View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

UPDATE: Supervisors send clean water fee back to drawing board

Posted: March 12, 2013 6:34 p.m.
Updated: March 12, 2013 6:34 p.m.

Speakers at Tuesday's meeting of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors are sworn in before addressing the board about the proposed "Clean Water, Clean Beaches" storm water cleanup fee. More than 100 speakers talked during the three-hour public hearing, which ended with supervisors voting to not move forward with the fee. Signal photo by...

 

LOS ANGELES — After years of planning, months of discussion, more than 2 million mailers, two public hearings and hundreds of public speakers, county supervisors Tuesday voted to send the proposal for a “Clean Water, Clean Beaches” storm water cleanup fee back to the drawing board.

However, the plan for what many have called just another property tax could be back for consideration in less than a year.

Members of the board voted 4-1 Tuesday to approve a resolution by Supervisors Don Knabe and Gloria Molina that tables the proposed fee until some of the objections raised by property owners are addressed.

The motion instructs county representatives to work with businesses, school districts and others to try to work out some of the more common complaints with the fee, such as the lack of a “sunset clause” — a date when the fee would automatically end — and the lack of incentives for property owners who already have methods of reducing pollution on their land.

The motion also requires county officials to examine placing the proposed fee on a countywide ballot in 2014, either in the June or November elections.

“I am one of those that does not believe, as yet, that we are prepared to move this forward — for many reasons,” Molina said.

While supervisors voted not to proceed with the measure Tuesday, they could decide to take up the matter at a later date.

Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, who has steadfastly opposed the fee, was the only supervisor to vote against the motion, saying water cleanup is a state matter and should be funded through state sources.

“Why is this water issue on the back of the local taxpayer?” Antonovich asked. “This is a state issue.”

Among the dozens of public speakers Tuesday were several Santa Clarita officials who came to oppose the fee.
Councilman TimBen Boydston, who quipped during the January public hearing on the fee that the county was looking to tax rain, offered a few more suggestions for future taxes — sunshine and air.

“We politicians would certainly have to pay the most,” said Boydston on a hypothetical air tax. “We generate the most hot air.”

The Clean Water, Clean Beaches measure would impose an annual fee on all county property owners based on several factors — including the size and pollution potential of their properties — to fund water cleanup efforts in the county.

Those fees would average $54 a year for single-family residential properties, $250 a year for a typical convenience store or fast-food restaurant, and $11,000 a year for a typical home improvement or “big box” retailer, according to estimates from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.

Some local property owners, however, have said their notices placed their proposed fees considerably higher than the county’s estimations.

Besides Boydston, two other Santa Clarita City Council members, Laurene Weste and Marsha McLean, opposed the county fee, noting Santa Clarita already has a storm water cleanup fee, which has been in place since the 1990s.

That shows the county’s proposed fee is unfairly applied to communities, they said.

“This is double taxation in its purest form,” McLean said.

Supervisors have the option of moving forward with a vote-by-mail election for county property owners or to place the fee on the ballot in a general county election, since the owners of a majority of property parcels in the county did not send in protests against the fee.

Sachi A. Hamai, the executive officer of the Board of Supervisors, said 118,531 protest forms were received out of the more than 2.2 million land parcels in Los Angeles County.

This means the county only received about 5.18 percent of all eligible protest forms from property owners.

Lmoney@signalscv.com
661-287-5525
On Twitter @LukeMMoney

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mar. 12, 2013 06:34p.m. EDT UPDATE: Supervisors send clean water fee back to drawing board The Signal

LOS ANGELES — After years of planning, months of discussion, more than 2 million mailers, two public hearings and hundreds of public speakers, county supervisors Tuesday voted to send the proposal for a “Clean Water, Clean Beaches” storm water cleanup fee back to the drawing board.

However, the plan for what many have called just another property tax could be back for consideration in less than a year.

Members of the board voted 4-1 Tuesday to approve a resolution by Supervisors Don Knabe and Gloria Molina that tables the proposed fee until some of the objections raised by property owners are addressed.

The motion instructs county representatives to work with businesses, school districts and others to try to work out some of the more common complaints with the fee, such as the lack of a “sunset clause” — a date when the fee would automatically end — and the lack of incentives for property owners who already have methods of reducing pollution on their land.

The motion also requires county officials to examine placing the proposed fee on a countywide ballot in 2014, either in the June or November elections.

