HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-03-15; City Council; 7328; Legislative Matters Annexations.
§
[
~ ·o
8' ~
' 2
ffi
.2l
2
t/1 ~ ~
M
CX)
I
1
M
' .. ,,
z
0 g
<
..J
0 :z :::>
0
0
CIT. OF CARLSBAD -AGENDh SILL
AB# 7.J 2 r rn LEGISLATIVE MATTERS
(ANNEXATIONS)
DEPT. HO. __ _
MTG. 3/15/83
DEPT. CM
CITY ATTY "j;A_ '
CITY MGR. ...-: /
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
While Council supports SB-322, SB-255, and AB-498 in concept,
authorize Mayor and City Manager to take appropriate action
to communicate the Council's preference for SB-322 for the
relief it provides in the way of agricultural provision
protection.
EXHIBITS:
1. Letter to Senator William Craven
2. Lett~r to Assemblyman Frazee
I
I •• ,
'i
, !
I
i
l ,
,i
l
Ii
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the Mayor
March 15, 1983
<tr:itp of <!arlsbab
Assemblyman Robert Frazee
3088 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 200
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SB-322 ANNEXATIONS
SB-255 -LAFCO
AB-498 DO PASS
TELEPHONE:
(7f4) 43B-5561
The Carlsbad City Council urges your support for iegislation
which would allow annexations to be processed through LAFCO.
As a result of a court decision, the San Diego LAFCO has
declared a moratorium on annexations until a sphere of
influence study is completed for ell special districts in
the County. Such a study n. :t take years to complete.
Carlsbad has six annexations in process at the present time:
If the legislature does not act, those annexations cannot
be completed. we urge you to support legislation to postpone
the effective date of the court decision and to allow annexa-
tions to be processed as they have for the past 10 years.
While we support all three bills in concept, our preference
is SB-322 for the relir:if it provides in the way of agri-
cultural provision protection.
After this urgency legislation is passed, we strongly urge
the legislature to conduct an interim study of the activities
and effectiveness of LAFCO. We feel that an in-depth review
is needed to determine what changes may be appropriate in the
procedures followed by LAFCO.
Sincerely,
if:lsLER
Mayotci
MC:gb
Attachments
cc: Chamber of Commerce
..
interested and active in regard to this issue and has offered any support to
the city position they can give. We suggest that cities contact local chambers ~ '
of commerce on this issue and explain the detrimental effects of compulsory )
and blnding arbitration on local governments and their taxpayers.
The members of the Assembly Committee on Public Employees and Retirement are:
Elder (Chair), Molina (Vice Chair), Bergeson, Fr.izzelle, Hughes, Johnston, Lewis,
Papan, Seastrand, and Tucker.
2. SUPPORT Annexations. ,!,egj.slation to Postpone Effective Date of Court Decision
Passed by Local Government Committees. SB 255 (Marks) -SB 322
(Craven) -._AB 498 (Cortese). (All Urgency Bills). In January, an
appellate courtdetermined that a Local Agency Format:i.on Commission could not ap-
prove an annexation, or other municipal reorganization or boundary change, unless
spheres of influence had been completed for all governmental agencies aff~cted
by che 1.AFCO decision.
Very few LAFCOs have completed spheres of influence for all the cities and dis-
tricts in their counties. The decision has therefore caused annexations and other
reorganizati.ons to grind to a halt in much of the state.
The three bills listed above have been introduced to prescribe a date by which
LAFCOs roust have spheres of influence in place and to enable LAFCOs to continue
to approve reorganizations in the meantime.
On Wednesday, SB 255 and SB 322 were amended and passed by the Senate Com.~ittee on
Local Government and AB 498 was passed by the Assembly Committee on Local Govern-
ment.
The essential features of the bills, as amended in Committee, are as follows:
a) SB 255: LAFCOs must complete all spheres of influence by January l,
1985. In the meantime, a LAFCO must make the following detet1ninations
before it may approve a reorganization:
1) LAFCO is procee<ling with spheres of influence which 111/ly apply
to the affected territory.
2) all other requirements of law applicable to the reorganization
have been met.
3) urban development of prime agricultural land, as defined in MORGA,
j_s not involved in the reorganzation .•
b) AB 498: LAFCOs must complete all spheres of influence by January l,
1986. In the meantime• when processing a reorganization, LAFCO must
make written findings on the ~ffect of the reorganization on maintain-
ing existing agricultural preser-!eS which are located in the territory
affected by the reorganization, and must abide by other laws governing
annexations.
c) ~: LAFCOs must complete all spheres of influence by January l,
1987, In the meantime, when processing a reorganization, LAFCO must
make the same finding on agricultural preserves as required by AB 498,
and must also ~onsider any spheres of influence adopted by LAFCO before
LAFCO considers the proposed reorganization.
