Marin IJ: Marin voters appear willing
to extend the half-cent Transportation Sales Tax
in the county, but bumping that up by a quarter cent is less certain,
according to a new poll.
Poll results of about 1,850 voters showed that for a 2018
ballot measure there is 61.5% support for renewing the half-cent tax and
adding a quarter cent to that.
In 2020, (during the presidential election when more people turn out),
approval grew to 65.2%.
A two-thirds approval — 66.67% — is needed to pass a sales tax.
Are Marin Voters like lemmings happy to jump with an additional
$12 million onto the existing $25 million /yr we give the Transportation
Authority of Marin ?
On Jan 17th 2017
San Rafael voted 4/1 against “ EXEMPTING THE EXISTING SALES TAX CAP
TO ACCOMMODATE UP TO 0.5% FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN”.
"TAM could continue to work with
Senator Mike McGuire to introduce legislation by the third week of
February”
Will Mike be able to ignore San Rafael’s
wishes? senator.mcguire@senate.ca.gov
San Rafael and Fairfax
SALES TAX at 9% is too high and
disproportionately punishes the poor.
We don’t need it to go to 9.5%.
$500 million for TAM over 20 years is
RIDICULOUSLY HIGH for such a small county and they want to double the $25
million per year to $50 million in 2018 ( if the CAP is increased and voters
give them another 1/2%).
We should NOT agree to increasing the CAP without TAM
specifying exactly what it will be used for !
(Not for BEAUTIFYING Miller Ave, MV
nor for TRAFFIC CALMING on SFDB nor to
bail out SMART Millions of $'s and
with $200,000 for shuttles which SMART was supposed to provide)
Let's not lose this opportunity to MAKE A STAND and make TAM detail what it
will spend a 1% Tax on.
TAM’s
Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) started a ½ cent sales tax on 2005 over a 20-year
period with a sunset date of 2025.
However, the TAM Board would like to further
consider a potential increase from 0.5% to 1%.
An increase is currently not feasible due
to the CAP that exists now.
(If TAM chooses to just renew its sales tax on 2025, the cap would not be exceeded and no EXEMPTION would be
required. )
|
|
Feb 1st 2017: "Thank you for your email regarding the request of the
Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) to have
Larkspur’s city council support for raising the sales tax.
As of late this afternoon, TAM has withdrawn its
request for the letter of support that is on our council agenda
for tomorrow night.
I believe that there is a lot more public engagement needed for this matter
and that TAM brought it to us prematurely without a comprehensive plan of
projects or implementation strategy. I am confident that they will
listen to the public feedback before seeking Larkspur’s support on this
matter in the future."
Best wishes,
_____________________________
Catherine R. Way
Councilmember, City of
Larkspur
Novato City Council voted 3-2, with council members Pat Eklund and
Pam Drew opposed, to support
a Transportation Authority of Marin proposal to raise the sales tax CAP
throughout Marin to 9.5% and in 2018 ask voters for another 0.5% to make 1%.
meeting — 6:30PM, January 24th, at Novato City Hall, 901 Sherman
Avenue —
or email Council Members
dathas@novato.org
Denise Athas
jfryday@novato.org
Josh Fryday
pdrew@novato.org
Pam Drew
peklund@novato.org
Pat Eklund
elucan@novato.org
Eric Lucan |
|
Novato SALES TAX at 8.5% is too high.
We don’t need it to go to 9.0%. ( and San Rafael’s would go to 9.5% )
Don’t agree to increasing the CAP without TAM specifying exactly what it
will be used for ! |
Agenda Item No:
6.b Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
TOPIC: Support of Exemption to Existing Sales Tax Cap
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATION TO EXEMPT THE EXISTING SALES TAX
CAP TO ACCOMMODATE UP TO 0.5% FOR THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution.
BACKGROUND: Existing law authorizes various local governmental
entities, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy a
transaction and use tax for general purposes, in accordance with the
procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law,
including a requirement that the combined rate of all taxes that may be
imposed in accordance with that law in the county not
exceed 2%.
In recent
history, this cap can be quickly reached when both cities and counties enact
their own district taxes. It is particularly problematic for counties because
if one city within a county has reached the cap, then the county is precluded
from seeking voter approval to self-impose additional district taxes.
