Mello-Roos

Last updated

Community Facilities Districts (CFDs), more commonly known as Mello-Roos, are special districts established by local governments in California as a means of obtaining additional public funding. Counties, cities, special districts, joint powers authority, and school districts in California use these financing districts to pay for public works and some public services. [1]

Contents

History

The Community Facilities Act was a law enacted by the California State Legislature in 1982. [2] The name Mello-Roos is derived from its co-authors, Senator Henry J. Mello (D-Watsonville) and Assemblyman Mike Roos (D-Los Angeles).

When Proposition 13 passed in California in 1978, it limited the property tax rate and the ability of local governments to increase the assessed value of real property by not more than an annual inflation factor. As a result, the budget for public services and for the construction of public facilities could not continue unabated. New ways to fund local public improvements and services were considered and adopted by the California State Legislature. [2] A Mello-Roos tax is a parcel tax that circumvents Proposition 13 (which limits property taxes based on the assessed value of real property) because it is not levied on the assessed value of real property.

Districts and taxes

California Proposition 218 (1996)) constitutionally requires two-thirds (2/3) voter approval to approve the formation of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. In instances where the number of registered voters within a Community Facilities District is very small, the required election is held as a property owner election. Sometimes a real estate developer is the only "voter" in such property owner elections that approve a Mello-Roos tax.

Once approved, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District is formed. Once formed, a special tax (which is different from regular property tax) is imposed on all property within the community facilities district. The Mello-Roos special tax is in addition to the regular ad valorem property tax on the property. The Mello-Roos special tax is based on a formula that is specific to that district, that was approved in proceedings. The formula can be based on a variety of factors but cannot be based on the value of the property. In practice, most Mello-Roos community facilities districts base the special tax on a number of common formulas, such as the square footage of the improvements, or proximity to a specific improvement, or based on the acreage of the lot. This is spelled out in the "Rate and Method of Apportionment" of the special tax, which is a legal document approved in the proceedings.

These districts can be used to pay for ongoing services (such as enhanced landscaping within a community). Or, if approved by voters, the special tax may be used as the security on which to issue land-secured municipal bonds (debt). If debt is approved, the special tax will repay the bond principal and interest each year. [3]

Mello-Roos community facilities districts may pay for the following public improvements and services: streets, water, sewage and drainage, electricity, infrastructure, schools, parks and police protection to newly developing areas.

Tax deduction

There is conflicting information on whether Mello-Roos taxes are deductible from federal and state income taxes. In general, only "ad valorem" property taxes (based on the value of the property) are deductible. Mello-Roos taxes are not ad valorem property taxes, but rather are generally flat parcel taxes. However, the IRS has stated that:

Assessments on real property owners, based other than on the assessed value of the property, may be deductible if they are levied for the general public welfare by a proper taxing authority at a like rate on owners of all properties in the taxing authority's jurisdiction, and if the assessments are not for local benefits (unless for maintenance or interest charges). [4]

California uses the federal standard for deductibility of property taxes on state income tax. [5] In either case, the taxpayer has the burden to establish that the deduction of Mello-Roos taxes falls under these criteria on audit.

New communities

Many communities requiring new schools or other public infrastructure such as public parks and roads impose Mello-Roos taxes as an alternative to (or in addition to) impact fees paid directly by real estate developers. While real property taxes are generally levied as a percentage of the assessed value of the parcel, a Mello-Roos tax is levied independent of assessed property value (a parcel tax), and is not subject to Proposition 13 property tax rate limitations. [6]

Older communities

Many older communities have imposed Mello-Roos taxes on areas that include older homes not previously subject to Mello-Roos taxes. This is done when property tax revenues fall short of what is deemed "necessary" by the local government, or expenditures increase such as from the increased burden resulting from public employee salaries and benefits (including pensions). Many Community Facilities Districts also renew expiring Mello-Roos taxes and increase existing Mello-Roos taxes. Two-thirds (2/3) voter approval is required under Proposition 218 (1996) to increase or extend a Mello-Roos tax.

Reduction or repeal using Proposition 218

Proposition 218 was an initiative constitutional amendment approved by California voters on November 5, 1996. Called the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," [7] Proposition 218 was a constitutional follow-up to Proposition 13. Proposition 218 includes a provision constitutionally reserving to local voters the right to use the initiative power to reduce or repeal any local tax, assessment, fee or charge, including provision for a significantly reduced petition signature requirement to qualify a measure on the ballot. [8]

A Mello-Roos tax or charge levied to finance a service is generally subject to reduction or repeal using the local initiative power under Proposition 218, including the significantly reduced petition signature requirement thereunder. This provides local voters within a Community Facilities District with a readily available legislative remedy to address issues of inequity associated with the financing of local public services in a community.

Examples where the reduction or repeal of a Mello-Roos tax on services may be appropriate include where voters desire to eliminate or reduce a public service currently provided by a local government, where voters believe certain public services currently provided by a local government can be more cost-effectively delivered by the private sector such as by a local property owners association, where voters did not previously vote in a registered voter election on a Mello-Roos tax, and where voters believe they are bearing a disproportionate and/or unfair tax burden compared to others in the community.

A Mello-Roos tax or charge levied to repay bonds is a legally more complex situation because federal contract impairment issues may preclude the exercise of the local initiative power under Proposition 218. Advice from legal counsel is generally needed in such situations. A local compensatory initiative under Proposition 218 is an alternative option when contract impairment problems are present.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1978 California Proposition 13</span> Ballot initiative which capped property tax at 1% and yearly increases at 2%

Proposition 13 is an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.

