BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  ACA 23
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   August 8, 2012

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                 ACA 23 (Perea) - As Introduced:  February 23, 2012 

          Policy Committee:                             Local 
          GovernmentVote:6-3

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          No     Reimbursable:              

           SUMMARY  

          This bill 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 at least 55% of its voters voting on the proposition, rather 
          than the two-thirds currently required.  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 at least 55% of the 
            voters voting on the proposition.

          2)States that the Legislature shall define local transportation 
            projects for purposes of the bill's provisions.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          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)Purpose  .  According to the author, California's infrastructure 
            funding mechanisms are falling significantly short of meeting 
            even the costs of current system maintenance.  The author 
            states 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% 








                                                                  ACA 23
                                                                  Page  2

            of pavements are considered to be in poor condition.  The 
            author argues ACA 23 would provide local government and 
            residents with the ability to make vital investments in local 
            transportation projects while providing economic stimulus to 
            their region.  The author notes local governments face the 
            daunting task of obtaining a two-thirds approval of voters and 
            despite having the support of a strong majority of the 
            community, these measures are at the mercy of a small minority 
            of the voters and often fail by narrow margins.

           2)Support.   The bill is sponsored by the Kern Council of 
            Governments because this bill will offer a fair and equitable 
            solution to the ongoing revenue concerns California faces in 
            attempting to solve its transportation infrastructure 
            problems.  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 this bill will 
            remedy that problem.

           3)Background  .  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 

           4)Opposition  .  Opponents, including the California Taxpayers 
            Association, note that a two-thirds vote on special taxes 
            ensures if a local government is to propose an earmark at the 
            ballot, then a greater consensus must be sought to determine a 
            local government's budgeting priorities.  They note that the 
            theory behind sound budgeting principles is the reason a 
            majority of the local electorate is require to increase a 
            general tax and a two -thirds vote is necessary to approve a 
            special tax.

           5)Previous legislation.

              a)   ACA 9 (Huffman) of 2009 created an exception to the 1% 
               property tax limit for a rate imposed by a local government 
               to service bond-debt for specified public improvements 
               approved by 55% of the voters of the local government. ACA 
               9 was held on the Assembly floor. 









                                                                  ACA 23
                                                                  Page  3

             b)   ACA 10 (Feuer), 2008, created an exception to the 1% ad 
               valorem property tax to service debt for transportation 
               general obligation bonds approved by 55% voter approval.  
               This bill was not heard in policy committee.

             c)   ACA 7 (Nation) from the 2005-06 legislative session 
               lowered the constitutional vote requirement to 55% for any 
               special tax.  This bill was held on this committee's 
               suspense file.

           

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081