Similarly, cities that have already reached the cap are constrained when
seeking additional funding for programs and services above the cap.
At the
present time, the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los
Angeles, and San Mateo have reached the 2% limit.
The Counties of Marin, Monterey, San Diego, and Sonoma
are near the limit. The Legislature has
previously granted exemptions to the 2% cap for
transactions and use taxes to support countywide transportation programs, at
both the county and local city level.
For
example, the legislature authorized the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority an exemption (AB 23 (Feuer)
Chapter 302) in 2008. In 2011, Alameda County was
provided with an exemption (AB 1086 (Wieckowski) Chapter 327).
Contra Costa County received an exemption in 2012
(AB 210 (Wieckowski), Chapter 194). In 2015, the legislature enacted SB 705
(Hill), Chapter 579, to provide San Mateo and Monterey
Counties with an exemption. All of these exemptions were specifically
related to transportation related sales tax measures.
Proposed legislation for TAM to increase the sales tax
limit up to 0.5% would need to be approved by the Legislature and
signed by the Governor. Senator Mike McGuire has been requested to consider
sponsoring the legislation.
ANALYSIS: The following table is a list of sales tax levels in Marin
County, effective January 1st, 2017. After the passage
of Statewide Proposition 55 at the November 8th
Election (see below on its impact), the
current maximum sales tax limit for Marin County is 9.25%, which
includes the state sales tax limit of 7.25%, and the
local sales tax allowance of 2%. The 2% local cap
applies regardless of the state’s sales tax rate. Without an exemption,
no tax can be enacted county-wide that puts any jurisdiction in the county
over the 2% cap.
California and Marin County Sales and Use Tax Rates (January 1, 2017) |
3.69% |
State |
State's
General Fund |
0.25% |
State |
State's General Fund |
0.25% |
State |
Economic Recovery Bonds (2004) |
0.50% |
State |
Local Public Safety Fund (1993) |
0.25% |
State |
State's Education Protection Account (2016 Proposition 55) |
0.50% |
State |
Local Revenue
Fund (local health & social services) (1991) |
1.06% |
State |
Local Revenue Fund (2011) |
1.00% |
State |
0.25% to county transportation funds 0.75% to city or county operations |
7.25% |
Statewide |
Total Statewide Base Sales and Use Tax Rate |
0.25% |
Marin County |
Marin
Parks/Open Space/Farmland Preservation (2013) |
0.50% |
Marin County |
TAM Transportation Sales Tax (2005) |
0.25% |
Marin County |
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (2009) |
8.25% |
Marin Countywide |
All jurisdictions (including unincorporated Marin County, Belvedere, Mill
Valley, Ross, and Tiburon), unless indicated below |
8.75% |
Corte Madera |
0.50% Measure B (2013) Emergency Services, Transportation, Youth &
Senior Programs |
8.75% |
Larkspur |
0.50% Measure D (2013) Larkspur Street Repair/Essential City Services |
8.50% |
Novato |
0.25% Measure C (2015) Sales Tax Extension and Reduction |
8.75% |
San Anselmo |
0.50% Measure D (2014) Vital Services and Infrastructure Needs |
8.75% |
Sausalito |
0.50% Measure O (2015) Essential Services |
9.00% |
San Rafael |
0.75% Measure E (2013) Maintaining Emergency
Services
for a total of 1.75% |
9.00% |
Fairfax |
0.75% Measure C (2016) Vital Town Service Emergency Protection
for a total of 1.75% |
Effective January 1st, 2017, the current
available increase allowed for a countywide increase
is 0.25% before reaching the 2.0% limit, since the County’s
Measure A 0.25% sales tax for child care and health services failed on
November 8th. Attachment C is a table that
summarizes the ballot measure results for Marin County from the November 8th Election.
If TAM were to pursue an increase of sales tax for transportation in the
future of 0.5% and no other countywide or city specific sales taxes are
enacted, it would need to pass legislation similar to past legislative
exemptions identified above. Legislative approval for an exemption to the
sales tax limit for Marin County does not automatically increase the sales
tax for Marin County.
Proposition 55 Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare
In 2012,
California successfully passed Proposition 30 to temporarily raise income
tax on couples making over $500,000 per year through 2019 and temporarily
increasing the statewide sales tax by 0.25% through 2016. Proposition 30
yielded over $6 billion annually to help the Legislature pass a balanced
budget.
