BILL ANALYSIS �
ACA 23
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 27, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
ACA 23 (Perea) - As Introduced: February 23, 2012
SUBJECT : Local government transportation projects: special
taxes: voter approval
SUMMARY : Provides that the imposition, extension, or increase
of a special tax by a local government for the purpose of
providing funding for local transportation projects requires the
approval of 55% of its voters voting on the proposition.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that the imposition, extension, or increase of a
special tax by a local government for the purpose of providing
funding for local transportation projects under its
jurisdiction requires the approval of 55% of the voters voting
on the proposition.
2)States that a special tax for the purpose providing funding
for local transportation projects is not deemed to have been
increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the
maximum rate previously approved in the manner required by
law.
3)States that the Legislature shall define local transportation
projects for purposes of the bill's provisions.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes cities, counties, and special districts to impose a
general tax for general governmental purposes with the
approval of a majority of voters.
2)Authorizes cities, counties, and special districts to impose a
special tax for specified purposes with the approval of
two-thirds of the voters.
3)Authorizes school districts, community college districts, or
county offices of education to incur school bonded
indebtedness with the approval of 55% of the voters voting on
the bond measure, requires bond proceeds only be used for
purposes specified in the Constitution, and requires an audit
ACA 23
Page 2
to ensure that the funds have been expended only on the
specific projects listed.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)Article XIII A of the California Constitution allows cities,
counties, and special districts, by a two-thirds vote of the
qualified electors in that jurisdiction, to impose special
taxes, except ad valorem taxes on real property or a
transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property
within that city, county or special district.
2)This bill amends the Constitution to lower the vote
requirement from two-thirds to 55% for approval of a special
tax that would provide funding for local transportation
projects. According to the author, "California's
infrastructure funding mechanisms are falling significantly
short of meeting even the costs of current system maintenance.
35% of major urban roads in California are in poor condition
and seven cities in California with populations greater than
250,000 have roadway systems where more than 50% of pavements
are considered to be in 'poor' condition."
The bill is sponsored by the Kern Council of Governments.
3)Lowering the constitutional vote threshold for special taxes
and bond indebtedness has been tried several times in past
years. ACA 7 (Nation) from the 2005-06 legislative session
would have lowered the constitutional vote requirement from
two-thirds to 55% for any special tax. ACA 10 (Feuer) of 2008
would have created an additional exception to the 1% ad
valorem property tax for transportation projects with 55%
voter approval. There were several measures introduced in the
2009-10 session that would have revised constitutional voting
thresholds for different purposes, including ACA 10
(Torlakson), ACA 15 (Arambula),
SCA 12 (Kehoe), ACA 9 (Huffman) and SCA 6 (Simitian), none of
which were enacted.
4)Support arguments : Supporters argue that the two-thirds
threshold for approving special taxes allows a small minority
of voters to control transportation investment decisions and
contributes the difficulty in funding crucial projects and
ACA 23
Page 3
this bill will remedy that problem.
Opposition arguments : CalTax argues that bringing the
vote-threshold needed to approve a special tax out of
conformity with requirements needed to approve other special
taxes will undermine the will of the people.
5)This bill will require a two-thirds vote of each house.
6)This measure is double-referred to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Kern Council of Governments �SPONSOR]
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9
California Construction and Industrial Materials Association
California State Association of Counties
California Transit Association
California Transportation Commission
Cities of Huron, Merced, Pico Rivera and San Jose
ACA 23
Page 4
County of Marin
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
Humboldt County Association of Governments
Kern Transportation Foundation
League of California Cities
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Move LA
Napa County Transportation & Planning Agency
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission
Sonoma County Transportation Authority
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Individual letters (3)
Opposition
California Association of Realtors
California Taxpayers Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958