BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



          
           AB 1138
                                                                  Page  1

          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
          AB 1138 (Pescetti)
          As Amended June 25, 2002
          2/3 vote.  Urgency
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |     |(May 21, 2002)  |SENATE: |38-0 |(June 27,2002) |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
                    (vote not relevant)

          Original Committee Reference:   J., E.D. & E.  

           SUMMARY  :  Sets August 19, 2002, as the deadline to close the  
          protest hearing on the proposed Rancho Cordova incorporation and  
          extends the deadline for calling the election on the proposed  
          incorporation from 88 days to 78 days before the next regular  
          election date.

           The Senate amendments  delete the Assembly version of this bill,  
          and instead:

          1)Find and declare that a special law is necessary due to the  
            unique circumstances faced by the unincorporated community of  
            Rancho Cordova in the County of Sacramento.

          2)Set August 19, 2002, as the deadline to close the protest  
            hearing on the proposed Rancho Cordova incorporation.  

          3)Extend the deadline for calling the election on the proposed  
            Rancho Cordova incorporation from 88 days to 78 days before  
            the next regular election date.

          4)Add an urgency clause.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Specifies that a protest hearing of a proposed incorporation  
            may be continued from time-to-time not to exceed 60 days from  
            the date specified for the hearing in the notice.

          2)Requires that the election on the question of an incorporation  
            shall be called and held on the next regular election date  
            occurring at least 88 days after the date upon which the  
            resolution calling the election was adopted by the conducting  








          
           AB 1138
                                                                  Page  2

            authority.

           AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY  , this bill allowed the Infrastructure  
          and Economic Development Bank to provide financing to public and  
          nonpublic parties for repowering of existing electrical  
          facilities and for planning, design, construction, and startup  
          of peak demand facilities of up to 150 megawatts.
           
           FISCAL EFFECT  :  None
           
           COMMENTS  :   Successful city incorporations require five steps:   
          1) filing an application with the local agency formation  
          commission (LAFCO); 2) LAFCO review and approval; 3) a protest  
          hearing by the "conducting authority;" 4) an election; and, 5)  
          filing formal documents.
           
          If LAFCO approves a proposed incorporation, the conducting  
          authority must hold a noticed public hearing to measure any  
          protests.  The conducting authority can continue this protest  
          hearing for up to 60 days.  If a majority of the registered  
          voters within the proposed new city file written protests, the  
          conducting authority must terminate the proceedings.  If there  
          is no majority protest, the conducting authority must adopt a  
          formal resolution, calling an election on the question of  
          cityhood.  The election occurs on the next regular election date  
          that is at least 88 days after the conducting authority adopts  
          its resolution.
           
          Before 2001, a county board of supervisors was the "conducting  
          authority" for city incorporation proposals.   As part of a  
          major overhaul of boundary laws, LAFCO is now the conducting  
          authority [AB 2838 (Hertzberg), Chapter 761, Statutes of 2000].   
          Boundary change proposals filed before January 1, 2001, still  
          follow the prior law.
           
          In late 1999, community leaders filed their application to  
          incorporate Rancho Cordova with the Sacramento LAFCO.   
          Sacramento LAFCO approved the proposed Rancho Cordova             
          incorporation on May 22, 2002.  As the conducting authority, the  
          Sacramento County Board of Supervisors will open the protest  
          hearing on July 16.  The deadline to place items on the November  
          5, 2002, ballot is August 9.  State law allows the county  
          supervisors to continue their hearing for up to 60 days, until  
          September 16.  If the county supervisors take that long, they  








          
           AB 1138
                                                                  Page  3

          can postpone the Rancho Cordova incorporation election until  
          2004.
           
          Achieving cityhood requires synchronizing complicated statutes  
          with community politics.  Some incorporations take two or three  
          attempts before they succeed.  Past resistance by the Sacramento  
          County Board of Supervisors makes the cityhood advocates worry  
          that the county supervisors may take advantage of the state law  
          and use the full 60 days for the protest hearing.  That delay  
          would keep Rancho Cordova off the November ballot and push the  
          election out to 2004.  Although completely legal, that delay  
          could dissipate the incorporation drive's political momentum.   
          By shortening the deadlines for the protest hearing and for  
          calling the election, this bill keeps the Rancho Cordova  
          incorporation on track.
           
          Besides representing the political interests of individual  
          unincorporated communities, county supervisors are also  
          responsible for running state-mandated programs that advance the  
          public health and social welfare.  They must balance this public  
          trust with their constituents' political desires.  With looming  
          cuts in state funding, county supervisors must be prudent in all  
          they do.  Placing the Rancho Cordova incorporation on the  
          November 2002 ballot may satisfy local political desires but it  
          may not be fiscally prudent. 


           Analysis Prepared by  :  Joanne Wong / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

                                                                            
                                                         FN: 0005547