BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 715
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 715 (Dickinson)
As Amended June 16, 2014
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(May 28, 2013) |SENATE: |35-0 |(July 3, 2014) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Authorizes the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
(SAFCA) to make specified changes to existing benefit assessment
districts pursuant to the requirements put in place by
Proposition 218 (1996).
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill,
and instead:
1)Define that "change" includes "correct, alter, modify, add,
omit, increase, decrease, extend, or any other change."
2)Authorize SAFCA to change, at any time, any of the following:
a) The boundaries of an assessment district established by
SAFCA;
b) Any project identified in a report prepared by SAFCA in
order to form an assessment district;
c) Any assessment levied by SAFCA; and,
d) Any act, determination, or provision by SAFCA or the
board with respect to any assessment district established
by SAFCA.
3)Require any proceeding for any change described in 2) above,
to be initiated, conducted, and completed consistent with:
a) Article XIII D of the California Constitution;
b) The Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act; and,
c) The procedures provided in existing law for SAFCA for
AB 715
Page 2
the establishment of an assessment district, except as
specified in 4) and 5) below.
4)Require in proceedings to annex territory to an existing
assessment district that the resolution, report, notices of
hearing, right of majority protest and election are limited to
the territory proposed to be annexed.
5)Allow SAFCA in proceedings to detach an area from an existing
assessment district or dissolve an existing assessment
district, to dispense with the preparation and approval of the
report required pursuant to existing law at the formation of a
new assessment district.
6)Prohibit SAFCA from undertaking any change with respect to any
assessment district while the bonds secured by the assessment
levied in that assessment district are outstanding, unless the
board determines in a resolution of intention with respect to
the change that it will not interfere with the timely
retirement of the bonds.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill revised appellate review of
certain summary judgment issues.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)Sacramento Flood Control Agency (SAFCA). SAFCA, formed in
1990, is a joint powers agency comprised of Sacramento County,
Sutter County, the City of Sacramento, Sacramento County Water
Agency, Sutter County Water Agency, Reclamation District No.
1000, and the American River Flood Control District. SAFCA is
responsible for coordinating a regional effort to finance,
provide, and maintain facilities and works necessary to ensure
a reasonable and prudent level of flood protection in
designated residential, commercial, or industrial areas within
its boundaries and for providing local assurances and
participating in cost sharing for federal flood control
projects. SAFCA is governed by the Sacramento Area Flood
Control Agency Act enacted by the Legislature in 1990 (SB 46
(Garamendi), Chapter 510).
Current law authorizes SAFCA to levy assessments,
reassessments, or special taxes and to issue bonds to finance
AB 715
Page 3
the acquisition, construction, maintenance, or operation of
authorized flood control facilities. SAFCA may levy
assessments, reassessments, or special taxes, and issue bonds
pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, the Improvement Bond
Act of 1915, the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, the
Benefit Assessment Act of 1982, the Integrated Financing
District Act, the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982,
and the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985. SAFCA's
special act also establishes another process that SAFCA may
use, as an alternative or in addition to its other powers, to
levy assessments and issue bonds. Unlike some other state
laws authorizing local governments to levy benefit
assessments, current law does not explicitly authorize SAFCA
to make changes to an existing assessment district.
2)Purpose of this bill. This bill authorizes SAFCA to make
changes to the boundaries, projects, assessments, and any act,
determination or provision by SAFCA with respect to any
existing assessment districts established by SAFCA. Under
this bill, SAFCA must comply with the requirements in Article
XIII D of the California Constitution, the Proposition 218
Omnibus Implementation Act, and the requirements in existing
law for SAFCA to initiate, conduct, and complete proceedings
for any change. This bill defines the term "change" to
include "correct, alter, modify, add, omit, increase,
decrease, extend, or any other change."
This bill also requires that, in proceedings to annex
territory to an existing assessment district, the resolutions,
report, notices of hearing, right of majority protest, and any
election must be limited to the territory proposed to be
annexed. In proceedings to detach an area from an existing
assessment district or dissolve an existing assessment
district, SAFCA may dispense with the preparation and approval
of the report that is required as part of the process to
establish a district. This bill prohibits SAFCA from making a
change to any assessment district while the bond secured by
the assessments levied in that assessment district are
outstanding, unless SAFCA's board determines in the resolution
of intention with respect to the change that it will not
interfere with the bonds' timely retirement. This bill is
sponsored by SAFCA.
3)Author's statement. According to the author, "Now that the
[United States] President has signed legislation authorizing
AB 715
Page 4
the Natomas Levee Project, the local community must begin
working on coming up with the local share of the costs. SAFCA
has two assessment districts in place already. Funds from
those assessments have gone toward work currently completed on
the Natomas Levee project. SAFCA could create another
assessment district. This is time consuming and expensive.
Or, as this [bill] envisions, SAFCA could modify one of the
existing districts and save the time and expense of a third
district. This 'new' district would have to be voted upon and
approved by the local residents, and it is subject to the
requirements of Article XIII D of the California Constitution
and Proposition 218."
4)Benefit Assessments and Proposition 218. Special assessment
districts (also called benefit assessments) have a long
history in California. Until the Great Depression of the
1930s, special assessments were a major municipal financing
tool. However, economic conditions during the depression
caused landowners to default on assessments, which then
resulted in difficulty paying off the bonds backed by the
assessments. From that time until the passage of Proposition
13 (1978), special assessments were rarely used because local
governments relied upon property taxes for income.
Post-Proposition 13, assessments gained momentum as a new
source of funding.
Most of the special assessment acts provide for the issuance
of bonds, generally secured by the property within the
district, and then the bonded indebtedness is repaid with
money generated by the assessments. Most assessments are
levied against real property, and are generally collected on
the property tax roll, secured by a lien against the assessed
property, and subject to Proposition 218.
Proposition 218 distinguishes among taxes, assessments and
fees for property-related revenues, and requires certain
actions before such revenues may be collected. Counties and
other local agencies with police powers may impose any one of
these options on property owners, after completing the
Proposition 218 process. Special districts created by
statute, however, must have specific authority for each of
these revenue sources.
5)Arguments in support. Supporters argue that this bill
authorizes SAFCA to increase an assessment, extend its term,
AB 715
Page 5
and change the boundaries of an existing assessment district
in compliance with existing law, including Proposition 218.
6)Arguments in opposition. None on file.
7)Substantially amended. The subject matter of this bill has
not been heard in any Assembly policy committee this
legislative session.
Analysis Prepared by : Misa Yokoi-Shelton / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0004173