“I am one of those that does not believe, as yet, that we are prepared to move this forward — for many reasons,” Molina said.

While supervisors voted not to proceed with the measure Tuesday, they could decide to take up the matter at a later date.

Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, who has steadfastly opposed the fee, was the only supervisor to vote against the motion, saying water cleanup is a state matter and should be funded through state sources.

“Why is this water issue on the back of the local taxpayer?” Antonovich asked. “This is a state issue.”

Among the dozens of public speakers Tuesday were several Santa Clarita officials who came to oppose the fee.
Councilman TimBen Boydston, who quipped during the January public hearing on the fee that the county was looking to tax rain, offered a few more suggestions for future taxes — sunshine and air.

“We politicians would certainly have to pay the most,” said Boydston on a hypothetical air tax. “We generate the most hot air.”

The Clean Water, Clean Beaches measure would impose an annual fee on all county property owners based on several factors — including the size and pollution potential of their properties — to fund water cleanup efforts in the county.

Those fees would average $54 a year for single-family residential properties, $250 a year for a typical convenience store or fast-food restaurant, and $11,000 a year for a typical home improvement or “big box” retailer, according to estimates from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.

Some local property owners, however, have said their notices placed their proposed fees considerably higher than the county’s estimations.

Besides Boydston, two other Santa Clarita City Council members, Laurene Weste and Marsha McLean, opposed the county fee, noting Santa Clarita already has a storm water cleanup fee, which has been in place since the 1990s.

That shows the county’s proposed fee is unfairly applied to communities, they said.

“This is double taxation in its purest form,” McLean said.

Supervisors have the option of moving forward with a vote-by-mail election for county property owners or to place the fee on the ballot in a general county election, since the owners of a majority of property parcels in the county did not send in protests against the fee.

Sachi A. Hamai, the executive officer of the Board of Supervisors, said 118,531 protest forms were received out of the more than 2.2 million land parcels in Los Angeles County.

This means the county only received about 5.18 percent of all eligible protest forms from property owners.

Lmoney@signalscv.com
661-287-5525
On Twitter @LukeMMoney

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright 2011 MorrisMultimedia . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Comments

ohhyaa: Posted: March 12, 2013 4:59 p.m.

I mailed in the protest form from the newsletter that was sent in December. Yes, it does look like Junk mail. Sort of like the annual water quality report that comes from the city. It was also scummy that we had to provide our own envelope and stamp, obviously the County wanted to sneek this through.

What concerns me, after reading this article, is that only 5.16% of the forms were returned. So, based on the number above OVER TWO MILLION FORMS WERE MAILED. I just don't believe that 2.2 million forms were really mailed. I say audit the bozos in charge of this scam. I smell a skunk.


lars: Posted: March 12, 2013 8:10 p.m.

Thank you for shelving this issue.

When we file our income taxes, we have the option of checking boxes that we would like money from our tax return to go to various country and state causes.

Please take this as an opportunity to easily add a choice to our property tax bill, the following statement.

Please check here if you would like an additional $54, $250, or $11,000
property tax fee to pay for stormwater cleanup.

That is the most honest approach. If the majority of taxpayers check that box, then you will get your money.
If the majority do not check that box, then you do not.


LosRubios: Posted: March 13, 2013 12:14 a.m.

I suspect that this also has a lot to do with the fact that Prop 30 or whatever the tax increase was that the Charlie Beck TV commercials were promoting the support of last week was shot down by LA City voters, despite the fact that the pro tax supports heavily outspent the tax opponents. I think there is a sense that the California voters are finally fed up of being taxed on the basis of these 'the world will end' scare tactics.


ricketzz: Posted: March 13, 2013 9:30 a.m.

I still have no idea what the county is proposing to do with the money. How are they going to clean a flash flood in real time? Will it do any good? Is this just "make work" for idle contractor GOBs?


BBennetts: Posted: March 13, 2013 10:37 a.m.

I guess we know it's an election year because Weste and McLean are out trying to make public appearances. Were they even at the last meeting? I guess with people announcing their intentions to run, they are out campaigning early this year. Let's see through this ruse this election year.


lars: Posted: March 13, 2013 3:53 p.m.

BB, look at the article on the million dollar fence. This is just another waste of taxpayer money that is sunk into downtown newhall. The grandmothers are in the picture. We dont need 80 year old representatives for santa clarita.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...