BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2170|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2170
Author: Mullin (D)
Amended: 6/17/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/11/14
AYES: Wolk, Beall, DeSaulnier, Hernandez, Liu
NOES: Knight, Walters
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 44-26, 4/28/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Joint powers authorities: common powers
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill specifies that the common powers that
public agencies may jointly exercise pursuant to a joint powers
agreement include the authority to levy a fee, assessment, or a
tax.
ANALYSIS : The Joint Exercise of Powers Act allows two or more
public agencies to enter an agreement to jointly exercise any
power held in common by the parties to the agreement. Each
public agency must independently possess the authority to
perform the activity that is to be performed jointly pursuant to
a joint powers agreement. The courts have found that the Act
grants no new powers to public agencies, but merely sets up a
new procedure for the exercise of existing powers.
Sometimes an agreement creates a new, separate government called
CONTINUED
AB 2170
Page
2
a joint powers authority (JPA). Public officials have created
more than 700 JPAs, which are confederations of governments
working together for common purposes. A joint powers agreement
must 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 for in
the agreement.
This bill specifies that the common powers that public agencies
may jointly exercise pursuant to a joint powers agreement
include, but are not limited to, the authority to levy a fee,
assessment, or a tax.
This bill enacts a legislative finding and declaration stating
that, because a JPA has all powers common to the contracting
parties, so long as those powers are specified in the joint
powers agreement, the bill's provision do not constitute a
change in, but are declaratory of, existing law.
Comments
Several JPAs in California already impose taxes, fees, or
assessments using powers that are held in common by all of the
public agencies participating in those JPAs. However, some
local officials are reluctant to use a JPA to levy taxes,
assessments, or fees because the Joint Exercise of Powers Act
does not explicitly extend that authority to JPAs. In response
to this statutory ambiguity, and the conflicting legal
interpretations that it invites, this bill clarifies that JPAs
may, consistent with their existing authority under the Joint
Exercise of Powers Act; raise revenues through fees or taxes to
fund important community projects. Because a JPA only allows
public agencies to exercise their existing powers, this bill
does not grant any new revenue powers to local governments.
This bill also does not change any of the voter-approval
thresholds or other procedural requirements that state law
imposes on local, taxes, assessments, and fees.
Related legislation
Assembly Bill 418 (Mullin) allows the City/County Association of
Governments of San Mateo County, a JPA, to impose a special tax
or property-related fee to fund storm water management programs.
AB 2170
Page
3
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/11/14)
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
John Stewart Company
League of California Cities
MuniServices
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
San Francisco Planning and Urban Research
SPUR
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/17/14)
California Chamber of Commerce
California Taxpayers Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "AB 2170
simply makes clear that JPAs may, consistent with their existing
authority, increase revenue for important community projects
subject to all voter approval requirements provided under
Proposition 218.
"AB 2170 provides that the parties to the JPA may exercise any
power common to the contracting parties, including, but not
limited to, the authority to levy a fee or tax."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association opposes this bill and writes, "AB 2170 would give
joint powers authorities (JPA) 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."
AB 2170
Page
4
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 44-26, 4/28/14
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta,
Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau,
Chesbro, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Garcia, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hall, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine,
Lowenthal, Mullin, Nazarian, Pan, Perea, Quirk, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber,
Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Ch�vez, Conway, Dahle,
Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Gatto, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Harkey,
Jones, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Melendez, Muratsuchi,
Nestande, Patterson, Quirk-Silva, Salas, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooley, Dababneh, Fox, Frazier, Roger
Hern�ndez, Mansoor, Medina, Olsen, V. Manuel P�rez, Vacancy
AB:d 7/11/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****