BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Lois Wolk, Chair
BILL NO: SB 553 HEARING: 5/1/13
AUTHOR: Yee FISCAL: Yes
VERSION: 4/23/13 TAX LEVY: No
CONSULTANT: Austin
PROPERTY RELATED FEES
Adds requirements for property related fee ballots.
Background and Existing Law
Proposition 218 (1996) defines a property-related fee or
charge as any levy, other than an ad valorem tax, a special
tax, or an assessment, imposed by an agency upon a parcel
or upon a person as an incident of property ownership,
including a user fee or charge for a property-related
service. Before a local government can charge a new
property-related fee, or increase an existing one,
Proposition 218 requires local officials to:
Identify the parcels to be charged.
Calculate the fee for each parcel.
Notify the parcels' owners in writing about the
fees and the hearing.
Hold a public hearing to consider and count
protests.
Abandon the fees if a majority of the parcels'
owners protest.
New or increased property-related fees require either a:
Majority-vote of the affected property owners;
Two-thirds registered voter approval; or,
Weighted ballot approval by the affected property
owners.
These election requirements don't apply to property-related
fees for sewer, water, or refuse collection services.
State law specifies how public agencies must provide notice
and tabulate protests for new or increased property-related
fees or charges (AB 1260, Caballero, 2007 and SB 2218,
Gaines, 2008).
SB 553 -- 4/23/13 -- Page 2
The Supreme Court, in Greene v. Marin County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, upheld a 2007
property-related fee election, in which nearly 1,700
ballots were disqualified for lack of a signature. The
Greene decision created concerns about transparency in the
fee ballot process among some taxpayer advocates. Taxpayer
advocates want to further clarify procedures local
officials must use to seek approval of a property-related
fee.
Proposed Law
In addition to any other procedures adopted by the agency
pursuant to Proposition 218, Senate Bill 553 will add the
following.
Voter-approval .
If the agency opts to submit the proposed fee or charge for
approval by a two-thirds vote of the electorate residing in
the affected area, Senate Bill 553 requires
The agency's election to be conducted by an
elections official or their designee.
Reimbursement must be provided for actual and
reasonable costs incurred by the county, for
non-county elections.
Property owner approval .
If an agency opts to submit a proposed fee or charge for
approval by a majority vote of property owners, Senate Bill
553 requires each notice of a proposed new or increased
property related fee to include:
The statement "OFFICIAL BALLOT ENCLOSED," in no
smaller than 16-point bold type, on the face of the
envelope. Below the first, "OFFICAL BALLOT ENCLOSED"
statement, an agency may repeat the phrase in a
language or languages other than English.
The agency's return address.
The place where the person returning may indicate
their name.
A reasonable identification of the parcel and
indication of the persons support or opposition.
Senate Bill 553 requires that ballots:
Be received at the address indicated or site of the
public testimony.
SB 553 -- 4/23/13 -- Page 3
Remain sealed until the tabulation of ballots.
Be treated as disclosable public records, available
for public inspection by any interested party, during
and after tabulation, and if applicable, the
information used to determine the weight of each
ballot.
Senate Bill 553 requires the ballot tabulation process:
Begin at the conclusion of the public hearing on
the proposed fee.
Be conducted by an impartial person with no vested
interest in the outcome, including, but not limited
to, the clerk of an agency.
Be in public view, including the unsealing of the
ballot, if the agency uses agency personnel, or
contracts with a vendor, or affiliates, for the ballot
tabulation or participated in the research, design,
engineering, public education, or promotion of the
fee.
Senate Bill 553 allows the governing body of the agency to
continue ballot tabulation at a different time or location,
accessible to the public, provided the governing board
announces the time and location at the hearing.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comment
Purpose of the bill . Some observers worry that state law
does not guarantee sufficient transparency for property
related fee elections. Under current law, individuals who
want to monitor fee elections do not have access to the
tabulation process. Voters in the property fee election
also do not have the ability to inspect ballots after an
election, which eliminates the ability of voters to dispute
the results. In response to the Supreme Court's Marin
decision, Senate Bill 553 adds statutory requirements that
ensure a more transparent process for property related fee
ballots. This process would apply existing practices used
with benefit assessment elections to property related fee
elections.
SB 553 -- 4/23/13 -- Page 4
Support and Opposition (4/25/13)
Support : Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Common
Cause, Cal Tax
Opposition : None recorded.