After months of discussion and protest, county supervisors are set to discuss the controversial Clean Water Clean Beaches Act on Tuesday.
The measure would add $57 per year to the tax bill for most single family homeowners in Los Angeles, and sets no limits for businesses, schools and nonprofits.
Santa Clarita City Council members say the measure is particularly egregious because city residents already pay a fee that’s in compliance with the state’s standards.
City Councilwoman Marsha McLean emphasized the need for all Santa Clarita Valley property owners to speak up on the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Act, joining a county supervisor and other local officials who have protested the measure since its proposal.
The measure was put off during a county Board of Supervisors meeting in January.
“In this day and age, that’s not another cost that we need to bear,” McLean said. “Especially, since we have our own program that’s in compliance with stormwater regulations. Our residents already pay the fee, so this would be double taxation so to speak.”
The city would face an increase of about $460,000 in its annual tax bill from the county because its open spaces would be taxed, she said.
City Council members already have unanimously approved a resolution condemning the fee, which adds roughly $57 a year to the fee total for single-family home lots but has no limit for what it would charge all other businesses, nonprofits and all other county properties.
For example, local school districts would face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees if the measure were to be approved.
Supervisor Michael Antonovich’s office is paying for buses for local residents who wish to voice their opinion on the measure at the March 12 hearing. The effort is being coordinated with the help of city officials at no cost to local residents.
A church estimated its cost at about $4,000, and big-lot stores such as Target or Costco could be hit with fees that would cost around $11,000 to $12,000, Vizcarra said.
The supervisor has asked for time for alternatives, but in the meantime, the City Council is expected to direct staff to file a protest on behalf of all properties owned in the city.
“One of the things (we’re looking at is) that maybe there’s a way to find one-time money so that people don’t have to be taxed,” Vizcarra said. “But we don’t know what the project is. And when you have environmental groups taking issue with taxes for environmental purposes, then you know there’s a problem.”