BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Lois Wolk, Chair
BILL NO: SB 279 HEARING: 4/17/13
AUTHOR: Hancock FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 4/9/13 TAX LEVY: No
CONSULTANT: Weinberger
SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY
Specifies procedures for conducting a multi-county election
to approve a special tax measure proposed by the San
Francisco Bay Restoration Authority.
Background and Existing Law
Proposition 218 (1996) established that a tax levied by a
special-purpose authority is a special tax requiring 2/3
voter approval. State law authorizes the legislative body
of any district to levy a special tax with 2/3 voter
approval (AB 2345, Chappie, 1980).
The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority (SFBRA) is a
regional entity with jurisdiction extending throughout the
nine-county San Francisco Bay Area (AB 2954, Lieber, 2008).
SFBRA'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. SFBRA can levy a special tax
consistent with the provisions of Proposition 218. State
law requires that each county included in a special tax
measure proposed by the SFBRA must use the ballot question,
title and summary, and ballot language provided in a
resolution adopted by the Authority (AB 2103, Hill, 2010).
To ensure that any multi-county election to approve a
special tax proposed by the Authority is conducted in a
uniform manner, SFBRA officials want to establish
additional rules to govern the Authority's special tax
elections.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 279 declares the San Francisco Bay Restoration
SB 279 -- 4/9/13 -- Page 2
Authority (SFBRA) to be a "district," as defined in a
specified statute. SB 279 requires the SFBRA's elections
to be governed by specified state laws for district
initiatives and referenda, except as otherwise provided in
the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Act.
SB 279 requires the SFBRA to file, with the board of
supervisors of each county in which a special tax measure
will appear on the ballot, a resolution requesting that the
election be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled
statewide election and setting forth the exact form of the
ballot question, in accordance with state law.
The bill requires the SFBRA to transmit a copy of the
special tax measure to its legal counsel, who must prepare
an impartial analysis of the measure in accordance with
state law. The impartial analysis prepared by the SFBRA's
legal counsel is subject to review and revision by the
county counsel of the county that contains the largest
population, as determined by the most recent federal
census, among the counties in which the measure will be
submitted to the voters.
If there is no legal counsel for the SFBRA, SB 279 requires
the SFBRA to transmit a copy of the special tax measure to
the county counsel of the county that contains the largest
population, as determined by the most recent federal
census, among the counties in which the measure will be
submitted to the voters and requires the county counsel to
prepare the impartial analysis.
SB 279 requires each county included in the measure to use
the exact impartial analysis provided by the SFBRA. If two
or more counties included in the measure are required to
prepare a translation of ballot materials into the same
language other than English, the county that contains the
largest population, as determined by the most recent
federal census, among the counties in which the measure
will be submitted to the voters must prepare the
translation. SB 279 requires the other county or counties
to use that translation.
If a special tax measure proposed by the SFBRA is submitted
to voters in two or more counties, SB 279 requires:
That the elections officials of those counties must
mutually agree to use the same letter designation for
SB 279 -- 4/9/13 -- Page 3
the measure, and
That the measure must appear on the ballot before
all county, city, and other local measures.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill . The SFBRA is responsible for
helping to restore 36,000 acres of San Francisco Bay
shoreline into tidal wetlands, an endeavor that may cost
more than $1.4 billion over 50 years. To cover some of
these costs, and leverage additional state and federal
funding, SFBRA officials anticipate the need to seek
2/3-voter approval for special taxes, as authorized by
current law. To ensure that the special tax election is
conducted in a uniform manner, SB 279 adds language to
SFBRA's authorizing statute clarifying some of the rules
that would apply to an election on a special tax proposed
by the Authority.
2. Location, location, location . SB 279 requires that any
multi-county special tax measure proposed by the SFBRA must
appear on the ballot in each county before all other local
measures. There is no apparent uniform approach to
determining the order in which multi-county ballot measures
appear on a ballot. Regional Measure 2, a 2004 ballot
measure in which voters in seven Bay Area counties voted on
a toll increase to pay for regional traffic relief
projects, appeared on ballots before other local measures.
By contrast, Measure WW, a 2008 ballot measure in which
Alameda County and Contra Costa County voters were asked to
approve bonds proposed by the East Bay Regional Park
District (EBRPD), appeared at the end of the ballot. Some
elections experts suggest that appearing earlier on a
ballot improves a measure's chances of passing. Should
state law grant the SFBRA an electoral advantage that is
not available to other multi-county special districts, like
the EBRPD? The Committee may wish to consider amending SB
279 to delete the requirement that SFBRA's special tax
proposals must appear on ballots before other local
measures.
SB 279 -- 4/9/13 -- Page 4
3. Translation clarification . SB 279 requires that when
more than one county must translate ballot materials into a
particular language other than English, the translation
must be prepared by the county that contains the largest
population, as determined by the most recent federal
census, among the counties in which the measure will be
submitted to the voters. It is unclear whether this
language assigns the translation responsibilities to the
most populous county among all counties that participate in
the election or to the most populous county among those
that must translate the ballot materials into a particular
language. As a hypothetical example, although Santa Clara
County has the largest population among all Bay Area
counties, perhaps only San Francisco and Alameda Counties
would be required to translate ballot materials into
Esperanto. Does the bill require Santa Clara County or
Alameda County to translate the materials? The Committee
may wish to consider amending SB 279 to clarify the ballot
translation requirement.
4. Double-referral . The Senate Rules Committee has
ordered a double-referral of SB 279. It referred the bill
first to the Senate Governance & Finance Committee, which
has policy jurisdiction over statutes governing local
governments' special tax elections and then back to the
Rules Committee to consider whether another policy
committee should hear the bill.
Support and Opposition (4/11/13)
Support : San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority; Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors Chair Federal Glover;
Napa County Supervisor Keith Caldwell; San Mateo County
Supervisor Dave Pine; Santa Clara County Supervisor Dave
Cortese; East Bay Regional Parks District Director John
Sutter; San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Board
Member Rosanne Foust; San Francisco Estuary Partnership;
Save The Bay.
Opposition : Unknown.
SB 279 -- 4/9/13 -- Page 5