In the
November 8th Election, Proposition 55 was passed to
allow the increased income tax on single filers making over $250,000 or
joint filers making over $500,000 to continue until 2030, while allowing the
0.25% sales tax increase from Proposition 30 to expire. It is estimated that
anywhere from $4 billion to $9 billion could be realized between 2019 and
2030, depending on the health of the economy and stock market.
The
expiration of the sales tax increase from Proposition 55 reduced the State
sales tax from 7.5% to 7.25%, as reflected in the table above, but does not
affect the 2% local sales tax cap.
Legislative Authorization TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY
TAM’s Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) was
approved by Marin voters on November 2, 2004 and started collecting
revenues on a ½ cent sales tax on April 1,
2005.
Authorized the collection of sales tax revenues over a
20-year period.
Currently raises over $25 million
dollars each year
($500 million over 20 years) dedicated to local
transportation projects and programs, and it is approaching its 12th year of
collection with a sunset date
of March 31, 2025. If
TAM chooses to renew its sales tax, there is no effect on the cap, and no
legislation is required.
However, the TAM Board would like to further consider both
a renewal and a potential
increase.
An increase may not be feasible due to the cap that exists
now.
This
legislation would remove existing legislative constraints to considering
placement of a new transportation-related sales tax on the ballot.
Rather
than waiting until the last few years of the existing Measure A
Transportation Sales Tax, the TAM Board is considering the placement of a
renewal and/or increase in the sales tax dedicated to transportation in an
upcoming Marin general election. The earliest this could occur is 2018.
The TAM
Board agrees the time is optimal to legislatively seek an exemption to the
sales tax cap limit for Marin County in anticipation of reauthorizing or
increasing the transportation sales tax as early as 2018. It is imperative
that a sales tax cap increase occur before any sales tax needing the
exemption is placed on the ballot. Legislation approved by the legislature
and Governor in 2017 would become effective on January 1, 2018. This
allowance would give TAM and its member agencies the maximum flexibility in
considering the placement of a county-wide sales tax on the ballot in June
or November of 2018.
There is
evidence that the public may support an extend-and-expand option for Marin’s
transportation related sales tax, allowing for more transportation needs to
be met. Unless the cap is raised, TAM will be precluded from considering all
options in response to public interest. The Legislature and Governor Brown
have consistently approved local sales tax cap legislation for
transportation purposes.
Process and Schedule for Legislation Introduction
Senator
Mike McGuire has been responsive to TAM’s request for sponsoring a bill
seeking an exemption to the cap. Senator McGuire would need to introduce
legislation by the third week of February at the latest.
Once a
bill is introduced, TAM will await its assignment to a policy committee. The
2017 Legislative Session is the first year of a two-year session. Bills will
most likely be heard in early April. Since TAM’s legislation is only
requesting permission for an exemption of up to 0.5%, the bill would be a
majority vote item if it were to clear policy committee and head to the
Floor. The bill would not be designated as fiscal, meaning that it would not
be heard by the Appropriations Committee.
After
heading to policy committee and a Floor vote, the process repeats in the
other house. If TAM’s legislation passes with a majority vote bill and it is
signed into law by the Governor, the bill would take effect on January 1,
2018.
NEXT
STEPS
TAM is currently soliciting statements of support from
each jurisdiction in Marin for TAM to seek legislation pursue State
legislation in 2017 to provide an exemption to the 2%
cap on the local transaction and use taxes (also known as the
district tax). The bill would provide an exemption of no more than 0.5% for
the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM), affording flexibility to place
items before voters to reauthorize or supplement the existing Transportation
Sales Tax (Measure A) program dedicated to transportation purposes in Marin
County.
TAM will
continue to work with Senator Mike McGuire to introduce legislation by the
third week of February at the latest.
