04/30/2013 - SPCITY OF GRAND TERRACE
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA • APRIL 30, 2013
Council Chambers Special Meeting 6:00 PM
Grand Terrace Civic Center • 22795 Barton Road
City of Grand Terrace Page 1 Updated 4/4/2013 11:29 AM
The City of Grand Terrace complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If you require
special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk’s office at (909) 824-6621 at
least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
If you desire to address the City Council during the meeting with regard to an item on the agenda, please
complete a request to speak form available at the entrance and present it to the City Clerk. Speakers will
be called upon by the Mayor during public comment.
Any documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made
available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office at city hall located at 22795 Barton Road during
normal business hours. In addition, such documents will be posted on the City’s website at
www.cityofgrandterrace.org
CALL TO ORDER
Convene City Council and City Council as the Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment
Agency
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived
Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz ¨¨¨
Mayor Pro Tem Bernardo Sandoval ¨¨¨
Council Member Darcy McNaboe ¨¨¨
Council Member Jackie Mitchell ¨¨¨
Council Member Sylvia Robles ¨¨¨
1.PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on items on the agenda only. At a special
meeting of the City Council, pursuant to California law, the Council will only be taking public comment on
items listed on the agenda.
2.NEW BUSINESS
A.Second Budget Workshop on Five-Year Financial Analysis and Budget Stabilization Plan
ADJOURN
The Next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 6:00 PM.
Agenda Grand Terrace City Council April 30, 2013
City of Grand Terrace Page 2 Updated 4/4/2013 11:29 AM
Agenda item requests must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk’s office no later than 14 calendar
days preceding the meeting.
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE:April 30, 2013 Council Item
TITLE:Second Budget Workshop on Five-Year Financial Analysis
and Budget Stabilization Plan
PRESENTED BY:Betsy Adams, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:1. Continue discussion on the Five-Year Financial Analysis
and Budget Stabilization Plan.
2. Provide staff with direction on items identified in the
Budget Stabilization Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council held the first of two Budget Workshop meetings on April 22, 2013. The
Five-Year Financial Analysis and Budget Stabilization Plan were presented at this
Special Meeting. The Five-Year Financial Analysis identified a budget deficit for the
General Fund in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012-13 which would exhaust fund balance during FY
2013-14 and grow to a $3.7 million deficit in FY 2017-18. Most of this deficit was
attributed to impacts from the dissolution of the former Community Redevelopment
Agency. The Budget Stabilization Plan provided information on possible ways to
address the General Fund budget deficit. Planning Assumption "A" identified three
scenarios to address the deficit without additional revenues. Planning Assumption "B"
included information on local revenue measures at three different funding levels.
DISCUSSION:
There was considerable discussion at the Budget Workshop on Budget Stabilization
Plan Scenario A-3 (consider City disincorporation and possible formation of a
Community Services District). The Council was advised that the Executive Officer for
the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County (LAFCO) was
available to attend the second Budget Workshop meeting scheduled for April 30, 2013
to answer questions on disincorporation. The Council expressed a desire to have the
Executive Officer attend this Special Meeting and for the meeting to be televised.
LAFCO’s Executive Officer, Kathleen Rollings-McDonald,has been provided with a
copy of the City’s Five-Year Financial Analysis and Budget Stabilization Plan.
The last municipal disincorporation in California was in 1972 when Cabazon
disincorporated through the LAFCO process. At a California Association of Local
Agency Formation Commissions (CALAFCO) workshop on June 29, 2012 on municipal
consolidations and disincorporations, it was revealed that “over the past year cities
throughout California have begun serious discussions of bankruptcy, disincorporation,
and consolidation.” LAFCO’s Executive Officer provided the summary from this
CALAFCO workshop which is included as the first attachment to this staff report. The
2.A
Packet Pg. 3
second attachment, a report titled Municipal Disincorporation in California by John H.
Knox and Chris Hutchison, has been previously provided to the Council and is included
for ease of reference.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact in holding the second Budget Workshop Special Meeting other
than the cost to televise the meeting,which will be absorbed in the City Clerk’s
operating budget. It is hoped through the Council’s discussion with LAFCO’s Executive
Officer that the City will begin to obtain a better understanding of the costs associated
with the possible disincorporation scenario.
ATTACHMENTS:
·CALAFCOU_DisincorporationWhitePaper
·Municipal_Disincorporation_in_California-Knox_2012
APPROVALS:
Betsy Adams Completed 04/24/2013 5:08 PM
Finance Completed 04/25/2013 9:57 AM
City Attorney Completed 04/25/2013 12:12 PM
City Manager Completed 04/25/2013 12:34 PM
City Council Pending
2.A
Packet Pg. 4
ATTACHMENT C
Cities Merge?
A Workshop on Municipal Consolidations
and Disincorporations
Discussion and legislative questions from a CALAFCO University Workshop held on
June 29, 2012.
2012
7/30/2012
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
A
L
A
F
C
O
U
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
t
e
P
a
p
e
r
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
Page 1 of 7
What is municipal bankruptcy?
Legal protection to financially-stressed
municipality of its creditors through excusing
or adjusting of debts.
What is disincorporation?
The dissolution, extinguishment, or
termination of the existence of a city and the
cessation of its corporate powers, except for
the purpose of winding up the affairs of the
city. (Government Code Section 56034)
What is consolidation?
The uniting or joining of two or more cities
located in the same county into a single new
successor city… (Government Code Section
56030)
Introduction
It has been 40 years since Cabazon
disincorporated through the LAFCO process. Over
the past year cities throughout California have
begun serious discussions of bankruptcy,
disincorporation, and consolidation. Recently,
three cities (Stockton, Mammoth Lakes, and San
Bernardino) have taken action toward bankruptcy
protection under Chapter 9 of the federal
Bankruptcy Code. On June 29, CALAFCO hosted a
workshop to discuss the implications of these
actions and how the LAFCO processes of
disincorporation and consolidation relate to
bankruptcy proceedings. The discussion raised a
number of high level questions to be considered
by LAFCOs and technical questions for potential
action by the CALAFCO Legislative Committee
(advisory to the Board) and the State Legislature.
Course Framework
Attorney Michael Colantuono opened the workshop with an overview of municipal bankruptcies,
disincorporations, and consolidations. The participants then broke into four groups to discuss the
following processes for the above-mentioned LAFCO actions: (1) Initiation; (2) Process; (3) Terms and
Conditions; and (4) Implementation. The discussion from each group is summarized below and several
questions from each discussion are posed for future consideration.
Discussion
1. INITIATION
The first group discussed initiation of LAFCO proceedings for the consolidation or disincorporation of
cities. The group’s discussion ranged from reasons for disincorporation or consolidation to the
threshold requirements for petitions for these actions by the general public, the limitations placed on
LAFCO to initiate such actions and the payment of LAFCO fees.
Why disincorporate?
Budgetary or fiscal issues
Ineffective management/political corruption
Revenues & expenditures out of sync
Why Consolidate?
Better economies of scale
Shared communities of interest
Stabilize tax base
Reduce competition of neighboring cities
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
A
L
A
F
C
O
U
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
t
e
P
a
p
e
r
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
Page 2 of 7
A. Petition Thresholds
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act (Government Code 56000 et seq.) allows for registered voters to
petition LAFCO to initiate proceedings for the disincorporation of a city and the consolidation of cities.
The current threshold for disincorporation of a city is not less than 25% of the city’s registered voters
(G.C. 56765) and the threshold for consolidation of cities is not less than 5% of the registered voters
from each of the affected cities (G.C. 56766). These levels suggest the Legislature’s preference for
consolidations.
Question:
Should the petition thresholds in G.C. 56765 and G.C. 56766 be changed to encourage
or discourage consolidations and disincorporations?
B. LAFCO-Initiated Actions
While LAFCO can raise awareness of fiscal instability and malfeasance through municipal service
reviews, current law (G.C. 56375(a)(2)) does not provide the Commission with the authority to initiate
the disincorporation or consolidation of cities.
Questions:
Should G.C. 56375(a)(2) be amended to allow LAFCO the authority to initiate
proposals for disincorporation or consolidation?
Should G.C. 56375 be amended to require LAFCO to initiate proposals for
disincorporation or consolidation under specific criteria (i.e. negative audits for
consecutive years)?
C. Bankruptcy court & lafco
Municipal bankruptcies and disincorporations are not currently connected to each other under State
law. The group discussed whether State law should be amended to require bankruptcy courts to
consider input from LAFCO during their proceedings or conversely require LAFCO to consider the
discussion and decision of a bankruptcy court.
Questions:
Should G.C. 53760 be amended to require (or strongly encourage) communication
between LAFCO and the bankruptcy court during the initial stages of municipal
bankruptcy proceedings?
Should G.C. 56668 be amended to specifically require LAFCO to consider the
bankruptcy court discussion and decision as part of the disincorporation or
consolidation proposal?
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
A
L
A
F
C
O
U
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
t
e
P
a
p
e
r
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
Page 3 of 7
D. Payment of LAFCO fees
Government Code Section 56383 states that LAFCO can set fees for the processing of proposals for
reorganizations such as disincorporations and consolidations. The group discussed the potential
inability of agencies exploring disincorporation or consolidation to pay for LAFCO fees.
Questions:
Should a new Government Code Section similar to G.C. 56383(g) for incorporations be
established for disincorporations and consolidations to allow a city to borrow the
necessary funds from the general fund to be repaid upon approval or denial of the
disincorporation or consolidation by LAFCO?
Should G.C. 56886 be amended to authorize the Commission to condition approval of
disincorporations or consolidations on the requirement to pay the LAFCO fees or
administrative costs from residual funds within the boundary of the former city?
2. PROCESS
The second group discussed the procedural aspects of disincorporations and consolidations. The group
discussed issues including: the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code Section 210000 et seq.), the formation of stakeholder working groups, property tax
transfers and employees of the disincorporating city or consolidating cities.
A. CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)
CEQA was enacted to provide guidance for public agencies and private parties working on projects
which may impact the environment. Many LAFCO proposals are considered “projects” under CEQA and
require specific review and consideration. The group discussed the implications of CEQA on
consolidations and disincorporations.
Question:
Should section 15300 of the CEQA Guidelines be amended to specifically exempt
consolidations?
B. Stakeholder Working Groups
In preparation for disincorporation or consolidation, the affected city or cities would work with County
staff and other service providers to develop a plan for services, which is a required component of the
LAFCO application (G.C. 56653). The group discussed whether a stakeholder process should be
formalized in CKH and whether additional stakeholders (i.e. Community and business leaders) should be
encouraged to participate in the discussions.
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
A
L
A
F
C
O
U
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
t
e
P
a
p
e
r
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
Page 4 of 7
Questions:
Should the proposed amendment described above mandate or encourage the
establishment of a stakeholder working group or advisory board to work with LAFCO
to advise the Commission on local issues and interests during disincorporations and
consolidations?
Should Government Code Section 56653 be amended to require the city and county
“meeting and agreement” described in G.C. 56425(b) or the “reorganization
committee” concept identified in G.C. 56823 for disincorporation and consolidation
proposals?
C. Property Tax Transfer
As a part of the required process for review, the question of the requirement for negotiation of property
tax was reviewed (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 applicability to disincorporation and
consolidation proposals). The group discussed the implications of transferring the property tax process
for disincorporation from the Revenue and Taxation Code to Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg.
Questions:
Should Government Code Section 56810 be amended to require that a disincorporation
and/or consolidation fall under Government Code Section 56000 et seq. rather than
the Revenue and Taxation Code?
Should the law be amended to require property tax transfers for disincorporation and
consolidations to be determined pursuant to Government Code Section 56810 rather
than Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99?
D. Employees
Employee contracts, Memorandums of Understanding and other contracts with service providers should
be fully considered as part of a city disincorporation or the consolidation of cities.
Questions:
Should G.C. 56653 be amended to require submission of all employment and service
related contracts to the Commission as part of the plan for providing services?
Should a city be required to disclose to prospective and current contractors/vendors or
employees/unions that a proposal for disincorporation has been submitted.
3. TERMS & CONDITIONS
The third group discussed the ability of LAFCOs to place terms and conditions on the approval of
disincorporation or consolidation proposals. Government Code Section 56885 provides LAFCO with
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 9
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
A
L
A
F
C
O
U
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
t
e
P
a
p
e
r
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
Page 5 of 7
broad discretion to impose terms and conditions on proposals. Terms and conditions imposed under
these sections supersede the general provisions in Part 5 of Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg (Section 57300 et
seq.). The group discussed possible revisions to the Government Code and issues relating to the
enforcement of LAFCO terms and conditions.
A. RESTRICTIONS ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS
Government Code Section 56885.5(a)(4) authorizes the Commission to place specific limitations on the
actions of the city council of a disincorporating city and the governing bodies of agencies involved in a
consolidation. LAFCO terms and conditions occur at the end of the process and become binding upon
approval by the Commission and recordation of the Certificate of Completion with the County Clerk.
