Existing law authorizes school districts to impose qualified special taxes, subject to specified constitutional and statutory provisions. Existing law defines qualified special taxes as taxes that apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property within a school district and may include taxes that provide for an exemption from those taxes for persons who are 65 years of age or older, for persons receiving Supplemental Security Income for a disability, or for persons receiving Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, as specified.

This bill would clarify that the authorization for an exemption from the qualified special taxes applies to any or all of the categories of persons described above. This bill would provide that this change is declaratory of existing law.

Existing law authorizes school districts to impose qualified special taxes, subject to specified constitutional and statutory provisions. Existing law defines qualified special taxes as taxes that apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property within a school district and may include taxes that provide for an exemption from those taxes for persons who are 65 years of age or older, for persons receiving Supplemental Security Income for a disability, or for persons receiving Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, as specified.

This bill would clarify that the authorization for an exemption from the qualified special taxes applies to any or all of the categories of persons described above. This bill would provide that this change is declaratory of existing law.

(1)Existing law, the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Act, until January 1, 2029, establishes the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority to raise and allocate resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. The act establishes a governing board of the authority composed of specified members, including a member who is a resident of the San Francisco Bay area who serves as the chair. The act grants to the board all powers that are necessary to carry out the act, including, among other things, the power to levy specified benefit assessments, special taxes, and fees, and to issue revenue bonds. However, the act limits the total amount of indebtedness incurred pursuant to those provisions authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds from exceeding 10% of the authoritys total revenues in the preceding fiscal year. Existing law generally requires a district to reimburse the county elections official for the actual costs incurred in conducting an election for the district. However, the act authorizes, until January 1, 2017, the authority to reimburse only the incremental costs, as defined, that are incurred by the county elections officials related to submitting a special tax measure to the voters.

This bill would delete the requirement that one member of the board, and the chair, be a resident of the San Francisco Bay area and would instead require that the member be an elected official of a bayside city or county. The bill would also delete the above-described 10% limit on the authoritys total amount of bonded indebtedness, and would extend to January 1, 2019, the provision authorizing the authority to reimburse county elections officials for only the incremental costs of submitting a special tax measure to the voters. The bill would also extend to January 1, 2041, the repeal date for the act, and would make related conforming changes. By imposing additional duties on local government officials with regard to implementation of the act, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 371

Author:(Hancock)

As Amended Ver:April 6, 2015

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 30-3

SUMMARY: Clarifies that a school district may exempt from special taxes any of the specified categories of individuals and is not required, but may, provide this exemption to all of these persons. Specifically, this bill:

1. Clarifies that a school district is authorized to exempt from the qualified special taxes any or all of the following persons:

   1. Persons over the age of 65;

   2. Persons receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for a disability; or,

   3. Persons receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits whose annual income is less than 250% of 2012 federal poverty guidelines.

2. States that the proposed clarification is declaratory of existing law.

FISCAL EFFECT: None

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement. The author has provided the following statement in support of this bill:

"Existing law allows school districts and community college districts to impose special taxes (parcel taxes) that apply to taxpayers or real property within the school district. K-12 school districts may exempt persons 65 years of age (or older), persons receiving supplemental security income (SSI) regardless of age, and/or persons receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).

"In 2011, SB 874 (Hancock) [Chapter 791, Statutes of 2012] gave school districts the option of exempting property owners receiving SSDI from paying parcel taxes, but in 2015 the Santa Clara County Counsel's office raised an issue with this new exemption. The Santa Clara County Counsel's office interpreted Government Code Section 50079(b)(1) which states, 'all of the following taxpayers,' to mean that an individual must meet all three categories to qualify for a parcel tax exemption. An interpretation that goes against the intention of SB 874.

"SB 371 clarifies that school districts can provide the exemption to 'any or all' of the exempted categories of taxpayers."