FISCAL
IMPACT: There is no direct cost to the City of San Rafael
associated with support of this legislation.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider on
this matter:
-
Adopt the Resolution supporting the proposed
legislation
-
Reject or request changes to the Resolution
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution in support of
legislation to exempt the existing sales tax cap to accommodate up to 0.5%
for the Transportation Authority of Marin
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Draft
Sales Tax Exemption Language
B: Marin
November 2016 Ballot Measures and Results C: List of Local Sales Tax
Exemption Bills
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SUPPORTING
LEGISLATION TO EXEMPT THE EXISTING SALES TAX CAP TO ACCOMMODATE UP TO 0.5%
FOR THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN
WHEREAS,
Existing law authorizes various local governmental
entities, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy
a transaction and use tax for general purposes, in accordance with the
procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law,
including a requirement that the combined rate of all taxes that may be
imposed in accordance with that law in the county not
exceed 2%; and
WHEREAS,
this cap can be quickly reached when both cities and
counties enact their own district taxes; and
WHEREAS,
if one city within a county has reached the cap, then the
county is precluded from seeking voter approval to self-impose additional
district taxes; and
WHEREAS,
Marin County is near the limit; and
WHEREAS,
The Legislature has previously granted exemptions to the 2%
cap for transactions and use taxes to support countywide transportation
programs, at both the county and local city level; and
WHEREAS,
the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) is currently
soliciting statements of support from each Jurisdiction in Marin for TAM to
pursue State legislation in 2017 to provide an exemption to the 2% cap on
the local transaction and use taxes (also known as the district tax); and
WHEREAS, the exemption, if enacted in legislation, would provide
additional funding for transportation projects throughout Marin County;
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council supports
the TAM request to seek an exemption to the existing sales tax cap to
accommodate up to 0.5% for the Transportation Authority of Marin.
I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted
at a regular meeting of the Council of said City on Monday, the 17th of January, 2017 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ESTHER C.
BEIRNE, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT A
Please draft the following bill to amend Sections 7299 and 7300 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code to read as follows:
SB XXXX (Legislator). Transactions and use taxes: Transportation Authority
of Marin
Existing law authorizes various local governmental entities, subject to
certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy a transactions and
use tax for general purposes, in accordance with the procedures and
requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law, including a
requirement that the combined rate of all taxes that may be imposed in
accordance with that law in the county not exceed 2%.
This bill would authorize the Transportation Authority
of Marin to impose a transaction and use tax for the support of
countywide transportation programs at a rate of up to
0.5% that, in combination with other specified taxes, would exceed
the combined rate limit.
These provisions would be repealed by their own terms on January 1, 2028, if
an ordinance is not approved, as specified.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the
necessity of a special statute for the County of Marin.
7299. Notwithstanding any other law, the Transportation Authority of Marin
may impose a transactions and use tax for the support of countywide
transportation programs at a rate of up to 0.5% percent that would, in
combination with all taxes imposed in accordance with Part 1.6 (commencing
with Section 7251), exceed the limit established in Section 7251.1, if all
of the following requirements are met:
-
The Transportation Authority of Marin adopts an ordinance
proposing the transactions and use tax by any applicable voting
approval requirement.
-
-
The ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax is
submitted to the electorate and is approved by the voters voting
on the ordinance in accordance with
-
Article XIII C of the California Constitution.
-
-
The transactions and use tax conforms to the Transactions and
Use Tax Law, Part
-
1.6 (commencing with Section 7251), other than Section 7251.1.
-
-
7300. If the ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax is
not approved as required by
-
subdivision (b) of Section 7299, this chapter shall be repealed
as of January 1, 2028.
-
-
SEC. 3. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that the special
law contained in Section 1 of this measure is necessary and that
a general law.
ATTACHMENT B
NOVEMBER 2016 MARIN BALLOT MEASURES |
Jurisdiction |
Tax Type & |
What does the tax pay for? |
Amount |
Duration |
Result |
Name |
if passed |
Countywide tax |
Sales Tax |
Sales Tax for expanded preschool, child
care and health |
¼ cent Sales Tax |
9 Years |
2/3 Needed |
“Measure A” |
services for low-income children:
Fifty percent of the
funds |
|
|
would be used to fund quality preschool.
A quarter of the |
Failed |
|
proceeds would be used for affordable
child care. Fifteen percent |
62.99% |
|
would be used for health care services
and wellness programs. |
|
|
And 10 percent of the tax money would
pay for afterschool and |
|
|
summer programs for children in
kindergarten through second |
|
|
grade. |
|
Kentfield |
Parcel Tax |
Parcel tax benefiting the Kentfield
School District:
The |
$1,600 Annually |
10 Years |
2/3 Needed |
(School |
“Measure B” |
measure seeks authority to levy $1,600
per parcel annually. The |
|
District) |
|
measure would also extend the tax for 10
years and permit |
Failed |
|
|
annual 5 percent increases in the rate.