Questions:
Should the Government Code be amended to clarify when (i.e. upon application filing,
commission approval, post-election) the restrictions commence?
Should the Government Code Section be amended to clarify that it applies to city
consolidations?
Can LAFCO modify the restrictions by exempting future actions that are authorized by
the prospective successor agency?
B. Conditioning property taxes
The Commission has the authority to use specific terms and conditions to ensure the County, as the
successor agency, is financially capable of winding down the affairs of the former city.
Question:
Should Government Code Section 56886(b) be amended to specifically authorize
LAFCO to condition the approval of disincorporations on the enactment of the
necessary revenues (i.e. property taxes) by the County Board of Supervisors?
Disincorporation should be the option of last resort. Efforts should be made to exhaust all remedies in
order to maintain the city as a viable entity.
Question:
Can LAFCOs condition a disincorporation on the failure of a city tax/assessment
measure or measurers?
4. IMPLEMENTATION
The fourth group discussed the actual implementation of disincorporation according to Cortese-Knox-
Hertzberg. The implementation or “effect” of disincorporation is articulated in Government Code
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 10
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
A
L
A
F
C
O
U
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
t
e
P
a
p
e
r
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
Page 6 of 7
Section 57400 et seq. The group focused on how portions of the law were written prior to the
enactment of Proposition 218 – creating conflict between two areas of State law. The group discussed
various implications of current State law and offered ways to improve current law to reduce or remove
contradicting direction.
A. Paying of City Debt
Government Code Section 57409 requires the County Board of Supervisors to levy a tax on the territory
formerly included within the city to pay the indebtedness of the former city. This appears to contradict
current state law under Proposition 218.
By definition the levy of taxes to pay city indebtedness within the territory formerly included within the
city is a “special tax” under Article XIIC of the California Constitution. Section 1(c) requires taxes to be
submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote.
Questions:
How can State law be revised to align the intent of 218 with the necessities of
Government Code Section 57409 to allow County boards of supervisors the necessary
tools (special taxes) to pay the indebtedness of the disincorporating city?
Should Government Code Section 56886 be amended to require LAFCO to condition
approval of disincorporation or consolidation on the voter approval of the taxes
necessary to repay existing indebtedness?
B. Require Bankruptcy
There is no requirement for bankruptcy proceedings to occur prior to submission of a disincorporation
proposal. Given the Legislature’s preference for consolidations discussed earlier, the group discussed
the relative merits of bankruptcy as a legislatively required precursor to disincorporation proceedings.
Questions:
Should the Government Code be amended to require cities (G.C. 56654) to have entered
bankruptcy proceedings prior to filing for disincorporation with LAFCO?
Should the Government Code be amended to require petitioners (G.C. 56652(a)) to
obtain a resolution from the City that it is entering bankruptcy proceedings as part of
the petition and application materials for disincorporation?
Should bankruptcy laws (and CKH) be amended to allow a successor agency to file
bankruptcy on behalf of a disincorporated city (when there are insufficient assets or
revenue streams to meet obligations)?
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
A
L
A
F
C
O
U
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
t
e
P
a
p
e
r
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
Page 7 of 7
C. Ordinances and Land Use
Part 5 of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act (Government Code Section 57300 et seq.) includes provisions
regarding ordinances, including zoning ordinances, for incorporations (G.C. 57376) and city
consolidations (G.C. 57479). There are no similar provisions for disincorporation.
Questions:
Should G.C. 57450 et seq. be amended to address the effect of city vs. county
ordinances, including zoning within the territory of a disincorporation?
Should G.C. 57450 et seq. be amended to require the affected county to prezone the
territory of a disincorporation?
Should G.C. 57450 et seq. be amended to clarify jurisdictional authority over land use
and development proposals that are in process at the time of disincorporation?
Are amendments to planning law needed to ensure that development agreements are
still valid after disincorporation? Dependent on when they are executed?
Policy Questions
Lastly, the groups raised a few general policy questions for consideration:
Should LAFCOs adopt local guidelines for disincorporation/consolidation until CKH is
clarified?
What public agencies other than the County are appropriate successors to administer
City services?
2.A.a
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
A
L
A
F
C
O
U
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
W
h
i
t
e
P
a
p
e
r
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
OHS West:260690926.5 1
Municipal Disincorporation in California
By John H. Knox & Chris Hutchison*
I.INTRODUCTION
The combination of ever-increasing costs and the weakness of the housing market and the
general economy has challenged the financial health of many California cities. At least one has
already sought bankruptcy protection, and others may follow or are seriously considering the option.
The severity of the current economic downturn also has raised the question of whether municipal
disincorporation can provide additional or alternative relief to distressed cities. However, the
process has rarely been used, and its legal effect is not well understood.
Following a discussion of the background and legal effect of disincorporation in California,
this article examines each stage of the disincorporation process, paying attention to timetables,
potential hurdles, and other areas of concern for a city or citizens’ group seeking to initiate such a
proposal.
California law supplies a procedure for disincorporating a city, whether chartered or general
law, involving four stages:
(1)Initiation of Proceedings,
(2)Consideration by the Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”),
(3)Election, and
(4)Completion of Proceedings.
The process includes several avenues for public participation, whether through voting or
public hearings before the LAFCO. Further, the LAFCO has significant authority and discretion
over both the process and the substance of the proposal, with power to condition its approval on a
“virtually limitless array of factors.”1
II.BACKGROUND
A.THE CORTESE-KNOX-HERTZBERG ACT
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (“the Act”)2
provides the “sole and exclusive authority and procedure” for the disincorporation of a California
city.3 The Act establishes the exclusive means for “changes of organization and reorganization for
cities and districts.”4 A change of organization includes, among other things, “disincorporation of a
city.”5 The Act defines disincorporation to mean the “disincorporation, dissolution, extinguishment,
and termination of the existence of a city and the cessation of its corporate powers, except for the
purpose of winding up the affairs of the city.”6 A reorganization is simply the combination of two
or more changes of organization.7
The Act (along with its predecessors) establishes a local agency formation commission
* Mr. Knox is a partner with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP focusing on public finance and municipal restructuring.
Mr. Hutchison expects to receive his Juris Doctor degree at the University of Virginia School of Law in 2010 and is
currently a summer associate in Orrick’s San Francisco office.
2.A.b
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
_
i
n
_
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
-
K
n
o
x
_
2
0
1
2
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
OHS West:260690926.5 2
(“LAFCO” or “commission”) in each county to oversee proposed changes of organization.
