BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
SB 553 (Yee) - Local government assessments: elections
procedures.
Amended: April 23, 2013 Policy Vote: G&F 7-0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: May 13, 2013 Consultant: Mark McKenzie
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 553 would require local agencies to follow
specified procedures when conducting an election to impose or
increase a property-related fee (Proposition 218 election).
Fiscal Impact: Unknown state-reimbursable mandate costs. By
requiring local agencies to follow new procedures for
property-related fee elections, this bill creates a
state-mandated local program by imposing a higher level of
service on local officials. If the Commission on State Mandates
were to approve a test claim by local entities claiming
reimbursement for the costs related to this higher level of
service, this bill could have an unknown state General Fund
impact.
Background: In November 1996, California voters approved
Proposition 218, a constitutional amendment which restricted
local officials' ability to impose taxes, assessments, and
property-related fees, and imposed various voter approval
requirements on these levies. Proposition 218 requires
different procedures to obtain the approval of voters or of
property owners before most types of local taxes, fees,
assessments, or charges can be imposed, extended, or increased.
A property-related fee or charge is any levy other than a tax or
assessment that is imposed by an agency on a parcel or on a
person as an incident of property ownership, including a user
fee or charge for a public service having a direct relationship
to property ownership. The fee or charge imposed on any parcel
or person cannot exceed the proportional cost of the service
that is attributable to the parcel.
Following the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996, the
Legislature enacted statutory implementation procedures and
SB 553 (Yee)
Page 1
requirements related to notice, protest, hearing, and ballot
requirements for benefit assessments and property-related fees
or charges (SB 919 (Rainey), Chap 38/1997). Existing law also
specifies additional requirements to enhance the confidentiality
and impartiality of benefit assessment ballot proceedings, and
clarifies certain notice and protest procedures for new or
increased property-related fees or charges.
Proposed Law: SB 553 would require local agencies to follow new
procedures for Proposition 218 elections proposing to impose or
increase property-related fees. If the agency opts to submit
the proposed fee for approval by two-thirds of the electorate,
and the county conducts the election, the agency would be
required to reimburse the county for actual and reasonable costs
incurred by the county. If the agency opts to submit the
proposed fee for approval by a majority vote of affected
property owners, the following procedures would apply:
The envelope in which the notice of election and ballot are
mailed must indicate that the official ballot is enclosed, as
specified.
The ballot must include specified information, including the
agency's return address and a place for the property owner to
indicate his or her name and the associated parcel, as well as
a place to indicate support or opposition to the proposed fee.
The ballot must be able to conceal its content and remain
sealed until tabulation.
The agency must designate an impartial person to tabulate
ballots, and the ballots must be unsealed and tabulated in
public.
The ballot tabulation may be continued to a different time and
location, as specified, and technological means may be used
for tabulation.
During tabulation, and for two years thereafter, the ballots
and any information used to determine the weight of each
ballot, must be treated as public records, subject to
inspection and public disclosure.
Staff Comments: Costs related to Proposition 218 elections for
property-related fees and benefit assessments are generally
borne by the agency proposing the new or increased assessment,
fee, or charge. Furthermore, costs related to implementing
voter initiatives are not reimbursable. Staff notes, however,
that provisions of this bill related to election requirements
appear to place a higher level of service on local entities
SB 553 (Yee)
Page 2
conducting property-related fee elections. Specifically, the
bill would require ballots have a specific form and content, the
ballots must be tabulated in public, and the ballots and
information used to determine the weight of each ballot must be
treated as public records that are subject to public disclosure
and available for inspection for a period of two years. If the
Commission on State Mandates (Commission) upheld a test claim by
local entities claiming reimbursement for the costs related to
this higher level of service, this bill could have an unknown
state General Fund impact. There are currently no known cases
in which the Commission has approved a test claim related to
Proposition 218 elections.
Staff notes that the Governor's proposed 2013-14 Budget proposes
the continued suspension of six long-suspended elections
mandates and the suspension of three newly determined elections
mandates in 2013-14. If the Commission determined that the
requirements of this bill impose a reimbursable state mandated
local program, the Governor and Legislature could very well
suspend the mandate, thereby relieving local agencies from the
mandated activities imposed by the bill.