BILL ANALYSIS SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 2554 HEARING: 8/11/10 AUTHOR: Brownley FISCAL: No VERSION: 8/5/10 CONSULTANT: Weinberger [REVISED] LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT'S FEES Background and Existing Law Proposition 218 (1996) defined a property-related fee or charge as any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment imposed by an agency on a parcel or on a person as an incident of property ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property-related service. Before a local government can charge a new property-related fee, or increase an existing one, Proposition 218 requires local officials to: Identify the parcels to be charged. Calculate the fee for each parcel. Notify the parcels' owners in writing about the fees and the hearing. Hold a public hearing to consider and count protests. Abandon the fees if a majority of the parcels' owners protest. Further, new or increased property-related fees require: A majority-vote of the affected property owners; or, Two-thirds registered voter approval; or, Weighted ballot approval by the affected property owners. The election requirements don't apply to property-related fees for sewer, water, or refuse collection services. A 2002 appellate court decision in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Salinas found that a city's charges on developed parcels to fund stormwater management were property-related fees, and were not covered by Proposition 218's exemption for "sewer" or "water" services. As a result, stormwater fees require a vote of property owners AB 2554 -- 8/5/10 -- Page 2 or registered voters. Drainage from impervious surfaces produces urban runoff, stormwater discharges, and water pollution. To protect rivers and oceans, the federal Clean Water Act requires the states to reduce pollution from urban runoff. Most stormwater discharges require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permits. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) are pushing counties, cities, and special districts to reduce urban runoff and stormwater discharges. Formed in 1915 (SB 459, Benedict and Carr, 1915), the Los Angeles County Flood Control District is a special act special district that provides flood control and water quality services to 85 cities and most of the unincorporated area in Los Angeles County. Governed ex officio by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the District has statutory authorization to levy ad valorem taxes and assessments. However, it lacks the authority to impose property-related fees. The Legislature has authorized counties, cities, sanitary districts, county sanitation districts, sewer maintenance districts, and other districts responsible for sanitary sewers and sewerage systems to impose fees in connection with storm drainage services and facilities (SB 682, Mello, 1991). In 2005, the Legislature authorized the Ventura County Watershed Protection District to impose property related fees to fund storm drainage services and facilities (AB 554, Nava, 2005). The Los Angeles County Flood Control District is asking the Legislature to grant it the same authority. Proposed Law Assembly Bill 2554 authorizes the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to impose a fee or charge anywhere within the District's territory, in compliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution, to pay the costs and expenses of carrying out projects and providing services to improve water quality and reduce stormwater and urban runoff pollution in the District. AB 2554 -- 8/5/10 -- Page 3 AB 2554 requires the fees to be collected with county taxes. The revenues must be paid into the county treasury to District's credit. The board of supervisors may spend the funds to pay for the District's costs. The bill requires the District to allocate the revenues as follows: 10% to the District to implement and administer water quality programs and to pay the District's costs for levying and collecting the fee and distributing revenues. 40% to Los Angeles County and to the cities within the District, divided proportionally among each jurisdiction, to be expended for water quality improvement programs. 50% to nine watershed authority groups that the District must authorize by ordinance, divided proportionally among each watershed, to implement collaborative water quality improvement plans or programs in the watersheds. AB 2554 requires nine watershed authority groups to be established under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act for the following watersheds: Ballona Creek, Dominguez Channel, Upper Los Angeles River, Lower Los Angeles River, Rio Hondo, Upper San Gabriel River, Lower San Gabriel River, Santa Clara River, and Santa Monica Bay. The bill specifies that implementation of a watershed authority group's collaborative water quality plan or program requires the consent of any member agency whose jurisdiction comprises more than 40% of the total land area in a watershed. AB 2554 requires the District's governing board to adopt an ordinance to implement its fee authority. The bill makes other technical amendments to the District's authorizing statutes. Comments 1. Vital funding for cleaner water . The Los Angeles County Flood Control District covers more than 3,000 square miles and includes the vast majority of drainage AB 2554 -- 8/5/10 -- Page 4 infrastructure within incorporated and unincorporated Los Angeles County. Storm water and urban runoff drain into the District's system and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean, carrying trash, bacteria, and other pollutants. Aging infrastructure, increasingly stringent clean water laws, and unmet drainage needs require the District to invest in costly flood protection, water quality, and water conservation projects that threaten to overwhelm its existing revenue stream. AB 2554 gives the District, with voter approval, a stable and long-term revenue stream for constructing and maintaining watershed management projects. The August 5 amendments to AB 2554 reflect an agreement reached between the District and cities within its boundaries to take a regional approach to using fee revenues to address clean water compliance issues. 2. Is a fee necessary ? The District already has the authority to impose benefit assessments, which need weighted majority property owner approval. However, unlike many other special districts, the District lacks the statutory authority to levy a special tax with 2/3-voter approval. Rather than expose the taxpayers to a new type of fee, the Committee may wish to consider whether the District should use its existing tools or whether the Legislature should authorize the District to levy a special tax subject to the requirements of Proposition 218. 3. Proposition 218 still intact . Proposition 218 protects property owners' interests by requiring a local government that wants to charge a property-related fee to meet certain requirements. AB 2554 doesn't change that. If the District uses AB 2554 to impose a property-related fee, it must meet the constitutional requirements added by Proposition 218. If it can't follow the Constitution, it can't impose the fee. 4. Striking a balance . AB 2554 balances the state's need to be specific in granting fee authority to the District while also providing local officials with sufficient discretion to address local needs. For example, the bill doesn't specify whether the District must impose the fee throughout the district or whether the fee authority can be imposed only in those areas that have watershed authority groups. By broadly requiring the District to adopt an implementing ordinance, AB 2554 attempts to ensure that the District spells out the fee program's structure in detail AB 2554 -- 8/5/10 -- Page 5 without having to put all of those details into state law. 5. Other bills . The Senate Local Government Committee passed AB 564 (Brownley, 2008), which authorized the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to charge property related fees throughout the district. That bill died on the Senate Floor. AB 139 (Brownley, 2009), which also authorized the District to charge property-related fees was never heard by a policy committee. 6. Other approaches . In recent years, the Senate Local Government Committee has considered other proposals to help local governments finance the increasing costs of managing stormwater and urban runoff. SCA 18 (Liu, 2009) and SCA 12 (Torlakson, 2006) added stormwater and urban runoff services to the list of property-related fees (water, sewer, and refuse collection) that do not require electoral approval. AB 938 (Calderon, 2006) allowed local officials to charge regulatory fees to implement new watershed plans, thereby sidestepping the constitutional question about whether stormwater runoff fees are property-related fees. SCA 18 and SCA 12 effectively overturned the 2002 Salinas decision, while AB 938 sidestepped it. By contrast, AB 2554 accommodates the court's decision by asking for the authority to seek voter approval for the Los Angeles County Flood Control District's property-related fees. 7. Legislative history . At its June 30 hearing, the Senate Local Government Committee approved an earlier version of AB 2554 by a 3-2 vote. Because the August 5 amendments rewrote AB 2554 to expand the geographic area in which the district can levy fees, specify the allocation of fee revenues, and provide for the creation of watershed authority groups, the Senate Rules Committee referred the bill back to the Senate Local Government Committee under Senate Rule 29.10. Assembly Actions Assembly Local Government Committee: 6-2 Assembly Floor: 48-28 Support and Opposition (8/9/10) Support : County of Los Angeles, Association of California AB 2554 -- 8/5/10 -- Page 6 Water Agencies, California State Association of Counties, Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, Los Angeles Stormwater Quality Partnership, Tree People. Opposition : Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.