2. "Qualified Special Taxes": Background. In 1978, Proposition 13 limited both the tax rates and assessments, thus significantly reducing property tax revenues. Proposition 13 also eliminated the ability of school districts to levy an incremental ad valorem tax on real property. However, school districts still have limited authority to generate local revenues from qualified special taxes as long as the special tax applies uniformly to all taxpayers (other than persons over the age of 65 or persons receiving SSI or SSDI) and real property within the district. While Proposition 13 did not define the term "special tax", over time the courts have opined that a tax is a "special tax" whenever expenditure of its revenues is limited to specific purposes, i.e. the proceeds of the tax are earmarked or dedicated in some manner to a specific project or projects. In contrast, a tax is a "general tax" only when its revenues are placed into the General Fund and are available for expenditure for any and all governmental purposes. [Bay Area Cellular Telephone Co. v. City of Union City (2008) 162 Cal. App.4th 686; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Roseville (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1178.] School districts and special districts are prohibited from imposing general taxes (Proposition 218 of 1996) and thus, by definition, any tax levied by a school district or community school district is considered to be a special tax subject to a two-thirds voter approval. Thus far, school districts have only imposed "qualified special taxes" under Government Code Section 50079 in the form of a parcel tax.

3. Parcel Taxes. A parcel tax is a flat fee imposed by a city, county, or special district on each parcel, residential as well as commercial, rather than on the assessed value of property located within the local entity's jurisdiction. Because the same dollar amount of tax is assessed on each parcel of property, whether the parcel is one acre or 100 acres, parcel taxes are generally regressive, which means owners of smaller parcels of land pay a larger percentage of tax as compared to owners of larger parcels of land. Some districts levy a rate at a fixed amount per square foot of taxable land, and many include an annual inflation adjustment. Parcel taxes are flexible ways of raising revenues at the local level, but are subject to certain requirements. Existing law does not prescribe a maximum rate of tax nor does it limit the period within which the qualified special tax may be imposed. Therefore, the rate of tax varies significantly among different school districts. Existing law does not limit how the special tax proceeds may be spent and, therefore, a local school board can specify in the ballot measure how the funds will be used. Generally, local parcel taxes provide secure funding for teacher salaries; books; materials and supplies; computers; and art, music and sports programs.

4. The Current Exemption: What is the Problem? School districts and community college districts are currently authorized to exempt from qualified special taxes persons over the age of 65, persons receiving SSI for a disability, regardless of age, and persons receiving SSDI, with a specified maximum annual income. The exemption is permissive rather than mandatory, which allows the school district to consider the need for, and impact of, an exemption from special taxes imposed.

The original exemption enacted in 1988 was limited in its scope to senior citizens over the age of 65. In 2006, the Legislature expanded the exemption to include persons receiving SSI, regardless of age, and clearly allowed school districts to exempt either persons over the age of 65 or persons receiving SSI. In 2012, the Legislature added one more category to the exemption list of persons - namely persons receiving SSDI, with a specified annual income (SB 874 (Hancock), Chapter 791, Statutes 2012). However, as SB 874 was going through the legislative process, a drafting error occurred and the word "or" was replaced with the phrase "all of the following." As a result, some interpret the statute to require a school district to exempt either none or all three categories of individuals eligible for the exemption. This bill would clarify that this interpretation is incorrect and, thus, a school district may exempt any or all of the individuals currently eligible for the exemption from the qualified special tax.

Analysis Prepared by: Oksana Jaffe / REV. & TAX. / (916) 319-2098 FN: 0001072

Date of Hearing: June 22, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND TAXATION

Philip Ting, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 371

Author:(Hancock) – As Amended Ver:April 6, 2015

Majority vote. Non-fiscal.

SENATE VOTE: 30-3

SUBJECT: School districts: special taxes.

SUMMARY: Clarifies that a school district may exempt from special taxes any of the specified categories of persons and is not required, but may, provide this exemption to all of these persons. Specifically, this bill:

1. Clarifies that a school district is authorized to exempt from the qualified special taxes any or all of the following persons:

   1. Persons over the age of 65;

   2. Persons receiving Social Security Insurance (SSI) for a disability; or,

   3. Persons receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits whose annual income is less than 250% of 2012 federal poverty guidelines.

