BILL ANALYSIS �
ACA 23
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ACA 23 (Perea)
As Amended August 20, 2012
2/3 vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Alejo, Bradford, Campos, |Ayes:|Gatto, Blumenfield, |
| |Davis, Gordon, Hueso | |Bradford, |
| | | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Davis, Fuentes, Hall, |
| | | |Hill, Cedillo, Mitchell, |
| | | |Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Smyth, Knight, Norby |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 of 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)Specifies that this constitutional amendment, if approved by
the voters, will take effect immediately and apply to any
local measure imposing, extending, or increasing a special tax
for the funding of local transportation projects that is
submitted at the same election.
ACA 23
Page 2
4)Defines "local transportation project" to mean the planning,
design, development, financing, construction, reconstruction,
rehabilitation, improvement, acquisition, lease, operation, or
maintenance of local streets, roads, and highways, state
highways and freeways, and public transit systems."
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
to ensure that the funds have been expended only on the
specific projects listed.
4)Requires the approval of the voters for a constitutional
amendment to take effect.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill contains one-time General Fund 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 : 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.
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
ACA 23
Page 3
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.
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.
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 to the difficulty in funding crucial projects, and
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Misa Yokoi-Shelton / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0005065