BILL ANALYSIS Ķ SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Bill No: |AB 656 |Hearing |6/17/15 | | | |Date: | | |----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------| |Author: |Cristina Garcia |Tax Levy: |No | |----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------| |Version: |5/4/15 |Fiscal: |Yes | ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Weinberger | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS AND MUTUAL WATER COMPANIES Allows a mutual water company and a public agency to form a joint powers authority to provide risk-pooling and insurance for the JPA's members. Background and Existing Law Public water systems that deliver domestic water generally fall into three categories: Local agencies (cities and special districts). Local agency formation commissions (LAFCOs) control the cities and special districts' boundaries and local officials are responsible to their voters for their water rates. Investor owned public utilities. The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) controls the companies' service areas and their water rates. Mutual water companies. These private entities, formed under statutes governing corporations, respond to their shareholders, usually the landowners who receive water service. Neither LAFCOs nor the PUC regulate mutual water companies. The State Department of Public Health and some county health departments monitor the quality of drinking water delivered to AB 656 (Cristina Garcia) 5/4/15 Page 2 of ? most households, regardless of what type of public water system delivers the water. Most mutual water companies are organized pursuant to the General Corporation Law or the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law. Shareholders in a mutual water company hold a right to purchase water from the company. Stock in a company is usually linked to the ownership of a parcel served by the company and transfers with the land when the parcel is sold to successive owners. This type of corporate structure allows landowners to establish, essentially, a customer-owned water provider to serve their properties. State law exempts a mutual water company from state regulation if it is organized to deliver water to its stockholders and members, with specified exceptions. The Joint Exercise of Powers Act allows two or more public agencies to enter an agreement to jointly exercise any power held in common by the parties to the agreement. Each public agency must independently possess the authority to perform the activity that is to be performed jointly pursuant to a joint powers agreement. Sometimes an agreement creates a new, separate government called a joint powers authority (JPA). Among the common powers that public agencies can exercise jointly through a JPA is the power to insure against specified liabilities. State law allows two or more local public entities, by a joint powers agreement, to provide insurance authorized by specified statutes. As a general rule, only public entities may form a JPA. However, despite the fact that a mutual water company is not a public entity but rather is a private corporation or association, state law allows a mutual water company to enter into a joint powers agreement with any public agency for the purpose of jointly exercising any power common to the contracting parties (AB 2014, Cortese, 1994). In response to concerns that that some mutual water companies lacked capital to pay for needed water quality improvements and the managerial capacity to operate successful public water systems, the Legislature passed AB 54 (Solorio, 2011). That bill established training requirements for mutual water companies' board members, made mutual water companies liable for specified fines and penalties for violating the California Safe AB 656 (Cristina Garcia) 5/4/15 Page 3 of ? Drinking Water Act, and expanded LAFCOs' authority to review matters related to mutual water companies. Despite these recent changes to state law, some mutual water companies continue to struggle with funding shortages, lack of access to technological expertise, and other operational and managerial challenges. Although state and local policymakers recognize the problems associated with some water systems operated by mutual water companies, some companies either can't or won't seek public funding and assistance to help improve their systems. In response, some mutual water company stakeholders want to find ways to make better use of the resources that are currently available to mutual water companies. They want the Legislature to allow mutual water companies to become members of a JPA for the purpose of providing insurance to the JPA's members. Some of the savings that are realized through the JPA's risk pooling and reinsurance transactions could then be used to provide capital for water system improvements and pay for services to build capacity at struggling mutual water companies. Proposed Law Assembly Bill 656 allows a mutual water company and a public agency to: Form a JPA for risk-pooling and providing technical support, continuing education, safety engineering, and operational and managerial advisory assistance to JPA members for the purpose of reducing risk liabilities. Form a JPA to provide insurance by methods specified in state law. Be coinsured under a master policy and to prorate the total premium among JPA members. State Revenue Impact No estimate. Comments AB 656 (Cristina Garcia) 5/4/15 Page 4 of ? 