2. States that the proposed clarification is declaratory of existing law.

EXISTING STATE LAW:

1. Authorizes school districts to impose qualified special taxes, in accordance with specified procedures, including the approval of two-thirds of the voters in the district.

2. Provides that "qualified special taxes" must apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property within the school district and do not include special taxes imposed on a particular class of property or taxpayers.

3. Authorizes a school district to exempt from a "qualified special tax" a person 65 years of age or older, persons receving SSI for a disability, regardless of age, and persons receving SSDI benefits with the yearly income not exceeding 250% of the 2012 federal poverty guidelines, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT: None.

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement. The author has provided the following statement in support of this bill:
   
   "Existing law allows school districts and community college districts to impose special taxes (parcel taxes) that apply to taxpayers or real property within the school district. K-12 school districts may exempt persons 65 years of age (or older), persons receiving supplemental security income (SSI) regardless of age, and/or persons receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).'
   
   "In 2011, SB 874 (Hancock) gave school districts the option of exempting property owners receiving SSDI from paying parcel taxes, but in 2015 the Santa Clara County Counsel's office raised an issue with this new exemption. The Santa Clara County Counsel's office interpreted Government Code Section 50079(b)(1) which states, "all of the following taxpayers," to mean that an individual must meet all three categories to qualify for a parcel tax exemption. An interpretation that goes against the intention of SB 874.'
   
   "SB 371 clarifies that school districts can provide the exemption to "any or all" of the exempted categories of taxpayers."

2. Arguments in Opposition. The opponents state that this bill would broaden the current tax exemption "to include individuals on SSDI." They argue that the "goal of this expansion is not to assist the disabled" and that "it is flawed public policy to deceive voters by encouraging them to vote for taxes under the premise that they may not have to pay them." The opponents believe that this bill would "deviate from the constitutional property tax standard of uniformity" by allowing school districts "to exempt from parcel taxes seniors or disabled rather than exempting both of them." They assert that, to "promote uniformity, no exemptions should be allowed for the parcel tax", but if a "school district…desires to allow exemptions, sound tax policy must be strictly adhered to and uniformity should prevail."

3. "Qualified Special Taxes": Background. In 1978, Proposition 13 limited both the tax rates and assessments, thus significantly reducing property tax revenues. Proposition 13 also eliminated the ability of school districts to levy an incremental ad valorem tax on real property. However, school districts still have limited authority to generate local revenues from qualified special taxes as long as the special tax applies uniformly to all taxpayers (other than persons over the age of 65 or persons receiving SSI or SSDI) and real property within the district. While Proposition 13 did not define the term "special tax", over time the courts have opined that a tax is a "special tax" whenever expenditure of its revenues is limited to specific purposes, i.e. the proceeds of the tax are earmarked or dedicated in some manner to a specific project or projects. In contrast, a tax is a "general tax" only when its revenues are placed into the General Fund and are available for expenditure for any and all governmental purposes. [Bay Area Cellular Telephone Co. v. City of Union City (2008) 162 Cal. App.4^th 686; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Roseville (2003) 106 Cal.App.4^th 1178.] School districts and special districts are prohibited from imposing general taxes (Proposition 218) and thus, by definition, any tax levied by a school district or community school district is considered to be a special tax subject to a two-thirds voter approval. Thus far, school districts have only imposed "qualified special taxes" under Government Code Section 50079 in the form of a parcel tax.

