.
Feedback

Proposed County Measure Would Tax for Stormwater Clean Up Projects

County property owners recently received mailers on a proposed tax measure to cover costs for improving water quality and reducing pollution.

The Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure creates a pool of money for stormwater clean up projects by taxing county property owners.

Click here for the tax proposal ballot.

Property owners should have received notification in their mail boxes by with how much their annual tax would be by now.

A typical single-family homeowner would pay about $54 on average and condominium owners $20 or less, according to Phil Doudar, project manager for the initiative. About 90 percent of parcel owners would likely pay less than $100, though large commercial property owners could pay thousands of dollars.

If approved, property owners would be charged an annual fee to cover costs associated with improving water quality and reducing pollution from urban runoff.

Department of Public Works Director Gail Farber warned earlier this year that county waterways are choked with trash, infection-causing bacteria, toxic chemicals, lead, copper and other metals, oil and grease.

As proposed, the measure would raise about $276 million annually to be split between Los Angeles County's Flood Control District, nine watershed areas set up to manage cleanup projects and the rest of the cities that make up the county.

The Flood Control District spent an estimated $340 million to control pollutants in fiscal year 2010-11, according to Farber, who has estimated the cost of complying with existing water-quality regulations to be in the billions of dollars.

But supervisors Michael Antonovich and Don Knabe objected to what they called a tax on residents, saying funding should come from the federal or state government.

Antonovich and Knabe voted against the proposal in July, arguing that it should be put to voters in a future election rather than to property owners via a mail-in ballot.

"It really is disingenuous,'' Knabe said. "Clearly the intent of  this piece of mail is to look like junk mail.''

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who backs the measure disagreed, saying it looks much like rate increase notices from local utilities.

Environmental groups, as well as representatives of the City's Department of Engineering also back the proposal, saying it will create funding for local projects that can also prevent flooding and recycle water.

The notice is just the first step in the approval process.

A public hearing on the matter is scheduled for Jan. 15 during the board's regular weekly meeting at 9:30 a.m.

If a majority of property owners protest the fee in writing before the end of that meeting, the fee will not be imposed.

If a majority do not object, a ballot would be mailed to property owners. And if a majority of ballots returned are in favor of the measure, the fee would be charged.

More information is available at www.lacountycleanwater.org. 

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Cerritos-Artesia Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Anna HOy May 20, 2013 at 04:17 pm
I’m thrilled to be walking in the Avon Walk this year! Please support me by donating to myRead More fundraising campaign today – help save lives! I am still collecting donation for my Avon Walk, so let’s make a deal! If you make a donation, I’ll do all of the walking! Make a donation today! http://info.avonfoundation.org/site/TR/Walk/LosAngeles?px=6872280&pg=personal&fr_id=2240
Local Person March 9, 2013 at 01:08 am
Perfect.
Hello world March 8, 2013 at 04:24 pm
When it comes to the FREE newspaper (or anything else that's free) -- the old saying applies: YouRead More get what you pay for.
Jose Gonzalez March 7, 2013 at 08:49 pm
To call this "rag" a newspaper is a joke. They only put partial truths, always sided to aRead More covert friend of the writer and never have done the background investigation to be able to establish validity!