BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 142
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 142 (DeSaulnier)
As Amended August 22, 2013
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :24-11
TRANSPORATION 11-3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Lowenthal, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Levine, Alejo, Bradford, |
| |Bloom, Bonta, Buchanan, | |Gordon, Mullin, Rendon |
| |Daly, Gordon, Gatto, | | |
| |Holden, Nazarian, | | |
| |Quirk-Silva | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Linder, Morrell, |Nays:|Melendez, Waldron |
| |Patterson | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, | | |
| |Bradford, | | |
| |Ian Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, | | |
| |Holden, Pan, Quirk, Weber | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow, | | |
| |Donnelly, Linder, Wagner | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Authorizes a governing board of a transit district,
municipal operator, or other public agency operating transit,
until January 1, 2021, to levy a special benefit assessment on
real property to finance the acquisition, construction,
development, operation, maintenance, or repair of eligible
transit projects. Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines the following terms:
SB 142
Page 2
a) "Benefit district" to mean "a special benefit assessment
district established" pursuant to this bill's provisions,
the area of which must not lie more than one-half mile from
the center point of any transit station or proposed transit
station;
b) "Transit station" to mean "a rail station or a bus
transfer station or a ferry terminal," which existing law
defines as an arrival, departure, or transfer point for the
area's intercity, intraregional, or interregional bus
service having permanent investment in multiple bus docking
facilities, ticketing services, and passenger shelters;
c) "Operator" to mean a "transit district, municipal
operator, or other public agency operating or contracting
for the operation of transit, commuter rail, or intercity
rail services";
d) "Board" to mean "the governing board of the operator";
e) "Eligible transit project" to mean "transit stations and
rail facilities and associated services, but excludes
operating costs of rail or transit services"; and,
f) "Rail facilities" to mean "land, buildings, and
equipment, or any interest therein, whether or not the
operation thereof produces revenue, which has, as its
primary purpose, the operation of the rail system or the
providing of services to the passengers of the rail system,
but does not mean any land, buildings, or equipment, or
interest therein, which is used primarily for the
production of revenue not arising from the operation of the
rail system."
2)Authorizes the board, by a resolution adopted by a two-thirds
vote, to provide for notice and hearing on its intention to
establish one or more special benefit districts and levy a
special benefit assessment on real property for the purpose of
financing the acquisition, construction, development, joint
development, operation, maintenance, or repair of one more or
more eligible transit projects located within the benefit
district.
3)Authorizes an operator other than a transit district, city, or
SB 142
Page 3
county to implement a special benefit district under this
chapter only if the action is consistent with the general or
specific plans of the city or county within which the special
benefit district is to be created.
4)Requires the board to comply with the notice, protest, and
hearing procedures in the Proposition 218 Omnibus
Implementation Act to levy a special benefit assessment.
5)States the resolution may provide that the proposed benefit
district will contain separate zones, which may consist of
contiguous or noncontiguous areas of land within the service
area of the operator. Requires the proposed benefit district
and each proposed zone, if any, to be an area adjacent to or
in the vicinity of one or more transit stations or proposed
transit stations. Requires the boundaries of the benefit
district of each zone, if any, to be drawn to reflect as
accurately as possible the areas where special benefits are
conferred by reason of the proximity and operation of one or
more transit stations.
6)Requires a notice stating the time and place of the hearing
and the boundaries and purpose of the proposed benefit
district to be published, as specified.
7)Requires the resolution to state the following:
a) The minimum and maximum rate of assessments;
b) The amount of the special benefit assessment;
c) The purposes for which the special benefit assessment is
to be levied;
d) The estimated cost of accomplishing the purposes;
e) The dates or approximate intervals at which the
assessments are levied;
f) That the exterior boundaries of the benefit district are
set forth on a map on file with the operator, which governs
the extent of the benefit district and zones;
g) The name of the benefit district and any zones
SB 142
Page 4
designated by the board; and,
h) That a copy of the resolution must be included with the
notice given pursuant to the Proposition 218 Omnibus
Implementation Act.
8)Requires the board, in determining the amount of a special
benefit assessment, to measure the benefit to real property in
the benefit district or zones pursuant to the procedures and
approval process in Section 4 of Article XIIID of the
Constitution (Proposition 218).
9)Requires the special benefit assessments in the benefit
district and zones to be calculated in accordance with the
requirements in Section 4 of Article XIIID of the Constitution
(Proposition 218).
10)Requires the revenue from a special benefit assessment or
from bonds secured by a special benefit assessment to be used
only for financing the project for which it was levied.
11)Allows the owner of a parcel, if any parcel owner in the
benefit district is in a joint tenancy, tenancy in common or
any other multiple ownership, to designate in writing which
one of the owners shall be deemed the owner of the parcel for
the purposes of submitting an assessment ballot pursuant to
the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act. Specifies in
the absence of a designation, the Proposition 218 Omnibus
Implementation Act shall apply.
12)Authorizes the board to levy the assessment in accordance
with the resolution if a majority does not protest the
imposition of the assessment.
13)Allows a real property owner, or their legal representative,
to jointly or severally file a petition with the board to
request that their property be excluded from a benefit
district on the ground that the property does not benefit or
reduced on the ground that the assessment exceeds the benefit
to the property. Requires the petition to include specific
information about the property and a map depicting its
location in relation to the benefit district.
14)Requires the board to provide specified notification of each
SB 142
Page 5
hearing on the petition for exclusion or reduction.
15)Requires the board, or its appointed hearing officer, at the
properly noticed hearing on the petition for exclusion or
reduction, to hear the following:
a) The petition for exclusion or reduction;
b) All evidence or proof that may be introduced by or on
behalf of the petitioners;
c) All objections to the petition that may be presented in
writing by any person, including the authority; and,
d) All evidence or proof that may be introduced in support
of objections to the petition.
16)Requires the persons filing the petition to pay the expenses
of giving the notice and hearing on the exclusion or reduction
petition.
17)Requires the board, or upon the record of hearing by a
hearing officer, to order the petition be denied if the
petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that in an exclusion petition the real property is not
benefited or in a reduction petition that the assessment
exceeds the benefit to the property.
18)Requires the board, after the hearing on an exclusion or
reduction petition, to take one of the following actions by
resolution:
a) Order the exclusion of all or any part of the real
property described in the exclusion petition upon a finding
that the property will not benefit by the operations of the
operator in the vicinity of the benefit district;
b) Order a change in the benefit assessment to all or any
portion of the real property described in the reduction
petition to provide that it not exceed the amount of
benefit derived by the operations of the operator in the
vicinity of the benefit district; or,
c) Confirm the assessment on the real property subject to
SB 142
Page 6
the petition as correctly reflecting the amount of benefit
to the real property.
19)Authorizes the board, if they deem it necessary to incur
bonded indebtedness for the acquisition, construction,
development, joint development, completion, operation,
maintenance or repair of one or more eligible transit
facilities located within the benefit district, by resolution
passed by a two-thirds vote to provide that the bonded
indebtedness shall be payable from special benefit
assessments.
20)Requires the resolution to declare and state the following:
a) That the board intends to incur indebtedness for the
benefit district;
b) The purpose for which the debt is to be incurred;
c) The estimated costs and the amount of principal of
indebtedness;
d) That the general description and maps of the benefit
district and of each zone are on file with the operator and
available for inspection;
e) That the special benefit assessments for the payment of
the bonds are levied pursuant to the procedures and
approval process of Section 4 of Article XIIID of the
Constitution (Proposition 218);
f) The time and place for the hearing on the proposed
issuance of bonds;
g) That the board is required to comply with the
Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act prior to levying
a special benefit assessment;
h) The maximum term the proposed bonds shall run before
maturity, not to exceed 40 years; and,
i) The maximum rate or rates of interest to be paid, not to
exceed 12%.
SB 142
Page 7
21)Specifies requirements on the notice of and conduct of the
hearing on the proposed issuance of bonds.
22)Requires the board, at the conclusion of the hearing on the
proposed issuance of bonds to determine, by a resolution
adopted by a two-thirds vote, whether to incur the bonded
indebtedness, and requires the resolution to state the amount
of the proposed debt, the purposes for which it is to be
incurred, and the estimated cost of accomplishing the
purposes.
