BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2801
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 11, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2801 (Gallagher) - As Amended May 4, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy | Local Government |Vote:|8 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY: This bill, regarding protest proceedings for
property-related fees, pursuant to Proposition 218, requires the
local agency to maintain all written protests for a minimum of
two years following the date of the hearing to consider written
protests.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Unknown, likely minor, potentially reimbursable mandate costs
(GF). Local agencies would likely incur minor ongoing costs to
store records. Although not required, many local agencies
already hold these records, sometimes electronically. These
AB 2801
Page 2
costs could be subject to state-reimbursement to the extent
local agencies file a claim for reimbursement and the Commission
on State Mandates determines specified activities are subject to
reimbursement.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, "AB 2801 adds needed
transparency to the fee protest procedure first implemented by
Proposition 218, which voters approved in 1996. Proposition
218 provides a streamlined protest procedure in place of an
election when local agencies propose increases in water,
sewer, or refuse collection rates. The agency must mail a
specified notice to affected ratepayers and allow them at
least 45 days before the hearing on the increase to submit
written protests. If a majority of the ratepayers submit
timely written protests, the rate increase is tabled. To
ensure that ratepayers are not disenfranchised, uniform
standards should be adopted across California for how protest
notices should be accepted and retained.
2)Proposition 218. 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
AB 2801
Page 3
property-related service. The fee imposed on any parcel or
person cannot exceed the proportional cost of the service that
is attributable to the parcel. 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. One written protest per parcel,
filed by an owner or tenant of the parcel, is counted in order
to calculate the majority protest. Current law is silent on
maintaining written protests. However, ballots submitted
during proposed assessment proceedings under Proposition 218
must be preserved for a minimum of two years.
3)Prior Legislation.
a) SB 553 (Yee), Chapter 215, Statues of 2013, applied many
of the requirements in current law for assessment ballot
procedures to the elections for property-related fees
submitted to property owners.
b) SB 321 (Benoit), Chapter 580, Statutes of 2009, imposed
additional requirements on local governments when
conducting assessment ballot proceedings, pursuant to
Proposition 218.
c) AB 2218 (Gaines) of 2008, held on the Senate
Appropriations Suspense File, would have imposed new
AB 2801
Page 4
restrictions on local governments, when conducting
property-related fee and assessment ballot proceedings,
pursuant to Proposition 218.
d) 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.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081