Generally, the Act describes the role and authority of LAFCOs with regard to each type of local
agency, including cities, and each type of change of organization (e.g., annexations, incorporations,
and disincorporations) that could affect an agency. LAFCOs attempt to provide a guiding hand to
the development of local agencies of all types, including not only cities, but also school districts,
water districts, and many other special-purpose entities, with an eye toward ensuring coherent local
and regional development. The primary purpose of a LAFCO is “[t]o review and approve or
disapprove with or without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally, proposals for changes of
organization or reorganization.”8 LAFCOs have statutory goals of “discouraging urban sprawl,
preserving open-space and prime agricultural lands, efficiently providing government services, and
encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions
and circumstances.”9
Each LAFCO has authority to adopt its own written procedures, standards of review, and
regulations for hearings, consistent with statute.10 The Act establishes many different deadlines and
procedural requirements, both for those proposing disincorporation and for the commission hearing
the proposal. However, with just two exceptions relating to the timing of hearings and requests for
reconsideration, these deadlines are “directory” only, and do not bind the commission.11 Moreover,
commission determinations receive a deferential standard of review, and are final unless a court
finds “fraud or prejudicial abuse of discretion.”12 This review requires only that the court ascertain
whether the commission decision is supported by “substantial evidence in light of the whole
record.”13
B.COURT CHALLENGES
The Act requires that any suit challenging the validity of an approved disincorporation be
brought pursuant to California’s validation statutes.14 A validation action allows any public agency,
or “any interested person” if no public agency brings suit, to bring an action in the nature of a
proceeding in rem in the local superior court.15 Validation actions, regardless of the plaintiff, are
subject to a 60-day statute of limitations, which begins on the date the LAFCO certifies the
disincorporation as complete.16 “Interested persons” must also establish standing, which California
courts interpret strictly.17 Also, the failure of any person or entity to receive notice, such as notice
for a hearing, “shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate any action taken” pursuant to
the notice.18
C.STATUTORY HISTORY
The Act amended the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 to
invest greater authority in LAFCOs, among other changes.19 The Cortese-Knox Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985 consolidated three predecessor laws for local government boundary and
organizational changes. Those laws were: the Knox-Nisbet Act of 1963, which first established
LAFCOs; the District Reorganization Act of 1965, which concerned special districts; and the
Municipal Organization Act of 1977, which concerned city incorporations and annexations.
D.STATUTORY DISINCORPORATION
California statute dictates the process for disincorporation. A city or group seeking to
propose disincorporation may choose to follow the process set out in the Act or to seek a legislative
2.A.b
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
_
i
n
_
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
-
K
n
o
x
_
2
0
1
2
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
OHS West:260690926.5 3
revision or exception to the existing process. The state legislature retains significant power over
municipal organization. As the California Supreme Court put it, “In our federal system the states
are sovereign but cities and counties are not; in California as elsewhere they are mere creatures of
the state and exist only at the state’s sufferance.”20 The legislature could adopt an alternative means
of disincorporation for a particular city, just as it has adopted an alternate system for certain
annexations to cities in Santa Clara County, which do not undergo LAFCO review.21 The legislature
could also disincorporate a city by statute, as it has several times in the past.22
E.PRIOR DISINCORPORATIONS
Seventeen cities have disincorporated in California’s history, including the cities of Long
Beach, Pismo Beach, and Stanton, each of which later reincorporated.23 However, since the creation
of LAFCOs in 1963, only two cities have disincorporated – Cabazon in 1972 and Hornitos in
1973.24 Of these, only Cabazon’s disincorporation went through the process prescribed by the Act;
Hornitos was disincorporated by statute.25
Cabazon was a city of 613 residents in Riverside County incorporated in 1955.26 Following
years of city-government turmoil related to the regulation of local gambling, including multiple
recalls, resignations, and arrests of city council members, a group of citizens filed a disincorporation
proposal with the local LAFCO.27 The LAFCO held a hearing, approved the proposal without
requiring any additional terms or conditions, and set the question for election.28 Residents of the
city voted 192 to 131 in favor of disincorporation, and after a several-month delay because of a legal
challenge to the election procedures, the city ceased existence in early 1972.29
Following the disincorporation, Riverside County inherited Cabazon’s assets and liabilities
and wound down its remaining affairs, including sale of the city’s personal property and cancellation
of its lease for various city buildings.30 The county paid the city’s outstanding debts with the
remaining city funds, along with funds generated from property sales and debts owed to the city.
Nearly ten years later, the former city’s account still had a surplus.31
III.LEGAL EFFECT OF DISINCORPORATION
LAFCOs have broad authority to craft the legal effect of a disincorporation through the
imposition of specific terms and conditions on a proposal. These terms and conditions supersede
the Act’s general provisions regarding the legal effect of disincorporation.32 However, LAFCOs may
not require or allow terms and conditions in violation of the remainder of the Act.
A.EFFECT ON DEBTS AND CONTRACTS
A disincorporation may not impair the rights of “any bondholder or other creditor of any
county, city, or district,” nor may it impair contract rights or contracts entered into by a public entity
pursuant to a joint exercise of powers agreement.33 Likewise, no disincorporation, or term or
condition required, may limit the power of bondholders or other creditors to enforce their rights
against the city or the successor county receiving the disincorporated city’s assets.34 These limits
stem not only from statute, but also the California Constitution’s and the U.S. Constitution’s
prohibitions on the impairment of contracts by operation of state law.35
The Act does not define “creditor,” however California law elsewhere defines the term as
“one in whose favor an obligation exists, by reason of which he is, or may become, entitled to the
2.A.b
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
_
i
n
_
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
-
K
n
o
x
_
2
0
1
2
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
OHS West:260690926.5 4
payment of money.”36 Also, “[i]n the absence of fraud every contract of a debtor is valid against all
his creditors.”37 The Myers-Milias-Brown Act, which governs collective bargaining between cities
and their public employees, does not expressly make collective bargaining agreements, in the form
of memoranda of understanding, enforceable; however, the California Supreme Court has held that
such agreements become binding once approved by the city.38 Thus, as binding contracts, a city’s
agreements with public employees’ unions might be inviolable in a disincorporation, at least under
current California law.
That said, section 56886 of the Act expressly authorizes LAFCOs to impose terms and
conditions related to public employment, including the modification and termination of existing
employment contracts.39 This provision would be without meaning if such agreements were
inviolable under the Act, lending credence to the argument that public employees’ unions and their
members are not “creditors” within the Act’s use of the term.
