BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2170
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 2, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 2170 (Mullin) - As Introduced: February 20, 2014
SUBJECT : Joint powers authorities: common powers.
SUMMARY : Specifies that local agencies may jointly exercise the
authority to levy a fee or tax. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that, if authorized by their legislative or other
governing bodies, two or more public agencies may, pursuant to
the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, jointly exercise the
authority to levy a fee or tax.
2)Finds and declares that, pursuant to the Joint Exercise of
Powers Act, a joint powers authority has all powers common to
the contracting parties, so long as those powers are specified
in the joint powers agreement; therefore, the amendments to
the Joint Exercise of Powers Act by this bill do not
constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows, pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, two or
more public agencies by agreement to jointly exercise any
power common to the contracting parties, as specified,
if authorized by their legislative or other governing bodies.
2)Requires, pursuant to Proposition 13, two-thirds voter
approval for a special tax.
3)Provides, pursuant to Proposition 218, specified notice,
protest, and hearing procedures for the levying of new or
increased assessments or property related fees or charges by
local government agencies.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of this bill . This bill specifies that local agencies
that enter into joint powers agreements pursuant to the Joint
Exercise of Powers Act are allowed, pursuant to that
AB 2170
Page 2
agreement, to levy a fee or tax. This bill is
author-sponsored.
2)Author's statement . According to the author, "The Joint
Exercise of Powers Act authorizes local public agencies to
exercise common powers and to form joint powers agencies (JPA)
for purposes of jointly receiving or providing specific
services. Pursuant to the Act, two or more public agencies
may by agreement jointly exercise any power common to them. A
JPA exercises the specified common powers on behalf of the
contracting agencies. The agreement must expressly state the
purpose of the JPA or the power to be exercised, and must
provide for the method by which the purpose will be
accomplished or the manner in which the power will be
exercised. A JPA may exercise only the powers expressly
provided in the agreement.
"A JPA is a public entity separate from its constituent
contracting parties. Generally, a joint powers agreement
grants no new powers, but merely sets up a new procedure for
the exercise of existing powers. A JPA is required to comply
with those procedural restrictions that apply to one of the
contracting public agencies.
"Though existing law seems to provide such authority, some
officials worry that they may lack the authority to levy taxes
or impose property related fees because the Joint Exercise of
Powers Act does not explicitly extend that authority to JPAs."
3)Joint Exercise of Powers Act . JPAs have existed in California
for nearly 100 years, and were originally created to allow
multiple local governments in a region to pool resources to
meet common needs. The Joint Exercise of Powers Act
authorizes state and local agencies to create and use a joint
powers agreement, which is a legal document that allows the
contracting parties to exercise powers that are common to all
of the contracting parties. A joint powers agreement can be
administered by one of the contracting agencies, or it can be
carried out by a new, separate public entity. Joint powers
agreements are an attractive tool for local governments
because they facilitate more efficient service provision
through collaboration, and they allow local entities to issue
bonds without voter ratification. Current law authorizes JPAs
to jointly exercise any power common to the contracting
parties, if authorized by their legislative or governing body.
However, current law is silent on a JPA's explicit authority
AB 2170
Page 3
to levy a fee or a tax.
4)The California Constitution distinguishes among taxes,
assessments and fees for property related revenues, and
requires certain actions before such revenues may be
collected. For a property related fee, Proposition 218
requires local officials to identify the parcels, calculate
the fee for each parcel, and conduct a majority protest
proceeding 45 days after mailing notice of a new fee to all
fee payers. Additionally, Article XIII D, Section 6,
subdivision (c) of the California Constitution provides that,
"Except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse
collection services, no property related fee or charge shall
be imposed or increased unless and until that fee or charge is
submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property
owners of the property subject to the fee or charge or, at the
option of the agency, by a two-thirds vote of the electorate
residing in the affected area."
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.
5)Related legislation . AB 418 (Mullin), pending in this
Committee, authorizes the City/County Association of
Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County to impose a special
tax, in compliance with Article XIII C of the California
Constitution, or to impose a property related fee, in
compliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution,
to implement stormwater management programs consistent with
the joint powers agreement of C/CAG's member agencies.
AB 2046 (Gomez), pending in this Committee, authorizes
California JPAs to issue bonds and enter into loan agreements
to finance or refinance private projects located outside this
state, as specified.
6)Arguments in support . The California State Association of
Counties and the League of California Cities, in support,
assert, "The law governing joint powers authorities has always
allowed the contracting parties to exercise any common powers,
as long as they are specified in the joint powers agreement,
therefore, the statement that the bill is declaratory of
AB 2170
Page 4
existing law is important. This bill would clarify current
law so that there could be no doubt that this authority
extends to the imposition of fees and taxes."
7)Arguments in opposition . The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association, in opposition, states, "AB 2170 would give JPAs
the authority to levy a fee or tax. Currently, it is an open
legal question whether JPA's have the authority to do this,
even if they follow the appropriate constitutional guidelines
specified under Propositions 13 & 218. While AB 2170 would
clarify this question, we believe it is unnecessary. Local
government entities do not need new revenue generating
authority. They can either approve a special tax with a
two-thirds vote, or a Proposition 218 fee or assessment with a
majority vote of the affected property owners."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California State Association of Counties
The John Stewart Company
League of California Cities
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Opposition
CalTax
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958