Amy Sparrow

Background

About Amy Sparrow

Amy Sparrow has over 20 years experience in public finance law, in both litigation and advisory roles. Amy’s advisory experience includes review of utility rate-making analyses for water, sewer, solid waste, and electric utilities throughout the state, along with rate studies for groundwater and stormwater fees, focusing on compliance with Proposition 218 and Proposition 26. She also advises on property-related assessments, transactions and use tax, transient occupancy tax, franchise fees, impact fees for new development under the Mitigation Fee Act, fees imposed by tourism improvement districts under the Property and Business Improvement Law of 1994, and special taxes imposed under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act. Her background in mathematics allows her to effectively communicate with both engineering consultants and public agency staff, resulting in refinement of rate studies to achieve transparency and compliance with public finance requirements. Her California local litigation background includes Proposition 218 and Proposition 26 utility rate and assessment disputes, along with property tax, sales tax, and utility users tax controversies. Amy drafted a winning brief before the California Supreme Court in Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, a class action challenge to the taxation of charges for telecommunication services that settled prior to a ruling on class certification. Her Proposition 218 litigation experience includes the defense of a writ challenge to the taxation of charges for cellular service in AB Cellular LA v. City of Los Angeles, in addition to Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Fresno, a utility user fee controversy, and Beutz v. County of Riverside, an assessment controversy. Amy also defended numerous cities sued in Sipple v. City of Hayward, a quasi-class refund claim for allegedly overpaid telephone taxes, drafted portions of a successful demurrer without leave to amend in Green Valley Landowner Association v. City of Vallejo, a case seeking to compel subsidized water rates in violation of Proposition 218, and drafted a successful appellate brief in Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, a Proposition 218 challenge to groundwater augmentation charges. She represented the City of Redding in Citizens for Fair REU Rates v. City of Redding, a Proposition 26 case in which the California Supreme Court upheld a transfer from an electric utility to a city’s general fund, because wholesale revenues were sufficient to fund the transfer.