BILL ANALYSIS ACA 10 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 28, 2009 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Kevin De Leon, Chair ACA 10 (Torlakson) - As Introduced: February 11, 2009 Policy Committee: Revenue & Taxation Vote: 5-3 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill lowers the constitutional vote requirement for approval of a special tax to be levied by an education finance district (as established pursuant to AB 267) from two-thirds to a majority. Specifically, this bill: 1)Authorizes an education finance district, with the approval of a majority of voters, to impose, extend, or increase a special tax within its jurisdiction. 2)Requires a special tax imposed by the education finance district to not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate approved. FISCAL EFFECT 1)Moderate GF costs of about $220,000 in 2009-10 to the Secretary of State to place this measure in the statewide election voter pamphlet. This estimate assumes about four pages at $55,000 per page. 2)Potentially substantial education finance district special tax revenue increase, to the extent that lowering the voter approval threshold from two-thirds to a majority results in the approval of more special tax measures. COMMENTS 1)Background . Constitutional requirements for voter approval of tax measures were initiated with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, and solidified with the passage of Proposition 218 in ACA 10 Page 2 1996. The latter measure clarified that general taxes for general governmental purposes require approval of a majority of voters, while special taxes for any specified purposes must be approved by two-thirds of voters. AB 267 (Torlakson), pending on the Assembly floor, defines an "education finance district" as any one of the following: (a) three or more contiguous school districts located wholly or partially within the same county and (b) two districts within a county containing only these two school districts. Likewise, the measure provides that for a school district that is the only one in located in a county, the district may join two or more contiguous districts in adjoining counties to form an education finance district. AB 267 also requires school districts that form an education finance district to enter into mutual agreements with one another and adopt resolutions with respective governing boards, as specified. According to the author, "According to the latest Public Policy Institute of California survey: "When it comes to deciding how money from the state government should be spent in local public schools, about eight in 10 residents believe decisions should be made locally (49% local school districts, 33% local schools) rather than by the state (13%)." The author further argues that "parcel taxes have not been used successfully across the school district demographic spectrum. About 90% of the parcel tax elections between 1983 and 2006 were held in districts that were below the state average of 49% low-income students. According to EdSource, a possible explanation for this is that wealthier communities are either better able or more willing to tax themselves to improve their schools. In order to encourage better equity between wealthier communities and lower-income communities, [this bill] will require school districts to band together in order to levy a parcel tax with a majority vote. [This measure], with the creation of education finance districts, will also encourage partnerships between school districts that encourage "economy of scale" decisions on a wide variety of programmatic and operational costs." ACA 10 Page 3 This bill lowers the constitutional voter threshold from two-thirds to a majority for education finance districts to pass a special tax; however, this measure will not be operative without AB 267 (Torlakson), which creates an education finance district. Likewise, this measure allows virtually all school districts in the state to establish an education finance district, including San Francisco Unified School District which is the only school district located within one county. 2)Under existing law , a school district may impose a qualified special tax within that district; however, the special tax must apply uniformly to all taxpayers (other than persons over the age of 65) or real property within the district and must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of the district. A parcel tax is a flat fee imposed by a city, county, or special district on each parcel, residential as well as commercial, rather than on the assessed value of property, located within the local entity's jurisdiction. According to EdSource, 21 school parcel tax propositions were placed on the November 4, 2008 ballot by the same number of school districts. 17 of those parcel tax propositions were approved, ranging from $23 per parcel in Santa Barbara County to $193 per parcel in Marin County. 1)Similar legislation . SCA 6 (Simitian), pending in the Elections Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee, lowers the constitutional vote requirement for approval of a parcel tax from 2/3 to a 55% majority. Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916) 319-2081