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

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - ""," to ","")
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOCnestright}}'''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.'''
+
{{TOCnestright}}'''Proposition 218''' was on the [[California 1996 ballot propositions#November 5|November 5, 1996 general election ballot]] in [[California]], where it was '''approved.'''
  
 
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.   
 
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.   
Line 5: Line 5:
 
Prior to Proposition 218, cities and counties were not required to obtain approval from property owners before levying special tax assessments on them.
 
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>
+
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==
  
{{California outcome
+
{{Short outcome
 
| title = Proposition 218
 
| title = Proposition 218
 
| yes = 5,202,429
 
| yes = 5,202,429
Line 16: Line 16:
 
| nopct = 43.45
 
| nopct = 43.45
 
}}
 
}}
 +
 +
==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.<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>
  
 
==Constitutional changes==
 
==Constitutional changes==
Line 25: Line 31:
 
* [[Article XIII D, California Constitution|Article XIII D]] to the [[California Constitution]].
 
* [[Article XIII D, California Constitution|Article XIII D]] to the [[California Constitution]].
  
==Ballot language==
+
==Text of measure==
  
 
===Summary===
 
===Summary===
Line 50: Line 56:
 
==Related lawsuits==
 
==Related lawsuits==
  
* [[Paso Robles Water Use Fees Referendum, Measure A, 2009]]
+
* [[City of Paso Robles Water Use Fees Referendum, Measure A (November 2009)]]
  
 
== External links ==
 
== External links ==
Line 57: Line 63:
 
* [http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/218text.htm Full text of 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://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1996-general/1996-general-sov.pdf November 5, 1996 California election results]  (PDF)
* [http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1996g.pdf PDF of the paper version of the November 5, 1996 Ballot Propositions Voter Guide]
+
* [http://librarysource.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 64: Line 70:
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
<references/>
+
{{reflist}}
  
 
{{Taxes in California}}
 
{{Taxes in California}}
 
{{california}}
 
{{california}}
[[category:California 1996 ballot measures]]
+
[[Category:California 1996 ballot measures]]
 
[[Category:Taxes, California]]
 
[[Category:Taxes, California]]
[[Category:taxes, 1996]]
+
[[Category:Taxes, 1996]]

Latest revision as of 07:21, 18 March 2014

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