BILL ANALYSIS
ACA 10
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ACA 10 (Torlakson)
As Amended April 5, 2010
2/3 vote
REVENUE & TAXATION 5-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Charles Calderon, Beall, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Coto, Ma, Saldana | |Calderon, Davis, Fuentes, |
| | | |Hall, John A. Perez, Price, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Krekorian |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+----------------------------|
|Nays:|DeVore, Harkey, Nielsen |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, |
| | | |Audra Strickland |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Proposes an amendment to the California Constitution
to lower the constitutional vote requirement for approval of a
special tax to be levied by a school district from two-thirds to
a majority of the district voters. Specifically, this bill :
1)Modifies Section 2(d) of Article XIII C of the California
Constitution to authorize a school district, to impose,
extend, or increase a special tax within its jurisdiction by a
majority of the voters voting on the proposition.
2)Specifies that a special tax imposed by a school district is
not deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate
not higher than the maximum rate so approved.
3)Makes clarifying, non-substantive changes to Section 4 of
Article XIII A, Section 2 of Article XIII C, and Section 3 of
Article XIII D of the California Constitution.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes cities, counties, and special districts to impose a
general tax for general governmental purposes with the
approval of a majority of the voters.
2)Prohibits special purpose districts and agencies, including
ACA 10
Page 2
schools districts, from levying a general tax.
3)Authorizes cities, counties, and special districts to impose a
special tax for specified purposes with the approval of
two-thirds of the voters.
4)Does not allow cities, counties, or special districts to
impose an ad valorem tax on real property or a transactions
tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within that
city, county, or special district.
5)Allows school districts, community college districts, and
county offices of education to issue bonded indebtedness for
school facilities with 55% approval.
FISCAL EFFECT : Committee staff estimates:
1)Moderate one-time General Fund costs of about $220,000 to
place this measure in the statewide election voter pamphlet.
This estimate assumes about four pages at $55,000 per page.
2)A potentially substantial school district special tax revenue
increase, to the extent that lowering the voter approval
threshold from two-thirds vote to a majority vote results in
the approval of more special tax measures.
COMMENTS : The author states that, "California's budget crisis
must be resolved without breaking the state's commitment to
education. Local revenue generation and local control for our
schools must be a component to how we get ourselves out of this
budget mess. The lower school bond threshold has been
instrumental in reviving California's school facilities. A
majority vote for [school] districts promises to similarly
rebuild the education of our children."
The proponents argue that local communities should be able to
explore local resources to meet local priorities and that the
two-thirds vote requirement allows a minority of voters to
thwart the will of the majority. They assert that ACA 10 would
give [school] districts the tools necessary to navigate these
uncertain economic times, by addressing their needs at the local
level and relying less on the timely passage of a state budget.
ACA 10 provides an important option for local schools and their
communities to work together to raise desperately needed
revenues by a simple majority of the voters, rather than the
ACA 10
Page 3
current constitutional requirement of a two-thirds vote.
The opponents argue that the voters of California have clearly
stated that special taxes should only be approved by a
two-thirds vote and that ACA 10 runs counter to the expressed
views of Californians. The opponents believe that a two-thirds
vote requirement ensures that tax increases are a last resort
and argue that long-standing taxpayer protections should not be
thwarted based on the need for revenue.
Committee staff notes all of the following:
1)Constitutional requirements for voter approval of local taxes
were initiated with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978,
followed by Proposition 62, which was approved by voters in
1986. Proposition 62 guaranteed that all local tax increases
be approved by voters. After Proposition 62, local
governments resorted to the use of fees and assessments, which
did not require voter approval, to fill the void. Ten years
later, in 1996, the passage of Proposition 218 added Articles
XIII C and XIII D, providing voters with control over taxes
regardless of whether they were called assessments, fees, or
charges. Proposition 218 also included a provision requiring
that special taxes receive two-thirds approval of the
electorate. In 2000, however, Proposition 39 provided a
narrow exception to the two-thirds vote requirement for
special taxes by authorizing the passage of local school
construction bond measures by approval of 55% of voters.
2)ACA 10 would amend the California Constitution to remove the
two-thirds vote requirement for special taxes imposed,
extended, or increased by a school district, and would replace
it with a majority vote requirement. The author maintains
that local school districts lost substantial control over
their own finances with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.
The author argues that ACA 10, together, would broaden
opportunities for local school districts to raise local
revenues through a majority vote. According to Ed Source,
between 1983 and November 2006, voters voted on 414 parcel tax
proposals. Out of 414 elections, voters approved 211 parcel
taxes and 166 proposals received a majority vote but not the
necessary two-thirds vote approval. The author asserts that,
under a majority vote scenario, those 166 proposed taxes would
have been approved, bringing the success rate for local tax
approval to over 90%.
ACA 10
Page 4
3)If approved by the Legislature, this measure would appear on
the next statewide election ballot and, if approved, would
take effect as soon as the election results are certified.
Related legislation. SCA 18 (Torlakson), introduced in the
2007-08 legislative session, would have reduced the vote
threshold for special taxes levied by an education finance
district from two-thirds to a majority of the electorate. SCA
18 died in the Senate.
Analysis Prepared by : M. David Ruff / REV. & TAX. / (916)
319-2098
FN: 0003748