BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 142
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 21, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 142 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: May 7, 2013
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:11-3
Local Government 6-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill, as proposed to be amended , updates the authority of
transit agencies to levy special benefit assessments to finance
transit projects. Specifically, this bill:
1)Repeals and recasts the authority for transit agencies to levy
a special benefit assessment on real property to finance the
acquisition, construction, development, joint development,
operation, maintenance, or repair of one or more eligible
transit projects. In doing so, the agency governing boards
must comply with public notice, protest, and hearing
procedures as specified. Owners of real property would have to
approve benefit assessments in a weighted ballot election
pursuant to Proposition 218 (1996) requirements.
2)Stipulates that benefit assessments are to be levied and
collected by the counties in conformance with county tax
collections, and authorizes counties to deduct expenses for
this collection prior to remittance to the transit agency.
3)Sunsets all of the above on January 1, 2021.
FISCAL EFFECT
No direct state costs.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Current law allows transit officials to levy
benefit assessments on real property to finance transit
SB 142
Page 2
improvements. Subsequent to the enactment of these laws,
Proposition 218 (1996) required owners of real property to
approve benefit assessments in a weighted ballot election,
i.e. property owners vote in proportion to their proposed
assessments, which reflect how much their property benefits
from the proposed public works or public services. No transit
districts have levied an assessment following the passage of
Proposition 218
2)Purpose . This bill repeals existing law that provides general
statutory authority to transit districts for the creation of
special benefit assessment districts around transit stations
and replaces it with updated authorization that reflects
current constitutional restrictions as established by
Proposition 218 and concomitant state laws subsequently
enacted. The bill is modeled after prior legislation enacted
specifically for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority.
3)Opposition . According to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association, "We believe there is an insufficient benefit
nexus to support transit funding under a 'benefit assessment'
theory. A 2008 California Supreme Court case Silicon Valley
Taxpayers' Association v. Santa Clara County Open Space
Authority (HJTA was co-counsel) notes that improvements that
merely 'enhance the overall quality of life and desirability
of the area' was not a sufficient nexus to qualify for a
benefit assessments.
4)Author's Amendment . The author proposes a seven-year sunset on
the bill's provisions and a technical amendment.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081