BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2554
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2554 (Brownley)
As Amended August 5, 2010
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |48-28|(June 1, 2010) |SENATE: |23-10|(August |
| | | | | |19,2010) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. GOV.
SUMMARY : Authorizes the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District (District) to impose a fee, in Los Angeles County
(County), to pay the cost and expenses of carrying out projects
and providing services authorized under existing law.
The Senate amendments :
1)Expand the application of the fee authorization to the entire
County, thereby authorizing the District to impose a fee, in
the County, 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.
2)Require the District to allocate the revenues as follows:
a) 10% to the District to implement and administer water
quality programs and to pay the District's costs for
levying and collecting the fee and distributing revenues;
b) 40% to Los Angeles County and to the cities within the
District, divided proportionally among each jurisdiction,
to be expended for water quality improvement programs; and,
c) 50% to nine watershed authority groups that the District
must authorize by ordinance, divided proportionally among
each watershed, to implement collaborative water quality
improvement plans or programs in the watersheds.
3)Require nine watershed authority groups to be established
under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act for the following
watersheds: Ballona Creek, Dominguez Channel, Upper Los
Angeles River, Lower Los Angeles River, Rio Hondo, Upper San
AB 2554
Page 2
Gabriel River, Lower San Gabriel River, Santa Clara River, and
Santa Monica Bay.
4)Specify that implementation of a watershed authority group's
collaborative water quality plan or program requires the
consent of any member agency whose jurisdiction comprises more
than 40% of the total land area in a watershed.
5)Require the District's governing board to adopt an ordinance
to implement its fee authority.
6)Make other technical amendments to the District's authorizing
statutes.
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.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Authorized 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)Required any fee that is imposed to be levied and collected
together with, and not separately from, taxes for county
purposes.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
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
AB 2554
Page 3
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
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 district-wide and by
zone.
AB 2554
Page 4
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 Los Angeles
County is not the only area that have to manage stormwater
runoff and that any effort to solve this issue should be done
state-wide. Opposition, also argues that this measure expands a
fee authority only currently authorized for one other flood
control district.
The subject matter of this bill has been expanded, and
therefore, provisions of this measure have not been heard in
any Assembly policy committee this legislative session.
Analysis Prepared by : Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0006527