AgdaPkt 2005-07-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

;;'/1- / z¡ Legislative Bill Action ............................................................... The following are summaries of just a few of the legislative bills that are current~ being acte~ ~pon by the League of Califomia Cities. For more infoona~ion ~bout t~es~ and other bills, please VISit the League website to access infoona~ion about legl.s~atlon, pol!cy Issues and relate~ develop- ments You can track infoonation on bills (www.cacities.org/bilisearch), locate legislators and legislative committees, send letters to legislators or the media through the online Advocacy Center (www.cacities.org/advocacycenter), research League policy positions, access useful related links, and much more. HOUSING AND LAND USE AS 1335 (Vargas) Business Improvement Districts: This bill makes a number of changes to laws affecting the foonation and terms affect- ing Business Improvement Districts. The League worked extensively with the author's staff to address technical issues with prior versions of this legislation, and sent a letter of support on the June 8, version of the bill. On June 27 and 29, however, the bill was amended to make significant changes. Key among these changes is an amendment that reduces the initial petition threshold for business owners from 50 to 30 percent. \M1i1e a lower initial threshold may seem appealing to some, it can also be maintained that a significant level of business support is necessary to maintain a viable district. Given these recent changes, the League has notified the author that it is removing its prior support position because we have not receiv~d sufficient policy direction from our membership as to the advisability of the recent changes. Cities affected by this bill should carefully review the recent changes to this legislation. Staff: Daniel Carrigg; Status: SenLG, Hrg. 7/6; Position: Review and Comment. SB 135 (Kehoe) Community Service Districts. This legislation contains a compre- hensive update of statutes relating to community services districts, based upon the work of a task force hosted by the Senate Local Govemment Committee. Although the bill enjoys broad support because many of its provisions are helpful and non-controversial, the League re- cently adopted an Oppose, Unless Amended position based upon the effect of a provision of legislation that partially erodes city authority versus the role of local agency foonation commissions and community services districts. The issue raised by the League focused Dn a change the bill makes to the peonitted exe~i~e of "latent powers" by a district that operates WIthin an existing city. Under existing law, Section 61601 Govemment Code, a district may only exercise a latent power not listed in its original documents of foonation with the approval of the voters and the Local Agency Foonation CommissiDn (LAFCO). This bill removes the voter approval requirement, and requires only LAFCO to approve. Further, this bill lists 31 separate latent powers that a community services district may exercise in the future with simple LAFCO approval. \M1ile LAFCO may be the appropriate body to consider service delivery outside the boundaries of incDrporated cities, this bill - which is presented as a statutory clean-up vehicle - should not be peonitted to weaken protec- tion for city authority inside a city's boundaries. \M1ile an amendment was taken to ensure that LAFCO could not approve duplicate services, the League requested that this measure ~e furth.er amended to ensure that if a community services district proposes to expand a new service or exer- cise a new power to an area within a city's borders, the affected city can veto the expansion by object- ing tD it in writing with the appropriate LAFCO if the power or service duplicates one the city intends to provide or desires to reserve its right to provide. PAGE 4/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Website--www.cacities.org 'T< -,