23)Establishes requirements on the rates at which special
assessments to pay bonded indebtedness must be levied, the
annual interest rates for bonds, the call and redemption of
the bonds, denomination of the bonds, and the form of the
bonds.
24)Authorizes the board to sell the bonds, including at a price
below par, as determined by resolution.
25)Requires the board, if the board determines by resolution to
sell by competitive bid, to give notice inviting sealed bids
in the manner that it prescribes. Requires that bonds are
awarded to the highest bidder, if satisfactory bids are
received. Allows the board to reject the bids, if they
determine that the bids received are not satisfactory to price
or if no bids are received, and either re-advertise or sell
the bonds at private sale or by negotiation, or by other
lawful means.
26)Requires the board, if the board determines by resolution to
not sell by competitive bid, to sell the bonds at a public or
private sale, by negotiation, or by other lawful means.
27)Specifies requirements governing the accrued interest and
premiums received on the sale of bonds.
28)Specifies how the board may provide for the issuance, sale,
or exchange or refunding bonds to redeem bonds used by the
operator.
29)Authorizes the board to change the purposes for which any
proposed debt is to be incurred subject to notification,
protest, and hearing requirements. Requires the board at the
SB 142
Page 8
conclusion of the hearing to determine by resolution whether
to make any or all of the changes set forth in the notice.
30)Prohibits the board from changing the purposes, estimated
costs, boundaries of the benefit district or zones, or the
amount of bonded debt until after it gives notice on its
intention, stating each proposed change and establishes
requirements for the notice, as specified.
31)States that all decisions and determinations of the board,
upon notice and hearing, are final and conclusive.
32)Establishes a six-month timeframe from the date of the
formation of the benefit district, issuance of bonds, and all
proceeding for any action or proceeding which contests,
questions, or denies the validity or legality of the formation
of any benefit district or zone, issuance of bonds, or any
related proceedings.
33)Requires the board's secretary to certify to the county
assessor that the board imposed a special benefit assessment
and requires that the secretary provide specified information
with certification.
34)Requires the county to levy the special benefit assessment in
the same manner as taxes are levied and collected. Allows the
county to deduct its reasonable expenses of collection and
requires that the balance of the assessments transmits to the
operator.
35)Declares that in the event of conflict with any other law,
the provisions in this bill will prevail with respect to
benefit districts within the service area of the operator.
36)Repeals specified statutes authorizing local governments to
levy ad valorem assessments on taxable land within benefit
districts to finance transit projects.
37)Defines "legal representative" and "rail."
38)Sunsets the authority granted to transit operators to levy
special benefit assessments pursuant to the provision in this
bill on January 1, 2021.
SB 142
Page 9
39)Provides that no reimbursement is required because a local
agency or school district has the authority to levy service
charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the
program or level of service mandated by the bill's provisions.
40)Makes findings and declarations including that the board of
the operator shall be the conclusive judge of the proportion
of special and general benefits produced by the eligible
transit projects and of the distribution of the special
benefits among parcels of property within the benefit
assessment district.
EXISTING LAW authorizes the Southern California Rapid Transit
District, the predecessor agency to the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), and the Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to create benefit
assessment districts to levy assessments.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, there are no direct state costs.
COMMENTS : This bill authorizes the governing board of an
operator, until January 1, 2021, 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,
as specified. Under this bill, the board must comply with many
requirements to establish one or more special benefit assessment
districts and to levy a special benefit assessment. This bill
also authorizes the board to incur bonded indebtedness, payable
from special benefit assessments levied within the benefit
district. The board must comply with specified notice, hearing
and requirements on the resolution in order to issue, sell, or
refund bonds. This bill is author-sponsored.
According to the author, "At the same time as it experiences
unprecedented growth, public transit has been subject to
increasing funding challenges. State and federal funding is
always in jeopardy as both levels are forced to prioritize
spending precious tax dollars. Local governments and patrons
are making up the difference. To the extent the state can
create tools for local governments to support their transit
service, the state can also further its own goals for
SB 142
Page 10
sustainable communities and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Senator Mills authored the current law authorizing transit
agencies to create special benefit districts in 1968. Due to
the tax changes created by Propositions 13 of 1978 and 218 of
1996, however, transit agencies are unable to employ the current
authority and it appears no transit agency ever took advantage
of this opportunity. This bill replaces this authority with
workable language that reflects current constitutional
restrictions and makes it available to all public agencies
operating transit, commuter rail or intercity rail services in
California."
