BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 553
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 26, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
SB 553 (Yee) - As Amended: May 24, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 39-0
SUBJECT : Local government: assessment: elections procedures.
SUMMARY : Imposes additional requirements on local governments
when conducting property-related fee ballot proceedings pursuant
to Proposition 218. Specifically, this bill :
1)Imposes additional requirements on local governments (used
interchangeably with 'agency') when conducting elections to
impose or increase property-related fees or charges in
addition to any other procedures adopted by the local
government pursuant to the authority and requirements granted
by the California Constitution.
2)Requires, if the agency opts to submit the proposed fee or
charge for approval by a two-thirds vote of the electorate in
the affected area, the agency's elections official or his or
her designee to conduct an election. Requires, if the
election is conducted by the county elections official, that
the local government, if other than the county, reimburse the
county for the actual and reasonable costs incurred by the
county elections official conducting the election.
3)Requires, if the agency opts to submit the proposed fee or
charge for approval by a majority vote of the property owners
who will be subject to the fee or charge, the following
procedures in addition to the procedure contained in Section 6
of Article XIIID of the Constitution:
a) Requires the phrase "OFFICIAL BALLOT ENCLOSED" to be
printed, in no smaller than 16-point bold type, on the face
of the envelope in which the notice of election and ballot
are mailed. Permits the agency to repeat the same phrase
below in a language or languages other than English;
b) Requires the ballot to include the agency's address for
return of the ballot, the date and location where the
ballots will be tabulated, and a place where the person
SB 553
Page 2
returning it may indicate his or her name, a reasonable
identification of the parcel, and his or her support or
opposition to the proposed fee;
c) Requires the ballots to be tabulated in a location
accessible to the public;
d) Requires the ballot to be in a form that conceals its
content once it is sealed by the person submitting it;
e) Requires the ballot to be sealed until the ballot
tabulation commences;
f) Requires an impartial person designated by the agency
who does not have a vested interest in the outcome of the
proposed fee to tabulate the ballots submitted in support
or opposition to the proposed fee, and provides that an
impartial person includes, but is not limited to, the clerk
of the agency;
g) States that if the agency uses agency personnel for the
ballot tabulation or if the agency contracts with a vendor
for the ballot tabulation and the vendor or its affiliates
participated in the research, design, engineering, public
education, or promotion of the fee, the ballots shall be
unsealed and tabulated in public view so as to permit all
interested persons to meaningfully monitor the accuracy of
the tabulation process;
h) Allows the ballot tabulation to be continued to a
different time or location accessible to the public,
provided that the time and location are announced at the
location where the tabulation commenced and is posted by
the agency in a location accessible to the public;
i) Authorizes the impartial person to use technological
methods to tabulate the ballots including, but not limited
to, punchcard or optically readable (bar-coded) ballots;
j) Requires, during and after tabulation, the ballots and
information used to determine the weight of each ballot to
be treated as public records, as defined in the Government
Code;
aa) Requires ballots to be preserved for at least two years
SB 553
Page 3
and references the statutes under which agencies may
dispose of the ballots after that time; and,
bb) States the proceeding shall not constitute an election
for voting for the purposes of Article II of the
Constitution or of the Elections Code.
4)Contains an operative date of July 1, 2014.
5)Provides that if the Commission on State Mandates determines
that this bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those
costs shall be made pursuant to current law.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides notice, protest, and hearing procedures for the
levying of new or increased assessments or property-related
fees or charges by local government agencies pursuant to
Proposition 218.
2)Defines "agency" to mean any local government including a
county, city, city and county, including a charter city or
county, any special district, or any other local regional
governmental entity.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS :
1)Article XIII D of the California Constitution [Proposition
218, 1996] distinguishes among taxes, assessments and fees for
property-related revenues, and requires certain actions before
such revenues may be collected. Counties and other local
agencies with police powers may impose any one of these
options on property owners, after completing the Proposition
218 process. Special districts created by statute, however,
must have specific authority for each of these revenue
sources.
The Constitution defines a fee (or charge) as any levy other
than an ad valorem tax, special tax, or assessment that is
imposed by a local government on a parcel or on a person as an
incident of property ownership, including a user fee for a
property-related service. The fee imposed on any parcel or
SB 553
Page 4
person cannot exceed the proportional cost of the service that
is attributable to the parcel. Additionally, a
property-related fee cannot be imposed for general
governmental services like police, fire, and library services.
Prior to imposing or increasing a property-related fee, the
local government is required to identify the parcels, mail a
written notice to all the property owners subject to the fee
detailing the amount of the fee, the reason for the fee, and
the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the
proposed fee. No sooner than 45 days after mailing the notice
to property owners, the agency must conduct a public hearing
on the proposed fee. If a majority of owners of the
identified parcels provide written protests against the fee,
it cannot be imposed or increased by the agency.
Article XIII D, Section 6, subdivision (c) of the California
Constitution, provides, "Except for fees or charges for sewer,
water, and refuse collection services, no property-related fee
or charge shall be imposed or increased unless and until that
fee or charge is submitted and approved by a majority vote of
the property owners of the property subject to the fee or
charge or, at the option of the agency, by a two-thirds vote
of the electorate residing in the affected area."
The election for the fee is required to be conducted no less
than 45 days following the public hearing. Proposition 218
did not establish specific procedures for property-related fee
elections, but the Constitution does permit local governments
to adopt ballot procedures that are similar to those required
by law for assessments.
2)This bill applies many of the requirements in current law for
assessment ballot procedures to the elections for
property-related fees submitted to property owners . This bill
requires specified information to be printed on the ballot and
establishes requirements for ballot tabulation, including that
the ballots are tabulated in a location accessible to the
public and by an impartial person with no vested interest in
the outcome. Additionally, this bill requires that the
ballots and information used to calculate a weighted vote (if
applicable) are to be treated as public records, preserved for
at least two years.
This bill requires that a local government's elections
official, or his or her designee, conduct an election for
SB 553
Page 5
property-related fees submitted to the electorate . Under this
bill local governments (excluding counties) are required to
reimburse the county for the costs of conducting the election
if it is conducted by the county elections official. This
bill is sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
3)According to the author, "Under current law, individuals who
wish to monitor fee ballot elections have neither access to
the tabulation process nor the ability to inspect retained
ballots after an election, thus eliminating the ability of
voters to dispute the results. By extending the same security
and accountability to fee ballot measures that have worked
very successfully for assessment ballot elections, this bill
will enhance the local democratic process by ensuring fair and
transparent community elections. This bill would address a
lack of transparent guidelines in local elections that
generated concern among voters about notification and
tabulation procedures, and the ability of voters to dispute
elections results."
4)This bill contains provisions similar to AB 2218 (Gaines) of
2008, which would have imposed new restrictions on local
governments when conducting property-related fee and
assessment ballot proceedings pursuant to Proposition 218. AB
2218 would have required an agency, by a vote of the governing
board, to determine whether to submit a fee for approval by a
majority of property owners subject to the fee or by a
two-thirds vote of the electorate residing in the area of the
affected property. If submitted to the electorate for a
two-thirds vote, AB 2218 would have authorized a mailed ballot
election and required the election to be conducted by a city
or county elections official. If submitted to the owners of
property for a majority vote, AB 2218 would have required a
mailed ballot proceeding, and would have prohibited the
ballots from being weighted. AB 2218 was held on the Senate
Appropriations Suspense File.
SB 321 (Benoit), Chapter 580, Statutes of 2009, imposed
additional requirements on local governments when conducting
assessment ballot proceedings pursuant to Proposition 218. AB
1260 (Caballero), Chapter 280, Statues of 2007, clarified how
a public agency may provide notice when proposing a new, or
increasing an existing property-related fee.
SB 553
Page 6
5)The Committee may wish to consider if requiring local
governments to adopt these procedures takes away flexibility
granted under the Constitution to allow locals to determine
their own processes.
6)Support arguments : Supporters argue that this bill will
ensure more transparency in the conduct of local elections by
providing the public with greater access into the process.
Opposition arguments : Opposition argues that portions of the
bill are too vague and lack clear definitions and guidance for
elections officials.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association [SPONSOR]
California Common Cause
California Taxpayers Association
Opposition
California Association of Clerks and Election Officials
Analysis Prepared by : Misa Yokoi-Shelton / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958