BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 553|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 553
Author: Yee (D)
Amended: 4/23/13
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/1/13
AYES: Wolk, Knight, Beall, DeSaulnier, Emmerson, Hernandez, Liu
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/23/13
AYES: De León, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
SUBJECT : Local government: assessment: elections procedures
SOURCE : Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
DIGEST : This bill requires local agencies to follow new
procedures for Proposition 218 (1996) elections proposing to
impose or increase property-related fees. If the agency opts to
submit the proposed fee for approval by 2/3 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.
ANALYSIS : Proposition 218 (Prop 218) 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, Prop 218
CONTINUED
SB 553
Page
2
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;
2/3 registered voter approval; or,
Weighted ballot approval by the affected property owners.
These election requirements do not 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), Chapter 280, Statutes of 2007).
This bill, in addition to any other procedures adopted by a
local government agency pursuant to Prop 218, adds the
following:
1. Voter-approval . If the agency opts to submit the proposed
fee or charge for approval by a 2/3-vote of the electorate
residing in the affected area, this bill 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.
1. Property owner approval . If an agency opts to submit a
proposed fee or charge for approval by a majority vote of
property owners, this bill requires each notice of a proposed
new or increased property related fee to include:
The statement "OFFICIAL BALLOT ENCLOSED," in no
CONTINUED
SB 553
Page
3
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.
This bill requires that ballots:
Be received at the address indicated or site of the public
testimony.
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.
This bill 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.
This bill 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.
CONTINUED
SB 553
Page
4
Comments
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, there are
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.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/23/13)
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (source)
California Taxpayers Association
Common Cause
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : California Taxpayers Association states
"Transparency in the electoral process is critical for promoting
public trust in a democracy. SB 553 increases transparency by
requiring an independent part to determine the outcome of a fee
election; requiring ballots to be preserved for a specified time
period; and authorizing public inspection of retained ballots
subsequent to an election. This approach also helps to increase
ballot security and government accountability."
AB:k 5/23/13 Senate Floor Analyses
CONTINUED
SB 553
Page
5
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED