BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  SB 553
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   August 14, 2013

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                  Mike Gatto, Chair

                     SB 553 (Yee) - As Amended:  August 5, 2013 

          Policy Committee:                             Local  
          GovernmentVote:9-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          Yes    Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill imposes additional requirements on local governments  
          when conducting elections to impose or increase property-related  
          fees or charges.  Specifically, this bill adopts requirements  
          for ballot tabulation and ballot contents and procedures for  
          providing notice to voters or property owners.  The bill also  
          requires the local government asking for the election to pay any  
          costs of the county election officials, as specified.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Minor fiscal impact.  Legislative counsel has keyed this bill a  
          state mandated program.  It does not appear that reimbursement  
          would be required because the decision to take a proposed fee to  
          an election is a discretionary act of the local government.   
          Since there is a choice by the local government there is no  
          mandate and no required reimbursement.  The likelihood of  
          significant reimbursements is further reduced because many of  
          the local governments that would be affected by the provisions  
          of the bill are not eligible for reimbursement for mandates. 

           COMMENTS  

           1)Purpose  .  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.  The author  
            states by extending the same security and accountability to  
            fee ballot measures that have worked successfully for  
            assessment ballot elections, this bill will enhance the local  








                                                                  SB 553
                                                                  Page  2

            democratic process by ensuring fair and transparent community  
            elections.  The author concludes SB 553 address a lack of  
            transparency in local elections that has generated concern  
            among voters about notification and tabulation procedures and  
            the ability to dispute election results.

           2)Support  .  The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the sponsor  
            of SB 553, notes this bill takes a number of standard  
            transparency procedures common in local assessment ballot  
            elections and extends them in statute to fee-ballot elections.  
             They note the need for this bill arose out of a local  
            election for a flood control fee assessment.  The measure was  
            approved by only 65 votes, but 1,700 ballots were invalidated  
            for lack of the voter's signature, about 20% of the total  
            votes cast.  The HJTA argues a recount could not take place  
            because the ballots were not public records.  The California  
            Taxpayers Association argues this bill helps ensure increased  
            ballot security and government accountability.

           3)Background  .  Article XIII D of the California Constitution  
            provides no property-related fee or charge will be imposed or  
            increased until it is submitted and approved by a majority  
            vote of the property owners or, at the option of the agency,  
            by a two-thirds vote of the electorate residing in the  
            affected area.  An exception is created for fees or charges  
            for sewer, water and refuse collection services.

            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.

            The election referred to by the sponsor, in which 1,700  
            ballots were disqualified, led to litigation.  The California  
            Supreme Court, in Greene v. Marin County Flood Control and  
            Water Conservation District, upheld the election despite the  
            large number of ballots being disqualified.  The court held  
            the election procedures adopted by the district complied with  
            the law.
              
           4)Previous legislation  .
              
             a)   AB 2218 (Gaines) of 2008, contained similar provisions  
               as SB 553.  AB 2218 was held on the Senate Appropriations  
               Suspense File.








                                                                  SB 553
                                                                  Page  3


             b)   SB 321 (Benoit), Chapter 580, Statutes of 2009, imposed  
               additional requirements on local governments when  
               conducting assessment ballot proceedings pursuant to  
               Proposition 218.



           Analysis Prepared by  :    Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081