The California Constitution specifies various requirements with respect to the levying of assessments and property-related fees and charges by a local agency. As part of those requirements, the California Constitution mandates that such fees or charges that are extended, imposed, or increased satisfy certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the amount of the fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. Existing law, known as the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (act) , prescribes specific procedures and parameters for local jurisdictions to comply with these requirements and, among other things, authorizes an agency providing water, wastewater, sewer, or refuse collection services to adopt a schedule of fees or charges authorizing automatic adjustments that pass through increases in wholesale charges for water, sewage treatment, or wastewater treatment or adjustments for inflation under certain circumstances. This bill would authorize a local government to demonstrate the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel by any method that reasonably allocates the ascertainable cost of providing service to all parcels, if substantiated as provided. The bill would, however, provide that for water or sewer service fee or charge impositions, a local government is not required to provide an exact measure of the cost of the service at each parcel and may instead impose uniform or tiered rates to parcel or customer classes that are defined based on common characteristics indicative of likely water or sewer use. The bill would provide that the proportional cost of service within each tier of water service may be substantiated by using any reasonable basis for allocating costs attributed to the tier, as described, and would provide a local government discretion to determine the costs allocated to each tier as long as the rate for each tier does not exceed the proportional cost of service reasonably allocated to parcels subject to that tier. The bill would specify that its provisions do not apply to fees for water connections or sewer connections, or capacity charges, as specified.
Existing property tax law requires the auditor of each county with qualifying cities, as defined, to make certain property tax revenue allocations to those cities in accordance with an established Tax Equity Allocation formula. In any fiscal year in which a qualifying city is to receive a distribution under these provisions, existing law requires the auditor to reduce the actual amount distributed to the qualifying city by the sum of specified amounts, including any amount of property tax revenues that has been exchanged pursuant to specified law between the City of Rancho Mirage and a community services district. This bill would remove the above-described property tax revenues from the reductions to the actual amount distributed. By changing the duties on local officials to administer Tax Equity Allocation, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. By removing the above-described property tax revenues from the reductions to the actual amount distributed, this bill would change the pro rata shares in which ad valorem property tax revenues are allocated among local agencies in a county, within the meaning of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 25.5 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
The electors of a county may propose an ordinance to the county board of supervisors by submitting an initiative petition containing signatures by registered voters in the county in an amount equal to 10% of the number of votes cast within the county for all candidates for Governor at the preceding gubernatorial election. If the county elections official certifies that an initiative petition has been signed by at least that number of voters, the county board of supervisors is required to either adopt the ordinance or submit it to the voters at the next statewide election occurring not less than 88 days later. This bill would require any Fresno County initiative petition that has been certified as sufficient by the Fresno County Registrar of Voters on or before July 8, 2026, to be submitted, without alteration, to the voters at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Fresno. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law provides for the establishment of the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, with specified powers and duties related to the operation of public transit services serving the County of Santa Cruz. Existing law, among other things, authorizes the board of directors of the district to impose transactions and use taxes in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law by an ordinance approved by the electors voting on the measure at a special election called by the board of directors for that purpose. This bill would also authorize those special taxes to be imposed by a qualified voter initiative. The bill would require the special election for a tax measure proposed by the board of directors or a qualified voter initiative to be consolidated with a statewide general election by the board of supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz and would require the tax measure to be submitted to the voters in accordance with specified elections provisions. The bill would also require the county elections official for the County of Santa Cruz to serve as the elections official of the district for purposes of administering the ballot measure process and any election for purposes of specified provisions of law. To the extent that the bill would impose additional duties on a county elections official, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law creates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as a local area planning agency for the 9-county San Francisco Bay area with comprehensive regional transportation planning and other related responsibilities. Existing law establishes the Public Transit Revenue Measure District, governed by the same board that governs the commission, with jurisdiction extending throughout the boundaries of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, and the City and County of San Francisco. Existing law authorizes a retail transactions and use tax applicable to the entire district to be imposed by the board of the district or by a qualified voter initiative for a duration of 14 years, and in specified amounts, subject to voter approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. Existing law establishes specified procedures for that election, including a requirement that the elections officials of the counties where the measure will appear on the ballot mutually agree to use the same letter designation for the measure. This bill would revise those election procedures by, among other things, instead requiring the measure to be identified on the ballot by the designation "Regional Transit Measure" in each county included in the district and by requiring each county elections official in the district to select, from among the submissions of proposed arguments in favor of, and against, the measure, the arguments to be included in the county voter information guide of that county, as specified. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax by a local government upon the approval of 23 of the voters of the local government voting on that tax, and prohibits these entities from imposing an ad valorem tax on real property or a transactions or sales tax on the sale of real property. The Supreme Court of California interpreted this provision and other provisions restricting the authority of local governments to impose, extend, or increase taxes as not restricting the authority of voters to impose taxes via initiative. This measure would, beginning January 1, 2027, prohibit a local government, including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power, from imposing, extending, or increasing any special tax, except as provided, unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a 23 vote. The measure would prohibit a local government, including the electorate of a local government exercising the initiative power, from imposing ad valorem taxes on real property, except as provided pursuant to specified constitutional provisions.
Existing law, the Corporation Tax Law, imposes taxes based upon gross income, and defines "gross income" as all income from whatever source derived, unless specifically excluded. Existing law allows various credits against the taxes imposed by that law. The Corporation Tax Law conforms to federal law in its treatment of certain exclusions and credits. Existing law provides for certain programs for free legal services for indigent persons. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2027, and before January 1, 2032, enact the No Tax Breaks for ICE Contractors Act of 2026, which would deny all tax credits otherwise available under the Corporation Tax Law to any taxpayer that contracts with United States Department of Homeland Security, except as provided. The bill would establish the California Immigrant Resilience Fund in the State Treasury. The bill would require the Franchise Tax Board, in consultation with the Department of Finance, to estimate the amount of additional revenue resulting from the provisions of the bill, notify the Controller of that amount, and require the Controller to transfer that amount to the fund. The bill would make moneys in the fund available to provide immigration-related services, including removal defense, as provided, upon appropriation by the Legislature. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law prescribes the procedures by which a proposed ordinance may be submitted to the governing board of a district by an initiative measure. These procedures do not apply to specified districts, including a district formed under a law that does not provide a procedure for elections. This bill would authorize the voters of any district that has authority to impose a transactions and use tax for transportation purposes to impose a retail transactions and use tax by an initiative measure. The bill would prohibit the initiative tax from exceeding the maximum authorized rate for a tax imposed by an ordinance enacted by the governing body of the district, and the bill would require the initiative measure to contain all spending limitations and substantive accountability standards applicable to a tax imposed by an ordinance enacted by the governing body. To the extent the bill would increase the duties of county elections officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, until January 1, 2031, authorizes the State Air Resources Board to adopt a regulation establishing a system of market-based declining aggregate emissions limits for sources or categories of sources that emit greenhouse gases (market-based compliance mechanism) that meets certain requirements. Existing law establishes the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected by the state board from the auction or sales of allowances as a part of a market-based compliance mechanism to be deposited into the fund and requires the Legislature to appropriate moneys in the fund for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the state, as provided. Existing law, the California Climate Crisis Act, declares that it is the policy of the state both to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net-negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 85% below the 1990 levels. This bill would enact the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025 and would establish the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Program to be administered by the California Environmental Protection Agency to require fossil fuel polluters to pay their fair share of the damage caused by greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere during the covered period, which the bill would define as the time period between the 1990 and 2024 calendar years, inclusive, resulting from the extraction, production, refining, sale, or combustion of fossil fuels or petroleum products, to relieve a portion of the burden to address cost borne by current and future California taxpayers. The bill would require the agency, within 90 days of the effective date of the act, to determine and publish a list of responsible parties, which the bill would define as an entity with a majority ownership interest in a business engaged in extracting or refining fossil fuels that, during the covered period, did business in the state or otherwise had sufficient contact with the state, and is determined by the agency to be responsible for more than 1,000,000,000 metric tons of covered fossil fuel emissions, as defined, in aggregate globally, during the covered period. This bill would require the agency, within one year of the effective date of the act, to conduct and complete a climate cost study to, among other things, quantify the total damage amount, which the bill would define as all past and future climate harms and damages to the state from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 2045, inclusive. The bill would require the agency to update the climate cost study, not less frequently than every 5 years, through January 1, 2045, as provided. The bill would require the agency, within 60 days of the completion of the climate cost study, to determine and assess, as provided, a cost recovery demand for each responsible party listed, which represents the responsible party's proportionate share of the total damage amount. The bill would require responsible parties to pay their cost recovery demand, as provided. The bill would require the collected cost recovery demands to be deposited in the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund, which the bill would create in the State Treasury. The bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, require moneys in the fund be expended for, among other things, qualifying expenditures, which the bill would define to include expenditures for projects and programs to mitigate, adapt, or respond to the damages and costs caused to the state from climate change. The bill would require all interest earned on moneys that have been deposited into the fund to be retained in the fund for use in implementing the program. The bill would require the agency to determine the initial implementation costs for the act, as provided, and would require the agency to assess an amount allocated equitably among responsible parties to cover those costs. This bill would require the Director of Finance, within 45 days of the effective date of the act, to perform an initial assessment of the reasonable and appropriate initial implementation costs that will be incurred by the agency. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law creates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as a local area planning agency for the 9-county San Francisco Bay area with comprehensive regional transportation planning and other related responsibilities. Existing law creates various transit districts located in the San Francisco Bay area, with specified powers and duties relating to providing public transit services. This bill would establish the Public Transit Revenue Measure District with jurisdiction extending throughout the boundaries of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara and the City and County of San Francisco and would require the district to be governed by the same board that governs the commission, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a retail transactions and use tax applicable to the entire district to be imposed by the board of the district or by a qualified voter initiative for a duration of 14 years, and in an amount of 0.5% in each of the above-described counties located within the district and 1% in the City and County of San Francisco, subject to voter approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election. After payments are made for various administrative expenses, the bill would require the district to transfer specified portions of the proceeds of the tax to the commission for allocation to certain programs and other purposes and for allocation to the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, commonly known as Caltrain, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, and other specified transit agencies, for transit operations expenses, and would require the district to transfer specified portions of the proceeds of the tax directly to other specified local transportation agencies, including the San Mateo County Transit District and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, for public transit expenses, as prescribed. By adding to the duties of local officials with respect to elections procedures for this bill on behalf of the district, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the commission to develop regional transit service objectives, develop performance measures of efficiency and effectiveness, specify uniform data requirements to assess public transit service benefits and costs, and formulate procedures for establishing regional transportation priorities in the allocation of funds for transportation purposes. This bill would require the commission to contract with, and manage, a third-party consultant to conduct a financial efficiency review of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, Caltrain, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, as specified. The bill would require the review to be completed in 2 phases, with the analysis for the 2nd phase only required if the tax measure is approved by the voters of the Public Transit Revenue Measure District. The bill would require the consultant to transmit the analysis for each phase to an oversight committee, which the bill would create with a prescribed membership, for review and adoption. The bill would require a transit operator subject to the financial efficiency review to take specified actions in response to the analysis for the first phase and, subject to review of the oversight committee, to adopt an implementation plan that describes the cost-saving measures identified in the analysis for the 2nd phase that the operator plans to implement, as specified. The bill would require a transit operator subject to the financial efficiency review to verify its compliance with the requirements of the review as a condition of receiving funds from the tax measure approved by the voters of the district. The bill would require each transit operator to which the commission allocates funds to comply with a maintenance of effort requirement as a condition of receiving those funds, as provided. This bill would require the commission, if the tax measure is approved by the voters of the district and other conditions are satisfied, to establish an ad hoc adjudication committee for a transit operator subject to the above-described financial efficiency review to assess and adjudicate petitions submitted by a participating county transportation entity, as defined, or a county board of supervisors with regard to the performance of the transit operator within the geographic jurisdiction of the entity submitting the petition, as provided. As part of this process, the bill would require an ad hoc adjudication committee, among other things, to determine whether to direct the commission to withhold funding from the tax measure allocated to the transit operator if the committee agrees with a claim regarding the performance of the transit operator, as specified. This bill would require the commission to submit a report to the Legislature on or before March 31, 2026, on its forecast of the impacts to ridership on the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, Caltrain, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency from planned transportation projects and strategies included in its adopted regional transportation plan. By adding to the duties of the commission, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) The Bay Area County Traffic and Transportation Funding Act authorizes the formation of county transportation authorities in each of the 9 bay area counties, and provides for the imposition of a retail transaction and use tax in each of those counties of either 12 of 1% or 1%, subject to voter approval, with revenues to be used for various transportation purposes. This bill would instead provide that a retail transaction and use tax imposed under those provisions in the County of San Mateo or the City and County of San Francisco may be imposed in 18 of 1% increments up to 1%. (4) This bill would declare that its provisions are severable. (5) 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