4. Parcel Taxes. A parcel tax is a flat fee imposed by a city, county, or special district on each parcel, residential as well as commercial, rather than on the assessed value of property located within the local entity's jurisdiction. Because the same dollar amount of tax is assessed on each parcel of property, whether the parcel is one acre or 100 acres, parcel taxes are generally regressive, which means owners of smaller parcels of land pay a larger percentage of tax as compared to owners of larger parcels of land. Some districts levy a rate at a fixed amount per square foot of taxable land, and many include an annual inflation adjustment. Parcel taxes are flexible ways of raising revenues at the local level, but are subject to certain requirements. Existing law does not prescribe a maximum rate of tax nor does it limit the period within which the qualified special tax may be imposed. Therefore, the rate of tax varies significantly among different school districts. Existing law does not limit how the special tax proceeds may be spent and, therefore, a local school board can specify in the ballot measure how the funds will be used. Generally, local parcel taxes provide secure funding for teacher salaries; books; materials and supplies; computers; and art, music and sports programs.

5. The Current Exemption: What is the Problem? School districts and community college districts are currently authorized to exempt from qualified special taxes persons over the age of 65, persons receiving SSI for a disability, regardless of age, and persons receiving SSDI, with a specified maximum annual income. The exemption is permissive rather than mandatory, which allows the school district to consider the need for, and impact of, an exemption from special taxes imposed.
   
   The original exemption enacted in 1988 was limited in its scope to senior citizens over the age of 65. In 2006, the Legislature expanded the exemption to include persons receiving SSI, regardless of age, and clearly allowed school districts to exempt either persons over the age of 65 or persons receiving SSI. In 2012, the Legislature added one more category to the exemption list of persons, namely persons receiving SSDI, with a specified annual income [Chapter 791, Statutes 2012, SB 874 (Hancock)]. However, as SB 874 was going through the legislative process, a drafting error occurred and the word "or" was replaced with the phrase "all of the following." As a result, some interpret the statute to require school district to exempt either none or all three categories of individuals eligible for the exemption. AB 371 would clarify that this interpretation is incorrect and, thus, a school district may exempt any or all of the individuals currently eligible for the exemption from the qualified special tax.

6. Related Legislation.
   
   
   

   1. SB 874 (Hancock), Chapter 791, Statutes of 2012, authorized school districts and community college districts to exempt from "qualified special taxes" persons receiving SSDI whose annual income is less than 250% of 2012 federal poverty guidelines.
      
      
      

   2. AB 385 (Lieber), Chapter 41, Statutes of 2006, authorized school districts to exempt SSI recipients, regardless of age, from qualified special taxes.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

California Taxpayers Association

Analysis Prepared by: Oksana Jaffe / REV. & TAX. / (916) 319-2098

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 371

Author: Hancock (D)

Amended: 4/6/15

Vote: 21

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/6/15

AYES: Hertzberg, Beall, Hernandez, Lara, Pavley

NOES: Moorlach

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen

SUBJECT: School districts: special taxes

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill clarifies that school districts can exempt any, not all, of three sets of persons from its parcel tax.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires 2/3 voter approval when a local agency wants to impose or increase a special tax (Section XIIIA of the California Constitution, as added by Proposition 13, 1978).

2. Requires the Legislature to grant specific taxing power to local agencies to impose taxes (Proposition 62, 1986).

3. Allows school and community college districts to impose qualified special taxes that applied uniformly, to all taxpayers or real property within the district (AB 1440, Hannigan, Chapter 100, Statutes of 1987).

4. Permits school districts to exempt from the tax “all of the following” persons:

1. Over the age of 65 years (AB 1440, Hannigan, 1987).

2. Receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) regardless of age (AB 385, Lieber, Chapter 41, Statutes of 2006).

3. Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), whose yearly income was less than 250% of 2012 federal poverty guidelines (SB 874, Hancock, Chapter 791, Statutes of 2012).

This bill:

1. Provides that school districts can exempt “any or all,” not “all,” of the above persons from the parcel tax.

2. States that its provisions are declaratory of existing law.

Comments

1. During the consideration of SB 874 (Hancock, 2012), a drafting mistake deleted the word “or” and instead inserted the words “all of the following.” The bill was subsequently enacted. As a result, some school districts think the statute requires them to either exempt all three categories (individuals over 65, SSI recipients, and SSDI recipients), or exempt no one at all. SB 371 corrects this error, and deems the change declaratory of existing law.