The new tax would |
57.72% |
|
|
replace a parcel tax approved by
Kentfield voters in 2007 to fund |
|
|
|
the school district; Measure A is due to
expire in the 2017-18 |
|
|
|
fiscal year. |
|
Fairfax |
Sales Tax |
Sales tax to maintain and enhance quality public safety and |
¼ cent Sales Tax |
10 years |
Majority |
“Measure C” |
general services, improve infrastructure such as repairing |
(increase from |
Needed |
|
sidewalks, pedestrian trails, repaving streets, and enhancing |
existing ½ cent |
|
|
downtown: Fairfax voters will be asked to
approve a 0.25 |
sales tax) |
Passed |
|
percentage point increase in the town’s existing 0.5 percent
sales |
|
76.49% |
|
tax to 0.75 percent and extend the tax for 10 years. |
|
|
Mill Valley |
Parcel Tax |
Parcel tax benefiting the Mill Valley
School District:
Increase |
$980 Annually |
12 years |
2/3 Needed |
(School |
“Measure E” |
and an extension of a parcel tax for the
Mill Valley School |
|
District) |
|
District. The ballot measure proposes
boosting the $865 annual |
Failed |
|
|
parcel tax to $980 yearly beginning July
1, 2017. The measure |
66.30% |
|
|
would renew the tax for another 12 years
and allow it to increase |
|
|
|
5 percent each year through 2029. |
|
Highlighted texts indicate that streets and roads are eligible
components of the measure and underlined texts indicate a sales
tax measure.
Novato |
Bond |
Bond measure benefiting Novato Unified School District: |
Up to $60 per |
25 years |
55% Needed |
(School |
Measure |
Bond to pay for repairs, upgrades and new furniture in Novato |
$100,000 of |
|
District) |
“Measure G” |
Unified School District schools. The maximum possible cost to |
assessed property |
Passed |
|
|
homeowners would be $60 per $100,000 of assessed property |
value |
56.66% |
|
|
value for 25 years. |
|
|
Mill Valley |
Special |
Special property tax to pay for maintenance and repair of |
$266 annually for |
10 years |
2/3 Needed |
Property Tax |
local roads and fire suppression efforts, including vegetation |
owners of single- |
|
“Measure H” |
removal: Proposal to replace the city’s
municipal services tax |
family residences, |
Passed |
|
with a special property tax to pay for maintenance and repair
of |
with a 2 percent |
77.35% |
|
local roads and fire suppression efforts, including vegetation |
annual adjustment. |
|
|
removal. |
|
|
Ross |
Parcel Tax |
Parcel tax used to pay for public safety services: The tax, |
$970 annually per |
8 years |
2/3 Needed |
“Measure K” |
which is due to expire June 30, 2017, would cost both
residential |
dwelling unit |
|
|
and commercial property owners $970 per dwelling unit. The |
|
Passed |
|
measure would extend the tax for another eight years, with |
|
78.13% |
|
increases based on the consumer price index. |
|
|
Muir Beach |
Parcel Tax |
Parcel tax to pay for fire protection services:
A tax that used |
$213 annually per |
10 years |
2/3 Needed |
(Community |
“Measure L” |
to serve that purpose expired June 30, 2016. The measure |
parcel |
|
Services |
|
proposes a new tax of $213 per parcel annually beginning in |
|
Passed |
District) |
|
fiscal year 2016-17 and continuing 10 years until fiscal year |
|
77.50% |
|
|
2025-26, with annual consumer price index increases allowable. |
|
|
|
|
Exemptions would be available to the owners of single-family |
|
|
|
|
residences who live in their own homes and have a household |
|
|
|
|
income of 80 percent and below of median income for Marin |
|
|
|
|
County. |
|
|
Kent |
Special Tax |
Increase of the tax that pays for a Marin County Sheriff’s |
$360 annually per |
In effect |
2/3 Needed |
Woodlands |
(Safety) |
Office deputy to patrol the Kent Woodlands neighborhood: |
living unit |
until |
|
|
“Measure M” |
The measure proposes increasing the tax from $260 per living |
(increase from |
repealed |
Passed |
|
|
unit yearly to $360 per living unit yearly, with an annual |
$260 per living |
|
68.81% |
|
|
adjustment for inflation not to exceed 3 percent per year. |
