BILL ANALYSIS
AB 139
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Anna Marie Caballero, Chair
AB 139 (Brownley) - As Amended: May 7, 2009
SUBJECT : Los Angeles County Flood Control District: fees.
SUMMARY : Authorizes the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District (District) to impose a fee to pay the cost and expenses
of carrying out projects and providing services to improve water
quality and reduce stormwater and urban runoff in the District
and provides for a division of those fees collected between the
District and other jurisdictions within the boundaries of the
District. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes findings and declarations regarding the need for a local
fee, to be levied by the District, for the purposes of
implementing regional water quality control improvements.
2)Makes findings regarding how Los Angeles County includes six
major watersheds, significant amounts of coastline and
multiple lakes and rivers, and because the jurisdictions
within the county are subject to numerous total maximum daily
load (TMDL) requirements under the federal Clean Water Act, a
regional effort that is coordinated with and supportive of
individual cities' water quality efforts is clearly warranted.
3)States that it is the intent of the Legislature that the Los
Angeles County (County)Board of Supervisors direct the
appropriate County staff, in consultation with the affected
cities within the boundaries of the District, to develop
criteria for the use of funds generated by any fee imposed by
the District, for the purposes of improving water quality and
reducing stormwater and urban runoff pollution.
4)Declares that the criteria should reflect the following
principles:
a) Ensuring that stormwater quality solutions funded by the
fee are science-based and take into consideration the
requirements of the federal Clean Water Act;
b) Promoting the collaborative work of all stakeholders
including cities, unincorporated communities, environmental
AB 139
Page 2
groups, and other interested parties;
c) Promoting the use of stormwater as a potential resource;
d) Creating water quality improvement projects that provide
multiple benefits and incorporate green solutions;
e) Establishing a fee that reflects the differences between
residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses;
parcel size; and proportionate share of stormwater run off;
f) Establishing an oversight committee comprised of
representatives from cities and unincorporated areas in the
county, and other interested stakeholders to provide
technical and programmatic review of the regional program;
and,
g) Ensuring that the District consult and collaborate with
watershed and sub-watershed committees to seek input on
proposed regional projects.
5)Authorizes the District to impose a fee, in compliance with
Proposition 218, 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.
6)Requires that 65% of the revenues derived from the fee be
allocated to the District for administrative expenses and to
carry out projects and provide stormwater management services.
7)Requires that the remaining 35% of the revenues derived from
the fee be allocated to cities within the boundaries of the
District for expenditure within their respective
jurisdictions, and to the County for expenditure within its
unincorporated territory.
8)Requires that the 35% be calculated based on the amount of
fees collected within each jurisdiction.
9)Requires that the funds spent by the cities and unincorporated
areas of the County be used to carry out projects and provide
services related to stormwater management.
10)Requires that each entity expending funds from the fee levied
AB 139
Page 3
under the provisions of this measure ensure that the
expenditure is exclusively used for the authorized purposes.
11)Authorizes the District, cities, and the County to enter into
agreements with each other or with federal, state, and
regional agencies to carry out the provisions of this measure.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the District to provide for the control and
conservation of flood, storm and other waste waters.
2)Authorizes the District to levy taxes or assessments on all
taxable property within the District, after a vote of property
owners.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)Article XIIID of the California Constitution [Proposition 218]
distinguishes among taxes, assessments and fees for
property-related revenues, and requires certain actions before
such revenues may be collected. 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.
2)The District's authorizing statute (Los Angeles County Flood
Control Act, Chapter 755 of the Statutes of 1915) authorizes
the District to impose only taxes or assessments, not fees.
The District, which is governed by the Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors, would like to have the same authority
for imposing fees as its governing County. This bill expands
the District's authorization to add the levying of
property-related fees to its current authorization for levying
of taxes or assessments.
3)The County of Los Angeles includes six major watersheds,
significant amounts of coastline and multiple lakes and
AB 139
Page 4
rivers. Consequently, the County and the 85 cities within the
District are subject to numerous TMLD requirements under the
federal Clean Water Act, which necessitate a regional approach
to TMDL mitigation that is coordinated with and supportive of
individual cities' water quality improvement efforts.
4)AB 139 authorizes the District to impose a property-related
fee on all properties within its boundaries if the fee is
approved by the voters. AB 139 also specifies that 35% of all
fees collected in a city or unincorporated area are allocated
to those areas for expenditure on projects and programs to
reduce stormwater and urban runoff pollution. The remaining
65% is given to the District to spend on administrative costs
and to carry out projects and programs to reduce stormwater
and urban runoff pollution.
Although there have been on going discussions at the local
level regarding how the fee should be divided up amongst all
of the jurisdictions within the boundaries of the District,
the current division of the fee listed in the bill is opposed
by many of the cities and councils of government (COGs) in Los
Angeles County. Some of the opposition is asking that the fee
be split 50/ 50 between the city or unincorporated area and
the District. Most cities are also asking that the fee be
distributed on a situs basis. Although the bill does state
that the fee will be distributed based on where it is
collected, this may need clarification to ensure that it is
done on a truly situs basis. The opposition argues that
cities are under the same federal mandates to reduce
stormwater and urban runoff as the District, and should be
able to utilize some of the funding that will come from this
fee. The Committee may wish to consider whether it is prudent
to pass a measure that is local in nature, to which there is
still severe opposition at the local level.
5)AB 139 also states that it is the intent of the Legislature
that the County Board of Supervisors direct the appropriate
County staff, in consultation with the affected cities within
the boundaries of the District, to develop criteria for the
use of funds generated by any fee imposed by the District, for
the purposes of improving water quality and reducing
stormwater and urban runoff pollution. The Committee may wish
to consider requiring that prior to placing a fee before the
voters, the Districts and a majority of the cities must
approve a regional water quality and stormwater management
AB 139
Page 5
plan on how the funds will be spent.
6)Proposed Committee Amendments : Clarify that the funds
collected from this fee may also be used to maintain a
locality's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES).
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
County of Los Angeles [SPONSOR]
Association of CA Water Agencies
CA State Association of Counties
Cities of Agoura Hills, Azusa, Calabasas, Culver City, and
Monrovia
Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council
Los Angeles Stormwater Quality Partnership
Opposition
CA Contract Cities Association (unless amended)
Cities of Bellflower, Cerritos, Downey, Lakewood, Los Angeles,
Montebello, Norwalk, Signal Hill, Vernon, and Whittier (unless
amended)
Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG) (unless amended)
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Los Angeles Gateway Region IRWM Joint Powers Authority (unless
amended)
Analysis Prepared by : Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958