BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2170
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2170 (Mullin)
As Introduced February 20, 2014
Majority vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 7-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Achadjian, Levine, Alejo, | | |
| |Bradford, Gordon, Mullin, | | |
| |Rendon | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Melendez, Waldron | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Specifies that local agencies may jointly exercise the
authority to levy a fee or tax. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that, if authorized by their legislative or other
governing bodies, two or more public agencies may, pursuant to
the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (the Act), jointly exercise
the authority to levy a fee or tax.
2)Finds and declares that, pursuant to the Act, a joint powers
authority has all powers common to the contracting parties, so
long as those powers are specified in the joint powers
agreement; therefore, the amendments to the Act by this bill
do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of,
existing law.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows, pursuant to the Act, two or more public agencies by
agreement to jointly exercise any power common to the
contracting parties, as specified,
if authorized by their legislative or other governing bodies.
2)Requires, pursuant to Proposition 13 of 1978, two-thirds voter
approval for a special tax.
3)Provides, pursuant to Proposition 218 of 1996, specified
notice, protest, and hearing procedures for the levying of new
AB 2170
Page 2
or increased assessments or property related fees or charges
by local government agencies.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of this bill. This bill specifies that local agencies
that enter into joint powers agreements pursuant to the Act
are allowed, pursuant to that agreement, to levy a fee or tax.
This bill is author-sponsored.
2)Author's statement. According to the author, "The Joint
Exercise of Powers Act authorizes local public agencies to
exercise common powers and to form joint powers agencies (JPA)
for purposes of jointly receiving or providing specific
services. Pursuant to the Act, two or more public agencies
may by agreement jointly exercise any power common to them. A
JPA exercises the specified common powers on behalf of the
contracting agencies. The agreement must expressly state the
purpose of the JPA or the power to be exercised, and must
provide for the method by which the purpose will be
accomplished or the manner in which the power will be
exercised. A JPA may exercise only the powers expressly
provided in the agreement.
"A JPA is a public entity separate from its constituent
contracting parties. Generally, a joint powers agreement
grants no new powers, but merely sets up a new procedure for
the exercise of existing powers. A JPA is required to comply
with those procedural restrictions that apply to one of the
contracting public agencies.
"Though existing law seems to provide such authority, some
officials worry that they may lack the authority to levy taxes
or impose property related fees because the Joint Exercise of
Powers Act does not explicitly extend that authority to JPAs."
3)Joint Exercise of Powers Act. JPAs have existed in California
for nearly 100 years, and were originally created to allow
multiple local governments in a region to pool resources to
meet common needs. The Act authorizes state and local
agencies to create and use a joint powers agreement, which is
a legal document that allows the contracting parties to
AB 2170
Page 3
exercise powers that are common to all of the contracting
parties. A joint powers agreement can be administered by one
of the contracting agencies, or it can be carried out by a
new, separate public entity. Joint powers agreements are an
attractive tool for local governments because they facilitate
more efficient service provision through collaboration, and
they allow local entities to issue bonds without voter
ratification. Current law authorizes JPAs to jointly exercise
any power common to the contracting parties, if authorized by
their legislative or governing body. However, current law is
silent on a JPA's explicit authority to levy a fee or a tax.
4)The California Constitution distinguishes among taxes,
assessments and fees for property related revenues, and
requires certain actions before such revenues may be
collected. For a property related fee, Proposition 218
requires local officials to identify the parcels, calculate
the fee for each parcel, and conduct a majority protest
proceeding 45 days after mailing notice of a new fee to all
fee payers. Additionally, Article XIII D, Section 6,
subdivision (c) of the California Constitution provides that,
"Except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse
collection services, no property related fee or charge shall
be imposed or increased unless and until that fee or charge is
submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property
owners of the property subject to the fee or charge or, at the
option of the agency, by a two-thirds vote of the electorate
residing in the affected area."
Counties and other local agencies with police powers may
impose any one of these options on property owners, after
completing the Proposition 218 process. Special districts
created by statute, however, must have specific authority for
each of these revenue sources.
5)Related legislation. AB 418 (Mullin) of the current
legislative session, pending in the Assembly, authorizes the
City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo
County to impose a special tax, in compliance with Article
XIII C of the California Constitution, or to impose a property
related fee, in compliance with Article XIII D of the
California Constitution, to implement stormwater management
programs consistent with the joint powers agreement of C/CAG's
member agencies.
AB 2170
Page 4
AB 2046 (Gomez) of the current legislative session, pending in
the Assembly, authorizes California JPAs to issue bonds and
enter into loan agreements to finance or refinance private
projects located outside this state, as specified.
6)Arguments in support. The California State Association of
Counties and the League of California Cities, in support,
assert, "The law governing joint powers authorities has always
allowed the contracting parties to exercise any common powers,
as long as they are specified in the joint powers agreement,
therefore, the statement that the bill is declaratory of
existing law is important. This bill would clarify current
law so that there could be no doubt that this authority
extends to the imposition of fees and taxes."
7)Arguments in opposition. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association, in opposition, states, "AB 2170 would give JPAs
the authority to levy a fee or tax. Currently, it is an open
legal question whether JPA's have the authority to do this,
even if they follow the appropriate constitutional guidelines
specified under Propositions 13 & 218. While AB 2170 would
clarify this question, we believe it is unnecessary. Local
government entities do not need new revenue generating
authority. They can either approve a special tax with a
two-thirds vote, or a Proposition 218 fee or assessment with a
majority vote of the affected property owners."
Analysis Prepared by : Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
FN: 0003118