BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SCA 12|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SCA 12
Author: Torlakson (D) and Yee (D)
Amended: 6/18/07
Vote: 27
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 3-1, 6/27/07
AYES: Negrete McLeod, Kehoe, Machado
NOES: Harman
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cox
SEN. ELECTIONS, REAPP. & CONST. AMEND. CMTEE. : 3-2,
7/10/07
AYES: Migden, Padilla, Calderon
NOES: Battin, Cogdill
SUBJECT : Local government: property-related fees
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This constitutional amendment exempts new or
increased stormwater and urban runoff management fees or
charges from the California Constitutions voter approval
requirements for property-related fees and charges.
ANALYSIS : Proposition 218 of 1996 defines 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 upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of
property ownership, including a user fee or charge for a
property-related service. Before a local government can
CONTINUED
SCA 12
Page
2
charge a new property-related fee, or increase an existing
one, Proposition 218 requires local officials to:
1. Identify the parcels to be charged.
2. Calculate the fee for each parcel.
3. Notify the parcels' owners in writing about the fees and
the hearing.
4. Hold a public hearing to consider and count protests.
5. Abandon the fees if a majority of the parcels' owners
protest.
Existing law provides that further, new, or increased
property-related fees require one of the following:
1. A majority-vote of the affected property owners.
2. Two-thirds registered voter approval.
3. Weighted ballot approval by the affected property
owners.
Existing law provides however that this election
requirement does not apply to property-related fees for
sewer, water, or refuse collection services.
This constitutional amendment exempts new or increased
stormwater and urban runoff management fees or charges from
the California Constitution's voter approval requirements
for property-related fees and charges.
Background
According to the Senate Local Government Committee
analysis, California regulators are pushing counties,
cities, and special districts to reduce urban runoff and
stormwater discharges. But local officials face the
problem of how to pay for community-wide efforts without
requiring new development to pay a disproportionate share
of those costs.
In 2002, an appellate court decision in Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association v. City of Salinas found that charges
imposed by the City of Salinas 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, those fees require a vote
SCA 12
Page
3
of property owners or registered voters.
Comments
According to proponents of this constitutional amendment,
increasingly strict regulation of pollutants from
stormwater and urban runoff has significantly increased the
costs faced by local agencies responsible for controlling
those pollutants, which can contaminate drinking water,
despoil beaches, and endanger public health. Local
agencies find themselves caught between the need to expend
large amounts of money on stormwater runoff management and
Proposition 218's prohibitively high requirements for
approving fees to fund those efforts. This constitutional
amendment gives California voters the opportunity to
reverse the Salinas decision and carve out a fourth
exception to Proposition 218, which would provide a
much-needed infusion of funding for local stormwater and
runoff management programs.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/12/07)
Association of California Water Agencies
Barbara Pierce, Mayor, Redwood City
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
California Association of Environmental Health
Administrators
California Coastal Coalition
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
City and County Association of Governments, San Mateo
City of Burlingame
City of Camarillo
City of Chula Vista
City of Concord
City of Coronado
City of Covina
City of Eureka
City of Fremont
City of Livermore
SCA 12
Page
4
City of Lompoc
City of Los Angeles
City of Manteca
City of Martinez
City of Millbrae
City of Moorpark
City of Moreno Valley
City of Palo Alto
City of Redwood City
City of Roseville
City of San Leandro
City of San Pablo
City of Santa Monica
City of Saratoga
City of Signal Hill
City of Sunnyvale
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Walnut Creek
City of Woodland
Contra Costa County
Friends of the Santa Clara River
Heal the Bay
Inland Empire Waterkeeper
Irvine Ranch Water District
Lake County Board of Supervisors
League of California Cities
Ocean Conservation Society
San Joaquin County
San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper
Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County Water District
Santa Cruz County
Save the Bay
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
The River Project
Town of Los Gatos
Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/12/07)
California Taxpayers' Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
SCA 12
Page
5
AGB:mw 7/13/07 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****