BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 654|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 654
Author: Hueso (D)
Amended: 6/28/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE : 5-3, 06/22/11
AYES: Wolk, DeSaulnier, Hernandez, Kehoe, Liu
NOES: Huff, Fuller, La Malfa
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hancock
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 57-18, 05/23/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Local government: historical property
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill changes the requirements and
enforcement of historical property preservation contracts.
ANALYSIS :
I. Inspections . Contracts to preserve historical
property must provide for periodic examinations of the
properties' interior and exterior by the county
assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation,
and the State Board of Equalization to determine the
property owners' compliance with the contracts. Both
state agencies say that their staffs never inspect
CONTINUED
AB 654
Page
2
Mills Act properties and don't need this authority.
Besides the county assessors, building inspectors and
other local officials may need to conduct inspections.
This bill repeals the authority for county assessor,
the State Department of Parks and Recreation, and the
State Board of Equalization to periodically examine
qualified historical properties. This bill requires
historical property preservation contracts to allow the
city or county to inspect a property's interior and
exterior before a new agreement and then every five
years, to determine the property owner's contract
compliance.
II. Fees . Proposition 13 (1978) and Proposition 218
(1996) amended the California Constitution to require
voter approval of new and increased local taxes.
Proposition 26 (2010) amended the California
Constitution to define nearly all local charges as
"taxes," with seven specific exceptions. Among those
exceptions are service charges and charges for
regulatory costs. Cities and counties with historical
property preservation contracts may charge
participating property owners a fee that doesn't exceed
the cost of administering the program. Although there
is no statewide survey of Mills Act fees, many counties
and cities don't recover their full administrative
costs. This bill requires that the fee shall not
exceed their reasonable costs.
III.Contract notices . Contracts to preserve historical
property must require the property owner or owner's
agent to provide written notice of the contract to the
State Office of Historic Preservation within six months
of entering the contract. The Office says that it
doesn't index the contracts it receives and believes
that this notice no longer serves a purpose. This bill
repeals the requirement for owners or agents of
historical properties to send their historical property
preservation contracts to the State Office of
Historical Preservation. This bill requires that they
record the contracts with the county where the property
is located.
IV. Contract enforcement . Historical property
CONTINUED
AB 654
Page
3
preservation contracts can end in two ways:
1. Either party can give a notice of nonrenewal
before a contract's anniversary date in which case
the contract doesn't automatically renew, but
instead runs down over the remaining term, or
2. The city council or county board of supervisors
can cancel a contract if it determines that the
property owner has:
Breached the contract,
Allowed the property to deteriorate, or
Failed to restore the property as
required by the contract.
As an alternative to cancellation, either party can sue to
enforce a contract.
This bill repeals the authority of a city or county to
cancel a historical property preservation contract for
failure to restore the property. This bill allows a city
or county to sue to enforce an historical property
preservation contract.
Comments
Mills Act contracts for preserving historical properties
are a lot like Williamson Act contracts for conserving
farms, ranches, and open space. These voluntary agreements
between property owners and local officials cut the
property owners' tax bills in return for preserving
historical characteristics. Legislators review these
arrangements from time-to-time to make sure that the law's
public interests balance with private interests. The
Legislature made adjustments in 1985, 1993, and 1998. This
bill further adjusts the Mills Act by clarifying who can
inspect the contracted properties, mandating fees that
recover local costs, repealing unnecessary notices, and
clarifying how the parties can terminate their contracts.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
CONTINUED
AB 654
Page
4
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/13/11)
California Assessors' Association
League of California Cities
California Preservation Foundation
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "This
bill is needed to ensure that a property tax break is not
given without the property owner's compliance. The local
government would be required to inspect the property prior
to entering into a new agreement and every five years
thereafter. It would also require the property owner to
record the contract in the county within which the property
is located to allow for accurate reporting of the number of
Mills Act contracts in existence."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 57-18, 05/23/11
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley,
Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter,
Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,
Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hall,
Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman,
Jeffries, Jones, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza,
Mitchell, Monning, Nestande, Olsen, Perea, V. Manuel
P�rez, Portantino, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Conway, Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove,
Hagman, Halderman, Harkey, Knight, Logue, Mansoor,
Miller, Morrell, Nielsen, Norby, Silva, Valadao, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bill Berryhill, Cedillo, Cook, Gorell,
Pan
AGB:nl 7/13/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AB 654
Page
5
CONTINUED