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

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - "Paso Robles Water Use Fees Referendum, Measure A, 2009" to "City of Paso Robles Water Use Fees Referendum, Measure A (November 2009)")
(25 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Proposition 218''' was a proposition in the state of [[California]] on the November 5, 1996 ballot. Prop 218 significantly changed local government finance.
+
{{TOCnestright}}'''Proposition 218''' was on the [[California 1996 ballot propositions#November 5|November 5, 1996 general election ballot]] in [[California]], where it was '''approved.'''
  
==Election results==
+
Proposition 218 amended the [[California Constitution]] by adding [[Article XIII C, California Constitution|Articles XIII C]] and [[Article XIII D, California Constitution|XIII D]] to require local governments to obtain the approval of property owners in a [[:Category:Local ballot measures, California|local ballot measure]] before levying a new or increased tax assessment on those property owners. 
  
{| border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; background: #cef2e0; border: 1px #a3bfb1 solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 95%;"
+
Prior to Proposition 218, cities and counties were not required to obtain approval from property owners before levying special tax assessments on them.
|- style="background-color:#faecc8"
+
! colspan="5" | California Proposition 218 (1996)
+
|-bgcolor="#cef2e0 align="center"
+
! colspan="2" style="width: 17em" |
+
! style="width: 7em" |Percentage
+
|-
+
| colspan="2" | [[Image:15px-600px-Yes check.png|14px]] '''Yes'''
+
| align="right" | '''56.5%'''
+
|-
+
| colspan="2" |  No
+
| align="right" | 43.5%
+
|-bgcolor="#cef2e0"
+
| colspan="2" style="text-align: right; margin-right: 0.5em" | '''Total votes'''
+
| align="right"            | '''100%'''
+
|}
+
  
==Specific Provisions==
+
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>
  
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 levied.  The Proposition was passed by California voters on November 5, 1996, and the assessments portion placed in effect on July 1, 1997.
+
==Election results==
  
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.
+
{{Short outcome
 +
| title = Proposition 218
 +
| yes = 5,202,429
 +
| yespct = 56.55
 +
| no = 3,996,702
 +
| nopct = 43.45
 +
}}
  
 +
==Aftermath==
  
==Text of the proposal==
+
In 2006, the [[California Supreme Court]] ruled that the provisions of Proposition 218 apply to local water, refuse and sewer charges. This meant that a local jurisdiction cannot charge one group of water, refuse or sewer ratepayers in order to subsidize the fees of another group of water, refuse or sewer users.
  
The language that appeared on the ballot:
+
Municipalities such as Palo Alto, subsequent to the 2006 court ruling, have had to reduce the amount they were charging businesses for water, refuse or sewer, and increase the amount they are charging to standard homeowners, upon recognizing that their charges to the two groups were disproportionate and therefore not allowed under Proposition 218.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/columns/ci_20125620 ''Mercury News'', "Thanks for reducing waste in Palo Alto; now pay more for the good deed", March 7, 2012]</ref>
  
- 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.
+
==Constitutional changes==
- Assessments, fees, and charges must be submitted to property owners for approval or rejection, after notice and public hearing.
+
{{ShortCAConstitution}}
- 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:
+
Proposition 218 added:
- 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.
+
* [[Article XIII C, California Constitution|Article XIII C]] to the [[California Constitution]].
- Local government revenue losses generally would result in comparable reductions in spending for local public services.
+
* [[Article XIII D, California Constitution|Article XIII D]] to the [[California Constitution]].
 +
 
 +
==Text of measure==
 +
 
 +
===Summary===
 +
[[File:218.gif|right]]
 +
The official [[ballot summary (California)|ballot summary]] that appeared on the ballot said:
 +
 
 +
* 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.
 +
 
 +
===Fiscal impact===
 +
 
 +
The [[California Legislative Analyst's Office]] provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 218.  That estimate was:
 +
 
 +
:*"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."
 +
 
 +
==Supporters==
  
==Proponents==
 
 
*[[Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association]]
 
*[[Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association]]
  
== See also ==
+
==Related lawsuits==
*[[List of California ballot measures]]
+
 
 +
* [[City of Paso Robles Water Use Fees Referendum, Measure A (November 2009)]]
  
 
== External links ==
 
== External links ==
  
* [http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1996_general/sov_nov96.pdf November 1996 California election results] (PDF)
+
* [http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/218.htm Official Voter Guide to Proposition 218]
 +
* [http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/218text.htm Full text of Proposition 218]
 +
* [http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1996-general/1996-general-sov.pdf November 5, 1996 California election results] (PDF)
 +
* [http://library.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1996g.pdf PDF of the paper version of the November 5, 1996 Ballot Propositions Voter Guide]
 
* [http://www.publiclawnews.com/public_law_news/2006/07/california_supr_1.html Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil]
 
* [http://www.publiclawnews.com/public_law_news/2006/07/california_supr_1.html Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil]
 
* [http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html Understanding Prop 218 from the Legislative Analyst's Office]
 
* [http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html Understanding Prop 218 from the Legislative Analyst's Office]
Line 55: Line 69:
 
* [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==
 +
{{reflist}}
  
[[category:California 1996 ballot measures]]
+
{{Taxes in California}}
[[Category:Property tax, California]]
+
{{california}}
[[Category:Tax reform, California]]
+
[[Category:California 1996 ballot measures]]
 +
[[Category:Taxes, California]]
 +
[[Category:Taxes, 1996]]

Revision as of 08:59, 17 February 2013

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

Proposition 218 amended the California Constitution by adding Articles XIII C and XIII D 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

Proposition 218
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 5,202,429 56.55%
No3,996,70243.45%

Aftermath

In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of Proposition 218 apply to local water, refuse and sewer charges. This meant that a local jurisdiction cannot charge one group of water, refuse or sewer ratepayers in order to subsidize the fees of another group of water, refuse or sewer users.

Municipalities such as Palo Alto, subsequent to the 2006 court ruling, have had to reduce the amount they were charging businesses for water, refuse or sewer, and increase the amount they are charging to standard homeowners, upon recognizing that their charges to the two groups were disproportionate and therefore not allowed under Proposition 218.[2]

Constitutional changes

California Constitution
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXXXAXBXIXIIXIIIXIII AXIII BXIII CXIII DXIVXVXVIXVIIIXIXXIX AXIX BXIX CXXXXIXXIIXXXIVXXXV

Proposition 218 added:

Text of measure

Summary

218.gif

The official ballot summary that appeared on the ballot said:

  • 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.

Fiscal impact

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 218. That estimate was:

  • "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."

Supporters

Related lawsuits

External links

References