AB 699 changes how local tax and bond measures present detailed financial information to voters. For measures that authorize bonds or impose taxes with more than one rate, a city, county, district, or charter city can direct the elections official to place a short phrase on the ballot directing voters to the county voter information guide rather than including detailed rate or repayment figures on the ballot itself.
When a jurisdiction chooses that option, the elections official must mail or electronically transmit a separate “measure information statement” with the sample ballot that explains the purpose of the tax, lists all expected tax rates, describes any rate‑varying mechanisms, states the tax duration, and (unless bond disclosures apply) provides a 10‑year average revenue estimate.
The bill also updates bond disclosures, sets an 88‑day filing deadline for measure statements, clarifies that estimates do not legally cap taxes, and allows use of existing electronic delivery opt‑out procedures for sending these statements. Because it imposes new information‑production and mailing/transmission duties on local officials, AB 699 contains a state‑mandated local program subject to reimbursement under California law if the Commission on State Mandates so finds.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 699 authorizes jurisdictions to substitute a short redirect phrase on the ballot for detailed rate or bond repayment figures when measures involve multiple tax rates or bonds, and requires a separate measure information statement to accompany the sample ballot. It revamps bond disclosure requirements to specify rate and debt‑service estimates and adds an 88‑day filing deadline.
Who It Affects
City, county, and district legislative bodies that place tax or bond measures on the ballot; county and city elections officials who must process, mail, or electronically deliver measure information statements; local finance officers and bond counsel responsible for producing estimates and projections.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts granular financial detail off the ballot and into a downloadable guide, changing how voters encounter tax and bond information and creating new operational steps and timing pressures for local officials preparing elections materials.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 699 gives local governments a new, limited choice about how to present complicated financial information on the ballot. If a proposed measure would create or raise a tax with more than one rate, or would authorize bonds, the submitting jurisdiction can tell the elections official to include a brief phrase on the ballot that tells voters to consult the county voter information guide for detailed tax‑rate or bond‑repayment information.
That phrase replaces the obligation to print multi‑rate or bond repayment figures directly in the ballot measure statement itself.
Electoral officials cannot leave voters without detail: when a jurisdiction elects the ballot‑phrase route, the bill requires a separate measure information statement to be provided with the sample ballot. The statement must be filed with the elections official at least 88 days before the election and must contain a concise description of why the tax is proposed and how revenue (or bond proceeds) will be spent, a list of all expected tax rates and how they will be imposed, a plain description of any mechanism that would cause rates to vary, the duration of the tax, and, unless bond disclosures apply, the best estimate from official sources of the average annual dollars expected over the first ten years.For bond measures that are repaid by ad valorem property taxes, the bill amends existing bond disclosure rules to require officials to provide best estimates of the average annual tax rate per $100,000 of assessed value over the life of the bonds, the highest tax rate and the year it will apply, and total debt service (principal and interest) if all bonds are issued.
The statement may also describe any plan to substitute other revenue sources and the estimated effect on the tax rate. The bill defines “tax rate” for these disclosures as the rate per $100,000 of assessed valuation.AB 699 also aligns delivery methods with existing electronic opt‑out procedures: local officials may electronically transmit the measure information statement using the same framework counties and cities already use for voter guides and polling‑place notices.
The bill keeps a hard cap on duplication for mailings (one copy per household where voters share a surname and address), permits an elections official to approve the electronic procedure, and underscores that any estimates or projections in the statements do not legally limit the amount of tax that may be imposed under the measure. Finally, the statute makes clear that failure to comply with the chapter does not invalidate a bond after sale and delivery or the initial imposition of a tax, and it includes the standard provision that, if the Commission on State Mandates finds a state mandate, reimbursement procedures apply.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The measure information statement must be filed with the elections official at least 88 days before the election.
If a jurisdiction chooses to use a ballot redirect phrase, the election order must include the jurisdiction’s reasons for selecting that phrase.
For bond measures repaid by ad valorem property taxes, the statement must give best estimates of (a) the average annual tax rate per $100,000 of assessed value over the bond term, (b) the highest tax rate and the year it will apply, and (c) total debt service if all bonds are issued.
The statement required for multi‑rate tax measures must list all expected tax rates and describe any mechanism that causes rates to vary; if bonds are not involved, it must also include the best estimate of average annual revenues over the first ten years.
Any estimate or projection included in the ballot statement or measure information statement does not legally restrict or cap the tax imposed under the measure.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Chapter heading change — Local Tax or Bond Measures
The bill updates the chapter heading to explicitly group local tax and bond measures together. This is organizational but signals that the following provisions will treat tax and bond disclosure rules as a linked set of election requirements for local jurisdictions.
Measure information statement: when required and required contents
This new section creates the core procedural requirement: when a ballot uses one of the specified redirect phrases, the elections official must mail or electronically transmit a separately filed measure information statement with the sample ballot. The statute prescribes the statement’s contents — purpose, list of expected tax rates, mechanisms that vary rates, duration, and a 10‑year average revenue estimate unless the bond disclosure material (Section 9401) applies — and sets the filing deadline at 88 days before the election. The section also allows two narrow exceptions: a Mello‑Roos election may rely on the applicable formation report, and charter‑city tax measures may transmit the proposed charter provision or ordinance instead of a separate statement.