2. AB 1440 (Hannigan, 1987) allowed school districts to impose qualified special taxes, commonly known as parcel taxes. Parcel taxes are not ad valorem or assessed based on the value of a property like property taxes; instead they are generally a flat rate assessed per parcel regardless of its size, or per square foot of a parcel or its improvements. Also used by cities and special districts, local agencies can use revenues in almost any way that serves local needs, such as ongoing expenses, programs, or buildings. Counties collect parcel taxes with property taxes, and then remit funds to the agency imposing the tax. Property tax law generally guides parcel tax collection.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/8/15)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/8/15)

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “Existing law allows school districts and community college districts to impose special taxes (parcel taxes) that apply to taxpayers or real property within the school district. K-12 school districts may exempt persons 65 years of age and older persons who receive supplemental security income (SSI) regardless of age from paying these taxes and/or persons who receive Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). In 2011, SB 874 (Hancock) gave school districts the option of exempting property owners who receive SSDI, but in 2015 the Santa Clara County Counsel’s office raised an issue with this new exemption. The County Counsel’s office interpreted Government Code Section 50079 (b) (1) which states, “all of the following taxpayers,” to mean that a parcel tax must either have no exemptions or must meet all three exemptions, an interpretation that goes against the intention of SB 874. SB 371 simply clarifies that school districts can provide the exemption to any or all of exempted categories of tax payers.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Taxpayer groups argue that it is flawed public policy to deceive voters by encouraging them to vote for taxes under the premise that they may not have to pay them. Additionally, many districts require exempt taxpayers to opt out of the tax each year, instead of on a one-time basis for the duration the tax is effective, which imposes a burden on the taxpayer, and can cause confusion for taxpayers who voted for a tax thinking that they were permanently exempt from it. Without a one-time permanent exemption process, any exemption expansion may be unwarranted.

Prepared by: Colin Grinnell / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119

5/8/15 15:09:20

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

SCHOOL DISTRICTS: SPECIAL TAXES

Clarifies that school districts can exempt any, not all, of three sets of persons from its parcel tax.

Background and Existing Law

The California Constitution requires 2/3 voter approval when a local agency wants to impose or increase a special tax (Proposition 13, 1978). However, the Legislature must authorize school or special districts to impose taxes because these agencies have no plenary taxing powers. Responding to Proposition 13’s reduction in local revenue, the Legislature generally authorized all local agencies to impose special taxes with 2/3 voter approval (SB 785, Foran, 1979), but voters subsequently approved an initiative requiring the Legislature to grant specific taxing power to local agencies to impose taxes (Proposition 62, 1986).

One common form of local tax is the parcel tax, which can be imposed by cities, counties, or special districts. Parcel taxes are not ad valorem or assessed based on the value of a property like property taxes; instead they are generally a flat rate assessed per parcel regardless of its size, or per square foot of a parcel or its improvements. Agencies can use revenues in almost any way that serves local needs, such as ongoing expenses, programs, or buildings. Counties collect parcel taxes with property taxes, and then remit funds to the agency imposing the tax. Property tax law generally guides parcel tax collection.

Prior to Proposition 62, school districts imposed parcel taxes to fund education; however, the initiative prompted school districts to seek specific legislative authorization to ratify the existing taxes, and clarify the authority to impose new ones. The Legislature allowed school and community college districts to impose qualified special taxes that applied uniformly, to all taxpayers or real property within the district, and allowed districts to exempt persons over the age of 65 from the tax (AB 1440, Hannigan, 1988). In 1991, the Legislature additionally allowed 15 types of local agencies to impose similar taxes; however, the measure allowed local agencies to tax unimproved property at a lower rate than improved property, and contained no other exemptions (SB 158, Committee on Local Government, 1991).

