Vote button trans.png
April's Project of the Month
It's spring time. It's primary election season!
Click here to find all the information you'll need to cast your ballot.




California Proposition 218, Voter Approval Required Before Local Tax Increases (1996)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 19:27, 12 September 2008 by Kokeefe (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Proposition 218 was a proposition in the state of California on the November 5, 1996 ballot. Prop 218 significantly changed local government finance.

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.

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.


Text of the proposal

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

This article was partially taken from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia