BILL ANALYSIS AB 2103 Page 1 CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS AB 2103 (Hill) As Amended June 2, 2010 Majority vote ----------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |74-0 |(May 6, 2010) |SENATE: |31-0 |(August 11, | | | | | | |2010) | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: L. GOV. SUMMARY : Prescribes the method of how the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority (Authority) places a proposal to levy a special tax before the voters of the Authority. The Senate amendments : 1)Clarify the procedures that need to be followed when the Authority places a proposal to levy a special tax before the voters of the Authority. 2)Specify that upon the approval of two-thirds of the votes cast by voters voting upon the proposal, the Authority may levy the tax. EXISTING LAW : 1)Establishes the Authority as an entity of regional government to raise and allocate resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. 2)Establishes the jurisdiction of the Authority to include all areas within the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program, which includes the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. 3)States that the Authority's purpose is to raise and allocate resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitats in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. 4)Authorizes the Authority to levy a benefit assessment, special AB 2103 Page 2 tax or property related fee consistent with the requirements of Proposition 218. AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill: 1)Required, when the Authority proposes any regional measure, the board of supervisors of each county within the boundaries of the Authority to call a special election on the regional measure. 2)Required the special election to be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled statewide election. 3)Required the regional measure to be submitted to the voters in the appropriate counties, consistent with the requirements of Article XIII C or XIII D of the California Constitution, as applicable. 4)Required that each county included in the measure shall utilize the ballot question, title and summary, and ballot language provided in the resolution of the authority. 5)Required the county clerk of each county to report the results of the special election to the Authority. 6)Provided that if cumulatively, throughout the Authority's jurisdictional boundaries, the regional measure receives the required affirmative votes as prescribed by Article XIII C or XIII D of the California Constitution, as applicable, the authority shall adopt and implement the regional measure. FISCAL EFFECT : None COMMENTS : The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority is a new regional government agency charged with raising and allocating resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline [AB 2954 (Lieber), Chapter 690, Statutes of 2008]. The Authority's mission is to formulate a strategy for raising local revenues to help restore 36,000 acres of publicly owned Bay shoreline into tidal wetlands. The estimated cost of such an endeavor is about $1.43 billion over 50 years. There is some federal and state funding available for these projects, but it is only a fraction of the need. The Authority is responsible AB 2103 Page 3 for raising additional revenue to narrow the funding gap and help leverage further federal and state funding. According to the author's office, this bill is consistent with the Legislature's intent that voting on region-wide funding mechanisms shall be decided by tabulating the votes of the whole region (all nine counties) collectively. This bill simply clarifies this intent by adding statutory language that would eliminate any remaining uncertainty and legal risk for the Authority. Support arguments: Supporters argue that this measure further clarifies the Legislature's intent to create a regional funding source for the Authority and ensures that a clear process is established for each county to follow. Opposition arguments: Opposition could argue that it should be left up to each individual county to decide if they should be assessed instead of having it decided collectively by the nine counties. Analysis Prepared by : Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0004919