BILL ANALYSIS �
ACA 4
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ACA 4 (Blumenfield)
As Introduced December 6, 2010
2/3 vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Alejo, Bradford, Campos, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Davis, Gordon, Hueso | |Bradford, Charles |
| | | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Knight, Norby |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Amends the California Constitution to allow a city,
county, or special district, as defined, to incur bonded
indebtedness in order to fund specified public improvements and
facilities, with 55% voter approval of that city, county or
special district. Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows a city, county, or city and county, or a special
district, as applicable, to incur indebtedness in the form of
general obligation (GO) bonds to be adopted by 55% of the
voters of the city, county, or city and county, or special
district, where the GO bonds fund the construction,
reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of any of the
following:
a) Public improvements, including, but not limited to,
improvements to transportation infrastructures, streets,
highways, sewer systems, water systems, wastewater systems,
and park and recreation facilities; and,
b) Facilities or buildings used primarily to provide
sheriff, police, or fire protection services to the public,
including the furnishing and equipping of those facilities
or buildings.
2)Lowers to 55% the voter-approval threshold for a city, county,
ACA 4
Page 2
or city and county to incur bonded indebtedness, in the form
of GO bonds, that exceeds in one year the income and revenue
provided in that year, for the construction, reconstruction,
rehabilitation, or replacement of any of the following:
a) Public improvements, including, but not limited to,
improvements to transportation infrastructures, streets,
highways, sewer systems, water systems, wastewater systems,
and park and recreation facilities; and,
b) Facilities or buildings used primarily to provide
sheriff, police, or fire protection services to the public,
including the furnishing and equipping of those facilities
or buildings.
3)Defines "special district," for purposes of this bill, as the
same meaning as that term is used in the California
Constitution for the section related to voter approval for
local tax levies, but does not include a school district or a
redevelopment agency.
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 the 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 that 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)Prohibits specified local government agencies from incurring
any indebtedness exceeding in one year the income and revenue
provided in that year, without the assent of two-thirds of the
voters.
ACA 4
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, there are 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 of the California Constitution allows
for bonded indebtedness for a school district, community college
district, or county office of education to fund the
construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of
school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of
school facilities, among other provisions, if approved by 55% of
the voters. This section of the Constitution also requires that
the bond proceeds be used only for the purposes listed, and
requires annual independent auditing to ensure that funds have
been expended on the specific projects listed.
This bill mirrors these requirements in the Constitution in
place for school districts by providing that a city, county, or
specified special district can incur bonded indebtedness for
construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of
public improvements and public safety facilities or buildings,
if 55% of the voters approve. The current threshold to pass
general obligation bond measures for cities, counties and
special districts is a two-thirds vote.
The author notes that it is estimated that California needs at
least an additional $500 billion between now and 2025 for
maintenance, repair, and upkeep of the crumbling sewer and storm
drain systems, streets and sidewalks, overcrowded and out-dated
police stations, jails, fire stations and libraries. The author
argues that because the state is not meeting the infrastructure
needs of our growing population, there is great need for
additional financial tools to make these necessary investments.
These infrastructure investments will enhance public safety,
increase the value of real estate, and improve the quality of
life in communities as vital facilities will be better
maintained to safely serve today's population.
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), 2008, would have
ACA 4
Page 4
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.
There are currently several bills in the 2011-12 session that
would amend the California Constitution to lower the vote
threshold, including ACA 18 (Swanson), and SCA 5 (Simitian).
Support arguments: The California Professional Firefighters, in
support, write that money invested in infrastructure creates an
increase in tax revenue that can be used to help local
governments fund police, fire, schools, and other core services.
Opposition arguments: The California Taxpayers Association, in
opposition, writes that creating another exception to
Proposition 13's 1% limit on ad valorem property taxes sets a
bad precedent, thereby eroding taxpayer protections.
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN:
0002200