Read the State Legislative Tracker. New edition available now!

Difference between revisions of "California Proposition 218, Voter Approval Required Before Local Tax Increases (1996)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(External links)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<div style="float:right; margin:0 0 1em 1em;">__TOC__</div>
 
<div style="float:right; margin:0 0 1em 1em;">__TOC__</div>
'''Proposition 218''' was on the [[California 1996 ballot propositions#On November 5 ballot|November 5, 1996 general election ballot]] in [[California]]. It altered local government finance.
+
'''Proposition 218''' was on the [[California 1996 ballot propositions#On November 5 ballot|November 5, 1996 general election ballot]] in [[California]], where it was '''approved.'''
  
Prop 218 amended the California Constitution (Articles XIIIC and XIIID) which, as it relates to assessments, requires the local government to have a vote of the affected property owners for any proposed new or increased assessment before it could be leviedThe Proposition was passed by California voters on November 5, 1996, and the assessments portion placed in effect on July 1, 1997.
+
Prop 218 amended the [[California Constitution]] (Articles XIIIC and XIIID) to require local governments to obtain the approval of property owners in a local ballot measure before levying a new or increased tax assessment on those property owners.   
  
In the past, the cities were not required to obtain ballot approval from the property owners before levying street lighting assessments; only council approval was required, even if there were significant protests.
+
Prior to Proposition 218, cities and counties were not required to obtain approval from property owners before levying special tax assessments on them.
 +
 
 +
Proposition 218 was seen as a victory for fiscal conservatives.  It is often cited by local government officials, more than a decade after it passed, as making it harder for them to raise local taxes.<ref>[http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/mar/15/1m15storm00735-drop-bucket/?zIndex=67327 ''San Diego Union-Tribune'', "A drop in the bucket; Some cities' storm-water fees fall far short of costs", March 15, 2009]</ref>
  
 
==Election results==
 
==Election results==
Line 25: Line 27:
 
|}
 
|}
  
==Text of the proposal==
+
==Ballot language==
  
 
The language that appeared on the ballot:
 
The language that appeared on the ballot:
  
- Limits authority of local governments to impose taxes and property-related assessments, fees, and charges. Requires majority of voters approve increases in general taxes and reiterates that two-thirds must approve special tax.
+
* Limits authority of local governments to impose taxes and property-related assessments, fees, and charges. Requires majority of voters approve increases in general taxes and reiterates that two-thirds must approve special tax.
- Assessments, fees, and charges must be submitted to property owners for approval or rejection, after notice and public hearing.
+
* Assessments, fees, and charges must be submitted to property owners for approval or rejection, after notice and public hearing.
- Assessments are limited to the special benefit conferred.
+
* Assessments are limited to the special benefit conferred.
- Fees and charges are limited to the cost of providing the service and may not be imposed for general governmental services available to the public.
+
* Fees and charges are limited to the cost of providing the service and may not be imposed for general governmental services available to the public.
  
 
Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
 
Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Line 55: Line 57:
 
* [http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc.files/engpc/p218.htm League of Women Voters analysis]
 
* [http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc.files/engpc/p218.htm League of Women Voters analysis]
  
<small>This article was partially taken from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_218_%281996%29 Wikipedia], the free encyclopedia</small>
+
==References==
 +
<references/>
 +
 
 +
<small>The original version of this article on Ballotpedia was partially taken from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_218_%281996%29 Wikipedia's article on Proposition 218].</small>
  
 
[[category:California 1996 ballot measures]]
 
[[category:California 1996 ballot measures]]
 
[[Category:Property tax, California]]
 
[[Category:Property tax, California]]
 
[[Category:Tax reform, California]]
 
[[Category:Tax reform, California]]

Revision as of 08:42, 15 March 2009

Proposition 218 was on the November 5, 1996 general election ballot in California, where it was approved.

Prop 218 amended the California Constitution (Articles XIIIC and XIIID) to require local governments to obtain the approval of property owners in a local ballot measure before levying a new or increased tax assessment on those property owners.

Prior to Proposition 218, cities and counties were not required to obtain approval from property owners before levying special tax assessments on them.

Proposition 218 was seen as a victory for fiscal conservatives. It is often cited by local government officials, more than a decade after it passed, as making it harder for them to raise local taxes.[1]

Election results

California Proposition 218 (1996)
Percentage
15px-600px-Yes check.png Yes 56.5%
No 43.5%
Total votes 100%

Ballot language

The language that appeared on the ballot:

  • Limits authority of local governments to impose taxes and property-related assessments, fees, and charges. Requires majority of voters approve increases in general taxes and reiterates that two-thirds must approve special tax.
  • Assessments, fees, and charges must be submitted to property owners for approval or rejection, after notice and public hearing.
  • Assessments are limited to the special benefit conferred.
  • Fees and charges are limited to the cost of providing the service and may not be imposed for general governmental services available to the public.

Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: - Short-term local government revenue losses of more than $100 million annually. - Long-term local government revenue losses of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars annually. - Local government revenue losses generally would result in comparable reductions in spending for local public services.

Proponents

See also

External links

References

  1. San Diego Union-Tribune, "A drop in the bucket; Some cities' storm-water fees fall far short of costs", March 15, 2009

The original version of this article on Ballotpedia was partially taken from Wikipedia's article on Proposition 218.