Difference between revisions of "Public Finance in California's Central Coast Region"
(→Proposition 218 (1996)) |
(→Links) |
||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
=Links= | =Links= | ||
| + | [http://www.ppic.org/water/ Public Policy Institute for California Water Policy Center] | ||
=Disclaimer= | =Disclaimer= | ||
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students. | This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [http://csumb.edu CSUMB], its staff, or students. | ||
Revision as of 11:18, 2 April 2015
Contents
Summary
Public Finance Instruments
Grant programs
Description
Examples
- 205j - under federal Clean Water Act
Bond measures
General Obligation Bonds
Description
Examples
Revenue Bonds
Description
Examples
Special Districts
Description
Examples
Taxes
Description
Examples
- Tax increment financing (TAMC is considering this, SANDAG has one already)
Assessments
Description
Examples
- Benefit Assessments - SVWP, MPRPD
- Constraints on assessments (Prop 218)
Impact Fees (Developer Impact Fees)
Description
Examples
Barriers to Financing Water Projects in California
Proposition 13 (1978)
Prior to the passage of Proposition 13, municipalities and Special Districts, including water districts, could levy their own property tax rates. Prop. 13 changed property tax law, limiting the amount of property tax that local governments could levy to 1% of the property's value. This immediately decreased local property tax revenues by over 50%. This 1% property tax levy now must be split among all of the agencies, usually at the same proportion as before Prop. 13 [1].
Prop. 13 also requires that all changes in state taxes be approved by 2/3 in the legislature, and that local special taxes be approved by 2/3 of local voters [1].
Proposition 218 (1996)
After the passage of Prop. 13 limited property tax revenue, local governments and Special Districts turned to other funding sources, such as fees, charges, special assessments, and non-property related "general" taxes. Proposition 218 limited these practices through amendments to the state's Constitution, including [1] :
- clarified rules for local general taxes (requires majority voter approval) and special taxes (requires 2/3 voter approval)
- prohibiting Special Districts from levying general taxes
- placing burden of proof on agencies to show that assessments are proportional to benefits for each parcel
- requiring proposed assessments be approved through elections where votes are weighted in proportion to special benefit received
Specifically, water agencies must comply with the following standards prior to any change in fee structure or rate [1] :
- revenues from fees cannot exceed funds necessary to provide the service
- revenues from fees may only be used for the project for which it was charged
- a fee on a person/parcel cannot be more than the cost of service for that person/parcel
- a fee cannot be charged for a service that will not be used by the property owner (cannot be based on future or potential use)
- a fee cannot be charged for general services (available to the public in the same was as to the property owner)
- a public hearing must be held on the proposed change, and the change cannot be made if a majority of the property owners file a written protest
Generally speaking, assessments, fees, charges, and rates in place before July 1, 1997 are exempt from Prop. 218 [1].
Prop. 26 (2010)
References
Links
Public Policy Institute for California Water Policy Center
Disclaimer
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of CSUMB, its staff, or students.