Bond disclosure—detailed rate and debt service estimates
Section 9401 now requires combined measure statements for bond issues secured by ad valorem property taxes and specifies the substance of the required estimates: an average annual tax rate per $100,000 of assessed valuation over the life of the bond debt, the highest tax rate and the projected year it will occur, and total debt service if all bonds are issued. It permits the statement to describe a policy to use non‑ad valorem revenues and to estimate the tax‑rate reduction resulting from that substitution. Practically, this forces local finance staff and bond counsel to produce standardized, comparable numeric projections tied to assessed valuation assumptions.
Noncompliance does not invalidate tax or bond
The bill retains a protective rule: procedural failures under this chapter will not invalidate bonds after they have been sold and delivered, nor will they invalidate the initial imposition of a tax. That limits the scope for post‑election legal challenges based solely on technical noncompliance with these disclosure requirements.
One‑copy mailing rule and elections official approval for electronic transmission
Section 9405 restricts physical mailings to one copy per postal address where multiple registered voters share the same surname and address, and authorizes transmission via the existing Section 13300.7 electronic procedures. Importantly, these options apply only if the local legislative body adopts the rule and the elections official approves the procedure, preserving local control over delivery method while allowing counties to leverage existing opt‑out and electronic distribution frameworks.
Estimates do not limit the tax
This short addition makes explicit that any estimate or projection in a measure information statement does not restrict or cap the tax authorized by the measure. It mirrors an existing similar provision and removes any argument that a published estimate could be interpreted as a legal limit.
Ballot language options and procedural requirements
The amendment keeps the default requirement that ballots state an estimate of annual dollars, rate, and duration for tax measures, but adds the alternative: when a measure has multiple tax rates or authorizes bonds, the submitting jurisdiction must tell the elections official by the 88‑day deadline whether the ballot will include the full estimates or a prescribed short phrase directing voters to the county voter guide. If the phrase is used, the election order must state why the jurisdiction selected it, and the phrase’s words count against any word limit in the statement. The section also preserves the requirement that measure statements be true, impartial, and non‑argumentative.
Mandate reimbursement
The bill includes the standard direction that if the Commission on State Mandates determines the act imposes state‑mandated costs on local agencies, reimbursement will be made pursuant to the statutory framework in Government Code, Division 4, Part 7. That leaves open the Commission’s later determination and potential funding for local administrative costs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.
Explore Elections in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Voters seeking concise ballots — They will see shorter, less cluttered ballot statements for complex measures and can consult a dedicated county guide for granular details.
- Local legislative bodies (cities, counties, districts) — They gain flexibility to avoid lengthy, technical ballot text that can confuse voters and can direct readers to fuller explanations prepared for the voter guide.
- Counties and county election offices with robust voter guides — These offices can centralize complex financial information in the guide and showcase their capacity to provide comprehensive voter education.
Who Bears the Cost
- County and city elections officials — They must receive, process, mail, or electronically transmit measure information statements under new timing constraints and may face increased administrative workload and printing or transmission costs.
- Local finance officers and bond counsel — They must prepare the prescribed numerical estimates and projections (average annual rates, highest rates, total debt service) and meet the 88‑day filing deadline, producing additional analytical work and potential consultant fees.
- Smaller jurisdictions without established voter‑guide infrastructure — They may face disproportionate compliance costs to prepare a readable, accurate measure information statement or to coordinate electronic delivery and opt‑out procedures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
AB 699 trades ballot brevity for reliance on a separate voter information guide: it makes ballots cleaner by redirecting technical figures off the face of the ballot, but that choice depends on voters actually consulting the guide and on local officials producing timely, accurate, and comprehensible measure information statements—creating a trade‑off between clarity in the moment of voting and the practical burden of delivering adequate alternative information.
The bill creates genuine implementation questions. First, shifting detail from the ballot to a voter information guide assumes voters will consult that guide; empirical research suggests many do not.
The law mitigates clutter on the ballot but increases reliance on a separate document that must be well‑designed and widely distributed to preserve informed voting. Second, the required numeric projections—average annual tax rates per $100,000 of assessed value, highest rates, and total debt service—depend heavily on valuation assumptions and bond structuring choices.
Producing defensible estimates will demand time and technical resources from local finance staff or paid consultants; divergent methodologies across jurisdictions will make cross‑jurisdiction comparisons difficult.
Third, the 88‑day filing deadline tightens the calendar. Jurisdictions that draft measures late in the cycle may be forced to finalize technical estimates under compressed timelines or choose the ballot phrase option to buy time, which could invite political scrutiny about transparency.
Fourth, the electronic transmission option relies on existing opt‑out systems, but uneven uptake of electronic delivery or errors in voter contact information could reduce reach. Finally, while the statute says estimates do not cap taxes, ambiguous or optimistic projections could still fuel litigation or political disputes if taxes turn out higher than projected; the non‑limitation clause reduces but does not eliminate these risks.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.