The Legislature has also granted specific authority to transit
districts, in 1983, under SB 1238 (Watson and Roberti) which
authorized the Southern California Rapid Transit District, the
predecessor agency to MTA, to levy special benefit assessments
for public rail rapid transit facilities and services. In 2003,
AB 935 (Diaz), Chapter 727, Statutes of 2003, authorized VTA to
levy benefit assessments to build, maintain, operate, and
improve rail transit stations. This bill is modeled after prior
legislation and contains the same process in place for MTA and
VTA to allow exclusion and reduction petitions for property
owners.
Although prior authority for benefit assessments was granted, no
transit districts have levied an assessment following the
passage of Proposition 218 in 1996 (Article XIII D of the
California Constitution), which 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.
Notice, protest, and hearing requirements for new, extended, or
increased assessments are governed by Proposition 218, which
involves mailed protest ballots to all assessed property owners,
a 45-day protest period, and a public hearing at which protests
are counted and the presence or absence of a majority protest is
determined. After complying with notice, protest, and hearing
requirements, if a majority protest is not received from
property owners, the legislative body may adopt a resolution to
SB 142
Page 11
establish the assessment district and levy the assessment.
Under this bill, an operator must comply with the requirements
established by Proposition 218, as described above, to abide by
the notice, protest, and hearing requirements. This bill also
requires an operator to calculate a special benefit assessment
pursuant to Proposition 218 which requires a professional
engineer's report to estimate the amount of special benefit to
landowners and the amount of general benefit, the overall
benefit to society at large.
The engineer's report is heavily relied upon to demonstrate that
the improvements or services to be financed will benefit
assessed properties in a different manner than the benefit
society in general will receive and cannot rest only on the
general increase in property values that arise from a better
served community.
The Legislature may wish to consider if the task of separating
the general benefits from the special benefits as required by
the Constitution will be possible for transit operators to
accomplish.
According to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, in
opposition to the bill, "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. It is intriguing that one of the few
transportation entities for which special benefit authority
exists; the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority has
never exercised it. This would seem to validate the
questionable legality of this practice."
Generally assessments go toward paying for specific tangible
benefits, of which each parcel partakes, like lighting or
irrigation improvement, which can then be apportioned in
relationship to the total cost of the improvements. Case law in
this area is constantly examining the definition of a special
versus general benefit, especially for assessments that fund
services that broadly benefit society.
SB 142
Page 12
As local agencies continue to question if benefit assessments
are worth pursuing, many of them are also seeking additional
financing tools citing the burden placed on agencies to defend
benefit assessments and the increased number of legal
challenges.
The Legislature may also wish to consider the following:
1)This bill contains a process in which property owners can
petition to exclude or reduce assessments to their property.
Because Proposition 218 includes requirements to determine
which properties are included in a benefit assessment district
and the apportionment of each assessment, the Legislature may
wish to ask the author why the petition process is necessary
to include in the bill considering the protections put in
place by Proposition 218.
2)Under this bill, property owners can petition to reduce or be
excluded from the assessment. This bill also grants the board
the authority to change the purpose for which any proposed
debt is to be incurred. Given that bonds that are backed by
benefit assessments can be more expensive than other types of
bonds because of the risk that property owners may fail to pay
assessments, the Legislature may wish to consider if the
provisions described above will only worsen the financial
markets already cautious approach to assessment backed bonds.
3)The Legislature may also wish to ask the author to more
clearly define some of the terms described in the bill to
provide more clarity on the types of services that are to be
considered eligible transit projects or the types of public
agencies that are to be considered operators.
Support arguments: Supporters argue that this bill will provide
an important tool for local transit-oriented development and
will foster greater use of public transportation, a critical
component of meeting the state's environmental goals.
Opposition arguments: Opposition argues that transit operators
already have the means available to them (bonds, special taxes)
that should be sufficient to construct capital infrastructure
projects and that there is an insufficient benefit nexus to
support transit funding under a "benefit assessment" theory.
SB 142
Page 13
Analysis Prepared by : Misa Yokoi-Shelton / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958 FN:
0001880