BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Dave Cox, Chair
BILL NO: AB 2554 HEARING: 6/30/10
AUTHOR: Brownley FISCAL: No
VERSION: 4/8/10 CONSULTANT:
Weinberger
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTS' 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
or registered voters.
AB 2554 -- 4/8/10 -- Page 2
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 in the County's
unincorporated areas, in compliance with Article XIII D of
the California Constitution, to pay the costs and expenses
of the District and to carry out the purposes of the
district.
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
AB 2554 -- 4/8/10 -- Page 3
the funds to pay for the District's costs.
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
infrastructure within incorporated and unincorporated Los
Angeles County. Storm water and urban runoff drain into
the LACFCD'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.
2. Is a fee necessary ? The District already has the
authority to impose both special taxes and benefit
assessments. Under Proposition 218, a special tax needs
2/3-voter approval and benefit assessments need weighted
majority property owner 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.
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, it can't impose the fee.
4. 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
AB 2554 -- 4/8/10 -- Page 4
never heard by a policy committee.
5. 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.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Local Government Committee: 6-2
Assembly Floor: 48-28
Support and Opposition (6/24/10)
Support : County of Los Angeles, Association of California
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.