December 7, 2009
Pursuant to Elections Code 9005, we have reviewed
a proposed constitutional amendment initiative relating to the
requirements for approving local taxes for public education (A.G. File
No. 09‑0068).
Background
Funding for K-12 Schools and Community
Colleges. School and community college districts receive funding
from a variety of sources. The primary source of funding is from
Proposition 98 appropriations. Adopted by the voters in 1988 and amended
in 1990, Proposition 98 establishes a set of formulas that are used to
annually calculate a minimum funding level for K-12 education and the
California Community Colleges. Proposition 98 funding is provided from
the state's General Fund and base local property tax revenues. In
2008‑09, the state provided $49 billion in Proposition 98
funding—approximately two-thirds of ongoing revenues for K-12 schools
and community colleges. In addition to Proposition 98 funding, schools
and community colleges also receive funding from the federal government,
student fees (for community colleges only), the state lottery, and
locally approved tax revenues.
Local Parcel Tax Revenues. In
addition to the base local property tax revenues used to meet the
state's Proposition 98 obligations, school and community college
districts have several options for raising additional revenues by taxing
property. One of these options is to pass a parcel tax, which is a flat
fee charged for each parcel of land. Such taxes currently require
approval of two-thirds of voters. According to data compiled by EdSource
(a nonprofit research organization), from 1983 through June 2009, K-12
school districts placed 486 parcel tax measures on the ballot. In total,
54 percent of these measures received the two-thirds vote required for
enactment. An additional 33 percent of the parcel tax measures received
more than 55 percent voter approval but not enough votes to meet the
two-thirds requirements. In total, school districts in California raise
approximately $200 million a year from parcel taxes, accounting for less
than 1 percent of annual revenues for K-12 education. No comparable data
exists for the community colleges.
Proposal
This proposal authorizes school and community
college districts to adopt a parcel tax if it is proposed by two-thirds
of the district's governing board and approved by 55 percent of voters.
The tax must be assessed on each parcel of land in the district and
cannot exceed $250 per parcel. (Beginning July 2011, the maximum amount
would be adjusted annually for inflation.) Parcels owned and occupied by
a person over the age of 65 would be exempt from the tax.
Use of Tax Revenues. The proposal
restricts any local parcel tax measures approved under this proposal
from using resulting revenue to pay for administrator salaries. The
resulting revenues also must benefit all students in the district,
including students attending charter schools operated or authorized by
the district. Aside from these restrictions, the revenues could be used
for any educational purpose, but the specific activities intended to be
funded must be identified in the tax measure. The proposal also
prohibits the Legislature from reducing state funding as a result of
those revenues. Any tax approved under this measure must include a
requirement that the governing board of the district (1) conduct an
annual, independent audit of the funds collected and spent from the new
tax and (2) establish a citizens' oversight committee to review all
expenditures and financial audits.
Fiscal Effects
Increases in Local Tax Revenues for
Education. Because it reduces the existing vote threshold for
adopting a parcel tax, the measure would likely increase the approval
rate of parcel tax measures and result in more local tax revenues for
K-12 schools and community colleges. The magnitude of such increases
would depend on future school board and voter decisions. Over time,
revenues could increase annually by a few hundred million dollars.
Summary of Fiscal Effects
This measure would have the following fiscal
effect:
Return to Initiatives and Propositions
Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page