While the California and U.S. Constitutions bar impairment of contracts by the state, this
limit is “not an absolute one and is not to be read with literal exactness like a mathematical
formula.”40 Courts determine whether an unconstitutional impairment of a contract exists by
applying a balancing test that compares the severity of the impairment against the public interest in
the action allegedly causing the impairment.41 The California Supreme Court found that a legislative
act expressly invalidating certain collective bargaining agreements was unconstitutional in Sonoma
County Organization of Public Employees.42 However, a disincorporation would not necessarily invalidate
public employment contracts but might instead be viewed as a default by the city. If that were the
case, the public employees may be able to assert any contractual rights against the former city’s
remaining assets.
Thus, the disincorporation may not unconstitutionally impair the obligation of the contracts,
but rather would, in the case of an insolvent former city, leave public employees with valid, if
valueless, claims.43 Further, “it is well settled in California that public employment is not held by
contract but by statute . . . .”44 Likewise, statute, not contract, controls the terms and conditions of
public employment, and public employment contracts cannot circumvent contrary statutes.45 While
a public employee may obtain a right protected by the contract clauses of the state and federal
constitutions, as was the case in Sonoma County, such right does not include the “right to remain in an
office or employment, or to the continuation of civil service status.”46
B.EFFECT ON FORMER CITY’S INHABITANTS AND TERRITORY
Upon the effective date of a disincorporation, the county board of supervisors is responsible
for winding up the affairs of the former city.47 Residents of the former city no longer have any
rights or duties as inhabitants or voters of a city.48 Prior to the effective date, public officers must
turn over public property to the county board of supervisors, and the city council must turn over all
city funds, as certified by the LAFCO or the county, to the county treasurer.49 The county tax
collector may collect any levied but uncollected taxes owed to the disincorporated city, and the
county may collect or sue for all debts owed the city.50 The county places all funds related to the
former city in a special fund for winding up the city’s affairs and paying any debts owed by the city.51
If the special fund is insufficient to pay city indebtedness, the Act states that the county “shall cause
to be levied, and there shall be collected from the territory formerly included within the city, taxes
sufficient to pay the indebtedness as it becomes due.”52 If the special fund has a surplus, the Act
gives the county discretion to use the funds for various public services within the former city’s
2.A.b
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
_
i
n
_
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
-
K
n
o
x
_
2
0
1
2
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
OHS West:260690926.5 5
territory.53 Other territories within the county are not responsible and may not be taxed for the
debts or liabilities of the former city.54
While the Act requires a county to impose taxes on the former territory of a disincorporated
city to make its creditors and bondholders whole, this requirement predates California’s adoption of
the “Jarvis Family of Initiatives” – Propositions 13 (1978), 4 (1979), 62 (1986), and 218 (1996) – and
is likely unconstitutional absent some form of voter approval of the additional taxes.55 Proposition
218 would require voters in the former city to approve a new special tax by a two-thirds majority or
a new general tax by a simple majority,56 while Proposition 13 would absolutely prohibit any
additional property taxes within the former city’s territory, even with voter approval.57 However,
while the California Constitution does not allow a county to impose taxes directly under the Act, a
LAFCO can require voter approval of such taxes as a condition of approving the disincorporation
proposal in the first place.58
IV.THE DISINCORPORATION PROCESS59
A.STAGE 1 –INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS
There are two ways to propose disincorporation of a California city – either by petitioning
the area LAFCO or by filing a resolution of application adopted by any “affected local agency,”60
which would include the city itself, the county, or any special district including a portion of the city.61
This article uses a city as a representative local agency for purposes of filing a resolution of
application; other affected local agencies also have such powers.
Formal initiation of commission proceedings does not occur until the date the petition or
resolution is accepted for filing and the LAFCO’s executive officer issues a certificate of filing.62
These are two separate events under California law. After accepting and certifying the filing of the
application, the executive officer must set the proposal for hearing within 90 days and give public
notice at least 21 days prior to the hearing on the LAFCO website and in the local newspaper.63 The
LAFCO’s executive officer must also issue a report, including recommendations, to the commission,
proponents, and affected local agencies no later than five days prior to the hearing.64
1.Procedure for Acceptance and Certification
A petitioner or city submits its application to the area LAFCO’s executive officer, who then
immediately gives various local agencies notice, describing the proposal and the affected territory.65
The executive officer has 30 days from receipt to determine whether the application is complete.66
If the application is incomplete, the executive officer must immediately inform the applicant of any
missing elements.67 Even if complete at filing, however, the executive officer cannot accept an
application for filing or issue a certificate of completion for at least 20 days from receipt.68
If the executive officer takes no action within 30 days, the application is deemed accepted
for filing so long as it includes the required information.69 After accepting the application for filing,
the executive officer must immediately issue to the applicant a certificate of filing, detailing the date
of the commission hearing on the proposal.70
2.Contents of Petitions and Resolutions
Petitions and resolutions must meet statutory informational requirements and conform to
2.A.b
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
_
i
n
_
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
-
K
n
o
x
_
2
0
1
2
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
OHS West:260690926.5 6
the area LAFCO’s rules.71 Resolutions must contain the same information as required of petitions,
aside from signature requirements.72
3.Additional Requirements for Resolutions
Cities may provide public notice prior to adopting a resolution, but must do so at least 21
days in advance.73 A city filing a resolution of application must also submit a plan for providing
services within the city that includes, among other things, specific information on the level of
services and how those services will be financed.74
4.Additional Requirements for Petitions
Petitioners must file a notice of intention, including a brief explanation of the proposal, with
the LAFCO’s executive officer before circulating a petition for disincorporation.75 The executive
officer then notifies the city and other affected local agencies about the petition.76
More than 25% of the city’s registered voters must sign the petition for disincorporation.77
Signers of the petition must provide their dated signature and address.78 Signatures expire within six
months of signing, and proponents must submit the petition within 60 days of gathering the last
signature.79 There is a special procedure applicable to cities in Los Angeles County with over
100,000 residents requiring additional public notice and a shorter window of time (90 days) for
gathering signatures.80
Within 30 days (excluding weekends and holidays), the LAFCO’s executive officer must
have the petition’s signatures reviewed by the county elections official according to Election Code
standards, and must prepare a certificate of sufficiency stating whether the petition has enough valid
signatures.81 If the petition is insufficient, proponents can gather signatures for a supplemental
petition for an additional 15 days from the executive officer’s notice of insufficiency or, at their
option, from submitting the petition.82 The executive officer then has ten days to review the
supplemental petition and issue a new certificate of sufficiency.83