unit) |
|
|
Information from:
http://www.marincounty.org/depts/rv/election-info/election-schedule/page-data/tabs-collection/2016/nov-8/measure/list
Page
2 of 4
Kent |
Special Tax |
New special tax to pay for the installation and maintenance |
Up to $100 per |
In effect |
2/3 Needed |
Woodlands |
(Safety) |
of surveillance cameras that read the license plates of |
living unit in fiscal |
until |
|
|
“Measure N” |
vehicles entering and exiting the community:
A special tax |
2016-17 and as |
repealed |
Passed |
|
|
to purchase and install License Plate Readers (LPR) that
record |
much as $11 per |
|
72.04% |
|
|
the license plates of vehicles traveling through the Kent |
living unit each |
|
|
|
|
Woodlands neighborhood so as to deter criminal activities,
such |
year thereafter. |
|
|
|
|
as burglary. |
|
|
|
County Service |
Parcel Tax |
Renew of a parcel tax paid by Paradise Cay voters to dredge |
$1,500 annually |
10 years |
2/3 Needed |
Area #29 |
“Measure O” |
the channels that connect the Tiburon yacht harbor to San |
per original lots |
|
(Paradise Cay) |
|
Francisco Bay and increase the tax by 25 percent:
Under the |
located within the |
Passed |
|
|
ballot measure, the tax would increase from $1,200 on each |
Service Area |
87.18% |
|
|
original lot to $1,500. Voters in Paradise Cay first agreed to
the |
(increase from |
|
|
|
dredging tax in 1992. |
$1200) |
|
Information from:
http://www.marincounty.org/depts/rv/election-info/election-schedule/page-data/tabs-collection/2016/nov-8/measure/list
Page
3 of 4
LIST OF LOCAL SALES TAX EXEMPTION BILLS
In
1987, the Legislature imposed a maximum combined rate of 1% on all
transactions and use taxes (TUT) within any county. That rate was
incrementally increased - first to 1.5% in 1990 and then to 2% in
2003. The TUT law authorizes the adoption of local add- on rates
to the combined state and local sales tax rate. Under existing
law, cities and counties may impose a TUT for general or special
purposes, subject to voter approval, provided that the combined
countywide rate of tax does not exceed 2%.
Therefore, when a city or district imposes a transactions and use
tax, the increased tax rate counts toward the county's cap, which
means that the county is restricted in its ability to raise
revenues on a countywide basis.
Currently the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles,
Monterey, and San Mateo have reached the 2% limit and have sought
exemptions. The Counties of Marin, San Diego, and Sonoma are
near the 2% limit.
These taxes may be imposed either directly by the city or county,
or through a special purpose entity established by the city or
county. Counties may also create a transportation authority to
impose district taxes under the Public Utilities Code or designate
a transportation planning agency to impose a district tax, subject
to the applicable voter approval requirements.
According to the Board of Equalization, there are 202 local
jurisdictions, including cities, counties, and special purpose
entities, that impose a district tax for general or specific
purposes. Of the 202 jurisdictions, 48 are county-imposed taxes
and 154 are city-imposed taxes. Of the 48 county-imposed taxes, 44
are imposed for special purposes. Of the 154 city-imposed taxes,
124 are general-purpose taxes and 30 are special purpose taxes.
The Legislature has previously granted
exemptions to the 2% statutory cap for transactions and use
taxes to primarily support countywide transportation programs.
Governor Brown has preferred to sign these bills into law rather
than exemptions for general purposes.
Below is a list of bills that have been considered by the
legislature:
-
AB 1665 (Bonilla), Chapter 45,
Statutes of 2016, removes the existing
authority granted to Alameda County and Contra Costa County to
impose an additional transaction and use tax (TUT), subject to
voter approval, and instead grants Contra Costa County's
existing authority to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA).
