BILL ANALYSIS
SB 712
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 16, 1997
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Michael Sweeney, Chair
SB 712 (Haynes) - As Amended: May 13, 1997
SENATE VOTE : 23-3
LOCAL GOVERNMENT > APPROPRIATIONS >
SUBJECT : Voting requirements for changes in organization and
reorganization under Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization
Act.
SUMMARY : (1) Allows a protest petition to trigger an election in
each affected district for a LAFCO reorganization that includes
both a dissolution and annexation, and (2) requires an automatic
election in most changes of organization. Specifically, this
bill :
1) Allows a protest petition, within each affected district, to
trigger an election on a dissolution and annexation proposal. To
trigger an election, the protest petition must obtain signatures
of 25% of the voters or 25% of the landowners owning 25% of the
land.
Allows LAFCO to bypass the 25% petition of protest requirement
when:
a) Each affected district adopts a resolution of support by a
majority of the board of directors.
b) The LAFCO commission initiates any proposal for a change in
organization or reorganization.
2) Creates an automatic election, without a protest petition, in
most changes of organization proposals.
EXISTING LAW :
1) Does not, in a dissolution and annexation proceedure, either
(a) require an election, or (b) allow a protest petition that
would trigger an election, for a district that receives that
dissolving district.
2) Allows LAFCO to authorize changes in organization: (a) which
in some cases allow a protest petition to trigger an election, and
(b) which in some other cases does not allow an election or
protest petition.
COMMENTS :
1) The "automatic elections" provisions .
SB 712 deletes a provision of law that was enacted in 1993 to
SB 712
Page 2
provide what the Legislature believed to be an efficient
process for increasing consolidations, reorganizations,
dissolutions, and mergers of special districts. In 1993, AB
1335 (Gotch) was passed by the Legislature and signed by the
Governor, allowing LAFCOs to initiate boundary changes.
SB 712
Page 3
Prior to AB 1335 LAFCOs had to wait for a resolution from an
agency or a petition from the voters in order to proceed with any
boundary changes. Furthermore, upon the Legislatures
recommendations, the 1993 law allowed LAFCOs the ability to
authorize boundary changes without an election, except in
consolidations and reorganizations.
By repealing this provision of law, SB 712 is resurrecting
pre-Gotch voter approval requirements for changes in
organization or reorganization. Previous to the Gotch changes
in 1993, any changes in organization (i.e. dissolutions or
annexations) were subject to automatic voter approval unless it
was a consolidation or reorganization (which is a combination
of dissolutions, annexations or other changes of organization).
2) Mixed Messages .
In January of 1997, the Senate Local Government Committee held
a hearing titled IMPLEMENTING AB 1335: Do LAFCOs Need a Nudge
to Reorganize Special Districts? At this hearing LAFCO
commissioners and staff testified that the Legislature was
sending mixed messages by pushing LAFCOs to be more proactive
in district reorganizations while placing more procedural
hurdles in the way of local boundary changes.
3) Background .
In Santa Barbara County, the Goleta Sanitary District (GSD) and
the Goleta West Sanitary District (GWSD) provide wastewater
services in adjacent areas. GSD collects, treats, and reclaims
wastewater for 22,000 voters over 11,000 acres. GWSD collects
wastewater and sweeps streets for 19,000 voters over 4,500
acres. Each district is governed by an elected five-member
board. The districts use the same treatment plant: GSD owns
it but provides 48% of its capacity to GWSD through a contract.
In the late 1980's, GWSD proposed a consolidation with GSD in
order to gain more control over wastewater treatment decisions.
LAFCO approved the proposal and placed it before the voters,
who defeated it in November 1989.
GWSD, in 1995, came back with a proposal to dissolve its agency
and annex the territory to GSD. LAFCO staff reported that the
proposal "presents opportunities for economies and
efficiencies, ... reduced political fragmentation, and greater
democratic accountability" [Executive Officer's Report,
6/1/95]. LAFCO also hired an outside consultant to study the
reorganization, and each district hired its own consultant and
provided legal counsel at a total cost of nearly $700,000. The
GWSD consultant thought the reorganization was a good idea;
GSD's consultant said that the reorganization would have a
detrimental effect, particularly on rate structures; and
LAFCO's consultant determined that the proposals would result
in some cost savings. Days before LAFCOs hearing on the
proposal, GWSD withdrew its application because it could not
identify substantial cost-savings.
SB 712
Page 4
GSD is concerned that under existing law during a
reorganization or consolidation involving a dissolution and
annexation a district can be left without the ability to
protest and stop a proposal that requires them to annex the
dissolving district.
SB 712
Page 5
4) Staff Comments .
a) Staff recommends that this bill be amended to only solve
the "Goleta" problem (dissolution and annexation).
b) Staff recommends that the other part of the bill
(automatic elections) be struck and the subject be referred
to the committee's interim hearing on LAFCO.
The Assembly Local Government Committee has heard
numerous bills this year on LAFCO reorganization. AB 556
and AB 694 (Pringle), and AB 972 (Torlakson). AB 556 is
currently in Senate Local Government. AB 972 is currently
in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
The committee decided to hold AB 694 for interim hearing
in order to discuss and make suggestions on how to make
local government reorganization more efficient. Due to the
fact that the committee will be holding a interim hearing
on LAFCO reorganization, it seems logical to incorporate
the concerns that are being raised in SB 712 in the same
hearing.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Goleta Sanitary District [SPONSOR]
Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District
CA Association of Sanitation Agencies
Carpinteria Sanitary District
CA Special Districts Association
Crockett-Valona Sanitary District
Cucamonga County Water District
Forestville Water District
Happy Camp Sanitary District
Hi-Desert Water District
La Canada Irrigation District
Lakeside Water District
Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District of Marin County
Lower Lake County Waterworks District No. 1
Meeks Bay Fire Protection District
Midway Heights County Water District
Montecito Sanitary District
Mosquito Fire Protection District
North Central Fire Protection District
Olivenhain Municipal Water District
San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission
Santa Nella County Water District
South Coast Water District
Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency
Truckee Fire Protection District of Nevada County
Winton Water and Sanitary District
Opposition
SB 712
Page 6
CA Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission
Analysis prepared by : Daniel Kim / algov / (916) 445-6034