B.STAGE 2 –CONSIDERATION BY THE LAFCO
Once the LAFCO has initiated proceedings, it must hold a public hearing within 90 days,
which is a mandatory deadline.84 The commission may continue the hearing for up to 70 days.85
Within 35 days of concluding the hearing, the LAFCO must either approve or disapprove the
proposal by resolution, with or without amendment, including any terms or conditions required by
the commission.86 The commission’s resolution can amend the proposal, so long as the amendment
does not change the general nature of the proposal.87
Apart from approval or disapproval, the commission’s resolution must also make any
findings required by statute or by commission rule.88 Disapproval terminates the proceedings89 and
bars reconsideration of a similar proposal for one year, subject to a commission waiver.90
If the LAFCO approves the proposal for disincorporation, any person or affected agency
has the option of requesting reconsideration of the decision within 30 days, another mandatory
deadline.91 While the request is pending and throughout reconsideration, state law tolls statutes of
limitations and procedural deadlines.92 The written request must specify any changes being sought
to the resolution and what additional or different facts are claimed.93 After giving 21-days notice,
2.A.b
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
_
i
n
_
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
-
K
n
o
x
_
2
0
1
2
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
OHS West:260690926.5 7
the commission must consider the request at its next meeting.94
Reconsideration is quite similar to the commission’s initial public hearing, and the
commission can continue the reconsideration for up to 35 days.95 At the end of reconsideration, the
commission must approve or disapprove the request, with or without amendment, and the decision
is final with regard to the reconsidered issue.96 However, if the commission approves the request, it
must file a new resolution, which then has its own 30-day window for reconsideration requests and
restarts this process.97
If reconsideration eventually produces an approved proposal for disincorporation, or if no
one files a request for reconsideration, the proposal moves forward to the election stage.98
1.The Hearing and Factors for Review
LAFCOs must comply with California’s open meeting and “sunshine” laws, including the
Brown Act.99 The commission must hear and receive any oral or written objections or evidence put
before it, and also must consider the executive officer’s report and the city’s plan for providing
services.100
The commission also must consider a wide-ranging list of factors, including, in part:
(1)the cost and adequacy of governmental services,
(2)the effect on the governmental structure of the county,
(3)the ability and financial wherewithal of the receiving entity to provide services,
(4)the comments of residents, landowners, and voters, and
(5)various other factors, such as environmental justice, water supplies, and
housing needs.101
2.Terms and Conditions
The LAFCO has broad authority to require additional terms and conditions of any proposed
disincorporation.102 The California Supreme Court described this authority as the power to impose a
“virtually limitless array of factors” on proposals.103 Further, the commission can grant conditional
approval, such as requiring proceedings for an additional change of organization (e.g., incorporation
of a new city or district), with up to a six-month delay in the proceedings for satisfaction of the
condition.104 The California Attorney General confirmed that a commission can even condition its
approval of an incorporation on voter approval of additional taxes.105
3.Limitations on the LAFCO’s Authority
A LAFCO may not require or approve a disincorporation, or any terms or conditions
required of a disincorporation, in violation of the Act. This includes the Act’s limits on the
impairment of the rights of bondholders or creditors.106
A LAFCO also may not impose terms or conditions that directly regulate land use density or
intensity.107
C.STAGE 3 –ELECTION
2.A.b
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
_
i
n
_
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
-
K
n
o
x
_
2
0
1
2
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
OHS West:260690926.5 8
After the LAFCO endorses a disincorporation proposal, the commission must adopt a
resolution ordering the city’s disincorporation, subject to voter approval.108 However, if the
commission determines that a majority of voters in the city have filed written protests against the
proposal, a vote is unnecessary, and the proposal is abandoned.109 If either a majority protest exists
or a majority of voters disapprove the proposal in an election, the Act bars reconsideration of a
similar proposal for two years, subject to a commission waiver.110
The election must occur on the next regular election date at least 88 days after adoption of
the resolution ordering the election.111 However, a special election on the matter may be conducted
using mailed ballots if authorized by the county elections official.112 Unless the LAFCO and the
proponents of disincorporation otherwise agree, the city (or its remaining assets) bears the costs of
the election.113
Only the voters within the city to be disincorporated may vote on the proposal.114 The
general election and local election provisions of the California Elections Code govern the voting
process, however any inconsistencies are resolved in favor of the local election provisions.115
Likewise, any inconsistencies between the Elections Code and the Act are resolved in favor of the
Act.116 The Act provides specific notice requirements, including the contents of the notice, and a
particular form for the ballot.117
Within five days of calling the election, the LAFCO’s executive officer must provide the
commission with a brief, impartial analysis of the disincorporation proposal.118 The commission
must then approve the analysis, with or without amendments, and submit it to the county elections
official for inclusion in the ballot pamphlet.119 The city, any affected agency, voters, and citizen
associations may also submit brief arguments for and against the proposal for similar inclusion in the
pamphlet.120
After the election, the county elections official must immediately submit the results to the
LAFCO.121
D.STAGE 4 –COMPLETION OF PROCEEDINGS
If the voters approve the disincorporation, the LAFCO must issue a certificate of
completion confirming its order within 30 days of the election canvass.122 The commission’s
executive officer then prepares and files a certificate of completion upon satisfaction of any terms
and conditions required in the commission’s approval of the disincorporation.123 The executive
officer must file the certificate within 90 days of the election with the county recorder and each
affected local agency.124
If set by the commission, the effective date of an approved disincorporation must be within
nine months after the election (but no earlier than the execution date of the certificate of
completion).125 Otherwise, the disincorporation takes effect on the date the certificate of
completion is recorded by the county recorder.126
V.CONCLUSION
While no California city has disincorporated in over thirty-six years, disincorporation
remains possible and provides an alternative that some California cities or concerned citizens may
want to consider. However, there is no modern precedent for an economically motivated
2.A.b
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
_
i
n
_
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
-
K
n
o
x
_
2
0
1
2
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
OHS West:260690926.5 9
disincorporation. The only use of the LAFCO-led disincorporation process, by Cabazon in 1972,
did not involve unwinding complicated financial matters, the possible impairment of public
employment contracts, or concerns that creditors would be left empty-handed. Disincorporation of
a larger and more complex city would require the LAFCO to undertake a detailed process of
determining how to avoid unconstitutional impairment of contracts and to transfer services to the
county in a way that would not unduly burden the county while continuing to provide essential
services to the residents of the former city. Given California’s constitutional limitations on new
local taxes, a city that attempted to disincorporate without having sufficient revenues to satisfy its
obligations might not be able to do so unless its citizens approved new taxing measures, as the
LAFCO might well condition approval of the disincorporation on approval of new revenue
measures sufficient to satisfy the obligations of the city.