Although the League supports all these bills in concept, we prefer the January 1,
-2 -2/25/83
3
.. .
3.
1986 date for completion of spheres of influence and prefer the determinations
and con~lderations req~~red by~-
It is believed that January 1, 1986 gives a reasonable time for completion in
llght of limited resources, and at the same time is a short enough time period
to require LAFCOs to be diligent in compl~ting spheres of influence.
..
The actions required by SB 322 assure that existing spheres will be considered,
although this appears to only clarify existing law. The agricultural protection
finding of ~ and SB 322 requires LAFCO to attempt to preserve agricultural
lands, but does not absolutely proh:l.bit urban development of prime agricultural
land. Th .. absolute prohibition could unintentionally prevent appropriate develop-
ment of prime agricultural lands.
The bills will m9st likely be up for votes on the floors of thelr respective. houses
the ueek of March 7 or March 14. Interestetl cities should contact their legis-
lators ln support of these bills, expressing their preference for the agricultural
protection provisions of~ and AB 498, and for the 1986 deadline.
CPI Decrease Impacts Property Tax Revenue. Article XIII A, Section 2(b) reads:
"The full cash value base [of real property against which the property tax rate
is levied] may re.fleet from year to year the inflationary rate not to exceed 2%
for any given year or reduction as shown in the Consumer Price Index or compar-
able data • • . "
The State Board of Equalization uses the definition of "Consumer Price Index"
fourd in Revenue and Taxation Code Section 2212 to determine the change in the
property tax tase as mentioned in Article XIII A:
11 2212. 'Percentage change in the cost-of-living' means the percentage
change from Aprill of the prior year to Aprill of the current year in
the California Consumer Price Index for all items, as determined by the
California Department of Industrial Relations."
The State Department of Finance has estimated the April 1, 1982 through April l,
1983 CPI to be -0.7%. This negative change will cause a decrease in property tax
revenues attributable to assessed property wnich is neither new construction nor
has changed ownership during the Aprill -Aprill period. Most cities, however,
will probably show a net increase in property tax revenues despite the negative
CPI factor due to increased real estate transactions in the past several months.
On the other hand, with recent cuts in the price of,gasoline, the CPI may be
drawn even farther downward.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES
Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The State Depart-
ment of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has recently completed a series
of regional training sessions dealing with application requirements of the state
administered Small Cities CDBG Program. During the training sessions, HCD told
city officials they would be required to have their city attorney sign a letter
(assurance) stating the city's housing element is in conformance with state law,
Article 10.6 of the Government Code. As the result of a meeting between UCD and
the League, HCD has agreed to provide cities with the option of having the as-
surance signed by the city manager or appropriate designated local official. HCD
will distribute a supplement to its training manual advising cities o( this change
in its application requirements.
-3 -2/25/83
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the Mayor
.
(i)---
.
.
Qtitp of ~arlsbab
March 15, 1983
Senator William Craven
2121 Palomar Airport Road
Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SB-322 -ANNEXATIONS
SB-255 -LAFCO
AB-498 -DO PASS
TELEPHONE:
(71A) 438•5561
The Carlsbad City Council urges your support for legislation
which would allow annexations to be processed through LAFCO.
As a result of a court decision, the San Diego LAFCO has
declared a moratorium on annexations until a sphere of
· influence study is completed for all special districts in
the County. Such a study may take years to complete.
Carlsbad has six annexations in process at the present time.
If the legislature does not act, those annexations cannot
be completed. We urge you to support legislation to postpone
the effective date of the court decision and to allow annexa-
tions to be processed as they have for the past 10 years.
W~ile we support all three bills in concept, our preference
is SB-322 for the relief it provides in the way of agri-
·cul tural provision protection.
After this urgency legislation is passed, we strongly urge
the legislature to conduct an interim study of the activities
and effectiveness of LAFCO. We feel that an in-depth review
is needed to determine what changes may be appropriate in
the procedures follow~d by L.~FCO.
Sincerely, II)/
. M,R~ ,Cl\SLER
Mayor
MC:cle
Attachments
cc:
Chamber of Commerce
' I,
I -
I
interested a~d activ n regard to this issue and ha ,ffered any support to
the ctty position they can give. We suggest that cities contact local chambers
of commerce on this issue and explain the detrimental effects of.compulsory
and binding arbitration on local governments and their taxpayers.
The members of the Assembly Committee on Public Employees and Retirement are:
Elder (Chair), Molina (Vice Chair), Bergeson, Fr.izzel.le, Hughes, Johnston, Lewis,
Papan, Seastrand, and Tucker.
