Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surplus Land Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
AB 130 expands Surplus Land Act oversight for K–12 property dispositions, district counsel warns
Summary
Legal counsel told the Inglewood Unified School District asset management committee that AB 130 removes prior K–12 exemptions from the Surplus Land Act, creating parallel public‑offering and NOA timelines and giving priority negotiation rights to affordable‑housing developers meeting a 25% threshold; members pressed for clarification on valuation, waivers and educational exemptions.
Legal counsel explained to the Inglewood Unified School District Asset Management Committee on Aug. 26 that recently enacted AB 130 changes how the district must handle surplus properties and exchanges, adding state‑level notice and timeline obligations that could affect how the district disposes of closed school sites.
Serene Aberhanian, legal counsel with Orbach, Huff & Henderson LLP, told the committee the key change is that properties considered through the district’s 7/11 committee process or potential exchange transactions are no longer categorically exempt from the Surplus Land Act (SLA). "Those exemptions have been removed," she said, meaning the district must run its K–12 public‑offering process in parallel with the SLA notice‑of‑availability (NOA) process and comply with both sets of timelines and notice recipients.
Aberhanian summarized the practical consequences: after a county administrator deems property surplus, the district would still publish its public offering (education‑code process) while simultaneously notifying agencies under the SLA. SLA respondents have up to 60 days to express interest and an additional 90 days for negotiation in some cases; critically, affordable‑housing developers that commit to developing up to 25% of units as affordable housing receive priority negotiation rights under the SLA.
Committee members asked how that priority would interact with the district’s obligation to obtain fair market value and whether educational entities (other public education institutions) retain any priority. Aberhanian said the details are complex: the SLA contains different preferred‑entity lists and HCD guidance can inform affordability definitions, and the district can seek waivers or pursue statutory alternatives (for example, joint‑occupancy or workforce‑housing exemptions) but the procedures and HCD concurrence are still being worked out.
Members expressed concern about timing and revenue tradeoffs. One member said the SLA priority could force the district to accept lower revenue outcomes in exchange for affordable housing, and another asked what constitutes "good faith" negotiation; Aberhanian said those are among the outstanding questions she and trade groups are seeking to clarify.
Why it matters: AB 130 introduces new procedural steps and potential delays for disposition and exchange projects involving K–12 property and changes which entities the district must negotiate with first. That could affect the district’s ability to monetize surplus properties and the timeline for development or joint‑occupancy projects.
Next steps: Counsel will analyze HCD guidance and SLA exemptions (including whether educational uses retain priority) and return with recommendations on timing, waiver applications and alternative disposition pathways. The committee did not vote on any disposition action during this meeting.