In 2006, the Legislature allowed school districts to also exempt persons receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) regardless of age (AB 385, Lieber, 2006), and then persons receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), whose yearly income was less than 250% of 2012 federal poverty guidelines (SB 874, Hancock, 2012). When the Legislature enacted AB 385, it clearly allowed school districts to exempt persons over the age of 65 or persons receiving SSI for a disability. However, during the consideration of SB 874, a drafting mistake deleted the word “or” and instead inserted the words “all of the following.” The measure was subsequently enacted. As a result, some school districts think the statute requires them to either exempt all three categories (individuals over 65, SSI recipients, and SSDI recipients), or exempt no one at all. The author wants to clarify that school districts can exempt any or all of the groups currently eligible for the exemption from the parcel tax.

Proposed Law

Senate Bill 371 provides that school districts can exempt any or all, and do not have to exempt all, of the following from the parcel tax:

• Persons over the age of 65,

• Persons receiving SSI for a disability,

• Persons receiving SSDI whose yearly income was less than 250% of 2012 federal poverty guidelines.

The measure states that its provisions are declaratory of existing law.

State Revenue Impact

No estimate.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Existing law allows school districts and community college districts to impose special taxes (parcel taxes) that apply to taxpayers or real property within the school district. K-12 school districts may exempt persons 65 years of age and older persons who receive supplemental security income (SSI) regardless of age from paying these taxes and/or persons who receive Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). In 2011, SB 874 (Hancock) gave school districts the option of exempting property owners who receive SSDI, but in 2015 the Santa Clara County Counsel’s office raised an issue with this new exemption. The County Counsel’s office interpreted Government Code Section 50079 (b) (1) which states, “all of the following taxpayers,” to mean that a parcel tax must either have no exemptions or must meet all three exemptions, an interpretation that goes against the intention of SB 874. SB 371 simply clarifies that school districts can provide the exemption to any or all of exempted categories of tax payers.”

2. Parcel taxes in California. For many years, little aggregate information existed regarding parcel taxes, but a recent report from the Public Policy Institute of California collected a great deal of revealing data regarding the way in which local agencies use parcel taxes. Cities placed 124 parcel tax measures before voters between 2003 and 2012, with 54 receiving the required 2/3 vote, with almost all taxes imposed by cities in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County. School districts placed 329 parcel tax measures before voters during the same period, with 60% passing, mostly concentrated in the Bay Area. The report argues that the higher frequency of parcel taxes in the Bay Area is partly explained by higher income levels. Special districts asked voters to enact parcel taxes 238 times from 2003 to 2012, with 3 out of 4 winning. PPIC argues that the use of the parcel tax is growing, and that it has many advantages over other taxes: it has no deadweight loss, and assigns taxes in line with benefits. However, PPIC cautions that the tax has a major shortcoming in that many large parcels have little value, and are limited in their capacity to support a parcel tax.

3. What’s the difference? The Social Security Administration (SSA) administers both the SSI and SSDI programs. SSI is a federal income supplement program paid out of general federal revenues for persons aged, blind, disabled, and of limited income. SSDI is funded from federal payroll taxes and provides benefits to disabled persons because their disability serves as a barrier to employment, but unlike SSI, eligibility is not restricted by an individual’s income, instead based on the nature of the disability. While SSDI recipients may be economically better off than SSI recipients, their disability can inhibit their ability to generate income.

4. Uniform. In 2013, George Borikas successfully challenged Alameda Unified School District’s Measure H, which imposed a variable rate parcel tax. The Fourth District Appellate Court determined that Alameda’s tax didn’t meet the statute’s uniformity requirement, because the school district statute didn’t also contain the language in SB 158 allowing for a lower rate on unimproved property (Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District, 214 Cal. App. 4th 135). Last year, the Committee approved a measure that would have partially addressed the case; however, the measure died in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee (SB 1021, Wolk, 2014).

Support and Opposition

Support: Unknown.

Opposition: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

-- END --