An ad valorem tax is a tax whose amount is based on the value of a transaction or of a property. It is typically imposed at the time of a transaction, as in the case of a sales tax or value-added tax (VAT). An ad valorem tax may also be imposed annually, as in the case of a real or personal property tax, or in connection with another significant event. In some countries, a stamp duty is imposed as an ad valorem tax.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1980 Massachusetts Proposition 2½</span> Ballot measure in Massachusetts limiting taxation

Proposition 2½ is a Massachusetts statute that limits property tax assessments and, secondarily, automobile excise tax levies by Massachusetts municipalities. The name of the initiative refers to the 2.5% ceiling on total property taxes annually as well as the 2.5% limit on property tax increases. It was passed by ballot measure, specifically called an initiative petition within Massachusetts state law for any form of referendum voting, in 1980 and went into effect in 1982. The effort to enact the proposition was led by the anti-tax group Citizens for Limited Taxation. It is similar to other "tax revolt" measures passed around the same time in other parts of the United States. This particular proposition followed the movements of states such as California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 218</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Named the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in 1978. Proposition 218 was approved and adopted by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.

In the United States, a special assessment is a charge that public authorities can assess against real estate parcels for certain public projects. This charge is levied in a specific geographic area known as a special assessment district (SAD). A special assessment may only be levied against parcels of real estate which have been identified as having received a direct and unique "benefit" from the public project.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is a California-based nonprofit lobbying and policy organization that advocates for Proposition 13 and Proposition 218. Officially nonpartisan, the organization also advocates against raising taxes in California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2007 Texas constitutional amendment election</span>

The 2007 Texas Constitutional Amendment Election took place 6 November 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">East Garrison, California</span> Unincorporated community in California, United States

East Garrison planned community is in an unincorporated community in Monterey County, California. It is located on Reservation Road east of Marina and west of the Salinas River on the former Fort Ord. East Garrison is part of Monterey County's Fourth District and, as of January 5, 2021, is represented by Supervisor Wendy Root Askew.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taxation in California</span> Overview of taxation in the U.S. state of California

Taxes in California are among the highest in the United States and are imposed by the state and by local governments.

The parcel tax is a form of real estate tax. Unlike most real estate taxes or a land value tax, it is not directly based on property value. It funds K–12 public education and community facilities districts, which are usually known as "Mello-Roos" districts. The California parcel tax, in its typical form as a flat tax, is regressive.

Business improvement districts (BIDs), also known as local improvement districts (LIDs), are special districts within a city that are overseen by a nonprofit entity. In the United States, BIDs are typically funded by an additional tax assessment, with the tax increase going toward improvements of the area. BIDs have been used in nearly 1,000 major cities and small towns throughout the United States, including most major U.S. cities that have multiple BIDs. New York City alone has 76 BIDs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 San Diego elections</span>

Municipal elections were held in San Diego in 2016 for mayor, city attorney, city council, and ballot measures. The primary election was held on Tuesday, June 7, 2016, and the general election was held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. Five of the nine council seats were contested. Two city council incumbents ran for reelection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 218 (Local Initiative Power)</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment in the state of California that appeared on the November 5, 1996, statewide election ballot. Proposition 218 revolutionized local and regional government finance in California. Called the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” Proposition 218 was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark Proposition 13 property tax revolt initiative constitutional amendment approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. Proposition 218 was drafted by constitutional attorneys Jonathan Coupal and Jack Cohen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California elections</span>

The California state elections in 2020 were held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Unlike previous election cycles, the primary elections were held on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020.

Special districts in Illinois are forms of local government that are responsible for a narrow set of responsibilities, as opposed to counties, townships, and municipal governments which have a wide range of responsibilities. School districts and community college boards are not usually considered special-purpose governments despite their narrow focus on education.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 13</span> $15 billion bond initiative for educational facility maintenance

Proposition 13 was a failed California ballot proposition on the March 3, 2020, ballot that would have authorized the issuance of $15 billion in bonds to finance capital improvements for public and charter schools statewide. The proposition would have also raised the borrowing limit for some school districts and eliminated school impact fees for multifamily housing near transit stations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 15</span> 2020 California ballot measure

California Proposition 15 was a failed citizen-initiated proposition on the November 3, 2020, ballot. It would have provided $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increased taxes on large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties for homeowners or renters. The measure failed by a small margin of about four percentage points.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 19</span> Successful property tax ballot initiative

California Proposition 19 (2020), also referred to as Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11, is an amendment of the Constitution of California that was narrowly approved by voters in the general election on November 3, 2020, with just over 51% of the vote. The legislation increases the property tax burden on owners of inherited property to provide expanded property tax benefits to homeowners ages 55 years and older, disabled homeowners, and victims of natural disasters and fund wildfire response. According to the California Legislative Analyst, Proposition 19 is a large net tax increase "of hundreds of millions of dollars per year."

References

  1. ↑ "It's Time To Draw The Line" (PDF). California Senate. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-02-03.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. 1 2 "What is Mello-Roos?" (PDF). mello-roos.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2003-04-03. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  3. ↑ "Orange County Mello Roos Taxes". Orange County Castles. Retrieved 2010-10-10.
  4. ↑ (PDF). Internal Revenue Service https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/12-0018.pdf . Retrieved 2014-11-25.{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ↑ "Understanding the Real Estate Tax Deduction". California Franchise Tax Board. Retrieved 2014-11-25.
  6. ↑ Fulton, William. "How We Pay For Growth". www.planetizen.com. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  7. ↑ Prop. 218, § 1.
  8. ↑ Cal. Const., art. XIII C, § 3.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.