BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1891|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1891
Author: Dababneh (D), et al.
Amended: 6/22/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/15/16
AYES: Hertzberg, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Lara, Moorlach,
Pavley
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/21/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: School districts: special taxes: exemptions
SOURCE: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
DIGEST: This bill ensures that taxpayers granted an exemption
from a qualified special tax based on age need not reestablish
eligibility.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Requires 2/3 voter approval when a local agency wants to
impose or increase a special tax.
2)Allows school and community college districts to impose
qualified special taxes that applied uniformly to all
AB 1891
Page 2
taxpayers or real property within the district.
3)Allows school districts to exempt from the tax persons over
the age of 65, persons receiving Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) regardless of age, and income-eligible persons receiving
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).
This bill:
1)Provides that any exemption from a qualified special tax
imposed by a school district remains in effect until the
taxpayer becomes ineligible.
2)States that if a taxpayer becomes ineligible for the exemption
for any reason, a new exemption may be granted in the same
manner.
Background
All qualified special taxes imposed by local agencies have been
parcel taxes, which are not ad valorem, or assessed based on the
value of a property like property taxes. Instead, parcel taxes
are generally measured a flat rate assessed per parcel or per
square foot, regardless of its size. Some include inflation
adjustments. As such, they are basically a flat tax on property
ownership. Districts can use revenues in almost any way that
serves local needs, such as ongoing expenses, programs, or
buildings. Between 1983 and November 2012, voters approved 322
parcel taxes in 584 elections. In 2014, the Legislature
required entities imposing parcel taxes to report specified
information to the State Controller, who must add this
information in her local government financial transaction
reports (AB 2109, Daly, Chapter 781, Statutes of 2014).
Property tax law generally guides parcel tax collection, where
counties collect parcel taxes with property taxes, and then
remit funds to the school district imposing the tax. However,
AB 1891
Page 3
school districts administer many aspects of the tax, including
processing exemption claims. Many school districts have enacted
the senior exemption; however, taxpayer groups want to ensure
that once taxpayers are exempt, they need not do so again.
For many years, little aggregate information existed regarding
parcel taxes, but a recent report from the Public Policy
Institute of California (PPIC) collected a great deal of
revealing data regarding the way in which local agencies use
parcel taxes. Cities placed 124 parcel tax measures before
voters between 2003 and 2012, with 54 receiving the required 2/3
vote, with almost all taxes imposed by cities in the San
Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County. School districts
placed 329 parcel tax measures before voters during the same
period, with 60% passing, mostly concentrated in the Bay Area.
The report argues that the higher frequency of parcel taxes in
the Bay Area is partly explained by higher income levels.
Special districts asked voters to enact parcel taxes 238 times
from 2003 to 2012, with three out of four winning. PPIC argues
that the use of the parcel tax is growing, and that it has many
advantages over other taxes: it has no deadweight loss, and
assigns taxes in line with benefits. However, PPIC cautions
that the tax has a major shortcoming in that many large parcels
have little value, and are limited in their capacity to support
a parcel tax.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified6/21/16)
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (source)
Board of Equalization Member George Runner
California Association of Realtors
California Taxpayers Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified6/21/16)
AB 1891
Page 4
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, "AB 1891 is a
common sense bill that simply states once an individual has
turned 65 years old, and a school district has exempted them
from a parcel tax, districts should honor that request and not
have an overly burdensome system that can result in a
surreptitious tax against those who often have difficulty
affording it. This is a simple way to maintain the exemption as
well as uphold current law and protect seniors."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/21/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker,
Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,
Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth
Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto,
Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper,
Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim,
Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis,
Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte,
O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Rodriguez, Salas,
Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner,
Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ridley-Thomas
Prepared by:Colin Grinnell / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119
6/22/16 15:15:28
**** END ****
AB 1891
Page 5