BILL ANALYSIS �
ACA 21
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 8, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
ACA 21 (Feuer) - As Introduced: January 5, 2012
Policy Committee: Revenue and
Taxation Vote: 6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill amends the California Constitution to lower the vote
threshold for a school district, community college district, or
county office of education to levy a parcel tax, subject to
certain requirements. Specifically, this bill:
1)Allows for the imposition, extension or increase of a parcel
tax on real property by a school district, community college
district or county office of education by approval of at least
55%, instead of two-thirds, of the voters in that district or
county voting on the proposition, provided the proposition is
approved by a majority vote of the membership of the
applicable governing board and contains specified
accountability conditions.
2)Allows an exemption from the tax to be claimed by a person or
persons who are 65 years and older or who are receiving
supplemental security income for a disability.
3)Limits the total amount of parcel tax impositions, increases,
or extensions submitted to the voters for approval by a school
district, community college district or county office of
education to $250, but allows this amount to be annually
adjusted for inflation.
4)Prohibits the usage of proceeds of any parcel tax, as
specified, to pay salaries of any administrator of any school
district, community college district, or county office of
education.
FISCAL EFFECT
ACA 21
Page 2
One-time GF costs of about $220,000 to include an analysis of
this measure, and arguments for and against the measure, in the
state voter pamphlet.
COMMENTS
1)Author's Statement . The author states if voters want to
invest in their local schools, they should have that
opportunity. The author argues requiring more than 66 % of
voters to approve added funding unfairly burdens parents and
communities who just want to make sure their kids get a good
education. As a result of the economic crisis, school
districts that endured years of distressing cuts may need to
cut even more according to the author and local communities
should have a fair choice to decide whether to fund their
schools with their own tax dollars.
The author also notes that from 1983 to 2010, voters approved
289 parcel taxes in 542 elections, but 92% of the proposals
received at least a majority vote and that clearly there is a
desire on the part of a majority of voters to help fund their
local school districts. The author concludes that this bill
is designed to help give voters that choice.
2)Support . The proponents, including the California Teachers
Association and the California Catholic Conference, state that
this measure could enhance resources and mitigate the impact
of the horrific cuts schools have taken these past several
years. They believe that a 55% vote threshold for parcel
taxes to help provide additional funding for local school
districts, community colleges and County Offices of Education
is a more realistic approach to the current funding shortfall
our schools are facing.
3)Opposition . The California Taxpayers Association states while
funding for school districts, community college districts and
county offices of education may be a laudable goal, parcel
taxes promote inequities among property owners. They note a
parcel tax promotes a highly regressive, onerous tax structure
that runs counterintuitive to a basic fundamental theory of
taxation, that is, taxes should be based on an individual's
ability to pay the tax. They explain that a high-income
homeowner with a $1 million home would pay the same parcel tax
amount as a homeowner of modest means with a modest residence.
The California Taxpayers Association concludes lowering the
ACA 21
Page 3
threshold to 55% will increase housing costs in California,
even for renters, who will have to absorb costs from apartment
owners.
4)Parcel Tax. 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.
Parcel taxes do not have a cap. Parcel tax proposals voted on
in the last 10 years varied from $26 per parcel to $765 per
parcel, with terms as short as two years, and some being
permanent.
Districts have increasingly turned to parcel taxes in recent
years as a result of fiscal stress: in 2010, 38 districts
placed parcel taxes on the ballot, compared to 31 in 2009, and
13 in 2006. Although all districts can propose a parcel tax
to their community, they are relatively rare in most of the
state. Between 2001 and June 2009, out of roughly 980
California school districts, 132 conducted parcel tax
elections and 83 districts passed them. Only seven of those
districts were located in Southern California, while 66 were
within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.
5)Effective date. If approved by the Legislature, this measure
would appear on the next statewide election ballot and, if
enacted by the voters, would take effect as soon as the
election results are certified.
6)Related Legislation . SCA 5 (Simitian) of 2011 lowers the
vote threshold for school districts, community college
districts, and county offices of education to levy parcel
taxes to 55% of the voters in the district or county under
specified circumstances. SCA 5 is currently pending in the
Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments.
7)Previous legislation
a) ACA 10 (Torlakson), introduced in the 2009-10
legislative session, would have amended the California
Constitution to lower the constitutional vote requirement
for approval of a special tax to be levied by an education
finance district from two-thirds to a majority of the
district voters. ACA 10 failed to pass out of the Assembly
by the constitutional deadline.
ACA 21
Page 4
b) ACA 9 (Huffman), introduced in the 2009-10 legislative
session, would have made changes to the voting requirements
contained in the California Constitution for special taxes
and bonded indebtedness for local government. ACA 9 failed
to pass out of the Assembly by the constitutional deadline.
c) ACA 15 (Arambula), introduced in the 2009-10 legislative
session, would have lowered the constitutional vote
requirements for approval of a special tax, specifically
for providing funding for local transportation projects
from two-thirds to a 55% majority. ACA 15 failed to pass
out of the Assembly by the constitutional deadline.
d) SCA 6 (Simitian), introduced in the 2009-10 legislative
session, amends the California Constitution to authorize
school districts, community college districts, and county
offices of education to impose a parcel tax on real
property by a 55% vote of the voters in the district or
county. SCA 6 failed to pass out of the Senate by the
constitutional deadline.
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081