California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 1822 — Local Government: omnibus.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 20, Statutes of 2019.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced March 11, 2019. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 4 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

(1) The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (the act) provides the authority and procedure for the initiation, conduct, and completion of changes of organization, reorganization, and sphere of influence changes for cities and districts, as specified. Existing law requires a commission to develop and determine the sphere of influence of each city and each special district within the county and enact policies designed to promote the logical and orderly development of areas within each sphere. Existing law requires the commission, in order to prepare and update spheres of influence in accordance with this requirement, to conduct a service review of the municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate area designated by the commission, as specified. Existing law defines "sphere of influence" to mean a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency. Existing law defines the term "service" for purposes of the act to mean a specific governmental activity established within, and as a part of, a general function of the special district, as specified. This bill would revise the definition of the term "service" for these purposes to mean a specific governmental activity established within, and as a part of, a function of the local agency. This bill would also define the term "service review," for purposes of the act, to mean an analysis conducted by the commission documenting and analyzing the services in a particular geographic region or jurisdictional area, pursuant to the process described above. (2) Existing law authorizes a city or district to provide new or extended services by contract or agreement outside its jurisdictional boundary only if it first requests and receives written approval from the applicable local agency formation commission. Existing law, if consistent with adopted policy, authorizes the commission to authorize a city or district to provide new or extended services outside its jurisdictional boundary and outside its sphere of influence to respond to an existing or impending threat to the health or safety of the public or the residents of the affected territory if specified conditions are met. This bill would eliminate the requirement that the authorization by the commission be consistent with adopted policy. (3) Existing law requires the commission, after adoption of a resolution making determinations on an application for a change of organization or reorganization by the commission, to follow specified procedures to conduct protest proceedings. Existing law authorizes the commission to waive protest proceedings under certain circumstances for, among other things, a change of organization that consists of the formation of a county service area that would otherwise require the conduct of protest proceedings. This bill would specify that the commission may waive protest proceedings following commission approval for a change of organization that consists of the formation of a county service area, as specified. (4) Existing law requires the commission to order a change of organization or reorganization subject to confirmation of the voters if the change of organization or reorganization consists of an incorporation or disincorporation, as specified. This bill would additionally require the commission to order a change of organization or reorganization subject to confirmation of the voters if the change of organization or reorganization consists of a consolidation of two or more cities. (5) Existing law subjects any order in any resolution adopted by a commission ordering the dissolution of a local hospital district to conformation by the voters, as specified. Existing law, notwithstanding that provision, authorizes a commission, if a change of organization consists of the dissolution of a district that is consistent with a specified prior action of the commission, to order the dissolution either without an election or protest proceedings if the dissolution meets certain requirements. This bill would make clarifying changes to the above provisions. (6) Existing law prohibits the commission in the County of Ventura, on or before December 31, 2007, from imposing a condition that requires the City of Simi Valley to initiate proceedings on a proposal for a change of organization or reorganization unless the territory that would be affected is contiguous and physically related to the affected territory. This bill would repeal this provision.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 20, Statutes of 2019.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m.

  4. In Assembly. Ordered to Engrossing and Enrolling.

  5. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 1606.).

  6. Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.

  7. From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 5).

  8. Referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  9. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  10. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 1592.)

  11. Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.

  12. From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (May 1).

  13. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  14. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Read second time and amended.

  15. Referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  16. From printer. May be heard in committee April 11.

  17. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Committee on Local Government · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Committee on Local Government

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Consent Calendar AB1822 L. GOV.

Passed 40 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 27000
Democratic 10000
Republican 3000
Total 40000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Rubio — Yea
Monning — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Beall — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hill — Yea
Roth — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Allen — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Chang — Yea
Pan — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

AB 1822 L. GOV. Consent Calendar Second Day

Passed 76 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 47001
Democratic 24001
Republican 5002
Total 76004
% of votes cast 95%0%0%5%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Brough — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Salas — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Smith — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Diep — Yea
Chau — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Gray — Yea
Holden — Yea
Daly — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Ting — Yea
Kamlager-Dove — Yea
Levine — Yea
Melendez — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Low — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Burke — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Wood — Yea
Medina — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Chu — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Weber — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Voepel — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Not Voting
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Not Voting
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety housing
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 1822 do?
(1) The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (the act) provides the authority and procedure for the initiation, conduct, and completion of changes of organization, reorganization, and sphere of influence changes for cities and districts, as specified. Existing law requires a commission to develop and determine the sphere of influence of each city and each special district within the county and enact policies designed to promote the logical and orderly development of areas within each sphere. Existing law requires the commission, in order to prepare and update spheres of influence in accordance with this requirement, to conduct a service review of the municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate area designated by the commission, as specified. Existing law defines "sphere of influence" to mean a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency. Existing law defines the term "service" for purposes of the act to mean a specific governmental activity established within, and as a part of, a general function of the special district, as specified. This bill would revise the definition of the term "service" for these purposes to mean a specific governmental activity established within, and as a part of, a function of the local agency. This bill would also define the term "service review," for purposes of the act, to mean an analysis conducted by the commission documenting and analyzing the services in a particular geographic region or jurisdictional area, pursuant to the process described above. (2) Existing law authorizes a city or district to provide new or extended services by contract or agreement outside its jurisdictional boundary only if it first requests and receives written approval from the applicable local agency formation commission. Existing law, if consistent with adopted policy, authorizes the commission to authorize a city or district to provide new or extended services outside its jurisdictional boundary and outside its sphere of influence to respond to an existing or impending threat to the health or safety of the public or the residents of the affected territory if specified conditions are met. This bill would eliminate the requirement that the authorization by the commission be consistent with adopted policy. (3) Existing law requires the commission, after adoption of a resolution making determinations on an application for a change of organization or reorganization by the commission, to follow specified procedures to conduct protest proceedings. Existing law authorizes the commission to waive protest proceedings under certain circumstances for, among other things, a change of organization that consists of the formation of a county service area that would otherwise require the conduct of protest proceedings. This bill would specify that the commission may waive protest proceedings following commission approval for a change of organization that consists of the formation of a county service area, as specified. (4) Existing law requires the commission to order a change of organization or reorganization subject to confirmation of the voters if the change of organization or reorganization consists of an incorporation or disincorporation, as specified. This bill would additionally require the commission to order a change of organization or reorganization subject to confirmation of the voters if the change of organization or reorganization consists of a consolidation of two or more cities. (5) Existing law subjects any order in any resolution adopted by a commission ordering the dissolution of a local hospital district to conformation by the voters, as specified. Existing law, notwithstanding that provision, authorizes a commission, if a change of organization consists of the dissolution of a district that is consistent with a specified prior action of the commission, to order the dissolution either without an election or protest proceedings if the dissolution meets certain requirements. This bill would make clarifying changes to the above provisions. (6) Existing law prohibits the commission in the County of Ventura, on or before December 31, 2007, from imposing a condition that requires the City of Simi Valley to initiate proceedings on a proposal for a change of organization or reorganization unless the territory that would be affected is contiguous and physically related to the affected territory. This bill would repeal this provision.
Who sponsors AB 1822?
AB 1822 is sponsored by Committee on Local Government.
What is the current status of AB 1822?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced March 11, 2019. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 1822?
Track AB 1822 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1822

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 1822

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →