BILL ANALYSIS
ACA 10
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 28, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
ACA 10 (Torlakson) - As Introduced: February 11, 2009
Policy Committee: Revenue &
Taxation Vote: 5-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill lowers the constitutional vote requirement for
approval of a special tax to be levied by an education finance
district (as established pursuant to AB 267) from two-thirds to
a majority. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes an education finance district, with the approval of
a majority of voters, to impose, extend, or increase a special
tax within its jurisdiction.
2)Requires a special tax imposed by the education finance
district to not be deemed to have been increased if it is
imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate approved.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Moderate GF costs of about $220,000 in 2009-10 to the
Secretary of State to place this measure in the statewide
election voter pamphlet. This estimate assumes about four
pages at $55,000 per page.
2)Potentially substantial education finance district special tax
revenue increase, to the extent that lowering the voter
approval threshold from two-thirds to a majority results in
the approval of more special tax measures.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Constitutional requirements for voter approval of
tax measures were initiated with the passage of Proposition 13
in 1978, and solidified with the passage of Proposition 218 in
ACA 10
Page 2
1996. The latter measure clarified that general taxes for
general governmental purposes require approval of a majority
of voters, while special taxes for any specified purposes must
be approved by two-thirds of voters.
AB 267 (Torlakson), pending on the Assembly floor, defines an
"education finance district" as any one of the following: (a)
three or more contiguous school districts located wholly or
partially within the same county and (b) two districts within
a county containing only these two school districts.
Likewise, the measure provides that for a school district that
is the only one in located in a county, the district may join
two or more contiguous districts in adjoining counties to form
an education finance district.
AB 267 also requires school districts that form an education
finance district to enter into mutual agreements with one
another and adopt resolutions with respective governing
boards, as specified.
According to the author, "According to the latest Public
Policy Institute of California survey: "When it comes to
deciding how money from the state government should be spent
in local public schools, about eight in 10 residents believe
decisions should be made locally (49% local school districts,
33% local schools) rather than by the state (13%)."
The author further argues that "parcel taxes have not been
used successfully across the school district demographic
spectrum. About 90% of the parcel tax elections between 1983
and 2006 were held in districts that were below the state
average of 49% low-income students. According to EdSource, a
possible explanation for this is that wealthier communities
are either better able or more willing to tax themselves to
improve their schools. In order to encourage better equity
between wealthier communities and lower-income communities,
[this bill] will require school districts to band together in
order to levy a parcel tax with a majority vote. [This
measure], with the creation of education finance districts,
will also encourage partnerships between school districts that
encourage "economy of scale" decisions on a wide variety of
programmatic and operational costs."
ACA 10
Page 3
This bill lowers the constitutional voter threshold from
two-thirds to a majority for education finance districts to
pass a special tax; however, this measure will not be
operative without AB 267 (Torlakson), which creates an
education finance district. Likewise, this measure allows
virtually all school districts in the state to establish an
education finance district, including San Francisco Unified
School District which is the only school district located
within one county.
2)Under existing law , a school district may impose a qualified
special tax within that district; however, the special tax
must apply uniformly to all taxpayers (other than persons over
the age of 65) or real property within the district and must
be approved by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of
the district. A parcel tax is a flat fee imposed by a city,
county, or special district on each parcel, residential as
well as commercial, rather than on the assessed value of
property, located within the local entity's jurisdiction.
According to EdSource, 21 school parcel tax propositions were
placed on the November 4, 2008 ballot by the same number of
school districts. 17 of those parcel tax propositions were
approved, ranging from $23 per parcel in Santa Barbara County
to $193 per parcel in Marin County.
1)Similar legislation . SCA 6 (Simitian), pending in the
Elections Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments
Committee, lowers the constitutional vote requirement for
approval of a parcel tax from 2/3 to a 55% majority.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081