1. Purpose of the bill . The majority of mutual water companies in California are small, with many serving fewer than 3,000 connections. Many mutual water companies serve economically disadvantaged areas and do not have access to low cost insurance and other services, such as those available to special districts under the Association of California Water Agencies' Joint Powers Insurance Authority, or other joint powers agency insurance programs. Instead, mutual water companies must purchase higher cost insurance in the open market, and many are not provided the opportunity to easily obtain other services that could assist them in building operational and managerial capacity. Because the pooling of self-insured claims or losses among entities participating in a JPA is not subject to regulation under the Insurance Code and is not subject to premium taxes, the JPA can set lower premiums and offer broader coverage than would be available through the private marketplace. By allowing mutual water companies to realize some of these savings through membership in a mutual water company insurance JPA, AB 656 would make residual funding available to help mutual water companies strengthen accounting, operational, and technical capacity to better prepare them to improve their delivery of safe drinking water, as well as apply for state grants and loans. 2. Public agency member . Although current law already allows mutual water companies to enter into joint powers agreements to exercise powers they hold in common with public entities, they cannot rely on this existing statutory authority because they lack the independent power to offer insurance coverage. As a result, AB 656 must specifically allow them to join with a public agency to create a JPA that can pool risk and provide insurance. To clarify the purpose of this provision, the Committee may wish to consider amending AB 656 to: Specify that the insurance JPA can consist of one or more public agencies and one or more mutual water companies. Require that all public agencies and mutual water companies participating in the JPA must possess common powers relating to providing retail water services. Specify that any public agency's participation in the JPA is for the purpose of allowing mutual water companies to access risk-pooling and insurance through a JPA and AB 656 (Cristina Garcia) 5/4/15 Page 5 of ? should not expose a public agency additional risk, liability, or fiscal obligations as a result of its participation in the JPA. 3. Use of residual funds . AB 656's proponents suggest that one purpose of granting mutual water companies access to insurance coverage through a JPA is to use some of the residual savings to fund much-needed water system improvements and improve technical, operational, and managerial capacity. However, the bill does not specifically address this use of funds by the JPA. Without any specific statutory guidance, it is unclear whether a JPA formed to provide insurance to mutual water companies will, in fact, retain any residual savings or use the retained funds for the intended purposes. The Committee may wish to consider amending AB 656 to specify that the special JPA authorized by the bill must use residual funds generated from savings on mutual water companies' insurance coverage only for the purpose of funding specific types of infrastructure improvements or services that benefit mutual water agencies. Assembly Actions Assembly Local Government Committee: 9-0 Assembly Appropriations Committee: 14-1 Assembly Floor: 68-1 Support and Opposition (6/11/15) Support : California Association of Mutual Water Companies; Amarillo Mutual Water Company; Atascadero Mutual Water Company; Bellflower-Somerset Mutual Water Company; Big Rock Mutual Water Company; Bleich Flat Mutual Water Company; California Domestic Water Company; California State Firefighters' Association; Canyon Crest Mutual Benefit Water Company; Covina Irrigating Company; DiBuduo & DeFendis Insurance Brokers, LLC; 5th Avenue Insurance Services; Flanigan-Leavitt Insurance Agency; Fluetsch & Busby Insurance; Glenhaven Mutual Water Company; Green Acres Mutual Water Company; Green Valley Mutual Water Company; Inland Counties Insurance Services; Insurance Solutions from A to Z; InterWest Insurance Services; Lakeview Mutual Water Company; Lincoln Avenue Water Company; Llano Mutual Water Company; AB 656 (Cristina Garcia) 5/4/15 Page 6 of ? Maywood Mutual Water Company #1; Maywood Mutual Water Company #2; Midway City Mutual; Montebello Land & Water Company; Oildale Mutual Water Company; Murphy Slough Association; Raineri Mutual Water Company; Rancho Pauma Mutual Water Company; Reed Ditch Company; Rocky Comfort Mutual Water Company; Rowland Water District; Rubio Caņon Land and Water Association; San Antonio Water Company; San Gabriel Valley Water Association; Shaver Lake Point #2 Mutual Water Company; South Mesa Water Company; Strawberry Tract Mutual Water Company; Sundale Mutual Water Company; SunnySlope Water; The Farm Mutual Water Company; Tucker Acres Water Company; Valencia Heights Water Company; Valley Ag Water Coalition; Valley Water Company; Vinsa Insurance Associates; Walnut Valley Water District; Windflower Point Mutual Water Company; Wutchumna Water Company.. Opposition : Unknown. -- END --