpose of
SB 275
Page 10
defaulted Mello-Roos bonds. [30]
With the district attorney's approval, county officials can
cancel the property taxes owed on property where there are
special assessments for bonds under the 1915 Act and where a
city acquired the property by foreclosure (Revenue and
Taxation Code 4986.3). In 1997, the Legislature expanded
this cancellation provision to include special taxes for bonds
under the Mello-Roos Act (AB 1224, Thomson, 1997). Attorneys
and others who are involved in working out property deals
involving defaulted Mello-Roos bonds say that the statute is
too vague. Because the law refers to property foreclosed by a
"city," the procedures preclude the cancellation of taxes on
property foreclosed by other types of local governments.
FISCAL EFFECT : No state cost.
COMMENTS : 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 non-controversial statutory changes, saving
over $300,000 in legislative costs (Chapter 876, Statutes of
1998). Although this practice may violate a strict
interpretation of the single-subject and germaneness rules
expressed in Harbor v. Deukmejian (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 1078, it is
an expeditious and relatively inexpensive way to respond to
multiple, non-controversial requests.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support Opposition
CA Association of County Treasurer-Tax CollectorsNone on file
CA Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions
CA Association of Sanitation Agencies
County of Ventura
McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, LLP
SB 275
Page 11
Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission
Quateman & Zidell LLP
State Association of County Auditors
Stone & Youngberg LLC
Sutter County Local Agency Formation Commission
University of Southern CA
Analysis Prepared by : Hubert Bower / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958