BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2103
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2103 (Hill)
As Amended June 2, 2010
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |74-0 |(May 6, 2010) |SENATE: |31-0 |(August 11, |
| | | | | |2010) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. GOV.
SUMMARY : Prescribes the method of how the San Francisco Bay
Restoration Authority (Authority) places a proposal to levy a
special tax before the voters of the Authority.
The Senate amendments :
1)Clarify the procedures that need to be followed when the
Authority places a proposal to levy a special tax before the
voters of the Authority.
2)Specify that upon the approval of two-thirds of the votes cast
by voters voting upon the proposal, the Authority may levy the
tax.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Authority as an entity of regional government
to raise and allocate resources for the restoration,
enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and
wildlife habitat in San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline.
2)Establishes the jurisdiction of the Authority to include all
areas within the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program,
which includes the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and
Sonoma.
3)States that the Authority's purpose is to raise and allocate
resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and
enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitats in the San
Francisco Bay and along its shoreline.
4)Authorizes the Authority to levy a benefit assessment, special
AB 2103
Page 2
tax or property related fee consistent with the requirements
of Proposition 218.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Required, when the Authority proposes any regional measure,
the board of supervisors of each county within the boundaries
of the Authority to call a special election on the regional
measure.
2)Required the special election to be consolidated with the next
regularly scheduled statewide election.
3)Required the regional measure to be submitted to the voters in
the appropriate counties, consistent with the requirements of
Article XIII C or XIII D of the California Constitution,
as applicable.
4)Required that each county included in the measure shall
utilize the ballot question, title and summary, and ballot
language provided in the resolution of the authority.
5)Required the county clerk of each county to report the results
of the special election to the Authority.
6)Provided that if cumulatively, throughout the Authority's
jurisdictional boundaries, the regional measure receives the
required affirmative votes as prescribed by Article XIII C or
XIII D of the California Constitution, as applicable, the
authority shall adopt and implement the regional measure.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority is a new
regional government agency charged with raising and allocating
resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and
enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco
Bay and along its shoreline [AB 2954 (Lieber), Chapter 690,
Statutes of 2008].
The Authority's mission is to formulate a strategy for raising
local revenues to help restore 36,000 acres of publicly owned
Bay shoreline into tidal wetlands. The estimated cost of such
an endeavor is about $1.43 billion over 50 years. There is some
federal and state funding available for these projects, but it
is only a fraction of the need. The Authority is responsible
AB 2103
Page 3
for raising additional revenue to narrow the funding gap and
help leverage further federal and state funding.
According to the author's office, this bill is consistent with
the Legislature's intent that voting on region-wide funding
mechanisms shall be decided by tabulating the votes of the whole
region (all nine counties) collectively. This bill simply
clarifies this intent by adding statutory language that would
eliminate any remaining uncertainty and legal risk for the
Authority.
Support arguments: Supporters argue that this measure further
clarifies the Legislature's intent to create a regional funding
source for the Authority and ensures that a clear process is
established for each county to follow.
Opposition arguments: Opposition could argue that it should be
left up to each individual county to decide if they should be
assessed instead of having it decided collectively by the nine
counties.
Analysis Prepared by : Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0004919