The bill was chaptered in July allowing CCTA time to place
Measure X on the November 2016 ballot. It failed by receiving
only 62% of the vote.
Page
1 of 3
-
SB 705 (Hill), Chapter 579,
Statutes of 2015, authorizes Monterey and San
Mateo Counties to impose a countywide sales tax for
transportation purposes (1/8% and 1/2% respectively) that would,
in combination with all other locally imposed sales tax,
exceed the 2% tax rate cap if
certain requirements are met.
Monterey used its exemption to place a ballot on the November
2016 ballot. San Mateo intends to do so in November of 2018.
-
AB 464 (Mullin)
would have increased the maximum combined rate of all
transactions and use taxes (district taxes) that may be levied
by authorized entities within a county
from 2% to 3%. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.
In his veto message, Governor Brown stated: “Although I have
approved raising the limit for individual counties, I am
reluctant to approve this measure in view of all the taxes being
discussed and proposed for the 2016 ballot.”
-
AB 1324 (Skinner), Chapter 795,
Statutes of 2014, allows the
City of El Cerrito to adopt an
ordinance to impose a transactions and use tax not to exceed
0.5% for general purposes that would, in combination with other
taxes, exceed the statutory limit of 2%.
According to the author, "The City of El Cerrito was hit
particularly hard by the recession and the local economy is
still struggling to recover. As a result, local property values
have declined. The sluggish economy, diminished revenues from
reduced property assessments, the loss of redevelopment, store
relocations, and other factors are forcing the city to reduce
services."
The Governor, sympathetic to the City’s fiscal emergency, signed
the bill. This bill has been the exception to the types of bills
that have been signed.
The City subsequently placed Measure R on the November 2014
ballot to “protect/maintain City services, including fire
prevention/ emergency services; emergency response times;
neighborhood police patrols; firefighter/ police staffing; crime
prevention/investigation resources; after-school programs;
library hours/ programs; senior services; open space, parks,
paths/ playfields; other general City services.”
-
AB 210 (Weickowski), Chapter 194,
Statutes of 2013, extends the current authority
for Alameda County to adopt an ordinance imposing a transaction
and use tax from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, and
allows Contra Costa County to adopt an ordinance imposing a
transactions and use tax in the same manner as Alameda County.
The bill, which was sponsored by the Alameda County
Transportation Commission and supported by the Contra Costa
County Transportation Authority, was authored for purposes of
placing a transportation sales tax measure on each county’s
respective ballot. Alameda placed Measure BB on the November
2014 ballot, which acquired was approved with over 70% of the
vote.
Page
2 of 3
-
SB 33 (Wolk) of
2013 would have allowed the County of
Sonoma or any city within the County to impose a
transactions and use tax for general purposes, and allow Sonoma
County, any city within Sonoma County, or the Sonoma County
Transportation Authority to impose a transactions and use tax
for a specific purpose including, but not limited to the support
of transportation and road maintenance programs and library
services by up to 0.5% that would, in combination with all other
transaction and use taxes, exceed the 2%
statutory limit. The bill failed passage.
-
AB 1086 (Weickowski), Chapter 327,
Statutes of 2011, allows
Alameda County to adopt an ordinance, until January 1,
2014, to impose a transactions and use tax not to exceed 0.5%
for the support of countywide transportation programs that
would, in combination with other taxes,
exceed the statutory limit of 2%.
-
AB 2321 (Feuer), Chapter 302,
Statutes of 2008, amends the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) existing authority
to adopt a .5% transactions and use tax (sales tax) in Los
Angeles County by eliminating outdated deadlines for specific
projects and programs and extending the period in which the tax
can be collected from six and one-half years to 30 years,
subject to a two-thirds approval of local voters.
This bill allowed Metro to place Measure R on the November 2008
ballot. The measure passed with 67% of the vote.
-
SB 314 (Murray), Chapter 785,
Statutes of 2003, enacts provisions originally
authorizing the .5% sales tax, for no more than six and one-half
years, for specific transportation projects and programs. That
sales tax was never imposed. Metro now believes that the
November 2008 ballot may be a viable time to place this sales
tax proposal, amended to reflect the changes contemplated in
this bill, before Los Angeles voters. This bill was superseded
by AB 2321.
TAM's PLAN to spend the $500 MILLION
Page
3 of 3
|