2. SUPPORT Annexations. Legislation to Postpone Effective Date of Court Decision
Passed by Local Government Committees. SB 255 (~larks) -~
(Craven) -AB 498 (Cortese). (All Urgency Bills). In January, an
appellate court determined that a Local Agency Formation Commission could not ap-
prove an annexation, or other municipal reorganization or boundary chang~, unless
spheres of influence had been completed for all governmental agencies affected
by the LAFCO decision.
Very few LAFCOs have completed spheres of influence for all the cities and dis-
tricts in their counties. The decision has therefore caused annexations and other
reorganizations to grind to a halt in much of the state.
The thr.ee bills listed above have been introduced to prescribe a date by which
LAFCO~ must have spheres of influence in place and to enable LAFCOs to continue
to approve reorganizations in the meantiwe.
Cn Wednesday, SB 255 and SB 322 were amended and passed by the Senate Committee "n
Local Government and AB 498 was passed by the Assembly Committee on Local Govern~
ment.
The essential features of the bills, as amended in Collllllittee, arc a~ follows:
a) SB 255: LAFCOs must complete all spheres of influence by January 1,
1985. In the meantime, a LAFCO must make the following determinations
before it Nay approve a reorganization:
1) LAFCO is proceeding with spheres of influence which may apply
to.the affected territory.
2) all other requirements of law applicable to the reorganization
have been met.
3) urban development of prime agricultural land, as defined in Y.ORGA,
is not involved in the reorganzation.
b) AB 498: tAFCOs must complete all spheres of influence by January 1,
1986. In the meantime, when processing a reorganization, LAFCO must
make written findings on the effect of the reorganization on maintain-
ing existing agricultural preserves which are located in the territoJ:"y
affected by the reorganization, and l'\USt abide by other laws governing
annexations.
c) SB 322: LAFCOs must complete all spheres of influence by January 1,
1987. In the meantime, when processing a reorganization, LAFCO must
make the same finding on agricultural preserves as required by AB 1198,
and must also consider any spheres of influence adopted by LAFCO before
LAFCO considers the proposed reorganization.
Although the League supports all these bills in concept, we prefer the January 1,
-2 -2/25/83
1 '
------------.. ,,..u,.,.,,""""""___,..,,.._,.
3.
1986 date for comple 1n of spheres c-f influence an
and considerations r~quired by SB 322.
refer the detcrrainations
It is believed that January 1, 1986 gives a reasonable time for completion in
, light of limited resources, and at the same time is a short enough time period
to require LAFCOs to be diligent in completing spheres of influence.
The actions required by SB 322 assure that existing spheres will be considered,
although this appears to only clarify existing law. The ag1:icultural protection
finding of AB 498 and SB 322 requires L~FCO to attempt. to preserve agricultural
lands, but does not absolutely prohibit urban development of prime agricultural
land. The absolute prohibition could unintentionally prevent appropriate develop-
ment of prime agricultural lands.
The bills will most likely be up for votes on the floors of their respective houses
the week of Narch 7 or March 14, Interested cities should contact their legis-
lators in support of these bills, expressing their preforence for the agricultural
protection provisions of SB 322 and AB 498, and for the 1986 deadline.
CPI Decrease Impacts Property Tax Revenue. A1:ticle XIII A, Section 2(b) reads:
"The full cash value base [of real property against which the property tax rate
is le.vied) may reflect from year to year the inflationary rate not to exceed 2%
for any given year or reduction as shown in the Consumer Price Index or compar-
able data ••• "
The State Board of Equalization uses the definition of "Consumer Price index"
found in Revenue and Taxation Code Section 2212 to determine the change in the
property tax tase as mentioned in Article XIII A:
"2212. 'Percentage change in the cost-of-living' means the percentage
change from April 1 of the prior year to April 1 of the current.year in
the California Consumer Price Index for all items, as determined by the
California Department of Industrial Relations. 11
The State Department of Finance has estimated the April 1, 1982 through Aprill,
1983 CPI to be -0. 7%. This negative change will cause a decrease in property ta"<
revenues attributable to assessed property which is neither new construction nor
has changed ownership during the April 1 -April 1 per:iod. Host cities, however,
will probably show a net increase in property tax revenues despite the negative
CPI factor due to increased real estate transactions in the past several months.
On the other hand, with recent cuts in the price of•gasoline, the CPI may be
drawn even farther downward.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES
t,. Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The State Depart-
ment of Housing and Community Development {!!CD) has recently completed a series
of regional training sessions dealing with application require.ments of the state
administered Small Cities CDBG Program. During the training sessions, HCD told
city officials they ~~ould be required to have their city attorney sign a letter
(assurance) stating the city's housing element is in conformance with state law,
Article 10,6 of the Government Code. As the result of a meeting between l!CD and
the League, HCD has agreed to provide cities with the option of having the as-
surance ~igned by the city manager or appropriate designated local official. HCD
will distribute a supplement to its training manual advising cities of this change
in its application requirements.
-3 -2/25/83