BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2554
Page 1
REPLACE - 6/1/2010 - Technical change (vote)
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2554 (Brownley)
As Amended April 8, 2010
Majority vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Caballero, Arambula, | | |
| |Bradford, Davis, Solorio, | | |
| |Ruskin | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Knight, Logue | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Authorizes the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District (District) to impose a fee, in the unincorporated area
of Los Angeles County (County), to pay the cost and expenses of
carrying out projects and providing services authorized under
existing law. Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes the District to impose a fee, in the unincorporated
area of the County, in compliance with Proposition 218, to pay
the costs and expenses of carrying out projects and providing
services authorized under the District's Act.
2)Requires any fee that is imposed to be levied and collected
together with, and not separately from, taxes for county
purposes.
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
AB 2554
Page 2
COMMENTS : Article XIII D 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.
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.
The County includes six major watersheds, significant amounts of
coastline and multiple lakes and rivers. Consequently, the
County and the 85 cities within the District are subject to
numerous Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements under the
federal Clean Water Act (CWA), which necessitate a regional
approach to TMDL mitigation that is coordinated with and
supportive of individual cities' water quality improvement
efforts.
According to the author's office, this bill would authorize the
District to put a fee on the local ballot, asking voters to
raise revenue to fund clean water projects and carry out the
essential duties of the District. According to the sponsors,
the County faces critical and very costly stormwater and urban
runoff pollution challenges as mandated by the CWA. Runoff
containing trash and bacteria not only negatively impacts water
quality, but is harmful to the public health and economic
vitality of all communities in the region. Increased funding
for necessary environmental projects will help keep waters clean
and spur green job creation.
The May 7, 2009, version of AB 139 (Brownley), which was never
heard by a policy committee, would have a) authorized the
District to impose a fee to pay the cost and expenses of
carrying out projects and providing services to improve water
AB 2554
Page 3
quality and reduce stormwater and urban runoff in the District;
and, b) provided for a division of those fees collected between
the District and other jurisdictions within the boundaries of
the District. AB 554 (Nava), Chapter 510, Statutes of 2005,
authorized the Ventura County Watershed Protection District to
levy a fee on taxable real property both districtwide and by
zone.
Support Arguments: Supporters argue that this bill gives the
District another tool in the tool box in order to help combat
urban stormwater runoff and its environmental impacts. It is
costly to maintain TMDL requirements and any additional revenues
that can help assist in this effort would greatly help the
District.
Opposition Arguments: Opposition might argue that
unincorporated areas of the County are not the only areas that
have to manage stormwater runoff and that any effort to solve
this issue should be done County-wide. Opposition, also argues
that this measure expands a fee authority only currently
authorized for one other flood control district.
Analysis Prepared by : Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0004107