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