If a city or group of citizens wants to pursue disincorporation, the support of the local
LAFCO is critical, absent a legislative amendment or exception to the Act. The LAFCO has near-
total control over the process and can modify or condition proposals as it sees fit. Support of the
city’s residents will also be necessary. Lastly, given the lack of precedent, any disincorporation,
particularly if driven by financial considerations, might involve litigation over both its process and
legal effect. Disincorporation is a controversial option, and at least some citizens – let alone
creditors and others with a stake in the city’s continued existence – should be expected to oppose it.
1 Bd. of Supervisors of Sacramento County v. Local Agency Formation Comm’n of Sacramento County, 838 P.2d 1198, 1203 (Cal.
1992) (discussing the predecessor to current section 56886 of the California Government Code).
2 CAL.GOV’T CODE §§ 56000-57550 (Deering 2009). Unless otherwise noted, all statutory citations are to the California
Government Code.
3 § 56100.
4 Id. The Act makes no distinction between chartered and general law cities, defining “city” to include both categories.
§ 56023. While the California Constitution provides that chartered cities may disregard state legislative acts pertaining to
municipal affairs, disincorporation is not a municipal affair. CAL.CONST. art. XI, § 5(a). California courts have held that
annexations, as changes of organization under the Act, are matters of statewide concern and are not subject to a city’s
charter. See Ferrini v. City of San Luis Obispo, 197 Cal. Rptr. 694, 699 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (holding that annexations, as
“changes of organization” under the Act’s predecessor, were not municipal affairs subject to a contrary city charter’s
provisions), cited with approval in DeVita v. County of Napa, 889 P.2d 1019, 1037 (Cal. 1995). Although no court has yet
addressed the specific status of disincorporation, the same analysis would apply because the Act includes both
annexation and disincorporation in its definition of “change of organization.” § 56021.
5 § 56021.
6 § 56034.
7 § 56073.
8 § 56375(a)(1).
9 § 56301.
10 § 56375(g)-(i).
11 § 56106.
12 § 56107(b).
13 § 56107(c).
14 § 56103.
15 CAL.CIV.PROC.CODE §§ 860, 863 (Deering 2009).
16 Id.§860;CAL.GOV’T CODE § 56102.
17 See Torres v. City of Yorba Linda, 17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 400, 406 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (holding nonresident plaintiff who hoped
to become a resident lacked standing to challenge city redevelopment plan despite paying city sales tax).
18 § 56160.
19 See 2000 Cal. Stat. 761 (discussing effect on prior law).
20 Bd. of Supervisors of Sacramento County v. Local Agency Formation Comm’n of Sacramento County, 838 P.2d 1198, 1205 (Cal.
1992).
21 See § 56757(a).
2.A.b
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
_
i
n
_
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
-
K
n
o
x
_
2
0
1
2
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
OHS West:260690926.5 10
22 California League of Cities, California Municipal Disincorporations (unpublished tbl., on file with author). The four
cities disincorporated by statute include: Columbia (1870), Dutch Flat (1866), Felton (1917), and Hornitos (1973).
23 Id. The disincorporated cities include: Bayshore (1940), Boulder Creek (1915), Cabazon (1972), Columbia (1870),
Coram (1918), Dutch Flat (1866), Felton (1917), Hornitos (1973), Kelseyville (1902), Kennett (1930), Long Beach
(1896), McKittrick (1927), North Sacramento (1963), Orangethorpe (1923), Pismo Beach (1940), Potter Valley (1926),
and Stanton (1924).
24 Id.
25 Id.; see 1972 Cal. Stat. 1209-10 (“The Town of Hornitos is hereby disincorporated.”).
26 Staff Report from Robert J. Fitch, Assistant Executive Officer, Riverside County LAFCO, to the Riverside County
LAFCO 2 (July 15, 1971) (on file with author).
27 Id. at 1-2.
28 See Letter from Robert J. Fitch, Assistant Executive Officer, Riverside County LAFCO, to the Cabazon City Council 1
(July 22, 1971) (on file with author) (confirming approval of the LAFCO and next steps for disincorporation).
29 Cabazon, Cal., Res. 376 (Jan. 17, 1972). See CAL.SEC’Y OF STATE, Certification of Cabazon Disincorporation (Apr.
13, 1972).
30 See, e.g., Letter from W.G. Henderson, Riverside County Purchasing Agent, to Robert Fitch, Riverside County Admin.
Office 1 (Aug. 7, 1973) (on file with author) (listing personal property and sale amounts); Letter from Robert J. Fitch,
Assistant Executive Officer, Riverside County LAFCO, to Gordon Siddons 1 (Feb. 25, 1972) (on file with author)
(cancelling the month-to-month lease of Cabazon’s city hall and police headquarters).
31 See Fax from Robert J. Fitch, Riverside County Admin. Officer, to Riverside County Counsel 1 (Oct. 5, 1981) (on file
with author) (discussing remaining balance of $6,023.86 in the Cabazon Disincorporation Trust Fund).
32 § 57302.
33 § 56121.
34 §§ 56122, 56121(d).
35 People v. Banning Co., 138 P. 101, 102 (Cal. 1913) (citing the predecessor to article I, section 9 of the California
Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution).
36 CAL.CIV.CODE § 3430 (Deering 2009).
37 Id. § 3431.
38 Glendale City Employees’ Ass’n v. Glendale, 540 P.2d 609, 614 (Cal. 1975). See CAL.GOV’T CODE § 3505.1.
39 § 56886(l).
40 Sonoma County Org. of Pub. Employees v. County of Sonoma, 591 P.2d 1, 5 (Cal. 1979) (citing Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v.
Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 428 (1934)).
41 U.S. Trust Co. of N.Y. v. N.J., 431 U.S. 1, 25 (1977) (holding that, with regard to government contracts, “[a]s with laws
impairing the obligations of private contracts, an impairment may be constitutional if it is reasonable and necessary to
serve an important public purpose”). See Blaisdell, 290 U.S. at 438 (“The question is not whether the legislative action
affects contracts incidentally, or directly, or indirectly, but whether the legislation is addressed to a legitimate end and the
measures taken are reasonable and appropriate to that end.”). The California Supreme Court has interpreted the
California Constitution’s contract clause in parallel with that of the U.S. Constitution, applying the same balancing test
approach to claims under both clauses. Sonoma County Org. of Pub. Employees, 591 P.2d at 10-11.
42 Sonoma County Org. of Pub. Employees, 591 P.2d at 11.
43 Insolvency raises the prospect of a city seeking to use chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 901 et
seq., as a means of implementing a disincorporation or avoiding disincorporation altogether. However, municipal
bankruptcy is a complex topic and is beyond the scope of this article. A helpful overview of chapter 9 may be found in
JOHN KNOX &MARC LEVINSON,MUNICIPAL BANKRUPTCY:AVOIDING AND USING CHAPTER 9 IN TIMES OF FISCAL
STRESS (2009), available at http://www.orrick.com/fileupload/1647.pdf. A more technical overview of chapter 9 may
be found on the website of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts at
http://www.uscourts.gov/bankruptcycourts/bankruptcybasics/chapter9.html.
44 Miller v. State, 557 P.2d 970, 973 (Cal. 1977).
45 Id.
46 Kern v. City of Long Beach, 179 P.2d 799, 802 (Cal. 1947).
47 § 57412.
48 § 57400.
49 §§ 57401-404.
50 §§ 57405, 57413.
51 § 57407.
52 § 57409.
2.A.b
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
_
i
n
_
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
-
K
n
o
x
_
2
0
1
2
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
OHS West:260690926.5 11
53 § 57411.
54 § 57419.
55 Section 57409 derives from former section 34718 of the Government Code, which uses nearly identical language and was
adopted by the legislature in 1949. 1949 Cal. Stat. 110.
56 Interestingly, article XIIIC, section 2(b) of the California Constitution, which was enacted as a part of Proposition 218,
requires that majority-vote general taxes only be considered by the electorate at an election at which the members of the
governing body of the city council are up for election. In the case of a disincorporation, it might be that there would be
no further city council elections at which to consider such a measure.
57 See CAL.CONST. art. XIIIA, § 1(a).
58 89 Op. Cal. Att’y Gen. 173 (2006).
59 See PETER M.DETWILER, CAL.ENVTL.L.&LAND USE PRACTICE § 73.13 (2009), for general background on the
process used by a LAFCO for proposed changes of organization. While not focused on disincorporation per se, this
treatise is helpful in understanding the obstacles facing a proponent and the tools available to an opponent of
disincorporation.
60 A LAFCO can self-initiate most changes of organization, however it cannot do so for disincorporation proposals. See
§ 56375(a)(2).
61 §§ 56650, 56654(a). See § 56700 (requirements for petitions) and § 56654 (requirements for resolutions).
62 § 56651.
63 §§ 56658(i), 56660-61. See § 56157 (regarding notice requirements).
64 § 56665.
65 § 56658(b)(1).
66 § 56658(d).
67 § 56658(h).
68 § 56658(e).
69 § 56658(f).
70 § 56658(g).
71 §§ 56652, 56700. Petitions and resolutions must include:
(1)a statement that the proposal is made pursuant to the Act,
(2)a statement of the nature of the proposal,
(3)a map and description of the territory’s boundaries,
(4)any proposed terms or conditions for the disincorporation,
(5)the reason(s) for the proposal,
(6)any data or information required by the area LAFCO’s regulations or by its executive officer,
(7)contact information for the proponents,
(8)a request for proceedings,
(9)a statement whether the proposal is consistent with the city’s sphere of influence, and
(10)[for petitions only] a statement that the petition is signed by registered voters.
Id.
72 § 56654(d).
73 § 56654(c).
74 § 56653.
75 § 56700.4(a).
76 § 56700.4(c).
77 § 56765.
78 § 56704.
79 § 56705(a).
80 §§ 56705(b)(1), 56760.
81 § 56706(a).
82 § 56706(b).
83 § 56706(c).
84 See § 56658(i).
85 § 56666(a).
86 § 56880.
87 Fallbrook Sanitary Dist. v. San Diego Local Agency Formation Comm’n, 256 Cal. Rptr. 590, 594 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).
88 § 56881.
89 § 56880.
2.A.b
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
_
i
n
_
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
-
K
n
o
x
_
2
0
1
2
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
OHS West:260690926.5 12
90 § 56884.
91 § 56895(a), (c).
92 § 56895(d).
93 § 56895(a).
94 § 56895(e).
95 § 56895(f).
96 § 56895(g)-(h).
97 Id.
98 Note that disincorporations are specifically exempt from the Act’s requirement of protest proceedings before the
LAFCO. See § 57000(a) (protest proceedings only required for changes of organization “not described in Section
57077”).
99 See § 54953.
100 § 56666(b).
101 § 56668.
102 § 56886. These terms and conditions may include:
(1)the payment of funds for use of public property, including the levying and collection of taxes,
assessments, or other charges for providing such a payment,
(2)requirements relating to liability for bonds, contracts, and obligations of the city, including the levying
and collection of taxes in an amount necessary to provide payment,
(3)the incurring of new indebtedness or liability by the city, including issuance of bonds by the city or its
successor,
(4)requirements relating to the city’s personal and real property,
(5)the disposition of city funds,
(6)“[t]he employment, transfer, or discharge of employees, the continuation, modification, or
termination of existing employment contracts, civil service rights, seniority rights, retirement rights,
and other employee benefits and rights,”
(7)the designation of a successor to the city “for the purpose of succeeding to all of the rights, duties and
obligations [of the city] . . . with respect to enforcement, performance, or payment of any outstanding
bonds . . . , or other contracts and obligations of the [city],”
(8)the initiation or completion of additional commission proceedings,
(9)the continuation or provision of services by the city,
(10)the continuation of prior taxes, assessments, fees, or other charges by the city or its successor,
(11)the transfer of authority among affected cities, counties, and districts, and
(12)“[a]ny other matters necessary or incidental to any of the [above] terms and conditions.”
Id.
103 Bd. of Supervisors of Sacramento County v. Local Agency Formation Comm’n of Sacramento County, 838 P.2d 1198, 1203 (Cal.
1992) (discussing the predecessor to current section 56886).
104 § 56885.5.
105 89 Op. Cal. Att’y Gen. 173 (2006).
106 See discussion supra under “Legal Effect of Disincorporation.”
107 § 56375(a)(6).
108 § 57077(a)(1).
109 § 57078.
110 § 57090.
111 § 57132.
112 § 57125(b).
113 § 57150.
114 § 57118(a).
115 § 57125.
116 § 57125(a)(2).
117 §§ 57130-31, 57133.
118 § 57144.
119 Id.
120 § 57145.
121 § 57149.
2.A.b
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
_
i
n
_
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
-
K
n
o
x
_
2
0
1
2
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)
OHS West:260690926.5 13
122 § 57176; If the voters disapprove the disincorporation, the commission must issue a certificate of termination.
§ 57179.
123 § 57200.
124 § 57203.
125 § 57202(a).
126 § 57202(c).
2.A.b
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
_
D
i
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
_
i
n
_
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
-
K
n
o
x
_
2
0
1
2
(
1
2
5
8
:
S
e
c
o
n
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
)