BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2403|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 2403
Author: Rendon (D)
Amended: 6/2/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/11/14
AYES: Wolk, Knight, Beall, DeSaulnier, Hernandez, Liu, Walters
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-1, 5/19/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Local government: assessments, fees, and charges
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill clarifies that the Proposition 218 (Prop
218) Omnibus Implementation Act's current definition of "water"
includes improvements for producing, storing, supplying,
treating, or distributing of water from any source.
ANALYSIS : Prop 218 (1996) imposed constitutional limits on
local officials' ability to impose, increase, and extend fees,
including property-related fees. Prop 218 defined a
property-related fee 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 for a property-related service. The Legislature
enacted the Prop 218 Omnibus Implementation Act to translate
many of Prop 218's requirements into statutory definitions and
procedures.
CONTINUED
AB 2403
Page
2
This bill clarifies that the Prop 218 Omnibus Implementation
Act's current definition of "water" includes improvements for
producing, storing, supplying, treating, or distributing of
water from any source.
This bill enacts legislative findings and declarations stating
that:
The provisions of the Prop 218 Omnibus Implementation Act must
be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes of limiting
local government revenue and enhancing taxpayer consent.
This bill's provisions advance specified policies established
by the California Constitution.
This bill's provisions are declaratory of existing law.
This bill makes additional technical, non-substantive amendments
to state law.
Background
Before a local government can charge a new property-related fee,
or increase an existing one, Prop 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.
New or increased property-related fees generally require:
A majority-vote of the affected property owners; or,
Two-thirds registered voter approval; or,
Weighted ballot approval by the affected property owners.
However, these vote requirements do not apply to
property-related fees for sewer, water, or refuse collection
services. Determining what services fall within the definition
of "water" services, which can be funded with fees that are not
subject to a vote, has been the subject of litigation. An
CONTINUED
AB 2403
Page
3
appellate court decision in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
v. City of Salinas (2002) found that a city's charges on
developed parcels to fund stormwater management were
property-related fees, and were not covered by the exemption for
sewer or water services. A subsequent appellate court decision
in Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (2013)
found that a groundwater augmentation charge is a fee for water
service, as defined by Prop 218.
In light of these court rulings and local governments' continued
struggles to finance storm water management, groundwater
augmentation, water conservation, and similar activities, some
local officials want the Legislature to clarify the Prop 218
Omnibus Implementation Act's definition of "water."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/12/14)
California Coastkeeper Alliance
Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund
Climate Resolve
Coalition for Our Water Future
David Nahai Consulting Service, LLC
Desert Water Agency
East Valley Water District
El Dorado Irrigation District
Heal the Bay
HOK Product Design
Horny Toad Outdoor Apparel
LA Conservation Corps
Los Angeles Waterkeeper
Natural Resources Defense Council
Richard Watson & Associates
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission
Seventh Generation Advisors
Signal Hill City Councilmember Larry Forester
Southern California Watershed Alliance
Surfrider Foundation
The Energy Coalition
The River Project
TreePeople
Urban Semillas
CONTINUED
AB 2403
Page
4
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, this
bill allows water agencies to adopt water rates for stormwater
capture programs through the simpler protest process,
facilitating programs that use stormwater for water supply. The
program in the Water Replenishment District of Southern
California (WRD) offers a good example. WRD intends to
eliminate dependence on water imported from the Delta to
replenish the Central and West Basin aquifers of Los Angeles
County. Instead, WRD will use local recycled water and captured
stormwater to replenish its basins.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-1, 5/19/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Frazier, Beth
Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray,
Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal, Maienschein,
Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Olsen, Pan, Patterson,
Perea, John A. P�rez, V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva,
Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting,
Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada,
Atkins
NOES: Fox
NO VOTE RECORDED: Donnelly, Mansoor, Nazarian, Nestande,
Vacancy
AB:k 6/12/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED